Index

Abstract

This study was carried out to evaluate the level of environmental awareness of stakeholders in the urban and rural settlements in Delta State, southern Nigeria so as to infer the depth of environmental education that would be embarked on. Five major stakeholders in the state that constituted the major strata of sampling were selected. A total of 14 communities; 7 in the urban/semi urban local governments and 7 in the rural local governments were studied using the stratified sampling technique. Descriptive statistic was adopted for the study and questionnaires were administered to stakeholders. The study revealed that contrary to findings from a number of studies in other part of the globe, students were more knowledgeable on environmental issues followed by public/civil servants and traders/businessmen among stakeholders from the urban settlements. Stakeholders younger in age were not more knowledgeable than older stakeholders in the rural settlements about environmental problems. Male stakeholders had higher percentage level of awareness than their female counterparts. A higher percentage of stakeholders from the rural settlements are still not aware on the environmental terms sought for in this study than stakeholders from urban settlements. This study recommends that given the current level of environmental degradation experienced on a daily base in Nigeria and the limited awareness level of stakeholders on environmental issues, government at various levels should through wider publicity in the ministries of environment and education intensify the campaign on environmental education.

Keywords: Environmental awareness, Climate change, Stakeholders, Urban settlements.

Received: 21 October 2019 / Revised: 19 November 2019 / Accepted: 30 December 2019/ Published: 11 February 2020

Contribution/ Originality

This study is one of the very few studies which have investigated the environmental awareness level among stakeholders in the rural-urban communities of Nigeria. The analysis and findings will enrich the depth of available literature on environmental awareness of stakeholders in developing nations.


1. INTRODUCTION

Environmental issues are one of the main problems of humanity that have perhaps attracted more lively discussion than any other scientific topics across the globe [1, 2]. The extent of this phenomena however differ from continent to continent, country to country, and region to region depending on the population size, birth rate of population, advancement in technology available to the people, how vulnerable is the environmental units of that region and their characteristics, as well as the percentage level of the region’s socio-economic development which have recently awakened global fears and reactions [3]. Humans like any other creature on earth rely heavily on the natural environment as life support system. Environmental deterioration has no respect for territorial boundaries. The global environment has negatively been impacted by various human activities; thereby giving rise to several environmental problems ranging from acid rain, climate change, ozone layer depletion, rise in sea level, extinction of biodiversity, urban flooding, deforestation and pollution of air, water and land [2].
The quality of our immediate environment affects the quality of human lives. Human’s action as producers, consumers, and procreators cumulatively impact on the quality of the environment that sustains life [4]. In advanced countries, cleanup operations, green technological innovation, and socio-economic policies have considerably helped to reduce the negative impact of human activities on the environment; particularly at the local level of our immediate surroundings [5]. With the current record of growth in human population globally, many nations have exploited excessively from the available earth’s resources which in turn has impacted negatively on planet earth at every increasing rate. Unfortunately, some of the renewable resources have been used at rates that exceed the speed at which they could be replenished. It is believed that the extent at which these have happened would not have been, if the citizenries concerned had been aware of the detrimental effects of their actions on the environment [6].

Sustainability of the natural environment has been a growing perspective in the 21st century that is aimed at changing the orientation of stakeholders for the betterment of the environment. Environmental sustainability implies the need to strike a balance between current socio-economic activities and the geometric pace in infrastructural development, on one hand; and on the other ensures environmental protection and preservation of cultural diversity for future generations [7, 8]. Education has been understood to be a vital key in promoting sustainable environment and improving people’s capacities to manage with the pace of development-related issues and environmental challenges [9]. Learning is the key ingredient in becoming more sustainable. Over the past two decades, the stress which the environment has been undergoing have attracted the attention of decision makers, scientists, non-government organizations and even laymen in many parts of the world. In response to a growing understanding that the environment is being impacted negatively by human activities; an aspect of education called environmental education has been more focused on how to reduce human impact on the environment and promote a more sustainable future.

Some of the major global environmental issues include ozone layer depletion, waste production, toxin from chemicals, climate change, soil degradation, deforestation, land use, intensive farming, flooding, over population, global warming, acid rain and carbon footprint. Many rural and urban dwellers are ignorant on how their actions and inaction have contributed to these challenges. Noticeable scholars have worked and reported findings on people’s perception and understanding in handling these environmental problems [10-14] . In most reported findings, some researchers observed that the groups studied have low understanding on the issues; whereas some others discovered that theirs have a fair understanding on the issues mainly due to environmental education which they have been subjected to. Skamp, et al. [11] posit that in order to change behaviours of individuals to reduce greenhouse emissions, it is likely that a multidisciplinary approach will be needed, with education being an important component. Given the magnitude and the imminence of the problem of climate change, it is reasonable to suggest that such education should now be directed at least in part, to including behaviour change. One of the best ways of preserving our environment is by creating environmental awareness among several segments of the society including public servants, farmer, artisans, civil servants, traders and politicians. Awareness should also be created according to Alerby [15] among students who are the future leaders, policy makers, planners, future custodians and educators of the environment and its issues. This awareness among the students provides them with the opportunity on how to nurture nature as well as prepare them to become environmental responsible managers. Improvement in public awareness and consciousness on environmental matters may offer future generation healthier life and a more sustainable environment.

Choker [16] asserted that public environmental awareness is a synthesis of people’s conception, interpretations and perceptions of environmental issues. It is assumed that such conceptions and the like would affect their behaviour, and the quality of responses and reactions to environmental problems. It’s usage in shaping desirable environmental management practices and affecting control can therefore not be overemphasized. Choker [16] summarized the role of environmental awareness as thus:

Intensifying the effort on awareness of a target population on environmental issues can lead to, but not guaranteed of, their being sensitized [17]. To strengthen environmental awareness through enlightenment is simply to make the target population to become conscious of the prevailing environmental issues and possible solutions, whereas to sensitize them is to stimulate their feelings in such a way that they develop concern, and responsible attitudes towards the environment [17]. Hence, sensitization leads to cultivation of positive environmental attitudes which in normal circumstances, translate into positive environmental behaviours that are best expressed in actions. This study therefore seeks to evaluate the level of environmental awareness among stakeholders in rural and urban communities in Delta State, Nigeria in order to ascertain the level of environmental sensitization they need to be given to live sustainably.

1.1. Delta State and Environmental Challenge

Delta state is located in the south-south geographical region of Nigeria. The state occupies a landmass of 16,842 square kilometers and is located in the Niger Delta region. It lies approximately between longitude 5000 and 60451 East and latitude 5000 and 6130 North see Figure 1. The state is bounded in the north and west by Edo state, the east by Anambra, Imo and Rivers state, southwest by Bayelsa state and on the southern extreme is the Bight of Benin which covers about 160 kilometres of the state coastline [18]. The state capital is Asaba, located at the northern end, whereas Warri, Effurn, Sapele, Ughelli and Kwale are the industrial hub of the state. Agbor, Bomadi, Ibusa, Ogwashi uku, Oghara and Udu are the commercial centres in the state. Delta state comprises of 25 local government areas and 268 communities. The state population as at 2006 census is 4,112,445 (Males: 2,069,309; Females: 2,043,136) [19]. The people of Delta state are multi-ethnic comprising of the Enuani people, Ika, Ukwuani, Isoko, Urhobo, Itsekiri and Ijaw. Their occupations include farming, fishing, trading, skilled work, industry, civil and public servants as well as academic among others. 68% of the state population is estimated to live in the urban areas resulting from rapid industrialization. The resultant effect on urbanization is the emergence of urban slums since social facilities and infrastructure are stretched above their limits. The indigenes of the state are hardworking, resourceful and enterprising. There are reputable federal indices acknowledging the state as one of the highest man power employer, though with a considerable moderate level of poverty. Education is a major industry in the state with series of established tertiary institutions.

Figure-1. Map of Delta State showing the study area.

Source: Topographic map sheet (2018).

Delta state like every other state within the country continues to urbanize with its pace in industrialization and attendant level in population explosion. There are recorded major urban centres in the state namely; Asaba, Agbor, Ibusa, Kwala, Ogwashi uku, Sapele, Warri, Effurun, Ughelli, Agbarho, Bomadi, Obiarukwu and Ozoro. This massive rate in urban expansion increases exponentially the number of people that move in and out of the state on daily basis with its attendant environmental disturbances. The current environmental status of the state is a clear indication that the level of environmental literacy in the state is quite moderate.

The environmental challenges confronting the state may include; flooding, air pollution and high temperature from gas flaring sites, erosion, inadequate management of hazardous waste, water and land pollution from industrial wastewater discharge and oil spillage, poor municipal solid waste management, proliferation of illegal structures, deforestation, socio-cultural practices and other global contemporary environmental issues of which activities from Delta state contribute to like ozone layer depletion, acid rain and global warming.

An overall evaluation reveals that people are not only unaware of some of the environmental challenges but are also not informed on their causes and effects. Hence, there is no gain saying the fact that a grass root environmental sensitization campaign is very crucial so as to create awareness and alleviate the environmental problems confronting the state. Environmental education is therefore an important tool that is needed to be employed as a strategy in enlightening citizenries on the environmental problems; to make them more knowledgeable about their actions and inactions that directly or indirectly contribute to the challenges, provide them with skills and motivation on how to resolve these problems and prevent new ones from occurring. For this to be achieved, a baseline study evaluating the level of awareness of stakeholders is fundamental. This is the gap this study seeks to address.

1.2. Sampling Data and Method of Analysis

In order to assess the awareness and sensitization levels of the public about environmental issues and obtain an all inclusive public participation in decision making process for planning attempts, descriptive survey research design was adopted for the study [10]. The five major stakeholders (artisans, public/civil servants, farmers, students and traders/business) in the state selected for this study constituted the major strata from which sampling of sub-stratum that makeup the respondents were taken. A total of 14 communities (7 in the urban/semi urban local governments and 7 in the rural local governments) were studied using the stratified sampling technique. A total of 2000 questionnaires were administered through face to face interview among the stakeholders that constituted the sample; 1000 for urban communities and 1000 for their rural counterparts. This ensured that the researchers achieved a response percentage of 98% which was higher than any other expected methods to be employed. A test questionnaire was developed in reference to the subject in order to measure the knowledge level of the stakeholders about the environment and environmental issues. The instrument was sectionalized into two aspects. The first section was designed to obtain demographic information of respondents whereas the second aspect seeks to elicit direct responses from respondents on level of awareness on environmental issues confronting the state. Descriptive statistical methods were employed in the analysis of data. Descriptive here refers to the usage of contingency table in analyzing the level of awareness among the sampled stakeholders.

2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Demographic data as reported in Table 1 revealed that 614(62.7%) from the sampled urban stakeholders are male, whereas 366(37.3%) of the stakeholders are female. More so, 407(41.5%) from the sampled rural stakeholders are male while 573(58.5%) of them are female. This clearly revealed that majority of the stakeholders in the urban communities are male; whereas the female stakeholders are higher in population when compared to the male stakeholders in the rural communities.

Also displayed in the table above is the percentage of stakeholders’ age range; as Table 1 revealed that stakeholders from the urban communities shows that 187(19.1%) were within the age range of 18-27 years, 258(26.3%)  were within the age range of 28-37 years; 324(33.1%)  were within the range of 38-47 years; 113(11.5%) were within the age range of 48-57 years and 98(10%) were over 57 years of age. For stakeholders from the rural communities, it was revealed that 139(14.2%) of the sample were within the age range of 18-27; 85(8.7%) were within the range of 28-37 years; 169(17.2%) were within the age range of 38-47 years; 276(28.2%) were of the age range of 48-57 years while the other 311(31.7%) of the sampled stakeholders were over 57 years of age. This study clearly revealed that a higher percentage of the stakeholders which were younger in age range reside within the urban communities when compared to the rural communities that were mainly dominated by stakeholders that were older in age. This finding corroborated the report of Milfont [20] and Milfont and Duckitt [21].

Table-1. Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of stakeholders.

Variables
Options
Urban communities
Rural communities
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
Gender
Male
614
62.7
407
41.5
Female
366
37.3
573
58.5
Total
980
100
980
100
Age range
18-27
187
19.1
139
14.2
28-37
258
26.3
85
8.7
38-47
324
33.1
169
17.2
48-57
113
11.5
276
28.2
Over 57
98
10
311
31.7
Total
980
100
980
100
Level of education
Illiterate
62
6.3
115
11.7
Primary school
117
11.9
142
14.5
Junior secondary school
138
14.2
286
29.2
Senior secondary school
210
21.4
253
25.8
Diploma/NCE
253
25.8
109
11.1
University/Polytechnic
200
20.4
75
7.7
Total
980
100
980
100
Source of income
Farming
78
7.9
324
33.1
Artisans
148
15.1
128
13.1
Traders/business
302
30.8
294
30
Public/civil servants
196
20
98
10
Student
256
26.2
136
13.8
Total
980
100
980
100

Source: Fieldwork (2019).

Investigation concerning stakeholders’ level of educational attainment revealed that stakeholders from urban communities had 62(6.3%) illiteracy level, 117(11.9%) attended primary school; 138(14.2%) stopped at junior secondary school; 210(21.4%) attended senior secondary school; 253(25.8%) consented to have obtained the National Diploma/NCE certificate and 200(20.4%) of the sampled urban stakeholders attended either university or polytechnic. Report for stakeholders from rural communities revealed that 115(11.7%) were illiterate; 142(14.5%) attended primary school; 286(29.2%) acclaimed to have stopped at junior secondary school level; 253(25.8%) consented to have obtained senior secondary school certificate; 109(11.1%) had either National Diploma or NCE certificate whereas only 75(7.7%) from the rural stakeholders had attended either the university or polytechnic. Comparatively, the result revealed that on average, a higher percentage of stakeholders from the urban communities are more educated than those from the rural communities. This finding was in conformity with the studies of Sullivan, et al. [22]; Yan, et al. [23]andMei, et al. [24] whereas differs with the report of Ogunbode and Arnold [28] who studied the effects of education and income on environmental awareness and attitudes of Ibadan, south western Nigeria.

The socio-economic status of the stakeholders as revealed from their opinions showed that respondents from urban communities had 78(7.9%) stakeholders as farmers; 148(15.1%) were artisans; 302(30.8%) were into business or trading; 196(20%) of them were public or civil servants that works in various government ministries and parastatals; whereas 256(26.2%) were students. Analysis of respondents from rural communities revealed that 324(33.1%) stakeholders were engaged in farming; 128(13.1%) were artisans; those into business or trading accounted for 294(30%) of the stakeholders; 98(10%) of them were public or civil servants whereas 136(13.8%) were students residing in the sampled rural communities. This study revealed a higher percentage of students in the urban communities than the rural communities. This may be attributed to the fact that urban communities have better educational facilities, quality teachers/instructors and conducive studying environment when compared to the rural communities that are starved with quality teachers/instructors and modern teaching facilities; hence rapidly encouraging rural-urban migration. Also revealed in the study was that the rural communities commanded a higher percentage of stakeholders who were into farming than their urban stakeholders. This may be attributed to the fact that majority of the rural communities are endowed with arable land for farming.

Four major environmental terms that awareness level of the stakeholders was sought for include: global warming, ozone layer depletion, acid rain and climate change. Major stakeholders responded either Yes or No to being aware or having heard of the environmental terms as presented in Table 2.

Table-2. Stakeholder responses on environmental problems by knowledge.

Variables
Option
Urban communities
Rural communities
YES
NO
YES
NO
F         %
F            %
F          %
F            %
 
Have you heard of global warming
Farming
66    (84.6)
12        (15.4)
151   (46.6)
173(53.4)
Artisans
106  (71.6)
42        (28.4)
66     (51.6)
62(48.4)
Traders/business
215 ( 71.2)
87        (28.8)
134   (45.6)
160(54.4)
Public/civil servants
195  (99.5)
1            (0.5)
98     (100)
0           (0)
Student
248  (96.9)
8            (3.1)
114   (83.8)
22     (16.2)
 
Have you heard of ozone layer depletion
Farming
70    (89.7)
8          (10.3)
109   (33.6)
215   (66.4)
Artisans
106  (71.6)
42        (28.4)
58     (45.3)
70     (54.7)
Traders/business
182  (60.3)
120      (39.7)
128   (43.5)
166   (56.5)
Public/civil servants
195  (99.5)
1            (0.5)
96     (97.9)
2         (2.1)
Student
248  (96.9)
8            (3.1)
114   (83.8)
22     (16.2)
 
Have you heard of acid rain?
Farming
66    (84.6)
12        (15.4)
129   (39.8)
195   (60.2)
Artisans
106  (71.6)
42        (28.4)
63     (49.2)
65     (50.8)
Traders/business
206 ( 68.2)
96        (31.8)
107   (36.4)
187   (63.6)
Public/civil servants
192    (98)
4            (2.0)
96     (97.9)
2        (2.1)
Student
233  (77.1)
23          (8.9)
114   (83.8)
22     (16.2)
 
Have you heard of climate change
Farming
66    (84.6)
12        (15.4)
136   (41.9)
188   (58.1)
Artisans
106  (71.6)
42        (28.4)
83     (64.8)
45     (35.2)
Traders/business
215 ( 71.2)
87        (28.8)
195   (66.3)
99     (33.7)
Public/civil servants
195  (99.5)
1            (0.5)
95     (96.9)
3         (3.1)
Student
248  (96.9)
8            (3.1)
136    (100)
0            (0)

Source: Fieldwork (2019).

Table 2 showed major stakeholders responses on their knowledge of global warming, ozone layer depletion, climate change and acid rain. Evidence from the data collected and analysed revealed that respondents that were into farming in the sampled urban communities had more knowledge of global warming, climate change, ozone layer depletion and acid rain than stakeholders from the rural communities that were into farming. It was also revealed in Table 2 that a higher percentage of students’ respondents 248(96.9%) in the urban communities were more knowledgeable on the environmental items sought for in this study compared to students’ respondents 114(83.8%) from the rural communities. On the other hand, stakeholders that were traders or engaged in business and artisans from the urban communities revealed to have a better knowledge on global warming (71.2% and 71.6%), climate change (71.6 and 68.2%), acid rain (71.6% and 68.2%) and ozone layer depletion (71.6% and 60.3%) than when compared to stakeholders from the sampled rural communities that were artisans and traders/businessmen on global warming (48.4% and 54.4%), ozone layer depletion (54.7% and 56.5%), acid rain (50.8% and 63.6%) and climate change (35.2% and 33.7%) respectively. Although, the study revealed that among the 980 sampled stakeholders from urban communities; students had a higher percentage level on knowledge of environmental problems followed by public/civil servant, and traders/businessmen than stakeholders that were farmers and artisans. This trend was also exhibited among stakeholders from the sampled rural communities.

To ascertain if there was age bias in responses of stakeholders; the study further sought to disaggregate the responses by age of the sampled stakeholders within urban and rural communities and found out, that stakeholders from urban communities who were within the age range of 28-37 had more knowledge on global warming (78.7%), ozone layer depletion (71.5%), climate change (78.7%), and acid rain (67.4%); followed by age group of 38-47 and finally, those of 48-57 years. See details as presented in Table 3 below. This may be adduced to the fact that age group of 28-37 years in urban communities were mainly students who had been educated through recent research and advancement in technology on environmental issues. This finding confirms the assertion of other studies by Arcury and Christianson [25]; Mckenzie-Mohr [26]; Abdul-Wahab and Abdo [27] and Yildiz, et al. [10]. Further findings, revealed that stakeholders from rural communities within age range of over 57 years had a better knowledge on global environmental awareness; followed by age group of 18-27, and 38-47 years. This may also be attributed to the fact that age group of over 57 years are mainly elderly stakeholders who had lived their entire youthful age working as public/civil servants or technicians in the urban communities hence exposing them to real life situation. This finding was in uniformity with the report by Ogunbode and Arnold [28] who asserted that age alone has been identified as a major determinant of environmental attitudes among rural dwellers. The study further revealed that stakeholders from urban settings in term of age range were more knowledgeable on the concept of environmental variables like global warming, ozone layer depletion, acid rain and climate change than their rural counterparts.

Table-3. Stakeholders’ responses on climate change by age.

Age
Option
Urban communities
Rural communities
YES (%)
NO (%)
YES (%)
NO (%)
 
Have you heard of global warming
18-27
52.3
47.7
42.9
57.1
28-37
78.7
21.3
47.5
52.5
38-47
72.5
27.5
46.3
53.7
48-57
64.1
35.9
35.4
64.6
Over 57
58.6
41.4
22.8
77.2
 
Have you heard of ozone layer depletion
18-27
54.8
45.2
39.4
60.6
28-37
71.5
28.5
44.9
55.1
38-47
72.5
27.5
48.6
51.4
48-57
66.4
33.6
39.2
60.8
Over 57
60.9
39.1
25.4
74.6
 
Have you heard of acid rain?
18-27
53.7
46.3
39.4
60.6
28-37
67.4
32.6
44.9
55.1
38-47
70.1
29.9
48.6
51.4
48-57
61.5
38.5
39.2
60.8
Over 57
55.2
44.8
25.4
74.6
 
Have you heard of climate change
18-27
52.3
47.7
49.1
50.9
28-37
78.7
21.3
51.4
48.6
38-47
72.5
27.5
56.7
43.3
48-57
64.1
35.9
51.8
48.2
Over 57
58.6
41.4
49.5
50.5

Source: Fieldwork (2019).

Inquiry on stakeholders based on their gender responses followed the above first two enquiries and found out that male stakeholders from urban communities were more informed on the environmental terms: climate change, global warming, acid rain and ozone layer depletion than their rural counterparts. This finding is in line with the submission of Ogunbode and Arnold [28] who reported that male respondents scored significantly higher percentage than the female respondents in terms of measured knowledge on environmental issues, and as well reported a higher rate of encounter with environmental information.

Table-4. Stakeholders’ responses on climate change by gender.

Sex
Option
Urban communities
Rural communities
YES (%)
NO (%)
YES (%)
NO (%)
Have you heard of global warming
Male
73.5
26.5
30.6
69.4
Female
66.8
33.2
21.8
78.2
Have you heard of ozone layer depletion
Male
74.6
25.4
46.3
53.7
Female
78.9
21.1
37.4
62.6
Have you heard of acid rain?
Male
82.7
17.3
63.2
36.8
Female
77.1
22.9
58.8
41.2
Have you heard of climate change
Male
86.3
13.7
67.6
32.4
Female
78.5
21.5
55.3
44.7

Source: Fieldwork (2019).

Another major question that was asked to stakeholders has to do with causes of environmental problems such as acid rain, ozone layer depletion; global warming and climate change because if this is ascertained, it will be a stepping stone towards discouraging activities that can continuously aggravate the challenge. The result as presented in Table 5 suggested that the percentage of students that were aware of the cause and solution to environmental problems such as global warming, ozone layer depletion, acid rain and climate change were the highest for stakeholders from urban communities; followed by that of public/civil servants and finally traders/businessmen. These findings can be said to have met the prior expectation, given the fact that most of the traders in the state were nonchalant of issue not affecting their businesses directly. The result further revealed that stakeholders that were farmers from the rural communities were the least among the respondents who had limited knowledge on the causes of environmental problems; followed by traders/businessmen and artisans. The study revealed that students were the stakeholders from the rural communities that were more knowledgeable on the causes of environmental problems; followed by those who were public/civil servants. Overall, stakeholders from urban communities had a higher percentage of knowledge on the causes of environmental problems than their rural counterparts.

A look at Table 5 critically, shows that though the proportion of stakeholders that were students and public/civil servants who are knowledgeable on the causes of ozone layer depletion from rural communities were higher than that of traders/businessmen, artisans and farmers but in terms of action plans that should be taken to reduce these environmental problems such as global warming and ozone layer depletion, the proportion of stakeholders that were traders/businessmen, artisans and farmers who are aware of these further reduced. This is an indication that there is need for public awareness creation on the subject matter since our everyday activities contribute to some of these global environmental challenges.

Critical study of the analysis in Table 6 which sought to know the general responses of stakeholders on different actions that can affect the climate as well as the general understanding of the different roles and awareness of climate problems by the five major classified stakeholders in the state revealed that a higher percentage of them from urban settlements consented to the question that the use of chemicals for agriculture, cutting down of tress and bush burning as well as firm emission from vehicles impacts on the climate. However, a lower percentage of stakeholders from the urban communities acclaimed to dispose their waste indiscriminately without recourse to sorting or separation. Also revealed in Table 6 is that a higher percentage of urban stakeholders fell short of switching off their electrical appliances before leaving their apartments.

Table-5. Stakeholders’ responses on the causes of environmental problems.

Source: Fieldwork (2019).

Table-6. General responses of different actions that can affect the climate (yes responses).

Urban Communities
Variable
Do you think that use of chemicals for agriculture affects the environment
Do you think that cutting down trees and bush burning affect the environment
Are you concerned about smoke emitted by vehicles?
Do you separate your waste at source?
Do you know the effects of disposing waste in the drainage channel during rainfall?
Do you switch off your electrical appliances before leaving your apartment?
Yes (%)
No (%)
Yes (%)
No (%)
Yes (%)
No (%)
Yes (%)
No (%)
Yes (%)
No (%)
Yes (%)
No (%)
Farming
80.8
19.2
68.3
31.7
56.4
43.6
48.1
51.9
57.6
42.4
46.5
53.5
Artisans
77.4
22.6
61.6
38.4
51.8
48.2
42.2
57.8
61.5
38.5
41.9
58.1
Traders/business
71.9
28.1
70.8
29.2
53.3
46.7
41.6
58.4
67.3
32.7
43.2
56.8
Public/civil servants
83.6
16.4
84.3
15.7
73.9
26.1
48.3
51.7
86.1
13.9
47.4
52.6
Student
91.2
8.8
92.5
7.5
81.4
18.6
52.5
47.5
91.7
8.3
49.8
50.2
Rural Communities
Variable
Do you think that use of chemicals for agriculture affects the environment
Do you think that cutting down trees and bush burning affect the environment
Are you concerned about smoke emitted by vehicles?
Do you separate your waste at source?
Do you know the effects of disposing waste in the drainage channel during rainfall?
Do you switch off your electrical appliances before leaving your apartment?
Yes (%)
No (%)
Yes (%)
No (%)
Yes (%)
No (%)
Yes (%)
No (%)
Yes (%)
No (%)
Yes (%)
No (%)
Farming
42.6
57.4
38.3
61.7
45.0
55.0
19.3
80.7
34.5
65.5
18.0
82.0
Artisans
45.3
54.7
43.0
57.0
35.1
64.9
25.3
74.7
37.9
62.1
34.2
65.8
Traders/business
43.1
56.9
36.1
63.9
37.8
62.2
28.1
71.9
41.4
58.6
31.7
68.3
Public/civil servants
67.8
32.2
76.5
23.5
60.4
39.6
41.5
58.5
73.0
27.0
43.4
56.6
Student
74.5
25.5
81.9
18.1
73.8
26.2
46.4
53.6
77.2
22.8
46.0
54.0

Source: Fieldwork (2019).

Table 6 further revealed that more than 50% of stakeholders that were traders/businessmen, artisans and farmers in the rural communities were deficient in knowledge that the use of chemicals for agriculture, cutting down of trees and bush burning impacts on the environment; and equally were not concerned about the smoke/firms emitted by their vehicles and other automobiles. A higher proportion of these same stakeholders do not separate their waste at source neither do they switch off their electrical appliances before leaving their apartments. Also more than 50% of stakeholders from the rural communities that were students and public/civil servants interviewed, do not separate their waste at source before final disposal nor switch off their electrical appliances before leaving their various apartments.

Similarly, results presented in Table 7 below which analyses the general understanding of the different roles and awareness level of climate problems by stakeholders from both urban and rural communities, suggested that only stakeholders who were students and public/civil servants from urban scored over 80% for responses which confirmed that they have a role to play in resolving the environmental problems; and also believing that environmental awareness is necessary. Although, responses of stakeholders from the sampled rural communities who believed that they have a role to play in resolving environmental problems revealed students’ as the only stakeholders to score over 80%; followed by public/civil servants (76.8%), artisans (63.1%), trades/businessmen (58.4%) and farmers (57.3%). Overall, stakeholders from the rural communities consented that environmental awareness is necessary with all scoring above 50%.

Table-7. General understanding of their different roles and awareness of climate problems.

Urban communities
Rural communities
Occupation
Do you think you have role to play in environmental problems?
Do you think that environmental awareness is necessary?
Occupation
Do you think you have role to play in environmental problems?
Do you think that environmental awareness is necessary?
YES (%)
NO (%)
YES (%)
NO (%)
YES (%)
NO (%)
YES (%)
NO (%)
Farming
71.6
28.4
68.5
31.5
Farming
57.3
42.7
52.0
48.0
Artisans
67.9
32.1
73.2
26.8
Artisans
63.1
36.9
50.4
49.6
Traders/business
72.3
27.7
80.5
19.5
Traders/
business
58.4
41.6
65.9
34.1
Public/civil servants
85.8
14.2
92.1
7.9
Public/civil servants
76.8
23.2
71.3
28.7
Student
94.1
5.9
96.0
4.0
Student
80.5
19.5
77.3
22.7

Source: Fieldwork (2019).

Table-8. Environmental attitude of the respondents.

Questions
Options
Urban
Communities
(%)
Rural
Communities (%)
How do you normally deal with wastewater, such as washing waster etc.?
splashed somewhere conveniently
69.2
87.6
Sewage pipes (no treatment)
28.3
11.7
Sewage pipes (with treatment)
2.4
0.7
How do you normally deal with domestic garbage?
Dispose off conveniently without recourse to the environment
72.4
88.2
Dispose in garbage can
9.2
3.7
Disposed after sorted
1.1
0
Other ways
17.3
8.1
How do you normally deal with human & animal wastes?
Use as fertilizer
6.8
28.7
Dispose on an close water body
35.4
16.5
Throw in garbage bin
4.6
2.1
Pay someone to clean up
19.3
0.4
Centralized treatment
0.8
0
No treatment (just dispose off in any close by)
33.1
52.3

Source: Fieldwork (2019).

Environmental attitude includes individual attitude towards the environment in everyday life, and is measured by the participation attitude exhibited by stakeholders in the field of environmental protection and oversight. Among these, the attitude of stakeholders residing in the communities on daily bases is commonly deemed to be the most important feature. An analysis of responses on environmental attitude of stakeholders revealed that stakeholders from urban communities terms to be more cautious in mismanaging the environment than their rural counterparts. This is revealed in Table 8 as 69.2% of urban dwellers against 87.6% of rural communities’ term to splash their wastewater somewhere convenient for them, 28.3% against 11.7% make use of sewage pipe with no treatment and 2.4% against 0.7% uses sewage pipes with treatment. Further revealed in Table 8 is how both stakeholders normally manage their domestic garbage. The result shows that 72.4% of stakeholders from urban communities against 88.2% of their rural counterparts dispose off their domestic garbage conveniently without recourse to the environment; 9.2% against 3.7% dispose in garbage can, 17.3% against 8.1% uses other methods to dispose their waste. Finally, analysis on how they manage human and animal wastes revealed that 28.7% of the rural stakeholders against 6.8% of urban stakeholders make use of the waste as fertilizer for farming, 16.5% against 35.4% dispose on any close water body, 2.1% against 4.6% throw in garbage bin, 0.4% against 19.3% pays someone to clean up, 52.3% of rural stakeholder against 33.1% of urban just dispose off in any close by without recourse to treatment.       

Table-9. Behaviour of respondents toward environmental improvement.

Questions
Options
Urban communities (%)
Rural communities (%)
Who do you think should bear the responsibility to improve the environment?
No need to improve
1.9
6.1
Improve by government
55.3
76.5
Improve by individuals & society
42.8
17.4
What do you think of government’s policy on measures to protect the environment?
I oppose this measures
1.4
16.7
I do not care about it
0.6
33.5
Comply with government directions
42.3
22.9
I support these measures
24.1
12.3
I strongly support these measures
31.6
14.6
Would you consent to make payment to implement some measures for environmental protection?
Unwilling to pay
4.3
19.4
follow general trend (other advice)
18.3
38.2
Comply with the direction made by local government
49.6
33.8
willing to pay
27.8
8.6

Source: Fieldwork (2019).

The behaviour of stakeholders toward environmental improvement includes respondents’ responsibility to improve the environment, willingness to pay for environmental protection and a cultured attitude toward environmental protection measures. Table 9 revealed that stakeholders from the urban communities had a relatively positive behaviour toward environmental improvement compared with their rural counterparts. On the spot assessment and interview revealed that the main reason was that stakeholders from the urban settlements were more exposed to modern technology and informed than their rural counterparts. For instant, their responses to the question on if they will consent to make payment to implement some measures for environmental protection revealed that 49.6% of stakeholders from urban dwelling consented to comply with the directives made by their local government when compared to 33.8% of their rural counterparts. Also, 27.8% of urban stakeholders showed willingness to pay whereas only 8.6% of the rural stakeholders were willing to pay. With particular emphasis on the issue of who should bear the responsibility of improving the environment, 76.5% of the rural stakeholders against 55.3% of the urban stakeholder claimed that it is the sole responsibility of government to improve the environment; 17.4% against 42.8% of urban stakeholders consented that individuals and society should improve the environment and 6.1% of rural stakeholders against 1.9% of urban confirmed that there was no need to improve the environment Table 9. Similarly, stakeholders whose thought that it would be wise to oppose government policy on measures to protect the environment accounted for 16.7% for rural stakeholders to 1.4% for urban stakeholders. 33.5% of rural stakeholders against 0.6% of stakeholders from urban dwellings do not care of complying with the policies.

3. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study attempt to evaluate the level of awareness that have been created in Delta state among stakeholders on environmental problems. Findings from the study have revealed that by and large, there is a very low awareness level on the environmental challenges assessed across the state with emphases on the responses of stakeholders that resides within the urban and rural settlements in the state which call for more awareness creation. Also, the study revealed that majority of the stakeholders in the rural settlements of the state are still not aware of the effects of chemical usage for agriculture; falling down of trees and bush burning; firms emitted by vehicles and automobiles; separation of waste at source; disposing waste in the drainage channel during rainfall as well as switching off electrical appliances before leaving one’s apartment. There is need for aggressive environmental awareness campaign in the state in order to make headway in her fight for environmental sustainability. It should also be stressed that different stakeholders including the government and the governed have their various roles to play in maintaining a stable environment. Therefore, this study recommends that given the current level of environmental degradation experienced on a daily base in Nigeria and limited awareness level of stakeholders on environmental issues, government at various levels should through wider publicity in the ministries of environment and education intensify the campaign on environmental education in order to develop a reasonable level of stakeholders knowledge base on environmental problems.

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.  

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.

REFERENCES

[1]          G. L. David, J. Kennedy, and C. McKeiver, "An empirical study of environmental awareness and practices in SMEs," Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 84, pp. 45-63, 2009.

[2]          A. C. Okoye and U. Amakom, "Assessment of the level of environmental awareness among stakeholders in Anambra state, Nigeria," Journal of Geography, Meteorology and Environment, vol. 2, pp. 33-40, 2017.

[3]          F. Shao, Y. Wang, and H. Wang, "Investment on environmental awareness of college students in Jinan," Journal of Environmental Science and Management, vol. 359, pp. 152-157, 2010.

[4]          X. Liu, A. Vedlitz, and L. Shi, "Examining the determinants of public environmental concern: Evidence from national public surveys," Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 39, pp. 77-94, 2014. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.02.006.

[5]          C. Vlek and L. Steg, "Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems, driving forces, and research topics," Journal of Social Issues, vol. 63, pp. 1-19, 2007. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00493.x.

[6]          M. Bodur and E. Sarigöllü, "Environmental sensitivity in a developing country: Consumer classification and implications," Environment and Behavior, vol. 37, pp. 487-510, 2005. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504269666.

[7]          A. Benavot, "A critical analysis of comparative research," Prospects, vol. 32, pp. 51-73, 2002.

[8]          A. M. Khataybeh, M. Subbarini, and S. Shurman, "Education for sustainable development, an international perspective," Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 599-603, 2010.

[9]          A. E. J. Wals and G. Kieft, Education for sustainable development: Research overview. Stockholm: SIDA, 2010.

[10]        N. D. Yildiz, H. Yilmaz, M. Demir, and S. Toy, "Effects of personal characteristics on environmental awareness; A questionnaire survey with university campus people in a developing country, Turkey," Scientific Research and Essays, vol. 6, pp. 332-340, 2011.

[11]        K. Skamp, E. Boyes, and M. Stannistreet, "Global warming responses at the primary secondary interface 1. students' beliefs and willingness to act," Australian Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 25, pp. 15-30, 2009. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0814062600000379.

[12]        A. Kilinc, M. Stanisstreet, and E. Boyes, "Turkish students' Ideas about gobal warming," International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 3, pp. 89-98, 2008.

[13]        V. Koulaidis and V. Christidou, "Models of students' thinking concerning the greenhouse effect and teaching implications," Science Education, vol. 83, pp. 559-576, 1999. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(199909)83:5<559::aid-sce4>3.0.co;2-e.

[14]        E. Boyes and M. Stanisstreet, "Children's models of understanding of two major global environmental issues (ozone layer and greenhouse effect)," Research in Science & Technological Education, vol. 15, pp. 19-28, 1997. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514970150102.

[15]        E. Alerby, "A way of visualising children's and young people's thoughts about the environment: A study of drawings," Environmental Education Research, vol. 6, pp. 205-222, 2000. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620050076713.

[16]        A. H. Choker, "Major factors contributing to environmental awareness among people in a third world country/Jordan," Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 12, pp. 135-145, 1988.

[17]        M. Inyang, "Health and safety risks amongst the municipal solid waste collectors in Port Harcourt Metropolis of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria," in International Conference -Waste Management, Environmental Geotechnology and Global Sustainable Development (Icwmeggsd’07-Gzo’07) Ljubljana, Slovenia, August 28-30, 2007, 2007.

[18]        G. C. C. Ndinwa and S. Akpafun, "Environmental impacts of oil exploration and exploitation in Niger Delta region of Nigeria," in In Five decades of oil production in Nigeria Edited A. S. Akpotor, S.H. Egboh, A. I. Ohwona, C. O. Orubu, S. B. Olabaniyi and R. O. Oloma, 2012, pp. 333-360.

[19]        NBS, "Nigerian population census results." National Bureau of Statistics, Annual Abstract of Statistics. Federal Republic of Nigeria, pp. 33, 2011

[20]        L. T. Milfont, "A functional approach to the study of environmental attitudes," Medio Ambiente Comportamiento Humano, vol. 10, pp. 235-252, 2009.

[21]        T. L. Milfont and J. Duckitt, "The structure of environmental attitudes: A first-and second-order confirmatory factor analysis," Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 289-303, 2004. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.09.001.

[22]        S. Sullivan, D. Erickson, and R. K. D. Young, "Environmental awareness, economic orientation, and farming practices: A comparison of organic and conventional farmers," Environmental Management, vol. 21, pp. 747-748, 1997. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900064.

[23]        G. Yan, J. Kang, G. Wang, H. Lin, J. Zhu, C. Liu, W. Sun, Y. Li, and T. Jin, "Change trend of public environmental awareness in Shanghai (2007 to 2011)," Energy Procedia, vol. 16, pp. 715-721, 2012. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.01.116.

[24]        N. S. Mei, C. W. Wai, and R. Ahamad, "Environmental awareness and behaviour index for Malaysia," Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 222, pp. 668-675, 2016. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.223.

[25]        T. A. Arcury and E. H. Christianson, "Environmental worldview in response to environmental problems: Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared," Environment and Behavior, vol. 22, pp. 387-407, 1990. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916590223004.

[26]        D. Mckenzie-Mohr, "New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing," Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, pp. 543-554, 2000. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00183.

[27]        S. A. Abdul-Wahab and J. Abdo, "The effects of demographic factors on the environmental awareness of Omani citizens," Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, vol. 16, pp. 380-401, 2010. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10807031003670410.

[28]        C. A. Ogunbode and K. Arnold, "A study of environmental awareness and attitudes in Ibadan, Nigeria," Human and ecological risk assessment: An International Journal, vol. 18, pp. 669-684, 2012. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2012.672901.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of Climate Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.