Enhancing Neighbourhood Infrastructure Facilities Through Resident Associations: A Case Study of Aule Residential Estate, Akure, Nigeria

1. Introduction

The development and maintenance of functional neighborhood infrastructure facilities is a critical aspect of community development. In many nations of the world, particularly in developing countries such as Nigeria, the responsibility of providing, maintaining and sustaining essential neighbourhood services often falls on the shoulders of the residents and community associations. This case study examines the role of resident association in enhancing the infrastructure provision and maintenance of Aule Residential Estate in Akure, Nigeria, highlighting the challenges, successes, and lessons learned in this endeavour. Generally, the rapid rates of population growth particularly in the urban areas around the world have led to shortage of infrastructural facilities required to support the ever increasing population. The United Nations estimated that 26% of the world’s population does not have access to clean drinking water, and 45% lack access to basic sanitation [34] The inability of the local governments to provide these important services has far-reaching economic, political and social implications. [27] revealed that lack of access to or undependability of infrastructural services such as water, sanitation, health, education can have adverse effects on community growth, and well-being, thereby forcing residents to seek alternatives, which might in the long run will impact on the standards of living for individuals residents.

Infrastructural facilities such as water, electricity, road network, education, health etc. for example, are services to be provided by the government. [20], noted that where such public infrastructures are provided, they are not managed adequately in comparison with the privately owned facilities. The study further observed that the major bottleneck to effective management of these public infrastructures lies mainly on the question of ‘ownership’. At the other extreme, where public facilities are not provided, the residents are left with no option than to create a world of their own in order to survive.

The concept of resident’s participation in infrastructural development and management has been recognized as an important tool for socio-economic development of communities around the world. The formation of residents associations are efforts made by residents to participate in the local administration of their affairs. The problem of poor sanitation and insecurity around a neighbourhood, for example is a direct consequence of residents activities. The essence for the formation of residents’ associations centered mainly on the provision of communal services such as the provision of security guard to neighbourhoods of which the federal or local governments could not sufficiently provide [29].

Residents’ association refers to an organized group formed by residents of a particular neighbouhood, housing complex, or community who come together to address common problems and concerns that are related to their living environment. These associations normally work to improve the overall quality of life in their neighbourhood, address local challenging issues, and carry out advocacy for the interest of their residents. Residents associations according to [19] are local initiatives by residents within a specific community. They may jointly organize events, manage communal spaces, and engage with local authorities on matters such as safety, infrastructure, and community development. Memberships of residents’ associations are often voluntary and serve as a way for neighbours to collaborate and make their voices heard in the community. Through residents’ associations have been able to keep local governments in check and to press their demands for the welfare of all residents.

Given the current economic meltdown facing several countries around the world, and the global recession blowing hot, as well as the present economic and infrastructural decay in Nigeria, exuberated by hyperinflationary situation, local governments in Nigeria are contending with shortages of revenue from the federal government to dispense services to the local neigbourhoods. This situation has resulted to serious restiveness from the residents who desire to have basic facilities provided for them.

This study draws from the theory of mobilization which proposes that a “disgruntled citizenry is easy to be mobilized”. The study has revealed that residents’ associations are the channels with which residents can demand for the provision of basic infrastructures, and at the same time be involved in promoting and providing good governance at the community level. This study seeks to explore the extent to which the residents associations have enhanced citizenship participation in the development and management of neighbourhood infrastructures.

In [29] it was revealed that the first generation of residents’ associations in 1850s were formed in order to maintain and keep common areas, and to prohibit the use of certain things in an area through deed restrictions. In the United State, these associations were relatively unknown a few years ago; but today they have outnumbered municipal area councils [8]. In Nigeria, like other developing countries, the concept of residents’ association is relatively new but they are increasing in number due to the general acceptability of their roles by residents.

Notwithstanding the increase of residents’ associations, not much is known about their impact on infrastructural development and management. Understanding their impact is important because of their inclination towards residents’ associations and the positive impacts on infrastructural development and management.

This study discourses this issue by assessing the extant academic literatures and residents opinions to determine the activities and roles of residents’ associations on neighbourhood infrastructure development and management. The study is divided into sections. The first section gives an overview of residents’ associations which prima-fascia provides a general context for the study. The second section examines the existing knowledge in the subject under discussion. The third section addressed the main challenges associated with infrastructural development and management by residents’ associations and the final section makes recommendations on how to further improve residents’ associations’ participation in neighbourhood infrastructural development and management.

Several past studies have observed that the formation of residents’ associations and their participation in government decision making have resulted in many tangible benefits [15]. The study further contends that decisions reached through residents’ participation are usually supported and embraced by all. In addition, [15] noted that it is not likely to have anything other than positive outcomes from citizens who participated in policy making process, and who collaborated with others in reaching consensus on an issue.

In the context of improving the provision and management of neigbourhood infrastructural facilities, residents’ involvement is of great significance to effectively protect residents’ rights and interests, and at the same time consolidate the creation of community’s homogeneity. However, evidences shows that there are still many problems in residents’ participation in the provision and management of the community infrastructural facilities. Consequently, it is important to study the major problems hindering residents’ participation in the provision and management of community’s infrastructure facilities. It is on the basis of this that this current study is adopting the theory of mobilization as a springboard upon which residents can participate in the provision and management of neigbourhood infrastructures.

The theory of mobilization focuses on the social processes of collective action through which groups or entities gain the capacity to act jointly such as in making demands for an improved service delivery, transparency in governance, and participation in decision making.

2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Framework

Active residents’ participation is very critical in the provision of basic infrastructural facilities in both the urban and peri-urban neigbourhoods. For instance, [6] observed that the involvement of individual and group members of a community who are either directly or indirectly affected by the contemplated infrastructural facility project should be of serious concern to those at the level of decision making.

Residents’ participation has become a widely used axiom in community development cycles [7]. It is believed among the practitioners in project development that in order for projects to succeed, communities hosting the project need to actively participate in the design, construction and management of the project that affect them in one way or the order [18]; [7].

The theory around participation of residents’ association is centered on ‘mobilization theory’ as observed in [29] which was drawn from [35]. The theory focuses on the social processes of collective action. This theory involves how different interests are defined as either common or oppositional; the theory describes the processes by which groups or entities gain the capacity to act jointly. In relation to residents association, these collective actions serve as a rallying point through which citizens can challenge the local authorities with their needs, making demands for an improved service delivery, transparency in governance, and participation in government decision making even with regards to the provision and management of social infrastructure.

All disgruntled residents according to [19] have common problems; hence, residents associations normally find it easy to mobilize members to confront the local government with their problems. The mobilization theory is also supported by [16] whose interest in the theory is in discovering how citizens see their interests as a collective concern and consequently create within their group, a sense of undue injustice, which they consider powerful enough to cause a reaction or an attitude that results to a collective action.

Interestingly, all forms of relationships and social interactions are regarded as significant in generating this sense of injustice and encouraging people to join forces in collective action as obtained in trade unions. The actions of the union leaders are seen as critical in promoting group cohesion, group action and group identity. The action helps in informing members of the costs and benefits of involving in collective action, and in defending the actions collectively taken even if there is a counter-mobilization by the opposing side.

Mobilization theory is important given its emphasis on social relations and in highlighting the multi-faceted nature of participation and leadership in trade unions. The theory focuses on the need to measure the extent, to which members identify with the activities of the union, their level of interaction, and their social networking.

2.2. Literature Review

2.2.1. Concept and Definition of Residents’ Association and Infrastructure Facilities

Residents association is generally referred to as a group of concerned citizens who lives in the same community or neigbourhood proximate to one another. The association is the voice of the people in the community. Its primary objective is to make the entire community a better place to live by consistently seeking to influence decisions that directly or indirectly affect the residents it serves. In order to achieve this purpose, the association acts as a link between government and residents, and residents and the host community.

Resident associations are committed to the welfare of all residents, as they continuously strive to make their neighbourhood a pleasant place to live and in some case work. Residents’ associations consistently develop and executive projects which they considered to be capable of improving and uplifting the social, economic and political needs of the community.

Membership of residents’ associations is voluntary in nature; the associations thrive on the commitment of the citizens to participate. Participation in the resident’s associations has attracted a lot of controversy in recent years with some associations being accused of extensions of opposition political parties [19]. It has been argue that given that citizens are not paid to participate in rendering of services to their communities, there is usually the tendency for politicians to highjack their activities in order to influence the decisions being made concerning the community.

Residents associations are normally active in seeking to influence decisions that directly affect the residents. It is made up of a group of residents in an area who join resources to fulfill common needs and to accomplish specific goals as it concerns the community. According to [14], residents association is the voice of the people in the community, as it acts as a liaison between government and residents, and residents and the entire community. Residents’ associations normally engage in the development and execution of programmes and projects which they consider to be of immense benefit to the citizens and will improve the social, economic and /or political status of their neighbourhood.

Further, [14] noted that residents’ associations can be a highly structured organization, or can assume a simple structure. Residents’ association helps to: Enhance the quality of life in the community, plan the future of the community and resolve community problems [14]. On the other hand, infrastructure has been variously defined. [36], for instance noted that infrastructure as a concept does not have a universally accepted definition, but asserts that the general idea about infrastructure is its association with basic structures and facilities required for a community, country or an organization to function optimally. It is generally regarded as a set of facilities through which goods and services are provided to the public. It consists of the stock of basic facilities and capital equipment needed for effective functioning of a state or a neighbourhood. In collective term, infrastructure consists of health care facilities, telecommunications, transportation, security posts, educational facilities, power supply, water supply and similar public works that are required for an industrial growth and social livelihood [13].

Further, [24] described public infrastructures as ‘facilities, structures, networks, systems, plants, properties, equipment or physical assets, including the enterprises that employ them, that provide public goods or goods that meet a politically mandated, fundamental need that the market is not able to provide on its own’. [1], noted that infrastructure occupies a central place in the agenda of government at all levels, given that the availability of infrastructural facilities attracts developmental activities that improves the standard of living in the host neighbourhood. However, it is important to note that the installations of infrastructures do not on their own produce goods and services directly for the people, but provide the basis for all other socio-economic activities. [33], agreed that infrastructure plays significant roles in enhancing economic growth and prosperity of the host community, thereby contributing to the reduction of economic disparity, poverty and deprivations in a country.

Infrastructure facilities stand as an important indicator of physical growth and development of any nation. Infrastructure enhances cities growth and expansion particularly in the area of socioeconomic activities [17]. The provisions of basic infrastructure facilities in a community occupy a central place in the agenda of every governments at all levels, given that the availability of basic infrastructure facilities influences the creation of socio-economic activities that could improve the citizen’s standard of living [1]. For example, [32] opined that, investment in infrastructure facilities in the UK has given rise to economic growth and expansion, enhanced productivity output, and results to the creation of massive employment opportunities.

[24], [5], [36] and [13] classified infrastructure facilities into three major categories, including personal infrastructures, institutional infrastructures and material infrastructures. Personal infrastructures according to these studies is described as the knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes possessed by individuals that results in the development of personal, social and economic well-being of individuals. Institutional infrastructure on the other hand is described as the set norms, traditions, customs, constitutional provisions and procedures that are linked to the regulatory framework of a particular nation. While material infrastructure comprises two main attributes: satisfaction of social-economic needs, and mass production.

Table 1. Infrastructural classification.

Infrastructure Type	Infrastructure Output	Material Infrastructure
Water
Warmth	Gas, oil, electricity, coal, nuclear energy	Drilling platforms, pipelines, generation plants, coal mines
Light	Electricity, gas	Generation plants, drilling plants, circuits, pipelines
Health	Medical care, refuse collection, wastewater disposal	Hospitals, dumps, sewerage systems
Protection Against Nature and Weather	Accommodation, working places, flood protection	Houses, buildings, plants, levees
Security	Legislation (laws), judiciary, stability of value of money, protection against crimes, outward defense, military goods	Public buildings, police stations, military installations
Information
Education	Child care, lectures, research, lending of books	Schools, libraries, research institutions
Mobility	Usage of roads by cars, buses, trucks	Roads, highways, tracks, train stations
Water	Drinking water, water for industrial uses, irrigation water, water for generating hydro-electric power	Reservoirs, canals, waterways, pipes, irrigation facilities
Warmth	Gas, oil, electricity, coal, nuclear energy	Drilling platforms, pipelines, generation plants, coal mines

Source: [5], [36], [13] and [24].

Table 1. Infrastructural classification.

Infrastructure Type	Infrastructure Output	Material Infrastructure
Water
Warmth	Gas, oil, electricity, coal, nuclear energy	Drilling platforms, pipelines, generation plants, coal mines
Light	Electricity, gas	Generation plants, drilling plants, circuits, pipelines
Health	Medical care, refuse collection, wastewater disposal	Hospitals, dumps, sewerage systems
Protection Against Nature and Weather	Accommodation, working places, flood protection	Houses, buildings, plants, levees
Security	Legislation (laws), judiciary, stability of value of money, protection against crimes, outward defense, military goods	Public buildings, police stations, military installations
Information
Education	Child care, lectures, research, lending of books	Schools, libraries, research institutions
Mobility	Usage of roads by cars, buses, trucks	Roads, highways, tracks, train stations
Water	Drinking water, water for industrial uses, irrigation water, water for generating hydro-electric power	Reservoirs, canals, waterways, pipes, irrigation facilities
Warmth	Gas, oil, electricity, coal, nuclear energy	Drilling platforms, pipelines, generation plants, coal mines

Source: [5], [36], [13] and [24].

2.2.2. Resident Participation

Community development cannot be separated from the residents of the community. Although the practice of stimulating and encouraging residents’ participation has been carried in many communities, the idea of direct involvement also brings in higher requirements for residents’ participation. Popular participation also referred to as political participation or the absence of which was of great academic and political concern to people in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the 1960s to 1970s.

Today, it is a known fact that government at all levels are not actively fulfilling their obligatory roles of providing basic infrastructures to the citizenry, hence the coming on board of community associations to participate in the provision and management of infrastructures provided in their communities for the general good of the public. [37] posits that with the social mobility intensifying as seen today in all urban cities, more and more situations arise which makes residents to lack sense of belonging to the community, hence making residents less active in community activities.

Participation is a term which connotes different things to different people under different contexts. For example, [3] described participation as having significant control by people over decisions and decision making processes. In a publication on a "Third World" participation is considered as a “process to create conditions of economic and social progress for a community; as a process to increase control over resources and institutions by people previously excluded from such control; as a means to develop self-reliance and co-operation within communities; and as a process which enable people to identify and deal with problems themselves.”

Community participation according to [18] leads to better project design, better project execution, better targeted beneficiaries, and cost effectiveness. Further, it is argued that community participation allows for good governance and has the capacity to empower local communities, promotes a sense of community ownership of the project [11]. [9] sugests that community residents should actively participate in a project development right from the point of project initiation to its final completion and usage. The study further noted that projects encounter problems in a situation where communities shy away from participating in the execution of the project.

2.2.3. Neigbourhood based approach in the provision infrastructural facilities

The community or neigbourhood-based development approach has over time been noted to be one of the most successful strategies for socio and economic development in the 21st century. For example, [14] identified delivery of new projects by accessing resources through fundraising, developing activities, and creating opportunities for the residents, increased sense of community life and decreased isolation, enhanced mutual support, enhance new experiences, and creating new relationships, shared responsibility, pride, and joy of accomplishment; and development of skills, especially leadership as the major benefits of residents associations.

[31], [23] observed that the popularity of the strategy used in resolving issues associated with infrastructure provisions cannot be underestimated. [21]; [4] associated neigbourhood-based association to funding of community infrastructure, community empowerment, community self-help or in a more general term participatory development. Neigbouhood participatory development strategy is conceived to enhance the quality of the lives of the residents ([22]; [12].

Infrastructural facilities are variously classified, and they includes all physical, social and economic structures that give extrinsic and intrinsic values to a neigbourhood, and at the same time make an environment habitable and worth living. Since neighborhood is said to be a community where people live and work, neigbourhood infrastructure therefore denotes the agglomeration of all infrastructures within a given neigbourhood. Hence, in [10], [25], [26] and [13], it was mentioned that the provision of neigbourhood infrastructure is the sole responsibility of the government, while individual residents (property owners) are responsible for the provision of facilities in their respective homes. However, it has been observed over time that due to government’s insensitivity on citizens’ welfare, the residents through their association are now responsible for the provision of community infrastructures, and at the same time providing facilities for their homes. Hence, [28] identified transparency, political support, sustainability, participation and accountability as major factors influencing successful implementation of infrastructural projects.

Neighbourhood infrastructures in the residential neighborhoods according to [13] includes facilities such as road network, drainage, paved walkways, electricity distribution system, public water systems, gas pipelines, street lights, healthcare facilities, education facilities, security facilities, banks, post office and communication facilities. In addition, neighbourhood infrastructures can also include security posts, markets and shopping plazas, sport and recreational facilities, waste disposal systems, railway systems, seaport and airport facilities.

3. Methods

Quantitative research approach was used to address the objectives as stated in the study. This study was carried out in Aule government residential estate in Akure, Nigeria. Aule government residential estate is a planned residential community located in Akure, the capital city of Ondo state Nigeria. The Estate was established in the 1990s, and it was originally designed to provide affordable housing options for middle-income families. Over the years, the estate has grown in population, with a diverse mix of residential, commercial, and institutional establishments (see Figure 1).

Digitized map of Aule government residential estate Akure

The study employed frequency distribution, percentage calculation, and weighted mean score as statistical tools for the analysis. The weighted mean score (WMS) is mathematically expressed as:

Weighted Mean Score (WMS) = ∑TWE∕ N (1)

Where (1≤ MWS ≤5)

All respondents assigned weights (ranking) to each of the factors using a five-point likert scale which ranges from 1 as the least important to 5 as most important. Based on the ranking (R) of relative indices (RI), the weighted average will be determined. In the view of [2] RI values are categorized into five significant levels: high (H) (0.8 ≤ RI ≤ 1), high-medium (H-M) (0.6 ≤ RI ≤ 0.8), medium (M) (0.4 ≤ RI ≤ 0.6), medium-low (M-L) (0.2 ≤ RI ≤ 0.4), and low (L) (0 ≤ RI ≤ 0.2).

As at the time of the study, a total unit of 351 houses was identified by the researchers in the 4 zones (A, B, C and D) that make up the estate. The houses identified are of different categories ranging from duplexes, block of flats, bungalows and single units houses. Also identified were 5 key community based projects (road construction/maintenance, solar power project, water scheme, security house, and primary school management), all these projects and several others were executed through residents’ contributions. The reason for adopting quantitative research approach for the study was due to its flexibility in terms of data administration. The study employed the use of the 4 residents’ associations within the estate due to their direct involvement in the provision and management of the facilities in the estate. The resident associations (RAs) provide different community infrastructures and render numerous services including project initiation, fund mobilization, community engagement, security, project supervision, facilities maintenance and management services. These projects are provided for the comfort and use of all members of the community who are tired of waiting for government to attend to their needs. The non-provision of these facilities in the neighbourhood could affect the life and progress of the entire members of the community if proactive steps are not taken by the association to provide and manage the facilities. The assumption of the study is that though the residents differs in several ways such as ethnicity, religion, socio-economic and political persuasions, the residents’ associations (RAs) is found to be a means through which neigbourhood infrastructure needs of the people are provided and managed for the benefit of all residents. To achieve the research objective, a short study questionnaire covering the research objectives were prepared and distributed to the residents. Most of the residents are civil servants who go to work on weekdays, so the distribution of the questionnaires was done on last Saturdays of the month, which coincides with the day when the target groups were holding their monthly general meeting; and the sampling was made in the morning hours between 7.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. This sampling exercise was carried for 2 consecutive months (January and April, 2025) to allow for sufficient covering of the target population. Also, the time and the days used for the sampling of the questionnaire were considered appropriate as majority of the residents who are committed to the welfare and progress of their neigbourhood are expected to be at the general meeting where key decisions affecting the community are made. Further, this approach was adopted to ensure the capturing of all target groups. However, those residents who for one reason or the other were not physically present at the meeting venue during the administration of questionnaires were given the questionnaire in their homes. This is to ensure that no eligible resident of the estate is excluded from the study.

During the study, 351 questionnaires were prepared and distributed (covering the number of houses identified in the study area). However, only 248 representing 71% of the questionnaires were retrieved and found valid for analysis. This figure stands for the sample size used for the analysis. The questionnaire was structured into 2 main sections consisting of: profile information of the respondents, and the level of knowledge on the contributions of the residents’ association in the provision and management of neigbourhood facilities. The rationale for choosing Aule residential estate for the study was based on the information obtained from a pilot survey conducted in order to ascertain the suitability of the targeted respondents for the proposed study, and also to ensure the reliability of the data to be collected.

4. Results and Discussion

The study administered 351 questionnaires to the respondents in the 4 zones i.e., Zones A, B, C and D that make up the estate. However, only 248 of the questionnaires were retrieved, representing 71% of the total sampled population. The breakdown of the questionnaire distribution is shown in Table 2. There is a good response to the questionnaire, and the reason for the high rate of response as recorded can be attributed to the enthusiasm of the respondents to share in the study as it is expected that the study will publicize their contributions to the community development, particularly in a time when communities are seeking for attention and support from government and other organizations.

The study further examined the personal information of the respondents with respect to their age, sex, educational level, marital status and occupation. On age, the study showed that majority of the respondents are within the age bracket of 51–60, representing 36.3%, this is followed by respondents in the age bracket of 61–70, representing 24.6%, whereas the age groups of between 21 – 30, and 31 – 40 constitute the lowest age bracket of the respondents representing 1.21 and 4.03% respectively. Those within the age bracket of below 20 were not represented in the survey exercise. The reason for their exclusion was that people within this age bracket are considered as minor to participate in decision making concerning community issues. On the aspect of sex distribution, the study revealed that the percentage of male respondents (94.4.75%) was higher than their female counterparts (5.6%). This implies that Residents’ association in the study area is dominated by the male folks, suggesting that most decisions and contributions that are made in the study area are done by the men folks. This further supports the undocumented cultural belief that key decisions affecting families and the society are normally made by the male folks. With respect to the educational levels attained by the respondents, the study showed those in possession of Tertiary educational certificate such as Diploma or Degree certificates constitute the highest with 64.5%, followed by those with additional tertiary qualifications such as PGD, Master’s or PhD (33.9%), while those with Secondary School certificate were the lowest (1.6%). This further showed that the study area is dominated with highly educated people which further proved that they eminently qualified to correctly respond to the questionnaires given to them.

The analysis on the marital status of the respondents, the study revealed that 92% of those sampled are married, whereas 2%, 0.4% and 1.6% of them are single, widowed and divorced respectively. The result therefore implies that majority of those that belong to the resident association in the study area are married, and as such can be considered to be responsible individuals who would want the best for the benefit of their families. Further study on the occupation of the respondents reveals that 56.5% are public/civil servants, 19% are self-employed, and 8.9% are employed by private organizations, while 15.6% are retirees. Therefore, it can be concluded that none of the respondents was identified as unemployed, suggesting that the residents’ has the financial wherewithal to undertake neighbourhood facilities development with or without government assistance.

The demographics of the respondents with regards to their ownership status, length of stay in the Estate, level of membership of the association is as shown in Table 4. Result of the study reveals that 93.5% of the respondents are owners of their residences, while 6.5% are tenants. On the length of stay in the Estate, the study reveals that 7.7% of the respondents have stayed in the estate for between 1–5 years, 14.1% have stayed for between 6 -10 years, 33.9% have stayed for between 11 -15 years, while 28.6% and 15.7% have stayed between 16-20 years and above 20 years respectively. The study also revealed that 83.9% of the residents are financial members who are committed to the payment of their monthly dues and other levies. The implication of this is that greater percentage of the residents are owners of their residences who have a good understanding of the associations’ project needs, and hence will be willing to actively participate and support any project and programme that will enhance the development of the estate.

As shown in Table 2, 351 questionnaires were distributed across the study area, and 248 were retrieved, yielding an overall response rate of 71%. Zone D recorded the highest retrieval rate (81%), while Zone A had the lowest retrieval rate (58%).

Table 3. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents by Residential Zone (N = 248).

Variable	Category	Zone A (n = 52)	Zone B (n = 63)	Zone C (n = 59)	Zone D (n = 74)	(%)
Age (Years)	<20	0	0	0	0	0.0
	20–30	1	0	1	1	1.2
	31–40	1	3	6	0	4.0
	41–50	4	7	5	4	8.1
	51–60	21	24	19	26	36.3
	61–70	14	9	17	21	24.6
	>71	11	20	11	17	23.8
Sex	Male	49	61	56	68	94.4
	Female	3	2	3	6	5.6
Marital Status	Married	49	57	54	68	92.0
	Single	1	0	2	2	2.0
	Widow/Widower	2	5	3	4	5.6
	Divorced	0	1	0	0	0.4
Educational Level	Secondary	0	3	1	0	1.6
	Tertiary	43	39	45	33	64.5
	Postgraduate	9	21	13	41	33.9
Occupation	Public/Civil Servant	25	39	33	43	56.5
	Private Organization	5	7	6	4	8.9
	Self-Employed	15	7	11	14	19.0
	Retiree	7	10	9	13	15.6

Source: Author’s field study (2024). Note. Percentages are based on the total number of respondents (N = 248). Zone A = 52 respondents, Zone B = 63 respondents, Zone C = 59 respondents, and Zone D = 74 respondents.

Table 3. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents by Residential Zone (N = 248).

Variable	Category	Zone A (n = 52)	Zone B (n = 63)	Zone C (n = 59)	Zone D (n = 74)	(%)
Age (Years)	<20	0	0	0	0	0.0
	20–30	1	0	1	1	1.2
	31–40	1	3	6	0	4.0
	41–50	4	7	5	4	8.1
	51–60	21	24	19	26	36.3
	61–70	14	9	17	21	24.6
	>71	11	20	11	17	23.8
Sex	Male	49	61	56	68	94.4
	Female	3	2	3	6	5.6
Marital Status	Married	49	57	54	68	92.0
	Single	1	0	2	2	2.0
	Widow/Widower	2	5	3	4	5.6
	Divorced	0	1	0	0	0.4
Educational Level	Secondary	0	3	1	0	1.6
	Tertiary	43	39	45	33	64.5
	Postgraduate	9	21	13	41	33.9
Occupation	Public/Civil Servant	25	39	33	43	56.5
	Private Organization	5	7	6	4	8.9
	Self-Employed	15	7	11	14	19.0
	Retiree	7	10	9	13	15.6

Source: Author’s field study (2024). Note. Percentages are based on the total number of respondents (N = 248). Zone A = 52 respondents, Zone B = 63 respondents, Zone C = 59 respondents, and Zone D = 74 respondents.

Table 3 presents the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents. The majority of respondents (36.3%) were between 51 and 60 years of age, while 24.6% were aged 61–70 years and 23.8% were above 71 years. Male respondents constituted 94.4% of the sample, whereas females accounted for 5.6%. Most respondents were married (92.0%), possessed tertiary education (64.5%), and were employed as public or civil servants (56.5%). These characteristics suggest that the respondents were predominantly educated, middle-aged to elderly, married males with substantial occupational experience.

Table 4. Demographics of respondents in residential neighborhoods.

Category	Parameter	ZONES				Percentage
		A	B	C	D
Ownership status	Owner occupier	48	61	5 5	68	93.5
	Tenant	4	2	4	6	6.5
	TOTAL	52	63	59	74	100
Length of stay in the Estate (in years)	< 5	3	6	2	8	7.7
	6 -10	2	11	9	13	14.1
	11 -15	19	24	21	20	33.9
	16 -20	20	10	17	24	28.6
	> 20	8	12	10	9	15.7
	TOTAL	52	63	59	74	100
Level of membership in the Residents’ Association	Executive	4	5	6	8	9.3
	Ex-officio	2	4	2	4	4.8
	Financial member	46	51	49	62	83.9
	Non-financial member	0	3	2	0	2.0
	TOTAL	52	63	59	74	100

Source: Author’s field study (2024).

Table 4. Demographics of respondents in residential neighborhoods.

Category	Parameter	ZONES				Percentage
		A	B	C	D
Ownership status	Owner occupier	48	61	5 5	68	93.5
	Tenant	4	2	4	6	6.5
	TOTAL	52	63	59	74	100
Length of stay in the Estate (in years)	< 5	3	6	2	8	7.7
	6 -10	2	11	9	13	14.1
	11 -15	19	24	21	20	33.9
	16 -20	20	10	17	24	28.6
	> 20	8	12	10	9	15.7
	TOTAL	52	63	59	74	100
Level of membership in the Residents’ Association	Executive	4	5	6	8	9.3
	Ex-officio	2	4	2	4	4.8
	Financial member	46	51	49	62	83.9
	Non-financial member	0	3	2	0	2.0
	TOTAL	52	63	59	74	100

Source: Author’s field study (2024).

A pilot survey was carried out in the estate to identify the type and conditions of the infrastructure facilities available in the estate. This exercise was conducted before the actual survey of the condition of the infrastructures available in the estate. The study identified roads, water, street lightning, security, public education, drainage and waste management as some of the infrastructural facilities provided and managed by the residents’ association. The analysis of the conditions of the facilities before and after the formation of residents’ association, and the level of involvement of the association in the provision of the facilities is as presented in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 respectively.

The condition of the estate before the formation of residents’ association was rated on a five-point Likert scale, and the result shows that the infrastructural facilities available in the estate before the formation of the residents’ ranked very low. For instance, the respondents rated electricity supply, road maintenance, security, drainage control, and waste management poor, as they have a WMS value of between 1.02 - 1.73 showing a poor condition of facilities in the estate. The study further revealed that public water supply and educational facilities have 0.00 WMS, indicating that water and educational facilities were very poor or not in existence in the estate prior to the formation of residents’ association. It furthers shows that government at all levels, donor agencies and corporate organizations have not sufficiently assisted the estate in the provision of infrastructural facilities.

In like manner, the conditions of infrastructural facilities in the estate after the formation of residents’ association was examined and rated on a five-point Likert scale and the result is as presented in Table 6. The study revealed that the formation of residents’ association resulted to an improved conditions of the neighbourhood infrastructural facilities, as the conditions of all the infrastructures examined improved significantly. For instance, the community public water supply, electricity/solar power supply were rated very good indicating a significant shift from what it was before the formation of residents’ association. Similarly other infrastructures such as road maintenance, security, education, drainage control and waste management were found to be good as they have WMS values of above 3.00. The implication of this finding is that the residents’ association stands as the major force that drives infrastructural facilities development in the study area.

To be able to have a clear picture of the extent to which the residents’ association involved in the development and management of the neighbourhood infrastructures, the study identified seven (7) key neighbourhood-based infrastructures and examined the level of resident associations’ involvement in making their community livable. The result of the analysis is presented in Table 7.

From the study, the respondents ranked the involvement of the residents in the area of security management and control very high having the highest MWS value of 4.97, This is closely followed by road widening and maintenance with MWS of 4.96, Electricity projects which includes the installation of solar powered street light, electricity poles and transformers maintenance came next with MWS value of 4.83, while the provision of drainage system, construction of gutters and culverts in the estate has a combined MWS value of 4.81. Involvement in community water project ranked 4.54, involvement in the construction and management of educational facility has an MWS of 4.46, while their involvement in sanitation/waste management ranked last but with a positive MWS value of 4.43.

From the result, it is evident that all the residents of the estate are generally involved in the provision of infrastructural facilities given that all the parameters used indicated a very high MWS value of ≥4.0. This study is consistent with [33]; [17] who agreed that infrastructures plays significant roles in enhancing economic growth and prosperity of the host community; a prerequisite for the development of any economy.

Table 8 shown below describe the methods used in funding infrastructural facilities in the study area. The study identified and presented to the respondents six (6) methods through which infrastructures are funded in the study area. The result obtained from the study revealed that majority of the respondents (62.10%) believed that the major source through which infrastructure facilities are financed in the study area is via community contributions using the process of crowd funding and local fundraising. The study further revealed that 29.43% of the respondents agreed that volunteering and In-kind contributions in form of labour, materials or expertise to reduce cost is an important method of funding infrastructural facilities in the study area. Government funding of infrastructural development constitute only 4.48%, while development agencies and International Aids contribute 2.42% of funding sources.

The study observed that the influence of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and obtaining loans and credit facilities are low as they have 0.81 and 0.40% respectively. This study is not consistent with [1] who noted that the provisions of basic infrastructure facilities in a community occupy a central place in the agenda of every governments at all levels, given that the availability of basic infrastructure facilities influences the creation of socio-economic activities that could improve the citizen’s standard of living. However, the study agreed with the view of [4] who posits that factors such as funding, and political support for infrastructure implementation constitute some of the key functions of residents’ association.

Responses received from the factors influencing neighbourhoods’ infrastructural facilities in the study area is presented in Table 8. Factors such as community involvement and engagement with a mean score of 4.83 was identified as the most significant factor influencing project success in the study area. While factors such as economic condition and transparent leadership with mean score of 4.23 and 4.02, respectively, were identified as significant factors influencing project success. The study further revealed that effective project management and execution (skilled workforce and time management) with MS value of 3.9, effective planning and design (need assessment and sustainability (3.89), government support and regulation (regulatory compliance and government incentives (3.70) and clear communication (3.66) respectively were considered to have moderate influence on project success’ factors.

Also, the study revealed that the use of modern technology (3.27) has weak influence while political support (1.92) was found to have weak influence on project success. The results as obtained from the study corroborated the work of [13] who opined that community participation is a necessary ingredient for infrastructural projects. It also agreed with the study of [28] who identified the principles of transparency, participation, accountability and sustainability as the key factors influencing projects’ success.

Table 9. Factors influencing the attainment of neighbourhood infrastructural projects in the estate.

Factors	SD	D	N	A	SA	WMS	R
Political support	126	76	2	29	15	1.92	9
Economic conditions	58	16	1	39	134	4.23	2
Use of modern technology	69	21	4	82	72	3.27	8
Transparent leadership	4	13	1	187	43	4.02	3
Community involvement and engagement	0	2	0	34	212	4.83	1
Effective planning and design (need assessment and sustainability	11	52	1	112	72	3.89	5
Clear communication	27	49	0	75	97	3.66	7
Government support and regulation (regulatory compliance and government incentives	27	41	12	67	101	3.70	6
Effective project management and execution (skilled workforce and time management)	16	29	2	116	85	3.90	4

SA – Strongly Agreed; A – Agreed; N – Neutral; D – Disagreed; SD – Strongly Disagreed; WMS – Weighted Mean Score; R – Ranking. Source: Field survey, 2024.

Table 9. Factors influencing the attainment of neighbourhood infrastructural projects in the estate.

Factors	SD	D	N	A	SA	WMS	R
Political support	126	76	2	29	15	1.92	9
Economic conditions	58	16	1	39	134	4.23	2
Use of modern technology	69	21	4	82	72	3.27	8
Transparent leadership	4	13	1	187	43	4.02	3
Community involvement and engagement	0	2	0	34	212	4.83	1
Effective planning and design (need assessment and sustainability	11	52	1	112	72	3.89	5
Clear communication	27	49	0	75	97	3.66	7
Government support and regulation (regulatory compliance and government incentives	27	41	12	67	101	3.70	6
Effective project management and execution (skilled workforce and time management)	16	29	2	116	85	3.90	4

SA – Strongly Agreed; A – Agreed; N – Neutral; D – Disagreed; SD – Strongly Disagreed; WMS – Weighted Mean Score; R – Ranking. Source: Field survey, 2024.

5. Conclusions

This study has shown that resident associations play a significant role in enhancing neighborhood infrastructure, as evidenced by the case of Aule residential estate in Akure, Nigeria. The findings, based on the analysis of 248 valid responses from residents, demonstrate a positive correlation between active resident participation and the improvement of essential infrastructure, such as water supply, solar power, and security. Resident associations, through collective financial contributions and organizational efforts, have been effective in filling gaps left by government interventions, thereby enhancing the quality of life within their immediate communities.

The study confirms the critical role that resident associations can play as grassroots-level contributors to neighborhood development. Through active involvement of landlords and tenants in decision-making and infrastructure maintenance and management, these associations can improve not only the physical environment but also the social cohesion within the community.

6. Recommendations

(i) Amendment of Local Government Laws: There is a need for local government policies to be amended to formally recognize and empower resident associations. This could allow them to engage more directly in infrastructure development, management, and maintenance.

(ii) Government Support and Partnerships: Government authorities at local and state levels should consider providing technical and financial support to resident associations. This will help them implement and sustain neighborhood improvement projects effectively.

(iii) Collaboration with Non-Profit Organizations: Resident associations should seek partnerships with non-profit organizations and other external stakeholders that are focused on community development. This collaboration could offer additional resources and expertise to enhance infrastructure provision and maintenance.

(iv) Capacity Building for Resident Associations: Training programs and workshops should be organized to improve the capacity of resident associations in project management, financial accountability, and effective community mobilization. This will ensure that they are well-equipped to manage and sustain infrastructure projects in their communities.

(v) Sustainability Measures: Resident associations should develop long-term plans for the sustainability of neighborhood infrastructure, including proper maintenance schedules and diversified funding sources to prevent over-reliance on a single source of income.