ANALYSIS OF SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN ZURU LOCAL GOVERNMENT, KEBBI STATE

ABSTRACT

Social infrastructure includes public primary schools (PPSs) and primary health care facilities (PHCs) which are essential in fostering community wellbeing, cohesion and development. For efficiency in the distribution of social infrastructure, population or travel distance can be used as a criterion for allocating social infrastructures. This study assessed the inadequacy and spatial inequality in the distribution of social infrastructure in Zuru local government of Kebbi State using both primary and secondary data. Six wards were sampled during this study namely; Bedi, Tadurga, Dabai, Rikoto, Rafin Zuru, Manga Ushe wards. Graphical analysis and spatial analysis were adopted for this research using ArcGIS 10.1 and Qgis. Firstly, PHCs and PPSs were identified and their locations were established using geographical positioning system (GPS). This study identified 14 primary health centres and 26 public primary schools existing within the sampled area. Nearest neighbour analysis revealed that both PPSs and PHCs exhibited a dispersed spatial distribution pattern with a neighbour ratio of 1.199216 and 1.284260 respectively. Hence, suggesting the likelihood of each facility being allocated far away from another not necessarily by a predetermined distance. Furthermore, service areas for each facility were established using both Euclidean and road network methods in G.I.S to determine areas that were adequately and also not adequately serviced by these facilities. Some households within Bedi, Tadurga and Manga Ushe are outside the catchment areas of PHCs and/or PPSs. More so, non-spatial data such as ward population, land area and count of PPSs and PHCs were also used to determine the spatial inequality and inadequacy using the Local Quotient. Result showed that Tadurga ward has an L.Q less than 1.0 and it is the most deprived ward in the allocated existing social infrastructures. Multiple model regression showed that there is no statically significant relationship between the population of wards and the number of existing social infrastructure. Thus, suggesting that a spatial criterion is used to allocate social infrastructure in the area. There is the need provide new facilities in deprived wards at strategic positions in other to ensure the adequacy of social infrastructure within Zuru local government.

CHAPTER ONE

1.0       INTRODUCTION

1.1       Background to the Study

Infrastructure plays an important role in Africa’s growth and development, the interaction of social and economic infrastructure facilitates the growth process as stated in the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa report (United Nations, 2015). Social infrastructure is complex in nature because it encompasses different institutions united by similar goal of developing the city and fulfilling the essential needs of the society (Frolova et al., 2016). These institutions are relevant sectors or offices responsible for rendering social services such as; facility for health, education and sanitation which are provided to improve human lives.

United Nations (2015) pointed out that the development of social infrastructure in Africa was driven by her economic specialisation as a resource base during the colonial era. The presence of natural resources led to the development of transportation and intensified Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).   The aim of infrastructural development during the colonial era was solely to facilitate communication with the western powers. Salisu (2016) attest that firms use infrastructure as delicate intermediate goods.  In other words, they are means to an end while household utilized infrastructure as final consumables.  Historically,  the  development  of  social  infrastructure  in  Africa  is supported by several aid programmes; but they were generally disadvantaged due to poor location with large proportion of infrastructure is concentrated in urban areas than rural areas (United Nations, 2015).

Accessibility to infrastructure cannot be over emphasized and it has been a form of right in both developed and less developed countries (Akpan and Atser, 2010). Hasssan and Nor  (2017)  noted  that  in  militating  against  poverty,  the  accessibility  to  social infrastructure by the poor is paramount. This perspective hence emphasizes the vitality of social infrastructure as an essential element in the development process of communities. However, the demand for social infrastructure is high and factors that affect its adequacy include insufficient resource base and competing political agenda (Oyedele, 2012).

Oyedele (2012) argued that infrastructure is the benchmark for measuring democratic performance and the bedrock of good governance. Hence, government is responsible for providing the basic infrastructure for her populace. Akpan and Atser (2010) attributed issues such as product diversification, poverty reduction, human welfare, population growth and expanding trade in developing economies to rely on social infrastructure. Both producers and consumers are also burdened with high cost of social and economic infrastructure (United Nations, 2015).  This increase in cost arose from the very nature of infrastructure as a linkage in itself on one hand and as an element that connects or link other sectors, including housing to the resource sector. The concentration of social infrastructure and the spatial distribution pattern determines the level of growth and development of any region and also reveal government autonomy (Akpan and Atser, 2010; Frolova et al., 2016).

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) initially facilitated the global concern towards social infrastructure through the development of strategies. The MDGs Strategies addressed the special needs of the less developed countries including Nigeria (Akpan and Atser, 2010). When the MDGs programme ended the global concern of social infrastructure was embedded into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) programme  which  succeeded  the  MDGs  (United  Nations,  2018).  Salisu  (2016) suggested  that  poor infrastructure in  Nigeria  hinders the possibility of  achieving a sustainable   socio-economic   development   as   such   there   is   need   to   prioritize infrastructure in the national budget. Oyedele (2012) blamed the military era for widening the infrastructural gap and deficit in Nigeria. Infrastructural deficit in Africa however as indicated by United Nations (2015) is caused by neglecting social infrastructure due to too much focus on economic infrastructure thereby resulting to massive rate of exclusion. Bello et al. (2014) suggested that Zuru would experience overcrowding  due  to  the  centralized  forces  of  attractions  (infrastructure)  except  if remote areas are provided with such infrastructure. It therefore draws attention towards the relevance of social infrastructure as a pull factor and also the potential cause of overpopulation if adequate measures are not taken.

Zuru is experiencing a gradual change in land use-land cover and population growth. Bello et al. (2014) estimated land use-land cover trend to be at 5% per annum between the years 1999 to 2008 in Zuru local government. This showed that, urban growth is much anticipated in Zuru local government and as such it is indeed a pertinent issue to adequately plan for it. This would ensure sustainability and efficiency. However, such decisions  must  be  influenced  by  careful  observation  of  some  underlying  factors. Mapping the spatial distribution pattern of social infrastructure is a tool for decision making in balancing spatial distribution and enhancing access to social infrastructure (Akpan and Atser, 2010).  With the advent of Geographical Information System (GIS) geospatial analysis has become a lot easier and precise and several studies on spatial distribution had tested the reliability of GIS software (Liu et al., 2008; Dejene et al., 2018; Dejen et al., 2019). Hence, this study presents an analysis of spatial distribution of social infrastructure and their accessibility in Zuru local government of Kebbi state.

1.2       Statement of the Research Problem

Adequate accessibility to social infrastructure is a critical element of a good neighbourhood. Housing as defined by the 2012 National Housing Policy places social infrastructure as one basic component in the composite that makes the proper setting of the neighbourhood.  Adequate housing as proclaimed in the policy (Chapter 1,  sub section 3.1) is a form of right that is anchored on the ability of individuals to access health, education and social service facilities amongst other household needs to improve quality of life (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2012).  Abraha (2019) lamented that third world countries are not only victims of overpopulation, unemployment and inadequate housing but they also lack social services. Davern et al. (2017) have established that there is a relationship between healthy communities and the availability of social infrastructure and more importantly the spatial accessibility to the infrastructure. Brown and Barber (2012) also noted the relevance of equity in the spatial distribution of social infrastructure for efficient delivery and optimal utility of its social benefits in neighbourhoods.

In Nigeria few studies on spatial analysis and distribution pattern of social infrastructure used several methodologies to analyse the phenomenon. The major focus was on spatial distribution rather than spatial accessibility. Akpan and Atser (2010) determined accessibility using social index to take inventory of the social infrastructure stock in Akwa  Ibom  State.  Osumgborogwu  (2016)  used  income  to  justify accessibility and Ogunyemi et al. (2014) stated that accessibility to social infrastructure is influenced by socio economic status of residents and local politics. However, Spatial accessibility relies on measurable travel distance to the infrastructure while spatial distribution had been  standardized  into  various  patterns  or  form  (random,  dispersed  and  cluster).

Therefore, there is still need to explain spatial distribution and accessibility of social infrastructure in Nigeria especially Kebbi state. Spatial analysis has been a tool for spatial planning and management (Akpan and Atser, 2010; Frolova et al, 2016; Davern et al., 2017). Since, location of social infrastructure is fixed and as such users need to travel to that location to fulfil their need, the spatial distribution and also accessibility of these facilities can be examined. In this regard, this study will examine the spatial distribution pattern, spatial inequality and accessibility to social infrastructure.

1.3       Research Questions

In the course of this research some relevant questions are thus presented;

i.       Is the social infrastructure evenly distributed within Zuru local government?

ii.      Which households are within and outside the service area of this social infrastructure?

iii.       What is the level of spatial inequality infrastructural facilities?

1.4       Aim of the Study

The  aim  of  this  study  is  to  analyse  the  spatial  distribution  of  selected  social infrastructure with a view to determining the level of inequality in the study area.

1.5       Objectives of the Study

In order to attain the aim of the study, the objectives are to;

i.      Examine the spatial distribution pattern of existing social infrastructure.

ii.      Analyse accessibility of existing social infrastructure.

iii.      Determine the level of spatial inequality in the distribution of social infrastructure in the study area.

1.6       Hypothesis

In other to answer the research question a hypothesis was formulated that;

Ho: There is no statistical significant relationship between the distribution of social infrastructure and population in Zuru local government.

1.7       Scope of the Study

Social infrastructure includes schools, hospitals or health facilities, recreational and sanitation facilities, water supply, museums, courts and other social-cultural centres like women empowerment centres. This study however is focused on public primary schools and primary health care centres. It aims at identifying existing Primary Health Centres (PHCs) and Public Primary Schools (PPSs); determining their catchment area or service radius, evaluating their threshold population, assessing the spatial distribution pattern and accessibility of the existing social infrastructure. The study adopts spatial graphical analysis which includes spatial distribution and location in the GIS environment.

The spatial extent of this study is Zuru local government area which comprises of ten political wards namely; Bedi, Isgogo-Dago, Manga-Ushe, Rafin Zuru, Rikoto, Rumu- Daben Dabai Seme, Senchi, Tadurga and Zodi wards. This therefore means every PHC and PPS found within the borders of Zuru local government area would be represented and as well analysed.

1.8       Justification for the Study

Social Infrastructure in Nigeria is part of the public sector responsibility. Akpan and Atser (2010) had stressed the relevance of social infrastructure in society and how accessibility to them is a form of right. Teriman et al., (2011) recognised social infrastructure as an essential element in neighbourhood land use planning and development schemes. Davern et al. (2017) echoed the relevance of defining a measurable and reliable tool that would show the importance of social infrastructure to community well-being. Social infrastructure as a determinant of community wellbeing and development should be considered a critical component of community planning (Davern et al. 2017). A recent phenomenon of determining accessibility to primary health centres in the neighbourhood is to consider travel time as a determinant of accessibility of health centre using GIS as a reliable too for geospatial analysis (Dejen et al., 2019).

Hence, adequate spatial distribution patterns and accessibility of social infrastructure is a necessity for planning and managing healthy neighbourhoods and also in optimizing social service delivery. This study would serve as a reliable tool for policy formation and also emphasize the need to provide educational and health facilities to deprived and underserved wards and/or households within Zuru local government area.

1.9       Study Area

1.9.1    Geographical location and characteristics

Zuru is a local government in Kebbi state in which the state is located in the north western part of Nigeria as shown in Figure 1.1. Zuru local government within the context of the sate however, is located in the south eastern region of the state as shown in Figure 1.2. It lies between latitude 10.840N to 11.840N and longitude 4.450E to 6.00E and has a total land mass of 653km². It is characterized with an undulating topography, ranging between 350mm to 1,000m above the mean sea level.

There is 1,825 mm as average rainfall and also an average temperature of 27°C. The rainy season begins from April to October and harmattan starts from December to February. Zuru is bounded by Wasagu Danko local government by the north east and north west. At the south it is bounded by Rijau local government of Niger state and by the  south  eastern  by  Sakaba  local  government  and  in  the  west  by  Fakai  local government respectively as shown

1.9.2    Socio – economic attributes

The predominant ethnic group are the K’lela and they are the indigenous inhabitant of the local government. Zuru has a population of about 165,547 recorded in 2006 census (National Population Commission, 2010). The major primary activities in Zuru local government are; farming and rearing of animals other primary activities include fishing.

Tertiary socio-economic activities in Zuru local government are influenced by the existence of institutions such as; Military base, The Federal University of Agriculture Zuru, the local government secretariat.

1.9.3    Transportation and settlement pattern

Zuru town can be described as a transit town also as indicated in Figure 1.3. With a major arterial road from Zamfara state through Zuru to Rijau, Niger state. The Zuru- Rijau Road and Zuru-Riba road are the two routes that connect the local government to other bordering local government areas. As shown in Figure 1.3, a large percentage of the household population reside at a central place and as such that area is occupied by a large proportion of the local government population.

₦8,000.00 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :