artikel die gebruik en doeltreffendheid van ontwikkelingsbeheermaatreëls in die aanspreek van vloedprobleme in Suleja, Nigerië. By die uitvoering van Published by the UFS hierdie studie is geboue wat kwesbaar is http://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/at vir oorstroming geïdentifiseer, en faktore © Creative Commons With Attribution (CC-BY) How to cite: Adeleye, B. Popoola, A. Sanni, L. Zitta, N. & Ayangbile, O. 2019. Poor development control wat hul kwesbaarheid beïnvloed, sowel as flood vulnerability factor in Suleja, Nigeria. Town and Regional planning, no.74, pp. 23-35. as die implikasies van nie-nakoming van ontwikkelingsbeheermaatreëls is Poor development control as flood vulnerability ook bepaal. As deel van hierdie studie is altesaam 278 vraelyste aan volwasse factor in Suleja, Nigeria inwoners van die studiegebied versprei deur gebruik te maak van meervoudige Bamiji Adeleye, Ayobami Popoola, Lekan Sanni, Nanpon Zitta & monsternemingstegnieke. ’n Vinnige voël agtige beeld van ’n resolusie van 15 meter Oluwabukola Ayangbile is gebruik om die geboue in die gebied wat kwesbaar is vir oorstromings, te identifiseer en uit te kaart, met ’n 15-meter DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2415-0495/trp74i1.3 terugslag van dierivieroewers. Die studie Revised March 2019, Published 30 June 2019 toon dat 799 geboue teenstrydig is met bou-ontwikkelingsstandaarde en *The authors declared no conflict of interest for this title or article. -regulasies in Suleja, terwyl onoordeel kundige vaste afvalmetodes sterk faktore is wat die kwesbaarheid van oorstromings Abstract in die gebied beïnvloed. Die studie het Like many developing countries over the decade, Nigeria has experienced rapid ook onthul dat 47% van die dreinering in urbanization associated with numerous problems such as, among others, improper Suleja met onoordeelkundig beskikbare waste management practices, building development regulations and standards vaste afvalstowwe geblokkeer word. Die contraventions, environmental pollution, overcrowding, and flooding. In light of the studie beveel aan dat ’n verbeterde vaste foregoing, this article examines the use and effectiveness of development control afvalbestuurstelsel vir Suleja die uitbreek measures in addressing flood vulnerability in Suleja, Nigeria. In carrying out this van siektes wat met swak omgewings study, buildings vulnerable to flooding were identified and factors influencing their bestuur geassosieer word, sal stuit en dat vulnerability as well as the implications of non-adherence to development control die ontwikkelingsbeheermaatreëls streng measures were also determined. As part of this study, a total of 278 questionnaires deur die Nigerse Stedelike Ontwikkelings were administered to adult residents of the study area, using multi-stage sampling raad toegepas moet word. techniques. A quick bird’s eye image of 15-meter resolution was used to identify and map out the buildings in the area considered vulnerable to flooding, using a Sleutelwoorde: Boustandaarde, kwes 15-meter setback from the river banks. The study reveals that 799 buildings were baarheid, ontwikkelingsbeheer, vaste built in contravention of building development standards and regulations in Suleja, afval, vloed while indiscriminate solid waste disposal methods were found to be strong factors influencing vulnerability to flooding in the area. The study also revealed that 47% of TAOLO YA BOEMO BO TLASE drainages in Suleja are blocked with indiscriminately disposed solid waste materials. YA NTSHETSOPELE JWALO The study recommends that an improved solid waste management system for Suleja be put in place to stem the imminent outbreak of diseases associated with KA NTLHA YA KGONAHALO poor environmental management and that development control measures be strictly E BOBEBE YA DIKGOHOLA enforced by the Niger State Urban Development Board. SULEJA, NIGERIA Keywords: Building standards, development control, flood, solid waste, vulnerability Jwalo ka dinaheng tse ngata tse tlasa ntshetsopele dilemong tse fetang tse leshome, Nigeria e bile le kgolo e SWAK ONTWIKKELINGSBEHEERMAATREËLS AS FAKTOR VIR potlakileng, e amahantsweng le mathata a VLOEDPROBLEME IN SULEJA, NIGERIË mmalwa; jwalo ka mekgwa ya taolo e seng Soos baie ontwikkelende lande, ervaar Nigerië vinnige verstedeliking wat verband hantle ya dithwele, ditlolo tsa melawana hou met baie probleme soos, onder andere, onbehoorlike afvalbestuurspraktyke, le dipehelo tsa ntshetsopele ya moaho, bou-ontwikkelingsregulasies en standaarde-oortredings, omgewingsbesoedeling, tshilafatso ya tikoloho, bongata bo boholo oorbevolking en oorstromings. In die lig van die voorafgaande, ondersoek hierdie ba batho le dikgohola. Ka lebaka la tse
Mr Bamiji Michael (B.M.) Adeleye, Lecturer II, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Federal University of Technology, Minna, P.M.B. 65 Minna, Niger State. Phone: +2348053131261, e-mail:
SSB/TRP/MDM 2019 (74):23-35 | ISSN 1012-280 | e-ISSN 2415-0495
23 SSB/TRP/MDM 2019 (74) qetang ho bolelwa, atikele ena e hlahoba Okorie, 2015; Junaid, 2017). Of development control measures in tshebediso le katleho ya mekgwa ya taolo these problems, the incidence of tackling impending flood disasters. ya ntshetsopele bakeng sa ho tobana flooding has become perennial The limited studies on the application le kgonahalo e bobebe ya dikgohola in many cities in the developing of development control measures in Suleja, Nigeria. Ho ntshetsa thuto ena pele, meaho e ka angwang ha bobebe countries where several lives and addressing disasters have enmeshed ke dikgohola e ile ya qoollwa le dintlha property worth several millions of US urban planners and policymakers tse nang le kgahlamelo kamehong ya Dollars are lost annually in addition in a difficult situation in finding a tsona e bobebe, hammoho le ditlamorao to the dislocation of several socio- lasting solution to the problems tsa ho se ikamahanye le ho se hlomphe economic activities (Nelson, 2001; emanating from the incessant flood mekgwa ya taolo ya ntshetsopele; di ile ActionAid, 2006; UN-Water, 2011). experienced in the urban centres tsa bewa. Jwalo ka karolo ya thuto ena, in Nigeria. It is against the foregoing manane a dipotso a 278 ka kakaretso In Nigeria, many of the state capitals a ile a fuwa baahi ba seng ba hodile and cities are perennially dealing that this study seeks to examine karolong eo ya thuto, ho sebediswa with many of these problems, development control as a strategy mekgwa ya sampole e nang le dikarolo particularly the menace of poor for addressing or preventing urban tse ngata (multi sampling techniques). waste management practices flooding in Suleja, Nigeria. Among Senepe se nkuweng ka potlako ke and flooding (Potschin, 2009; others, the study examined the motho ya leng hodimo dikilomitareng Satterthwaite, Huq, Pelling, Reid & pattern of building development, tse 15 se sebedisitswe jwalo ka tharollo particularly along the floodplains ho bontsha le ho qoolla meaho e ka Romero Lankao, 2007), problems angwang habebe ke dikgohola sebakeng that seemed to have defiled many in the city, the level of compliance seo, ho sebediswa kgoreletso (setback) of the solutions adopted over the with building codes and regulations ya dimetara tse 15 ho tloha mabopong a years (Nkwunonwo, 2016). Although in building development, and other noka. Thuto ena e hlahisa hore meaho urban flooding in Nigeria has been environment-related factors that are e 799 e ne e ahilwe kgahlanong le attributed to several causal factors, responsible for flooding in Suleja. melawana ya maemo a ntshetsopele Suleja, ka nako yona eo mekgwa ya ho including climate change-induced phutha matlakala ntle le ho a kgetha, e heavy rainfall, indiscriminate waste 2. LITERATURE REVIEW fumanwe e le mabaka a maholo a nang dumping and erection of structures le kgahlamelo bakeng sa kgonahalo e along floodplains are increasingly In order to understand the implication bobebe ya dikgohola sebakeng seo. being cited as bigger challenges of development control in Suleja, Thuto ena e utollotse hore 47% ya diforo (Satterthwaite et al., 2007; Nigeria, it is important to introduce Suleja e thibilwe ke disebediswa tsa Potschin, 2009; Odufuwa, Adedeji, the current theory on urban flooding matlaka a thata a lahlilweng. Thuto ena e included in this study. The existing eletsa hore mokgwa o ntlafaditsweng wa Oladesu & Bongwa, 2012; theory focuses on development taolo ya matlakala a thata e sebediswe Agbonkhese, O., Agbonkhese, bakeng sa Suleja ho thiba ho qhoma ho ka E.G, Aka, Joe-Abaya, Ocholi control; urban resilience to floods; etsahalang hwa mafu a amahanngwang & Adekunle, 2014). flooding and flood vulnerability; poor le taolo ya maemo a tlase ya tikoloho le development control measures, hore mekgwa ya taolo ya ntshetsopele e In July 2017, Suleja, an urban and urban flood vulnerability. etsahatswe ka thata ke Niger State Urban settlement bordering Abuja, Development Board. Nigeria’s federal capital city, was 2.1 Development control wrecked by a devastating flood which killed 18 persons, destroyed Development control, in the context 1. INTRODUCTION of urban planning, is the process properties, and left residents of implementing building and The alarming pace of rapid homeless (Opara, 2017: online). land subdivision regulations and urbanization experienced in many Some building experts and urban specifications to regulate land use developing countries, including planners contended that the perennial and physical development of land Nigeria, is often accompanied by flooding experienced in Suleja numerous challenges (Olotuah (Yemi, 2004). Development control was man-made and can directly & Adesiji, 2005; Adetunji & in this regard is a professional be linked to the poor application of Oyeleye, 2013; Lekwot, Kyom & activity carried out by town planners, development control measures in Balasom, 2013: 48; Oyeleye, 2013), planning authorities and physical the settlement (Bwala, Oladosu & especially in cities with less planning agencies in order to ensure Nghalmi, 2016; Onwubiko, 2017). regard for urban planning. These compliance with the approved challenges include severe housing Various studies (Obabori, master plan (Ola, 2011: 169). shortages and proliferation of Obiuwevbi & Olomu, 2007; Aluko, It is viewed as a mechanism and improperly constructed housing 2011; Ogundele, Ayo,Odewumi & measure put in place to maintain structures and informal settlements, Aigbe, 2011; Lekwot et al., 2013) standards and to guide orderly urban poor environmental management have been carried out on development (Lekwot et al., 2013: 49; and sanitation practices, dearth development control, with emphasis Ahmed & Dinye, 2011: 210; of critical infrastructures, rising on building contravention, building Obabori et al., 2007). Development crime rates, and flooding (Kadi, codes, building standard, and zoning, control affects the general public Halingali & Ravishankar, 2012; thus neglecting the application of most, as it ensures an orderly
24 Bamiji Adeleye et al. • Poor development control as flood vulnerability factor in Suleja, Nigeria growth of settlements by stipulating the capacity of the city to tolerate new resilience system (Liao, 2012). adequate standards for all aspects flooding and to reorganize, should Once the theory of urban resilience of land use through the provision of physical damage and socio- is understood, the concept of adequate lighting, ventilation, open economic disruption occur, so awareness, detection and avoidance spaces, and other sociocultural as to prevent deaths and injuries would help sensitize the populace on facilities that make life worth living and maintain the current socio- the need to discourage building along (Ogunsesan, 2004: 51). Development economic identity (Adger, 2000: waterways and indiscriminate solid control positively encourages 347; Gunderson, 2010: 18; Meerow, waste disposals, most especially developers to focus on the protection Newell & Stults, 2016: 38). Urban in drainages in the study area. and enhancement of the built resilience to floods is measured by a environment; the coordination of both city’s physical ability to accommodate 2.3 Flooding and flood public and private investments in – not resist – flooding (Walker & vulnerability land and property to ensure that land Westley, 2011: 4; Liao, 2012: 48). Flooding has been defined in a is efficiently used, and the control This means that a city takes the variety of ways depending on the of pollution (Lekwot et al., 2013: 50; necessary precautions to prevent causal factors, type, magnitude and Ogunsesan, 2004: 50). flooding, but also adapts land use to place of occurrence. It is, however, suffer less in case of a flood disaster generally described as an unusual The 1917 Township Ordinance, 1928 (Woltjer & Van den Brink, 2015: 45). stage or rise of water in a stream Lagos Town Planning Ordinance, According to Liao (2012: 48), channel, resulting in the stream Nigeria Town and Country Planning these precautions form the key overflowing its banks (Odunuga, Act of 1946, and the 1954 Federal properties of urban resilience to Constitution were all intended floods and include, among others, Oyebande & Omojola, 2012). It is to maintain spatial orderliness the localized flood-response capacity the inundation of an area, not usually and sanitation in urban land-use of cities; timely adjustments after covered by water, with a large flow activities (Kio-Lawson, Duru, John every flood, and the redundancy in of water as a result of a temporary & Eebee, 2016: 148). To ensure a subsystems, which means that the rise in stream, river, lake, or sea more effective measure to control flood-response capacity would be level (Agbonkhese et al., 2014). development, the 1992 Nigerian distributed across the levels (i.e., When large pools of water overrun Urban and Regional Planning individuals, communities, and the streets and neighbourhoods in an Decree was established, in which municipality) such that when the urban area, usually as a result of 47 sections confer power on the capacity of one level is overwhelmed, heavy rainfall, it is described as federal, state and local government the city can still count on the others urban flooding. Urban flooding is also council to establish planning (Walker, Holling, Carpenter & described as a condition in which authorities and prepare a physical Kinzig, 2004: 5; Adger, 2006: 347; urban drainage channels overflow development planning scheme at Davoudi, 2012: 203). into the streets and surrounding each level (FGN, 1992; Omole, 2012; areas and homes, usually as a result Kio-Lawson et al., 2016: 148). The application of the urban of severe rainfall over a short period Following this, the state and local resilience theory to this study would of time (Odunuga et al., 2012). In council established several planning help the populace and stakeholders many respects, urban flooding is in being proactive in the area of authorities in different states to viewed as hazardous and sometimes preparing strategic operational regulate physical development. disastrous, as it destroys housing plans and programmes that address Despite the existence of these structures, damages drainage retrofitting the built environment physical planning agencies, the channels, causes disruption of and adding redundancy, diversity, majority of the Nigerian cities, social and economic activities, and and flexibility into every subsystem. including Suleja, still show sometimes results in the deaths of This means that open spaces can evidence of environmental decay, some residents of affected areas convey and store floodwater during incompatible physical development, (ActionAid, 2006; Gwary, 2008). wet seasons (Douglas, Kobold, increasing status of slums, and Many urban residents in many cities Lawson, Pasche & White, 2007: 29); flooding in some cities in the country across the world, particularly in buildings can be remodelled to be (Kio-Lawson et al., 2016: 148). the developing countries, are not elevated, floatable, or wet-proofed only vulnerable to flooding but also (Guikema, 2009: 1302), and 2.2 Urban resilience to floods have been victims. When flooding infrastructure can be redesigned occurs in the city, it results in the The theory of urban resilience was into a collection of diverse functional disruption of the normal functioning first used by Crawford Holling in elements that are flexible in operation of socio-economic activities, 1973 to define the resilience of an (Liao, 2012). The immediate pollution and sanitary challenges, ecosystem as the measure of its real-world challenge is that urban among others (Chen, 2004). ability to absorb changes and still resilience towards floods is always persist (McAslan, 2010). Urban a work in progress and requires the Most of the victims of urban flooding resilience to floods is defined as capacity to create a fundamentally in the developing countries are the
25 SSB/TRP/MDM 2019 (74) poor and marginalized, particularly whatever form is dependent on and civil engineering structures, those living on marginal land, the existence and exposure to and public infrastructures (United floodplains or improperly planned and some form of risk or harm as a Nations International Strategy developed neighbourhoods (Blaikie, consequence of some external shock for Disaster Reduction, 2015: Cannon, Davis & Wisner, 1994; (Muller, Reiter & Weiland, 2017). online). It is, therefore, essential Odufuwa et al., 2012). While many to emphasize that no proper or With regard to flooding, vulnerability may be vulnerable, some, especially effective flood control measures can is described as resulting from the those residing in better planned be emplaced without first identifying social and physical conditions that and developed neighbourhoods of elements that are vulnerable and make parts of an urban system the cities, are usually not affected, the causes of their vulnerability. particularly where the flooding susceptible to experience damage from an after-flood event (modified is described as a flash flood. 2.4 Poor development control by Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon & Pelling (1997) viewed vulnerability measures and urban flood Davis, 2004; Muller et al., 2017). as a concept that is a function vulnerability of exposure to some identifiable This implies that particular risks (location relative to hazard). neighbourhoods of the cities, by their Many cities in the developing Varieties of vulnerability have been physical and social circumstances countries are vulnerable to flooding, identified and include individual, (exposure factors), are vulnerable due to poor development control social, economic, ecological and to flooding. In many instances measures that result in unguided urban, among others (Luers, Lobell, of urban flooding, the elements physical planning, and neglect or Sklar, Addams & Matson, 2003; commonly at risk are usually the poor observance of planning laws Adger, 2006: 269). The common poorest segment of the population, and land-use regulations as part of baseline is that vulnerability of improperly or poorly built housing the larger ineffective urban planning
Figure 1: Administrative map of Nigeria highlighting the study area Source: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Federal University of Technology, Minna, 2015
26 Bamiji Adeleye et al. • Poor development control as flood vulnerability factor in Suleja, Nigeria structure. A sizeable number of African between latitudes 9º6’13.8’’ and (Bwala et al., 2015). Contrary to countries have recorded a long 9º17’49.35’’ north of the Equator and this claim, urban planners were of repetitious list of failures in efforts at longitude 7º6’58.6’ and 7º12’18.41’ the view that the perennial flooding regulating urban space because of east of Greenwich Meridian. Suleja experienced in Suleja, as in many the ineffectiveness of development Local Government Area has a other urban centres in Nigeria, was control measures (Mabogunje, 1990 population of 216 578 with 10 political man-made and can be linked to the in Goodfellow, 2013). In Nigeria, wards (NPC, 2006). The strategic deficiencies in the implementation constant political interference, the location of Suleja has had the most and enforcement of the 1992 Nigeria lack of political will by the government profound effect on its development Urban and Regional Planning Law in enforcing planning laws, the and its potential growth in the (Onwubiko, 2017), which copiously entrenched corrupt practices among near future. It is a rapidly growing made provisions for development urban planning officials, especially medium-sized city whose growth control. It is further contended that, site inspectors, poor working was in part attributed to its closeness where the various development environment, and the absence to Abuja, the nation’s capital city, control instruments are effectively of relevant facilities have failed with a distance of approximately deployed such that building codes the physical development control 70 kilometres (see Figure 1). and regulations are strictly enforced measures and system (Aluko, 2011). and unwholesome physical As one of the closest urban developments are prevented as a According to Goodfellow (2013), the settlements bordering Abuja, Suleja result, the incidence of flooding as weaknesses of, and the laxity in the has provided residency to many of experienced perennially in Suleja implementation of development control the low-income workers and informal could have been prevented. measures have led to problems such sector employees who work in Abuja, as rapid urbanisation, uncontrolled but could not afford the exorbitant Part Two, subsection 31(a) of urban growth, unregulated informal rent of housing charged in almost all the 1992 Nigerian Urban and settlements on the low-lying floodplain parts of the city. As a result, Suleja Regional Planning Law (FGN, 1992) areas, littering of the environment has become some kind of sanctuary recommended that development with uncollected solid waste, and poor to this large number of low-income should be rejected if not in maintenance of drainage. Together groups and has continuously accordance with an approved plan, with incessant flooding experienced witnessed massive inward population while Part Two, subsection 31(e) in various cities in Nigeria, these movement and expansion over the stipulated that any building that are major contributors to urban past couple of decades. The desire constitutes a nuisance to the flood vulnerability (Douglas, Alam, to meet the shelter needs of this inhabitants of the community or Maghenda, Mcdonnell, McLean & group of people, among other factors, contains such additional facilities Campbell, 2008: 187; Eguaroje, has led to the development of all that are not in the estimation of Alaga, Ogbole, Omolere, Alwadood, forms of housing structures and the physical development plan Kolawole et al., 2015: 149). sometimes on marginal lands, many for the community should not be of which are built without due regard approved by the planning authorities. To mitigate the incidence of flooding to extant building development Section 61(1) also states that the and urban flood vulnerability, Nigerian regulations and standards in the development control department cities should employ flood-risk country (UN-Habitat, 2003). shall have the power to serve a vulnerability assessments (Salami, ‘demolition notice’ on a developer, if von Meding & Giggins, 2017: 370). In July 2017, Suleja was wrecked a structure erected by the developer According to Marrickville Council by a devastating flood, in which is found to be defective as to pose (2015) and Ashfield Council (2015), 18 persons were killed and properties danger or constitute a nuisance the primary method of flood-risk worth several millions of Naira were to the complainer and the public. vulnerability assessment is through destroyed. Several hundred other These provisions indicate that, the application of development residents were rendered homeless when development control tools control measures. Using this by the devastating flood which was are strictly enforced by planning application will help minimise attributed in part to the blockage authorities, buildings will not be damage to properties and risk of drainages by solid waste and erected on marginal land portions to life, and ensure that existing the erection of buildings along or sites along waterways. flood-prone areas would not be waterways (Warami, 2017). Several adversely affected by vulnerability building experts contended that the 4. RESEARCH to flooding (Marrickville Council, obstructions of drainage channels METHODOLOGY 2015; Bwala et al., 2016). by solid waste will always keep the floodplain soil saturated with The study used a mixed methods water and buildings erected along design, in which qualitative and 3. STUDY AREA these channels would, therefore, quantitative data are collected in Suleja Local Government Area in become vulnerable to flooding at parallel, analysed separately, and Niger State, Nigeria (Figure 1), lies the slightest rise in water-flow rates then merged (Creswell, 2014). In
27 SSB/TRP/MDM 2019 (74) this study, official documents from the selection of sample size is that flood vulnerability used in the survey planning authorities on development the smaller the population, the bigger were extracted from reviews of the control standards/measures as well the sampling ratio has to be for an literature. In the survey, respondents as development permits were used accurate sample. Neuman (1991) is were asked to indicate their choice of to examine the non-adherence of of the opinion that a larger population factors influencing flood vulnerability development control measures in size allows for a smaller sample size and the factors influencing the Suleja. Satellite imagery was used ratio for equal sampling. In selecting non-adherence of development to examine flood vulnerability of the the sample, a multi-stage sampling control measures in Suleja as well buildings and those that contravened technique was adopted such that as the effects of non-adherence to development control measures. each member of the population had development control measure by A field study was conducted in all the an equal chance of being sampled. means of the check-box method. 10 political wards in Suleja. In the For the purpose of sampling, the A breakdown of official documents course of the field study, photographs study area was first alienated into on development control standards/ were taken and ground “truthing” 10 geographical entities, based on measures as well as development of the features that appeared the 10 political wards in the study permits were used to examine the vague on the satellite imagery were area (see Table 1), followed by the reconciled with the actual features non-adherence of development neighbourhood delineation of the control measures in Suleja. Official on the ground. The questionnaire political wards. From this, 44 non- survey explored factors influencing documents on development control overlapping neighbourhoods were standards/measures, particularly flood vulnerability and the factors identified and the major streets in influencing the non-adherence of those relating to setbacks for rivers the neighbourhoods were identified and canals, were obtained from the development control measures as at the third stage. The final stage well as the effects of non-adherence planning permit platform of Nigeria. of the sampling process was the Documents relating to application to development control measure random selection of 0.1% of the from residents in Suleja. The reason and issuance of development residents (many of whom were for collecting both quantitative and permits were obtained from the adults) from the classified wards qualitative data is to elaborate on Niger State Urban Development with all neighbourhood streets specific findings from the breakdown Board (NSUDB), Suleja Zonal represented in the sample. of the official documents such as Office. The information extracted similar factors influencing flood from the documents included 4.2 Data collection vulnerability suggested from general information on building respondents (Creswell, 2014; Using open data kits (ODK), plans, the physical development Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2007). a questionnaire survey was master plan, and non-compliance administered to 278 selected of development control measures. 4.1 Sample size and sampling residents from 10 wards in Suleja, To determine the buildings procedure Nigeria, from 25 September to vulnerable to flooding and those that 7 October 2017. ODK allows A sample size of 278 from the contravened development control the collection of data offline and total number of projected 273 735 measures, high resolution satellite residents representing 0.1% was submit the data, when internet images (“quick bird”) of 15-meter selected for the questionnaire survey. connectivity is available (Hartung, resolution were acquired by means One of the basic principles guiding Lerer, Anokwa, Tseng, Brunette & of the “terra incognita” application, Borriello, 2010: article 18). Topics on a program for downloading web source maps or local files maps for Table 1: Sample frame and sample size various programs or GPS devices S/N Wards No. of No. of streets Sample frame Sample size (Sourceforge, 2019: online). neighbourhoods (0.1%) 1 Bagama “A” 5 27 26 602 27 4.3 Data analysis 2 Bagama “B” 4 25 24 710 25 Responses on flood vulnerability 3 Magajiya 4 26 25 780 26 gathered through the open data kits 4 Iku South I 5 30 30 181 30 were downloaded in Microsoft Excel® 5 Iku South II 5 32 31 757 32 (Microsoft Office® suite 2007), 6 Hashimi A 3 24 23 709 24 and these data were imported into 7 Hashimi B 4 29 28 892 29 JASP 0.8.0.0 software. Responses 8 KurminSarki 5 31 27 036 27 were tabulated and descriptive 9 Maje 4 27 28 601 27 statistics was used to analyse the 10 Wambai 5 27 31 467 31 data on factors influencing flood vulnerability and factors influencing Total 44 278 278 735 278 the non-adherence of development Source: Authors’ field survey control measures in Suleja, as well
28 Bamiji Adeleye et al. • Poor development control as flood vulnerability factor in Suleja, Nigeria as the effects of non-adherence interpolating the contours of the study Board), was created along the river to development control measures area; hence, a vulnerability map channels. Buildings that fell within (Bhattacharyya & Johnson, 2014). was produced for the study area. the buffer zones were mapped and This technique summarises data in considered to have contravened the Data gathered through the an understandable way, by using development standards and as such breakdown of official documents frequencies and percentages vulnerable to flooding. The analysis included the number of building (numerical) to reduce the revealed that a total of 799 buildings plans submitted for approval, number of responses to a mean in the study area were developed in the percentage of building plans score (Satake, 2016: 663). contravention of the development approved, population data and control standards. The contravening On the satellite images acquired, volume of solid waste collected buildings, according to section 61(1) a buffer (setback) of 15 meters, as yearly. These data were analysed of the Nigerian Urban and Regional approved by the Niger State Urban using simple descriptive statistics Planning Law of 1992 ought to have Development Board (NSUDB) for of frequency and percentage. been demolished, because they riverside areas, was created along pose a threat to the occupants and the water channels in the study area. 5. RESULTS AND the public at large. The vulnerable/ This task was performed using the contravening buildings are analysis tool in the Arc toolbox of DISCUSSION represented in red in Figure 2. ArcGIS 10.2 software. Buildings that 5.1 Flood vulnerability in Suleja fall within the buffer line were also The high number of buildings digitized on ArcGIS 10.2 and their To determine the buildings vulnerable developed in contravention of extant actual numbers were determined to flooding in Suleja, a buffer/set building regulations standards in the on the attribute table created for back of 15 meters, as stipulated by study area was attributed to laxity the buildings. The Digital Terrain the local planning authority in Suleja in enforcing development control Model of Suleja was produced by (Niger State Urban Development measures by the town planning
Figure 2: A section of the vulnerable/contravening buildings in Suleja Source: Authors’ field survey
29 SSB/TRP/MDM 2019 (74) officers as well as the bureaucratic development control regulations Low flood-risk areas are those with a bottlenecks involved in the building gave rise to the development of possibility of less than 3% chance of approval process by the Niger State buildings on marginal land portions flood vulnerability, while the moderate Urban Development Board. According and flood-prone areas. To produce a flood-risk and high flood-risk areas to the Board (NSUDB), only 35% vulnerability map, a digital elevation have a possibility of 50%-90% of the building plans submitted for model and the contour map with the and more than 90% chance of approval were approved annually. rivers (water bodies) of Suleja were flood vulnerability, respectively. Between 1987 and 2015, out of overlaid. The analysis from the digital the 2 656 plans submitted, only elevation model reveals that the 5.2 Factors influencing flood 932 building plans were approved elevation of Suleja ranges from 274 vulnerability in Suleja by the Board (NSUDB) (Adeleye, to 528 above sea level (Figure 3). In 1976, the Federal Government’s 2015). The refusal of the Board Figure 4 shows a section of the decision to move the federal (NSUDB) to approve not more than vulnerability map of Suleja. The areas capital territory from Lagos to 35% of the plans submitted forced of the study considered vulnerable Abuja had a significant impact on developers to proceed with their to flooding were thus classified the growth of Suleja, a sub-hub of building development, regardless into three, based on their relative the new Federal Capital Territory. of the obvious implications of such proximity to the river channels: low Following this proclamation, the acts, including vulnerability to flood-risk areas, moderate flood-risk first master plan was prepared for flooding. This act of disregard for areas, and high flood-risk areas. Suleja in 1987, in order to guide and control the increasing physical development. According to the Niger State Urban Development Board (NSUDB), the Suleja master plan expired in 1997 and is yet to be reviewed. The inability of the Niger State Government to review the master plan in 1997 is momentous to present physical development challenges faced in Suleja. Table 2 shows that, since the master plan was prepared in 1987, Suleja has recorded a significant increase in population growth. Table 2 reveals that the population of Suleja increased from 53 960 in 1987 to 316 067 in 2018, with 485% increase. The implication of the population explosion and the obsolete master plan is the chaotic physical development evident in Suleja.
Table 2: Population of Suleja between 1987 and 2018
Year Population Percentage of increase (%) 1987 53 960 2018 316 064 485
Source: Projected with a growth rate of 3.2% from National Population Commission, 2006.
Poor compliance with building regulations in the study area, indiscriminate waste disposal methods, especially on waterways, poor drainage system, building on marginal land portions, and Figure 3: DEM and contour map of Suleja building along the river banks Source: Authors’ field survey were other factors generally
30 Bamiji Adeleye et al. • Poor development control as flood vulnerability factor in Suleja, Nigeria
considered to be responsible for flood vulnerability in the study area. Table 3 reveals that 43.5% of the respondents were of the view that indiscriminate waste disposal is a strong factor, while 18% were of the view that flood vulnerability in the area is also influenced by the poor drainage system. This claim was corroborated by the field survey carried out in the area. During the field survey, it was observed that uncollected solid waste littered many of the streets and water channels in Suleja (see Image 1). It was said that, since 2013, the Niger State Environmental Protection Agency collected an annual average total of 308 940 cubic meters of solid waste in Suleja. It should, however, be stated that this statistic did not seem to reflect the true picture of solid waste collection in the area, as large volumes of solid waste were left uncollected daily in Suleja (Adeleye, 2015). Building on marginal lands was also considered a factor influencing flooding by 15.1% of the respondents. Although they are aware of the implications of siting buildings on marginal land, the residents of Suleja were of the opinion that affordability and availability of land influence their decision of building along the marginal lands. This claim is affirmed in Table 4. Figure 4: A section of the vulnerability map of Suleja However, 22.7% of the respondents Source: Authors’ field survey were of the opinion that building along river banks influences flood vulnerability in Suleja, an impression also shared by Environ (2017), an online platform. Environ (2017) was of the opinion that many of the victims of the 2017 flooding in Suleja were residents who lived in houses built along the river banks. Table 4 explains the factors responsible for the purchase of land for building in Suleja. Affordability of land influenced the choice of land by 44.96% of the respondents. The respondents in this class care less about the location of their property. Relatively flat land was responsible for the choice of land Image 1: Water channel filled with solid waste in Suleja by 32.37% of the respondents. Source: Authors’ field survey Preference was given to property
31 SSB/TRP/MDM 2019 (74)
Table 3: Factors influencing flood vulnerability in Suleja 5.3.5 Method of land ownership Options Respondent Percentage (%) The study also revealed that the Indiscriminate waste disposal on water ways 121 43.5 customary method of land ownership Poor drainage system 50 18.0 practised in Suleja has a negative Building on marginal lands 42 15.1 impact on the physical planning. Building along river banks 63 22.7 A large expanse of land is often sold Cultural belief 2 0.7 by the locals without the preparation Total 278 100 of layout plans. The inability of the locals and the “Mai-Anguwa” Source: Authors’ field work (community head) to produce a plan/ location by 15.47%, while the building permits is duly signed document to guide the proposed availability of facilities influenced the by the honourable commissioner development is usually accompanied choice of 7.19% of the respondents. usually refrain developers from by numerous challenges. These seeking building approval. challenges, according to the 5.3 Factors influencing the non- Niger State Urban Development adherence of development 5.3.2 Laxity in inspection Board, are poor delineation of control measures in Suleja exercises by planning boundaries by the locals which often officials encourages encroachment on other A breakdown of official documents land uses by developers and the relating to the application and The lackadaisical attitude of proliferation of slums in Suleja. issuance of development permits the planning officials towards was obtained from the Niger State monitoring of ongoing physical Urban Development Board (NSUDB), development usually paves the 5.4 Implication of non-adherence Suleja Zonal Office. The information way for illegal structures such to development control extracted from the documents as building along waterways, measures in Suleja revealed that five issues were encroachment on marginal lands The study revealed that the responsible for the non-compliance and access roads, because the emergence of slums, land of development control measures monitoring of physical development degradation, flooding and poor in Suleja. Results from an interview is not done on a regular basis. accessibility are the effects of with an official of the Niger State 5.3.3 Corruption and non- non-adherence to development Urban Development Board gave discipline by planning officials control measures in Suleja. Table 5 an insight into these factors. Buildings that ought to be marked reveals that 7.2% of the respondents were of the opinion that land Table 4: Factors responsible for for demolition are often spared physical development in Suleja because of the kickbacks received degradation implies non-adherence from the developers. According to to development control measures in Factors Respondents Percentage Suleja. This category of respondents (%) the planning official interviewed, believed that the lands that ought Affordable land 125 44.96 some building permits may not to be conserved (buffer zones) are Relatively flat 90 32.37 be released if the planning official land responsible is not remunerated. either converted or distorted, due Location 43 15.47 to the laxity in development control Availability of 20 7.19 5.3.4 Inadequate staff and use of measures. Poor accessibility and facilities obsolete equipment emergence of slum are attributed to Total 278 100 The Niger State Urban Development the implication of non-adherence to Board is faced with inadequate development control measures by Source: Authors’ field survey manpower. This factor can also 12.6% and 46.0% of the respondents, be attributed to the laxity in the respectively. The responses by the 5.3.1 Bureaucratic process in inspection of physical development 46.0% of the respondents indicate obtaining building approval in Suleja. The study revealed that that weakness in the enforcement of The cumbersome process of seeking the 10 political wards in Suleja development control measures will building approval often discourages do not have updated maps that lead to chaotic planning. Onwubiko developers from seeking building can be used for charting ongoing (2017) also shared this belief and permits. Building permits in Suleja physical development in the town. opined that houses in Suleja are usually take longer. To seek a The cadastral maps available were mostly ramshackle, associated quick approval, the developers prepared in the 1970s or the early with congestion as if there is a total may have to follow some illegal 1980s. The use of obsolete maps has absence of town planning authority processes. The technical and greatly affected the coordination of in Suleja. Onwubiko’s (2017) administrative procedure developers the proposed physical development statement indicates that development often pass through before their in Suleja with the existing structures. control measures are lacking.
32 Bamiji Adeleye et al. • Poor development control as flood vulnerability factor in Suleja, Nigeria
Table 5: Effects of non-adherence to town planning officials should pp. 268-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. development control measures perform inspection exercises to gloenvcha.2006.02.006 in Suleja development sites on a regular AGBONKHESE, O., AGBONKHESE, Option Respondents Percentage basis and that planners should E.G., AKA, E.O., JOE-ABAYA, J., (%) be cautioned on the dangers of OCHOLI, M. & ADEKUNLE, A. 2014. Land 20 7.2 all forms of non-discipline. The Flood menace in Nigeria: Impacts, degradation bureaucracy involved in the building remedial and management strategies. Poor 35 12.6 Civil and Environmental Research, 6(4), accessibility approval by the Niger State Urban Development Board (NSUDB) should pp. 32-40. Emergence 128 46.0 of slum be addressed by the Niger State AHMED, A. & DINYE, R.D. 2011. Flooding 95 34.2 government in order to have more Urbanization and the challenges of Total 278 100 plans approved as against the 35% development controls in Ghana: A benchmark set by the Ministry. This case study of Wa Township. Journal Source: Authors’ field work will encourage developers to always of Sustainable Development in Africa, seek development permits, thus 13(7), pp. 210-235. On the other hand, 34.2% of the reducing the rate of contravention. ALUKO, O. 2011. Development control respondents (the second highest) in Lagos State: An assessment of public were of the opinion that flooding is The Niger State Environmental Protection Agency saddled with all compliance to space standards for an implication of non-adherence to urban development. African Research environmental responsibilities should development control measures in Review, 5(5), pp. 167-184. https://doi. sensitize the residents of Suleja Suleja. The responses of the 34.2% org/10.4314/afrrev.v5i5.14 of the respondents who believed on the dangers of indiscriminate ASHFIELD COUNCIL. 2015. Flood that flooding is an implication of solid waste disposal, especially on development control policy. Interim non-adherence to development waterways. This will go a long way in reducing flood vulnerability in the Development Assessment Policy. control measures can be attributed [online]. Available at:
33 SSB/TRP/MDM 2019 (74)
DAVOUDI, S. 2012. Resilience: HARTUNG, C., LERER, A., ANOKWA, MARRICKVILLE COUNCIL. 2015. A bridging concept or a dead Y., TSENG, C., BRUNETTE, W. Policy for identifying properties end? Planning Theory & & BORRIELLO, G. 2010. Open subject to flood related development Practice, 13(2), pp. 299-307. data kit: Tools to build information controls. [online]. Available at:
34 Bamiji Adeleye et al. • Poor development control as flood vulnerability factor in Suleja, Nigeria
ODUNUGA, S., OYEBANDE, L. & POTSCHIN, M. 2009. Land use and WARAMI, U. 2017. Flood renders OMOJOLA, A.S. 2012. Social-economic the state of the natural environment. many homeless in Suleja. Vanguard, indicators and public perception on Land Use Policy, 26S, pp. 170- 9 July [Online] Available at:
35