Rural-urban Interdependence on Fuel Wood in Anambra State, Nigeria.
ABSTRACT
This study examined the rural-urban interdependence on fuel wood in Anambra State, Nigeria using cross-sectional data. The study used purposive and random sampling techniques for the selection of 120 gatherers that constituted respondents for the study. The study employed descriptive and relevant inferential statistics for data analysis. The findings of the study revealed that out of the 14 indicators of the importance of forest examined in the study, the respondents were aware of 11 as importance of forest to people in the study area.
The linear regression analysis with an R2 of 0.702 showed that about 70% of the total variations in the income from fuel wood were caused by the specified independent variables in the model. On rural urban interdependence on forest, (79%) of money and income related benefits flow from urban to rural areas; (88%) of benefits relating to innovative ideas on forestry management and conservation flow from urban to rural areas, about (68%) of forest related market information spread from urban areas to the people in rural areas while about (55%) of awareness of the importance of forest and its related products flow from the urban to rural.
About (78%) of benefits in the form of forest related job opportunities spread from rural to urban areas. Using a factor loading of 0.30, the factors that constrain rural-urban flow of fuel wood in the area were: sociofinancial; infrastructural/institutional; and distributive factors. The result of the probit model with an R2 of 0.892 indicated that about (89%) of the total variations in the decision of the respondents to either invest in forest development or not were caused by the specified independent variables in the model.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page — — — — — — — — — — — i
Certification — — — — — — — — — ii
Dedication — — — — — — — — — — — iii
Acknowledgement — — — — — — — — — iv
Table of Contents — — — — — — — — — — v
List of Tables — — — — — — — — — — vii
List of Figures — — — — — — — — — — viii
Abstract — — — — — — — — — — — ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION — — — — — — 1
Background Information — — — — — — — — 1
Problem Statement — — — — — — — — — 5
Objective of the Study — — — — — — — — 6
Research Hypotheses — — — — — — — — 7
Justification of the Study — — — — — — — — 7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW — — — — — 9
Definitions of Rural areas and Urban Areas — — — — — 9
Peri-urban Interface– — — — — — — — 13
Rural –urban differences and Linkages — — — — — — — 16
Rural-urban Social Interdependence — — — — — — — 17
Rural-urban Environmental Interdependence — — — — — 19
Rural-urban Economic Interdependence — — — — — — 21
Constrains of Rural-Urban Interdependence — — — — — 25
Components of Rural-Urban Interdependence — — — — — 27
Theoretical Framework — — — — — — — — 33
Analytical Framework — — — — — — — 34
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY — — — 39
The Study Area — — — — — — — — — 39
Sampling Procedure — — — — — — — — 39
Method of Data Collection — — — — — — — — 41
Method of Data Analysis — — — — — — — — 41
Model Specification — — — — — — — — — 41
Multiple Regression Model — — — — — — — — 41
Exploratory Factor Analysis — — — — — — — 42
Probit Model — — — — — — — — — — 43
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS — — — 45
Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents — — — — 45
Age of the Respondents — — — — — — — — 45
Gender — — — — — — — — — — 46
Educational Qualification. — — — — — — — — 46
Household Size. — — — — — — — — — 47
Experience — — — — — — — — — — 48
Awareness of Importance of Forest Perceived by Respondents — — — 49
Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Income from Fuel wood — — — 52
Test of Hypothesis 1. — — — — — — — — 55
Rural-Urban Interdependence in Terms of Flow of Forest Products — — 55
Flow of Forest Related Benefits Between Rural and Urban Areas — — 57
Factor Constraints to Rural-Urban Flow of Fuel wood — — — — 60
Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents Influencing
the Decisions to Invest in Forest Development — — — — — 65
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS — 68
Summary — — — — — — — — — — 68
Conclusion — — — — — — — — — — 71
Recommendations — — — — — — — — — 72
REFERENCES — — — — — — — — — 74
INTRODUCTION
Majority of Nigeria’s poor live in the rural areas and depend directly or indirectly on agriculture and its related activities while owning or controlling few physical productive assets (Amaechina and Eboh, 2006). In other words, the above statement shows that Agriculture (farming, forestry, fishing etc), in Nigeria, is practiced mostly by the poor in the rural areas. Consequently, it is from the rural areas that the products of forest such as fuel wood are shifted to the urban areas, where they are highly demanded.
In return, the urban areas, offer some developmental services to the rural areas, and this cooperation creates multipronged linkages between the two areas. For instance, Garrett (2005), stated that rural and urban areas share many degrees of interactions; rural areas provide critical consumption goods for urban consumers, such as food, energy, low-cost land and labour, and unique experiences.
Urban areas constitute the end market for rural production; provide professional services; offer diverse job opportunities; and generate resources for public and private investment in rural areas. It is now widely recognized that there exist various forms of complementarities between the urban and the rural areas in every country. The various ways these two areas complement each other’s activities have created several linkages between them and these linkages have now been known as the rural-urban interdependence (Okpala, 2003).
REFERENCES
Abang, S.O and D.I. Agom (2004). “Resource Use Efficiency of Smallholder
Farmers: The case of Cassava Producers in Cross River State, Nigeria”.
Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment Vol. 2 (3&4): pp. 87-97.Agada, N. J. (2009). Analysis of the Effects of Agroforestry Tree Depletion on Rural
Households in Anambra State. An M.Sc Project submitted to the Department of
Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.Agwu, A.E. (2000). “Diffusion of improved Cowpea Technology among Farmers in
the North East Savannah Zone of Nigeria”, Ph.D Thesis submitted to the
Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.Akujor, C. (1988). Energy Technology. Onitsha: Summer Education Publishers Ltd.
Allen, A. and J. Davila. ( 2005). “Mind the gap! Bridging the rural-urban divide.” id21
insights, Development Planning Unit, University College London. Online at
www.id21.org/insights/insight41/insights-issu01-art00.html.Retrieved May 5th, 2009.Amechina, E.C and E.C Eboh (2006) “Economic and Environmental Benefit Analysis
of Small Holder Agroforestry Farm: A case of Anambra State, Nigeria”. InAdejoju S.O and Okuneye P.B (eds) Farm Management Association of Nigeria,
Proceedinds of 20th Annual National Conference, Plateau State.Amin, A. (2000). “Industrial Districts” in Eric Sheppard & Trevor J. Barnes (editors),
A Companion to Economic Geography. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 149-168.
StudentsandScholarship Team.