Socio-economic, Policy and Institutional Factors Influencing the Implementation of Affordable Housing Programs in Mombasa County, Kenya

Abstract

This study examined the socio-economic, policy, and institutional factors that shaped the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) implementation in Mombasa County, Kenya, to pinpoint obstacles and suggest improvements for effective housing delivery. Employing a quantitative approach, the study gathered data from 226 former Buxton Point Affordable Housing Project residents using structured questionnaires, guided by the Public Interest Economic Regulation Theory, Residual Income Theory, and Institutional Theory. Data were analysed through descriptive and inferential statistics, including correlation and regression analyses. The findings indicated that socio-economic factors, notably low income and high financing costs, severely limited housing affordability, with a correlation coefficient of 0.65 (p < 0.05) between economic factors and implementation outcomes. The correlation analysis for the investigated variables indicated strong positive relationships between government housing policies at 0.65, economic factors had a correlation of 0.75, and Institutional factors had 0.60. This was the measured impact that these variables have towards the successful implementation of the affordable housing program. On the other hand, the ANOVA results also revealed strong interrelations between the implementation of the affordable housing program and government housing policies, being at p = 0.01, and economic factors being at p = 0.003. Institutional factors showed marginal significance of p = 0.05. Only 20% of proposed housing policies were effectively implemented, weakening investor confidence and inflating unit costs. In addition, institutional factors like prolonged approval processes (averaging 12 months) emerged as bottlenecks, increasing project timelines and costs. The study concluded that the AHP faced complex, interconnected challenges requiring cohesive strategies to deliver affordable housing to low- and middle-income households. Recommendations included formulating clear housing policies, improving financing through subsidies and low-interest loans, allocating public land to address availability and costs, enhancing institutional capacity via training and better coordination, and adopting sustainable building practices to lower costs and environmental impact.