Total views : 202

Assessing the Strength of Sladecom as a Model for Improved Formal Accessibility of Urban Lands in Nigeria


  • Department of Estate Management and Valuation, The Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro, Nigeria


Objectives: To evaluate SLADECOM (Synergised Land Administration and Development Compliance Model) as a proposed model, to amplify the strengths and remove the weaknesses of Nigeria’s land administration systems, with a view to buoying them for improved performance. Methods/Statistical Analysis: This model’s latitude was calibrated to 10 constructs of 30 queries and gauged against the following benchmarks: Environmental acceptability, demographic suitability, contemporary robustness, administrative consistency, regulatory sufficiency, histo-futuristic connectedness, effective resourcefulness, practical applicability, contextual relevance and technical versatility. Hence, integrity checks showed that 91 retrieved questionnaires out of the 100 structured questionnaires that were administered, using purposive and simple random sampling among all stakeholders in land administration system within the southwest Nigeria, 86 were properly filled and thus were considered valid for analyses, using 5 point Likert scale of measurement admixtured with averages from simple descriptive and inferential statistical tools. Findings: The results showed among other things that, SLADECOM model has sufficient strength to accommodate past, present and emerging requirements associated with increasing complexities of formal land delivery by Nigeria’s land administration systems (79.85% agreed+strongly agreed). Also, it is well positioned to tackle varieties of needs of increasingly land driven endeavours of Nigerians as the population continue to soar (79.89% agreed+strong agreed). Applications/Improvement: Among this model’s numerous relevance, is by directly applying it to synergise the present stand-alone structure of Nigeria’s land administration system and reconfigure them for greater efficiency and effectiveness. Nigeria’s government should endeavour to imbibe a culture of regular system overhauling, dynamic restructuring and role refinement as essentials for continual robust structure that engenders improved performance of land administration machineries, so as to facilitate formal delivery and increase accessibility of urban lands in Nigeria.


Improved Formal Accessibility, Nigeria, Sladecom Model, Strength Assessment, Urban Lands.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 172)


  • Glaeser EL, Gyourko J, Saks R. Why is Manhattan so expensive: Regulation and 36 the rise in housing prices. Journal of Law and Economics. 2005; 48(2):331–69.
  • Agunbiade M, Rajabifard A, Bennett R. Modes of housing production in developing countries: The contemporary role of land, labour and capital in Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 2013; 28(2):363–79.
  • Crosby B, Bryson J. A Leadership Framework for Cross-Sector Collaboration. Public Management Review. 2005; 7(2):177–201.
  • Egbu AU, Olomolaiye P, Gameson R. A neo-institutional economic critique of the system for allocating urban land and development rights in Nigeria. Habitat International.2008; 32(1):212–35.
  • Agunbiade ME, Rajabifard A, Bennett R. Land administration for housing production: Analysis of the need for interagency integration. Survey Review. 2014; 46(3):66–75.
  • Enemark S, Williamson I, Wallace J. Building modern land administration systems in developed economies. Journal of Spatial Science. 2005; 50(2):51–68.
  • Brown K, Keast R. Citizen-government engagement: Community connection through networked arrangements.Asian Journal of Public Administration. 2003; 25(1):107– 32.
  • Agunbiade ME, Rajabifard A, Bennett R. Interagency land administration in Australia: What scope for integrating policies, processes and data infrastructure for housing production?Journal of Spatial Science. 2014; 59(1):121–36.
  • Egbu AU, Omolaiye P, Gameson R. A quantitative model for assessing the impact of land use planning on urban housing development in Nigeria. International Development Planning Review. 2007; 29(2):139–215.
  • Geddes M. Tackling social exclusion in the European Union? The limits to the new orthodoxy of local partnership.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.2000; 24(4):782–800.
  • Agunbiade ME, Rajabifard A, Bennett R. What scope for integrating land management policies, land administration processes and data infrastructure for housing production in Nigeria. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment.2016; 31(1):51–68.
  • Augustinus C. Improving access to land and shelter.Deininger K, Augustinus C, Enemark S, Munro-Faure I.editors. Innovations in Land Rights Recognition, Administration, and Governance; 2010.
  • Steudler D. A framework for the evaluation of land administration systems [PhD thesis]. Melbourne: Department of Geomatic, University of Melbourne; 2004.
  • O’Flynn J. The cult of collaboration in public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2009; 68(1):112–6.
  • World Bank. Housing: Enabling markets to work. Washington, DC: World Bank; 1993.
  • World Bank. Land governance assessment framework manual.World Bank Study on Governance in Land Administration.Washington DC: World Bank; 2010.
  • Pollitt, C. Joined-up Government: A survey. Political Studies Review. 2003; 1(1):34-49.
  • Gurran N, Ruming K, Randolph B, Quintal D. Planning, government charges, and the costs of land and housing.AHURI Positioning Paper. 2008; 109:1–85.
  • DAF Benchmarking Program. Available from: report_25_May_2016.pdf
  • Williamson I, Enemark S, Wallace J, Rajabifard A. Land administration for sustainable development. FIG congress: Facing the challenges-building the capacity. California.USA: ESRI Press; 2010. p. 1–16.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.