CC BY
0SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF URBAN GROWTH IN DUTSEN
KURA
GWARI, NIGER STATE, NIGERIA
OCHOCHE SHAIBU, OBED KOHOL NIAMBE, GODSPOWER OKE OMOKARO ,
ZIPPORAH SIMIYU NAFULA
Student, Institute of Environmental Engineering, People's Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumunba (RUDN), Moscow, Russia
PRISCILLA OHA ZAKARI
Student, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Federal University of Technology
Minna, Minna, Nigeria
Abstract: This study examines the socio-ecological effects of urban growth in Dutsen Kura Gwari, Niger State, Nigeria, focusing on population dynamics, infrastructure, and natural ecosystems. A cross-sectional survey of 357 respondents revealed that 65.8% acknowledged the impact of rapid urbanization on population changes. However, infrastructure development lagged, with 47.9% reporting inadequate improvements in sewage and waste management. Environmental consequences include overcrowding, pollution, and resource depletion, as noted by 60.2% of respondents. Overcrowding emerged as a key issue, attributed to urban expansion by 52% of participants. Proposed solutions included adopting green infrastructure (59.1%) and enhancing community engagement (49.0%). The findings highlight the need for sustainable urban management to balance economic opportunities with ecological preservation, ensuring equitable development for rapidly urbanizing areas like Dutsen Kura Gwari. Addressing these challenges can foster resilient urban systems supporting both human and environmental health.
Keywords: Urbanization, Ecosystem disturbance, Environmental degradation, Population growth, Natural ecosystems
INTRODUCTION
The environment provides essential resources like food, clothing, and shelter, which humans exploit from various ecosystems, including wetlands and forests [3][6]. However, the global rate of resource exploitation now exceeds natural replenishment, leading to ecosystem degradation and disrupting essential services [4]. This degradation results from activities like uncontrolled grazing, mining, urbanization, and pollution [7].
Human quality of life is closely linked to the environment, relying directly on air, water, and land for survival. Unfortunately, unsustainable exploitation poses significant threats to Nigeria's natural resource base, with urbanization being a major concern [13]. Urbanization is a powerful anthropogenic force transforming towns and leading to rural depopulation through migration [2]. Rapid urban growth, especially in developing countries like Nigeria, is driven by perceived opportunities in urban centers, often lacking adequate planning [10].
Environmental issues stemming from urbanization include air, water, and land pollution, deforestation, and altered local climates [14] [15]. In Nigeria, urban areas often exceed their environmental carrying capacities, with rapid population growth leading to poor living conditions [9]. These changes significantly threaten environmental sustainability and the capacity to support life.
Urbanization generates impermeable surfaces that hinder rainwater infiltration, causing flooding and reducing groundwater recharge, adversely impacting water availability. Air pollution results from industrial activities and vehicle emissions, posing health risks to both wildlife and humans while negatively affecting plant growth [8]. The increase in human population drives habitat destruction for agriculture and resource extraction, resulting in significant biodiversity loss [14]. Overexploitation of forests for timber and non-timber products, along with inadequate law enforcement, exacerbates this issue. Continued urban expansion threatens biodiversity and could
result in species extinction due to economic development pressures and trade demands [1]. In summary, urbanization poses a range of interlinked environmental challenges that threaten the integrity of natural ecosystems, highlighting the urgent need for sustainable management strategies to mitigate these effects.
METHODOLOGY
The research investigates urbanization trends in Chanchaga, a local government area in Niger State, Nigeria, characterized by its geographical coordinates (Latitude 9°36'19.7"N, Longitude 6°30'51.1"E) and covering 73.4 square kilometers. It is the most populated area in the state, featuring wards like Nassarawa (A, B, C), Tudunwada South, and Limawa (A, B), with a landscape of savannah vegetation consisting mainly of shrubs and grasses. The methodology included historical, descriptive, and survey research designs to analyze urban growth and its contributing factors. Descriptive research provided insights into the ecosystem's components driving urbanization, while historical and survey methods examined variable differences and developed sustainable development recommendations. Data collection involved primary sources through questionnaires and field observations, alongside secondary sources from literature like textbooks and research articles. A total of 384 questionnaires were distributed using stratified sampling, aiming to adequately represent the population, yielding 357 completed responses. Descriptive statistical methods were employed to analyze the data, calculating frequency distributions and percentage proportions. Data analysis used SPSS and MS Excel for interpretation, with Excel also employed for creating tables and visualizing the results.
<£> WorldAtlas.com
EUROPE
Figure 1: Location of study area on the map of Africa
Figure 2: Map of study area [1] RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1 illustrates that respondents that are male have the highest percentage of 61.1% with a response count of 218 while the female have a response count of 139, representing 38.9%. This means that the survey is largely dominated by the male.
Table 1: Distribution of Gender
Sex of Respondent Frequency Percentage %
Male 218 61.1
Female 139 38.9
Total 357 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2023
Figure 3 illustrates that 28.9% of the respondents have ordinary (O) level education, 37.3% of the respondents have national diploma (ND)/higher national diploma (HND) education, 21.3% of the respondents have B.Sc./B. TECH education, 6.2% of the respondents have M.Sc./M. TECH education, and 6.4% of the respondents have other type of education. This means that majority of the respondents went through ND/HND education.
Educational Status
140
120 100 80 60 40 20 0
O level
ND/HND
BSc/MTech
MSc/MTech
Others
Figure : Educational Qualification
From Table 2 shows that 38.7% of the respondents are age between 15 and 29 years, 40.6% age group of 30 - 39 years, 15.1% of the respondents 30 and 39 years and 5.6% above 50.
Table 2: Age of Respondent
Age of respondent Frequency Percentage %
15-29 138 38.7
30-39 145 40.6
40-49 54 15.1
Above 50 20 5.6
Total 357 100.0
Figure 4 shows that 24% of the respondents are traders, 28% of the respondents are civil servant, 30% of the respondents are self-employed, 18% of the respondents are student. This means that the survey is largely dominated by self-employed people.
Occupational Status 18% 24%
Trader ■ Civil servant Self employed ■ Students
Figure 4: Occupational Status
Table 3 shows that 37.8% of the respondents are single, 53.2% of the respondents are married, 3.9% of the respondents are divorce and 5.0% of the respondents are widow. This means that the survey is largely dominated by married people who have live long enough in the area to do justice to the research.
Table 3 Marital Status of Respondent
Marital status of respondent Frequency Percent
Single 135 37.8
Married 190 53.2
Divorce 14 3.9
Widow 18 5.0
Total 357 100.0
Table 4 shows that 16.2% of the respondents have been staying in the area for less than 5 years, 21.3% of the respondents have been staying in the area for 6-10 years, 29.1% of the respondents have been staying in the area for 11-20 years, and 33.3% of the respondents have been staying in the area for greater than 20 years. This means that the survey is largely dominated by people who have been staying in the area for greater than 20 years.
Table 4: Residential Years
Residential Years Frequency Percentage %
Less than 5 years 58 16.2
6-10 years 76 21.3
11-20 years 104 29.1
Greater than 20 years 119 33.3
Total 357 100.0
Table 5 shows that 65.8.7% of the respondents Strongly Agree that, 27.7% of the respondents Agree, 5.3% of the respondents Disagree and 1.1% of the respondents Strongly Disagree. This means that the majority of the respondents strongly agreed that Urban growth influence population in an area.
Table 5: Rate of Urban Growth Influence of Population.
Urban Growth Influence Frequency Percentage %
Strongly Agree 235 65.8
Agree 99 27.7
Disagree 19 5.3
Strongly Disagree 4 1.1
Total 357 100.0
Table 6: shows that 28.6% Strongly Agree, 60.2% Agree, 7.8% of the respondents Disagree and 3.4% strongly disagree. This means that the majority of the respondents agreed that Urban growth has greater effect on natural ecosystem.
Table 6: Effect of Urban Growth on Natural Ecosystem.
Effect of Urban Growth on Natural Ecosystem. Frequency Percentage %
Strongly Agree 102 28.6
Agree 215 60.2
Disagree 28 7.8
Strongly Disagree 12 3.4
Total 357 100.0
Table 7: Shows that 47.6.7% Strongly Agree, 38.1% Agree, 8.1% disagree and 6.2% strongly disagree. This means that the majority of the respondents strongly agreed that urban growth allows for the depletion of components of the natural ecosystem.
Table 7: Urban Growth Allowance Depletion of Components of the Natural Ecosystem.
Urban Growth Allowance for Depletion of Components of the Natural Ecosystem. Frequency Percentage %
Strongly Agree 170 47.6
Agree 136 38.1
Disagree 29 8.1
Strongly Disagree 22 6.2
Total 357 100.0
Figure 5 shows that 56.6% Strongly Agree, 34.5% Agree, 8.1% Disagree and 0.8% strongly disagree. This means that the majority of the respondents agreed that Urban growths has more influence and ways of affecting the components of natural ecosystem.
Urban Growth Influence and ways of Affecting Components of
Natural Ecosystem
250 -
200
150 -
100 50 0
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Figure 5: Influence on the problem of the Natural Ecosystem
Table 8 shows that 32% of the respondents Strongly Agree, 52% of the respondents Agree, 14% of the respondents Disagree and 2% of the respondents Strongly Disagree. This means that the majority of the respondents agreed that urban growth causes overcrowding in the study area.
Table 8: Urban Growth Influence on Overcrowding
Urban Growth Influence on Overcrowding Frequency Percentage %
Strongly Agree 114 32
Agree 188 52
Disagree 49 14
Strongly Disagree 6 2
Total 357 100
Table 9: Natural Ecosystem Status
Provisional Status of Natural Ecosystem in the study area. Frequency Percentage %
Strongly Agree 58 16.2
Agree 54 15.1
Disagree 168 47.1
Strongly Disagree 77 21.6
Total 357 100.0
250 200 150 100 50 Urban Growth Influence on Immigration
0 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Figure 6: Influence of Urban Growth on Immigration
)le 10: Urban Growth Leads to proper Sewages and Refuse D disposal
Urban Growth Leads to proper sewages and refuse disposal Frequency Percentage %
Strongly Agree 41 11.5
Agree 81 22.7
Disagree 64 17.9
Strongly Disagree 171 47.9
Total 357 100.0
Analysis of the State of Utilization of Some natural ecosystem
ОФ "Международный научно-исследовательский центр "Endless Light in Science"
Figure 7 shows 3.9% of the respondents as very good, 5.3% of the respondents as good, 51.0% of the respondents as poor and 39.8% of the respondents very poor. This means that there is a high rate of negative urban growth consequences on the utilization of refuse disposal in the study area.
Figure 7: Utilization of Refuse Disposal
Table 11: Development of Rural Areas
Development of Rural Areas Frequency Percentage %
Strongly Agree 136 38.1
Agree 165 46.2
Disagree 45 12.6
Strongly Disagree 11 3.1
Total 357 100.0
Table 13: Green Infrastructures
Green Infrastructures Frequency Percentage %
Strongly Agree 100 28.0
Agree 211 59.1
Disagree 35 9.8
Strongly Disagree 11 3.1
Total 357 100.0
Table 14: Climate Resilient Design
Climate Resilient Design Frequency Percentage %
Strongly Agree 143 40.1
Agree 153 42.9
Disagree 47 13.2
Strongly Disagree 14 3.9
Total 357 100.0
Table
Enlightenment and Awareness Frequency Percentage %
Strongly Agree 95 26.6
Agree 175 49.0
Disagree 76 21.3
Strongly Disagree 11 3.1
Total 357 100.0
The data reveal that urban growth exerts a detrimental impact on the local ecosystem, as expressed by a large portion of respondents (60.2% agree, 28.6% strongly agree) in Table 6. This perception aligns with the findings that urban areas in Nigeria frequently exceed their environmental carrying capacity, leading to pollution, resource depletion, and habitat loss [9]. The increase in impermeable surfaces is evident in Dutsen Kura Gwari [15] [12]. With decreased water infiltration, flooding risks are elevated, compounding the environmental strain already present in this urban ecosystem. Furthermore, Tables 7 and 9 underscore the extent of ecosystem degradation linked to urban expansion. Nearly half of the respondents (47.6%) strongly agree that urban growth depletes ecosystem components, with many observing declining environmental quality (47.1% disagree, 21.6% strongly disagree that the natural 277 ecosystem is healthy). This widespread acknowledgment of environmental decline supports that urban growth often disrupts the balance of natural cycles, ultimately diminishing ecosystem services and harming local biodiversity [4]. The study also reveals social challenges, with Table 8 showing a high concern for overcrowding (32% strongly agree, 52% agree). Hundreds of cities of unprecedented size have sprung up across the globe; and three-quarters of world population are predicted to live in cities by 2050. Rapid urbanization often leads to population density challenges, which can strain resources and contribute to poor living conditions. The respondents' views on overcrowding suggest that the infrastructure of Dutsen Kura Gwari is not adequately supporting its expanding population, leading to reduced livability and increased pollution levels. However, findings highlight potential solutions. A large proportion of respondents agree on the importance of proper waste disposal (91%), green infrastructure (59.1%) and community engagement (49.0%) as strategies to mitigate urbanization's adverse effects. These responses support the argument that sustainable urban planning and community involvement are essential in managing urban growth [10]. Similarly, the emphasis on developing rural areas (38.1% strongly agree, 46.2% agree) reflects a recognition that redistributing population pressures could help alleviate urban strain [14] [11].
Conclusion
The study reveals the extensive socio-ecological impacts of urban growth in Dutsen Kura Gwari. The data indicate that while urbanization has attracted diverse residents seeking economic opportunities, it has also intensified pressure on local resources and infrastructure, resulting in environmental degradation and decreased quality of life. Respondents consistently identified issues related to overcrowding, inadequate waste management, and the depletion of natural resources, underscoring the need for more sustainable urban management practices. To address these challenges, implementing green infrastructure and enhancing community engagement are essential strategies. Additionally, redistributing growth by investing in rural development could reduce the environmental strain on urban areas. These findings suggest that proactive, well-coordinated planning, rooted in community input, will be crucial for sustainable urbanization and environmental preservation in regions like Dutsen Kura Gwari.
REFERENCES
1. Adegbehin A.B., Yusuf Y.O., Anumonye E.N., Shehu A.U. Problems of domestic water supply in Dutsen Kura Gwari, Chanchaga Local Government Area of Niger State, Nigeria. Journal of
Geography, Environment and Earth Science International. 2016; 7(4): 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/JGEESI/2016/27973.
2. Adesina A.O. Legibility and the Nigerian Urban Environment. Experiences from Ilorin: In Adekunle V. et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on the Challenges of Environmental Sustainability in a Democratic Governance. Environment and Behaviour Association of Nigeria; 2003.
3. Agyemang I., Carver S. Environmental degradation and assessment in northern Ghana: From populist and classic methods to methodological triangulation approach. African Educational Research Journal. 2014; 2: 12-19. DOI: https://www.netjournals.org/pdf/AERJ/2014/1/13-089.pdf.
4. Alemagi D., Kozak R.A. Illegal logging in Cameroon: Causes and the path forward. Forest Policy and Economics. 2010; 12(8): 554-561. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.07.008.
5. Allred B.W., Smith W.K., Twidwell D., Haggerty J.H., Running S.W., Naugle D.E., et al. Ecosystem services lost to oil and gas in North America. Science. 2015; 348(6233): 401-402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4785.
6. Alfonso A., Zorondo-Rodríguez F., Simonetti J.A. Perceived changes in environmental degradation and loss of ecosystem services, and their implications in human well-being. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. 2017; 24: 561-574. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1255674.
7. Alkire S., Santos M.E. Measuring acute poverty in the developing world: Robustness and scope of the Multidimensional Poverty Index. World Development. 2014; 59: 251-274. DOI: https://doi .org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.01.026.
8. Akeredolu I., Oguntona B., Akeredolu O., Okafor C. Micronutrient status of primary school children in Lagos: implications for nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2009; 41(4): S36-S36.
9. Daramola A., Ibem E.O. Urban environmental problems in Nigeria: Implications for sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa. 2010; 12(1): 124-145. DOI: https://www.researchgate .net/profile/Eziyi
Ibem/publication/268371119_Urban_environmental_problems_in_Nigeria_implications_for_su
stainable_development/links/55fd698608ae07629e26fe9f/Urban-environmental-problems-in-
Nigeria-implications-for-sustainable-development.pdf.
10. Dawson R.J., Hall J.W., Barr S.L., Batty M., Bristow A.L., Carney S., Dagoumas A., Evans S., Ford A., Harwatt H., Köhler J., Tight M.R., Walsh C.L., Zanni A.M. A blueprint for the integrated assessment of climate change in cities. Tyndall Working Paper. 2009; 129: 26. DOI: https://tyndall.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/twp129.pdf.
11. Jago-on K.A., Kaneko S., Fujikura R., Fujiwara A., Imai T., Matsumoto T. Urbanization and subsurface environmental issues: An attempt at DPSIR model application in Asian cities. Science of the Total Environment. 2009; 407(9): 3089-3104. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.scitotenv.2008.08.004.
12. Liu J.G., Diamond J. China's environment in a globalizing world. Nature. 2005; 435: 1179-1186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/4351179a.
13. Mabogunje A. Geography - the bridge between natural and social sciences. Hrvatski Geografski Glasnik. 1985; 47: 183-217. DOI: https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/58941.
14. Mba H.C., Ude B.C., Ume L.C., Uchegbu B., (Eds.). Management of environmental problems and hazards in Nigeria. Hants: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.; 2004.
15. Zhou L., Dickinson R.E., Tian Y., Fang J., Li Q., Kaufmann R.K. Evidence for significant urbanization effect on climate in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2004; 101: 9540-9544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0400357101.
