TITLE PAGE Assessment of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects in Jere Local Government Area, Borno State BY BABAGANA BULAMA 19/09/02/831 BEING A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE (B. Sc.) GEOGRAPHY UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI. DECEMBER, 2023 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the project entitled “Assessment of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects in Jere Local Government Area, Borno State” has been Duly Presented by Babagana Bulama with Identity Number 19/09/02/831, of the Department of Geography, University of Maiduguri. Dr. Joel Mari Bwala Signature: ………………………………… Project Supervisor Date: ……...……………………..……….. Dr. Yagana Muhammad Aji Signature: ………………………………… Head of Department Date: ……...……………………………….. Name ______________________ Signature: ………………………………… External Supervisor Date: ……...…………………………..…. ii DEDICATION I dedicated this research “Assessment of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects in Jere Local Government Area, Borno State’’ to Almighty Allah, My Parent and my Adorable future wife in the person of Hajjiya Amina Kyari Ali iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, the Master, Creator, and Sustainer of all that exists. May His blessings and peace be upon our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and his entire family. I begin this expression of gratitude with praise and supplication to Allah, seeking His protection and guidance against all adversities that may cross my path. First and foremost, I extend my deepest appreciation to my esteemed parents, Bulama Ladan and Zainawa Bukar, May Allah, the Most Generous, reward them abundantly for their selfless sacrifices that have paved the way for my success. To my teachers and lecturers, from the earliest stages of my education to my current undergraduate level, I offer heartfelt thanks. May Allah, the Bestower of knowledge, reward each one of you for being a source of light in my educational journey. A special prayer goes out to my dedicated supervisor, Dr. Joel Mari Bwala. May Allah bless and guide you on your path to becoming a Professor, and may His protection be with you always. I extend my immense gratitude to the Head of Department (HOD), Dr. Yagana M. Aji, my Level Coordinator, Mr. George Godwin Glanda and Student Staff Adviser Dr. Abdussalam Barkindo. May Allah grant you success and fulfillment in all your endeavors. To my respected lecturers, Prof U M. Maryah, Prof. J. K. Nyanganji, Prof. Muhammad Waziri, Prof. A.K Monguno, Prof. John Abdullahi, Prof. Mohammed A Jimme, Prof. Yagana Bukar, , Dr. Deborah Samuel Msheliza, Dr. A. A. Bwala, Dr. Garba Sambo, Dr. I. Mayomi, Dr. Alhaji Muktar, Mr. A. Gislambe, Rev. Yelwa H. Manu, Mr. Saidu S. El-Buba, Dr. Ibrahim Bello, Dr. Philemon Chinda, Dr. C. Akawu, Dr. Phanuel Joshua B., Dr. M. A. Kolo, Dr. Kelechi Friday Nkwocha, Mr. Mohammed Kaka Shettima, Mr. Aminu Kodiya, Mrs. Saraya Ibrahim, Mr. Nura Khalil, Mr. Isa Musa Maiva, and Mr. Modu Mustapha, I pray that Allah showers His blessings upon each one of you for your invaluable support and the knowledge you have imparted. A heartfelt prayer goes to my siblings, Yagana, Albalde, Hafsat, Algoni, A. M. Sahido, Abba Yusuf, Zara, Fatima, Maryam, Abdullahi, Aisha, Abba, Sadiya, Aliyu, Ummi Kalthum & Zainab. May Allah bless you abundantly for your unwavering dedication in every aspect of my life. Lastly, I extend my sincere gratitude to my numerous friends, too many to name individually. May Allah, the Knower of hearts, reward each one of you with His mercy and blessings. You are not just friends but cherished companions, and I pray for continued joy, success, and unity in our bond. iv TABLE OF CONTENT Title Page---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i Certification------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ii Dedication------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iii Acknowledgement ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iv Table of Content ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ v List of Tables -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- viii List of Figures and Maps -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ix Abstract----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x Chapter One 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Aim and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Research Questions ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................. 4 1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................. 4 Chapter Two 2.0 Theoretical Framework and Literature Review ........................................................................... 5 2.1 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................ 5 2.2.1 Community participation: ......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Rural and community development: ......................................................................................... 8 2.2.3 Community Participation in Nigeria ......................................................................................... 9 v 2.2 Literature Review....................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Level of Community Participation.......................................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Barriers and Challenges to Community Participation ............................................................ 11 2.2.3 Effectiveness of Existing Community Participation Mechanisms .......................................... 11 2.2.4 Impact of Community Participation........................................................................................ 11 2.2.5 Recommendations and Strategies for Enhancement ............................................................... 12 Chapter Three 3.0 Study area and Methodology ..................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.1 Location and Extent ................................................................................................................ 13 3.1.2 Climate and Temperature ........................................................................................................ 13 3.1.3 Geology and Relief ................................................................................................................. 15 3.1.4 Drainage .................................................................................................................................. 15 3.1.6 Soil and vegetation .................................................................................................................. 16 3.1.5 People and culture ................................................................................................................... 16 3.1.6 Socio Economic Activities ...................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 17 3.2.1 Data acquired .......................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.2 Sources of data ........................................................................................................................ 17 3.2.3 Populations and sample size ................................................................................................... 17 3.2.4. Sampling Techniques: ............................................................................................................ 19 3.2.5. Data collection instruments.................................................................................................... 19 3.2.6 Data analysis ........................................................................................................................... 19 vi Chapter Four 4.0 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................. 20 4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents ................................................................ 20 4.2 Level of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects .......................................... 22 Chapter Five 5.0 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations .......................................................................... 30 5.1 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 30 5.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 30 5.3 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 31 References ...................................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix A ...................................................................................................................................... 38 Appendix B ...................................................................................................................................... 39 Questionnaire ................................................................................................................................... 39 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Populations ....................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3.2 Sample Size ...................................................................................................................... 18 Table 4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents ..................................................... 20 Table 4.2 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents (Cont.) ........................................ 21 Table 4.3 Level of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects of the Respondent 22 Table 4.4 Level of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects (Cont.) .................. 24 Table 4.5 Level of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects (Cont.) .................. 26 Table 4.6 Level of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects (Cont.) .................. 28 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Arnsteins Ladder (1969) Degrees of citizen participation ------------------------------- 7 Figure 3.1 Map of Jere Local Government Area -------------------------------------------------------14 ix ABSTRACT Community participation has been identified as effective driver of rural development in emerging economies while community development committees (CDCs) are key players in implementing rural development programmes in communities. The study aims at assessing the level of participation of communities and community development committees in the provision of public infrastructure in selected communities of Khaddamari, Dusuma, Gongulong, Old Maiduguri and Merit of Jere Local Government Area in Borno state. The objectives are to: identify existing mechanism for public participation in rural development process; ascertain the nature and extent of participation in rural development, ascertain the participation level of Community Development Committee (CDC) in implementation of development projects. A cross-sectional study that engaged multistage sampling technique was adopted. Primary and secondary data were collected, analyzed and represented. One hundred and eight (108) respondents were purposively drawn from the selected areas and stratified sampling was applied to administer questionnaire. The study found out among other things; that the community development committees (CDCs) in the respective communities were effective in the dissemination of information with respect to projects embarked upon by the government to encourage community participation; there is a dearth of information and lack of synergy between the government agencies charged with the responsibility of planning and implementing rural development policies and the beneficiaries of such development; no Local Planning Authorities at the local government areas. The study recommended that members of the CDCs should form part members of planning and implementation committees in their respective communities, immediate establishment of local planning authorities. x CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study Rural development represents the process of enhancing the quality of life and economic well-being in areas with limited population and geographic isolation (Everett Rogers 1960). Rural development involves empowering rural individuals to expand their capabilities and freedoms, enabling them to lead lives in line with their own values, in regions outside urban centers (Amartya Sen, 1981). Rural development is a participatory, grassroots process that empowers local communities to identify and address their specific development needs, considering their geographic context (Robert Chambers, 1997). Rural development focuses on improving the capabilities of rural populations by investing in education, healthcare, social security, and economic opportunities in areas away from urban centers (Amartya Sen and Jean Drèze, 1999). Rural development entails stimulating structural transformation in rural economies, which includes diversifying economic activities and developing infrastructure in geographically dispersed regions (Ha-Joon Chang, 2002). Community participation can contribute greatly to the effectiveness and efficiency of a programs, the crucial factor in its success is the attitude of agency staff in the field, if staff do not treat people with respect or are seen to favor particular individuals or groups within a community. Development practice has in recent times adopted a popular term in the form of community participation. The term is now practically sine qua non (an essential condition) for development practitioners seeking project funding (Dosner, 2014). This has led to literature being produced that established a firm understanding of the significance of community participation in the efforts of the development sector to enable the worlds underprivileged to exert influence over decisions and institutions that affect their lives (Ndevu, 2011). The popularity of the concept of community participation in modern day planning originated during the 1960s as a response to the inefficient and dominant top-down and expert-driven approaches to planning (Shahidul & Swapan, 2016). The rationale behind this mode of participation by communities allows for the promotion of greater efficiency, more accountability and transparency. 1 Enhanced ownership and ultimately the empowerment of the native community (Dosner, 2015). Lee (2013) affirms that this will allow for a community to play a meaningful role in the sustainability of any development, as it will afford the community an opportunity to participate, thereby increasing the community's value in relation to the enhancement of positive effects and mitigation of negative effects of the development. This further provides the community with a voice in decision making, while representing diverse communities of interests in all stages (from goal setting, to programed and project design) without compromising an assortment of needs the local community may aspire towards (Shuib, Hashim, Akmaniza and Nazir, 2015). 1.2 Statement of the Problem Policy makers and regional analysts are concerned about the decline in participation in rural development activities by the rural people who are being protected by the practice of participatory development. The consequence of this decline in participation of the rural people has led to an all-time high total of neglect of the rural areas especially in developing countries like Nigeria. Since the overall notion behind rural development is to improve on the quality of lives and well-being of the rural dwellers as regards the social, economic and cultural aspects of their existence. The development of the rural areas in Nigeria should have been a priority project that transcends the rhetoric of providing incentives for agro-based and natural resource driven approach in rural areas. But in the recent past, successive government in Nigeria have made fewer attempts for an all-inclusive participation of the government and the people in the stages in the economic planning process. Despite the fact that rural areas serve as a ground by which almost all the resources used in national development were obtained, rural areas were still backward and static in terms of development with even their participation in decision making. Rural dwellers are not encouraged to participate in the process of decision making because the level of awareness is very low. However, since the attainment of Nigerian independence in 1960, various governments both military and civilian have initiated several rural and community based development programs designed to 2 enhance the living standard of the people who are living at the grassroots level. Consequently. Some communities still live without portable drinking water, electricity, good access roads, hospitals and information centers among others. It is against this backdrop that this paper intends to examine in critical terms the impacts of community participation in rural development at the grassroots with a view to recommending solutions on how to enhance the living standard of the rural populace. 1.3 Aim and Objectives The aim of the research is to Assess Community Participation in Rural development Projects in Jere Local Government Area, Borno state. The specific objectives are to: i. assess the level of community participation ii. identify barriers and challenges to community participation iii. evaluate the effectiveness of existing community participation mechanisms iv. examine the impact of community participation v. provide recommendations and strategies for enhancement 1.4 Research Questions i. What is the level of community participation in rural development projects in Jere Local Government Area, Borno State, Nigeria? ii. What are the factors influencing community participation in rural development projects in Jere Local Government Area? iii. What are the benefits and challenges of community participation in rural development projects in Jere Local Government Area? iv. How does community participation in rural development projects impact the overall development of the Jere Local Government Area? v. What strategies can be implemented to enhance community participation in rural development projects in Jere Local Government Area? 3 1.5 Significance of the Study This research is envisioned to ascertain the effectiveness of public participation in the development of rural areas. The knowledge gained from this research will enable the government of the local and state levels to formulate policies and programs that would encourage effective engagement of the people in decision making, policy implementation, benefit and evaluation of development programs aimed at improving the standard of living and quality of life of the rural areas. 1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study This study assessed community participation in rural development projects in Jere local government area Borno state, while the limitation is the inability to measure the direct effectiveness or sustainability of community participation 4 CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical Framework This research is anchored on participatory theory as developed by Charles Tilly and Doug Mc. Adam and colleagues (1970). The participatory theory seeks to engage local populations in the decision making process and development projects, Participatory theory has taken a variety of forms since it emerged in the 1970s, when it was introduced as an important part of the Basic Need Approach to development. Most manifestations of participatory development seek to give the poor a part in initiatives designed for their benefit in the hopes that development projects will be more sustainable and successful if local populations are engaged in the development process. Participatory theory has become an increasingly accepted method of development practice and is employed by a Vanity of organization. It is often presented as an alternative to mainstream top down development. The definition of participatory Theory is premised along two different dimensions. There is the Social Movement Perspective and the Institutional Perspective. The Social Movement Perspective defines participatory theory as the mobilization of people to eliminate unjust hierarchies of knowledge, power and economic distribution, The Institutional Perspective defines the theory of participation as the reach and inclusion of inputs by relevant groups in the design and implementation of inputs and opinions of relevant groups and stakeholders in a community (Norman, 1972). 2.2.1 Community participation: Community participation refers to individuals or groups engaging actively in various activities, initiatives, and events within their local or broader community. This involvement can take many forms, such as volunteering, joining community organizations, participating in public meetings, contributing to local projects, and collaborating with others to address common concerns or goals. Community participation fosters a sense of belonging, social interaction, and shared responsibility, leading to the overall betterment of the community's well-being and development. 5 The definition of participation is one of the most problematic issues in development discourse. The term is complex, broad and essentially contestable. It has sparked a great deal of debate and controversy among think tanks in the development discourse and no agreement has been reached yet on the actual conceptualization of community participation. The World Bank (1996) has argued that, participation is a rich concept that means different things to different people in different settings. As such, different scholars have thus advanced different meanings. But, however, given the complexity of community participation it is necessary to firstly grapple with the terms community and participation in their individual capacity to best explain the concept of community participation. Wates (2010:184) has thus defined a community as a group of people sharing common interests and living within a geographically defined area. Thus a community generally has two certain elements, that is, physical boundary and social interests common among the people. Important to note here is that the word community has both social and spatial dimensions and that generally the people within a community come together to achieve a common objective, even if they have certain differences. With regards to "participation‟ Wates (2010:194) defines it as the act of being involved in something. He further opines that, participation can either represent assigning certain decisive roles to the users, where they share the decision-making responsibility with the professionals. The other type of participation is where there is no shift of responsibilities between the users and professionals but instead only the opinion of the user is considered while making decisions. Therefore, given such a clarification of terminologies surrounding the concept of community participation it is, therefore, relatively easy to conceptualize community participation in development process. Rahman (1993) has defined community participation as an active process in which the participants take initiatives and take action that is stimulated by their own thinking and deliberation and over which they can exert effective control. Important to note here is that such an approach instills a sense of ownership and responsibility towards the programmed, and in turn leads to sustainability of programs (Chambers 1992). A more related definition of community participation is given by Brown (2000) who has regarded 6 community participation as the active process by which beneficiaries influence the direction and the execution of the project rather than merely being consulted or receiving the share of the benefits. The World Bank (1996) has given a slightly different definition of participation when it views participation as a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them. Wolfe cited in Goulet (1989) seems to conform to the above explanation. He views participation as the organized efforts to increase control over resources and groups and movements hitherto excluded from such control. (Goulet, 1989:24) Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation Sherry Arnstein, writing in 1969 about citizen involvement in planning processes in the United States, described a ladder of citizen participation that showed participation ranging from high to low. See Sherry R. Arnsteins A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, and pp. 216-224. Figure 2.1 Arnsteins Ladder (1969) Degrees of citizen participation Source; Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224. The ladder is a guide to seeing who has power when important decisions are being made. It has survived for so long because people continue to confront processes that refuse to consider anything beyond the bottom rungs. 7 Here is how David Wilcox describes the 8 rungs of the ladder i. Manipulation and ii. Therapy. Both are non-participative. The aim is to cure or educate the participants. The proposed plan is best and the job of participation is to achieve public support through public relations. iii. Informing. A most important first step to legitimate participation. But too frequently the emphasis is on a one-way flow of information. No channel for feedback. iv. Consultation. Again a legitimate step attitude surveys, neighborhood meetings and public enquiries. But Arnstein still feels this is just a window dressing ritual. v. Placation. For example, co-option of hand-picked worthies onto committees. It allows citizens to advice or plan ad infinitum but retains for power holders the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice. vi. Partnership. Power is in fact redistributed through negotiation between citizens and power holders. Planning and decision-making responsibilities are shared e.g. through joint committees. vii. Delegation. Citizens holding a clear majority of seats on committees with delegated powers to make decisions. Public now has the power to assure accountability of the programmed to them. viii. Citizen Control. Have-nots handle the entire job of planning, policy making and managing a programmed e.g. neighborhood corporation with no intermediaries between it and the source of funds. 2.1.2 Rural and community development: Rural and Community Development are generally concerned about improvements in the quality of Ife but community development may not be restricted to rural areas alone. Community development is about self-help development efforts from members of the community (Agiobenebo, 1987). Thus an urban community that identifies a need for a transformer in its locality and takes initiative to raise the required funds and other resources with which to provide for itself is actually undertaking community development. Similarly, community development can also occur in the rural areas In fact, many rural 8 communities are often found with one form of community development project or another. These include community roads. markets centers, village squares among others In pont, whereas rural development is all about the transformation and improvement of welfare in rural areas, irrespective of the source of development, community development is specific Otto, 1999 Amringe 1998 It is development that is self-started or self-engineered within the community For example a community in Bauchi state as Federal Housing Estate around Mile 4, may choose to install additional electricity transformer to meet the increased power needs of that community. And so around Buji area in Jigawa state several roads were worked on in terms of resurfacing or other repairs by members of the community themselves, these are examples of community development programs in rural areas. Project: A project may be defined as capital investments to develop facilites, to provide goods and services which will increase the aggregate consumption benefits of people Fyubara (1975), Little and Mirlees (1980) Ayo (1988) also see Ugoh and Ukpere, 2010} It may also be defined as any scheme or part of a scheme to investing resources which can be reasonably analyzed and evaluated as an independent unit. However, according to Tamuno and Otto {2006}, a Project may be defined as any planned activity with definite realizable expectation of returns. Usually projects are characterized by some factors which include; i. Projects absorb resources such as labor, capital, time, land and materials ii. Projects have capability to be independently analyzed as a specific activity or item of investment. iii. Projects are undertaken because they provide some form of benefits, Benefits may include benefits in cash, in kind, in comfort, social benefits or market oriented benefits or political expediency iv. A project starts at some point in time and ends at another point It has a time dimension. 2.2.3 Community Participation in Nigeria In Nigeria there seems to be a lot of literature on community participation (Zinyama, 1992; Makumbe, 1996, 1998; Chiome and Gambahaya, 2000; Ndlovu, 2008). However, most of the information is 9 scattered in different works whose thrust is not precisely community participation documentation. Of more significance to be noted here is that much of the literature is project documentation by NGOs that are working with particular communities. This particular research therefore is going to assess community participation in this particular case study in order to find out new insights about the discourse of community participation in Jere LGA, Borno state using this Nigerian background as a point of departure. Makumbe (1996) examines the concept of participation in development as applied to Nigeria since independence. He notes that participatory development can be presented as a continuum of participation levels from passive participation, where donor or government-initiated ideas are promoted, to active participation where the recipients involved in all stages of a development project. However, the researcher opines that, in as much as Makumbe has tried to explain the concept of participatory development in Nigeria he has not done justice to the subject matter. He is pre-occupied with the role NGOs play in project life and little attention is given to the role of the beneficiaries in project implementation. 2.2 Literature Review 2.2.1 Level of Community Participation Community participation is fundamental in rural development initiatives, as it empowers local populations to engage in decision-making processes. Arnstein's (1969) participation spectrum serves as a framework for gauging the depth of community involvement, with a spectrum ranging from tokenism to full citizen power. Drawing from global research, this review examines the assessment of community participation, with a particular focus on rural development initiatives in Nigeria. Within the Nigerian context, pertinent studies include Ogunyinka et al. (2017), whose work assessed the extent of community involvement in local healthcare decision-making. Additionally, Abah and Frimpong (2018) investigated the levels of participation in rural development projects in Nigeria's northern regions. These studies provide a valuable reference for evaluating community participation in the context of rural development projects in Jere Local Government Area, Borno State. 10 2.2.2 Barriers and Challenges to Community Participation Barriers and challenges are pervasive in community participation processes, hindering the effective involvement of local communities. Cooke and Kothari (2001) identify the challenge of "elite capture," where influential community leaders dominate decision-making processes. In Nigeria, similar challenges exist, as revealed by studies like Ezenekwe et al. (2019), who identified socio-economic disparities as a significant barrier to community participation in rural development projects in the southeastern region. Moreover, studies by Osinubi and Faloye (2018) highlight the issue of trust and social cohesion as critical factors hindering effective community participation in education initiatives in Nigeria. These insights can be drawn upon when examining the barriers and challenges to community participation in the rural development projects in Jere Local Government Area, Borno State. 2.2.3 Effectiveness of Existing Community Participation Mechanisms The effectiveness of community participation mechanisms is central to ensuring meaningful engagement. Gaventa (2004) and Ribot (2003) stress the importance of assessing outcomes, not just processes, and the concept of "participation for influence." Within the Nigerian context, studies like Adebisi and Ogunbode (2020) have evaluated the effectiveness of participatory budgeting mechanisms in enhancing community development in Lagos State. Similarly, Akinola and Oke (2017) have examined the outcomes of community-driven development programs in rural areas of Nigeria. These studies provide valuable insights for assessing the effectiveness of existing community participation mechanisms in rural development projects within Jere Local Government Area, Borno State. 2.2.4 Impact of Community Participation The impact of community participation extends to various domains, including social, economic, and political outcomes. Engaged communities often experience increased social cohesion, empowerment, and a sense of ownership (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). Within the Nigerian context, Olayemi and Osabohien 11 (2020) demonstrated the positive socio-economic impact of community participation in agricultural projects. Additionally, studies like Okoli and Mgbenka (2019) assessed the impact of participatory water resource management initiatives on rural development in Nigeria's Niger Delta region. These examples offer insights into the potential impact of community participation on rural development projects in Jere Local Government Area, Borno State. 2.2.5 Recommendations and Strategies for Enhancement Enhancing community participation in rural development projects necessitates a multifaceted approach. Recommendations from Laverack (2006) emphasize building local capacities, promoting inclusivity, and fostering dialogue. Adeyanju and Adeyanju (2018) highlight the importance of capacity-building programs to enhance community participation in environmental management projects within the Nigerian context. Furthermore, Ojukwu and Anugwom (2019) provide insights into fostering inclusivity in community participation initiatives, which may be adapted for poverty reduction projects in rural areas. These recommendations and strategies offer a roadmap for enhancing community participation in the rural development projects in Jere Local Government Area, Borno State. 12 CHAPTER THREE STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Study Area 3.1.1 Location and Extent The study area is Jere is a local government area of Borno State. It lies within latitudes 11°45' and 12°05'N and longitude 12°50' and 13°20'E, it occupies a total landmass of 160 kilometer square (BOGIS 2022). Within the state it shares boundaries with Mafa LGA to the east, Maiduguri metropolitan council to the north, Magumeri LGA to the west and Konduga LGA to the South. It has its headquarters in the town of Khaddamari. London ciki is a community in Jere under Maimusari ward. Jere local government area, one of the twenty-seven LGA's of Borno state. It is one of the sixteen LGAs that constitute the Borno Emirate, a traditional state located in Borno State, the local government was carved out of Maiduguri metropolitan council (MMC) in 1996 Borno State Government (BSG, 2007) during the Former President Sani Abatcha regime. 3.1.2 Climate and Temperature Jere Local Government area in Borno State exhibits a semi-arid climate with distinct wet and dry seasons. The dry season, spanning from November to March, is characterized by low precipitation and high diurnal temperatures, frequently exceeding 35°C, with occasional peaks of 40°C. The intrusion of Harmattan winds from the Sahara further impacts this period. Conversely, the wet season, occurring from June to September, sees increased precipitation with daytime temperatures ranging from 30°C to 35°C. Nighttime temperatures during this period are milder, averaging between 15°C and 25°C. The climatic seasonality plays a significant role in shaping the region's environment and has substantial implications for agriculture and daily life, impacting water availability and temperature variations (Walter, 1967). The annual rainfall ranges from 500mm to 700mm per annum Nigerian Metrological Association (NMA, 2008). The rainy season is usually from May to End of September or early October with low relative 13 humidity and short wet seasons. Therefore, the specific amount of rainfall received in any given year within this range would depend on local variations and weather patterns. Therefore, the map of Maiduguri is showing below. Figure 3.1 Map of Jere Local Government Area Source; GIS Unit, Department of Geography, University of Maiduguri 14 The temperature variations in the Local Government area are prominently influenced by the distinct wet and dry seasons. During the dry season (November to March), daytime temperatures are characterized by extreme heat, frequently exceeding 35°C and occasionally reaching 40°C. Nighttime temperatures are comparatively milder, averaging between 15°C and 25°C. In contrast, the wet season (June to September) experiences slightly lower daytime temperatures, ranging from 30°C to 35°C, with milder nighttime temperatures, averaging between 15°C and 25°C. These temperature fluctuations are intrinsically linked to the regional climate and have significant consequences for daily life and agriculture. Access to up-to-date climate data is essential due to potential variations in these conditions (Walter, 1967). 3.1.3 Geology and Relief In terms of geologic formation Jere region is classified as Chad formation, which was formed through the process of down sedimentation during the Quaternary period of about 66 million years ago. The formative materials consist of alluvial lacustrine sand, continental sand deposit, Aerolite sand and clay in some parts. (Waziri, Kagu and Monguno, 2009). Basically the landforms of Jere are plain. Lie on a vast open plain which is flat or gently undulating. The landscape is developed on the young sedimentary rock of the Chad formation. This extensive plain contains no prominent hills and attains an average elevation of less than 300m above sea-level, sloping towards Lake Chad level. 3.1.4 Drainage The drainage system is influenced by the River Ngadda and the Alau Dam. The River Ngadda originates in the highlands and flows through the region, while the Alau Dam, situated on the Alau River, serves various functions, including irrigation, water supply, and flood control. Geomorphic challenges such as siltation, climate variability, and flood risk are significant concerns. Effective management and conservation efforts are crucial to address these issues, as highlighted by (Nyanganji, 1994). 15 3.1.6 Soil and vegetation The soil of the study area vary in color, texture, structure, physic-chemical and other essential characteristics from the hilly south to the northern dome landscape (Yakubu et al., 2018). The soil of Jere urban environment is part of the brown and reddish brown hydromorphic alluvial soil of the entire Borno region. In consonance with soil and climate of the area, the vegetation is similar to Sahel savanna, surrounded by shrubby vegetation interspersed with tall trees woodland (Waziri 2009). Two vegetation zones are identified in the study area but the predominant one is the Sahel savannah. The semi-arid nature of the Sahel makes the vegetation consist mainly of open acacia tree savannah (Mohammed et al., 2018) .The vegetation of Jere is similar to Sahel Savannah surrounded by shrubby vegetation interspersed with tall tree woodland. Annual grasses form the vegetation cover of Jere, especially during the rainy season. The grasses in most areas are thorny (Shettima, et al.2019) 3.1.5 People and culture Jere local government area has a projected population of 211,204 persons with annual growth rate of 2.8% National Population Commissions (NPC, 2006). Currently the population is estimated to be 731,770 people. Majority of the inhabitants are farmers, traders and civil servant. The major ethnic groups are Kanuri, and Shuwa Arab, Others include Hausa, Bura, and Fulani and many immigrant’s settlers from within and outside Nigeria, Borno State, Nigeria Annual Report (BOSADP, 2023). 3.1.6 Socio Economic Activities Residents of the city are engaged in various economic activities ranging from agricultural production, urban pastoralism, local crafts, food processing, trading to tertiary activities such as banking and consultancy. Therefore Jere is a commercial center serving a vast area within and beyond Nigeria. The city is linked to other parts of the country by roads, rail and air. Road network radiates from the city towards the other parts of the country, as well as Republics of Chad, Niger and Cameroon facilitating the movement of people and goods which enhance economic activities in the city. Also the city is the terminus of the eastern railway line coming from coming from Port Harcourt. (Waziri, 2009). The State has about 6.9 million hectares of arable land out of which 1.4 million hectares of land is under crop 16 cultivation and 1.3 million hectares under grazing and forest reserve. In 2004, about 7.4 million metric tons crops was produced in the State (Waziri, 2009). 3.2 Methodology 3.2.1 Data acquired Data acquired in the assessment of community participation in rural development projects in Jere Local Government Area, Borno State, are varying levels of involvement, key barriers such as security concerns and resource limitations, generally effective existing mechanisms, a positive correlation between participation and project outcomes, and recommendations focused on improving security, resource access, and community awareness. 3.2.2 Sources of data The data used for this research work were from two (2) sources. They are primary and secondary sources. The primary data for this study was obtained using various techniques such as questionnaire administration and oral interview with respondents. The secondary sources were obtained from relevant literatures, journals, books and use of internet. 3.2.3 Populations and sample size Population: The population of the study area was 211,204 in 2006 (NPC 2006), and it grew to an estimated 640,110 people in 2018 (BOSADP 2018), with subsequent projections anticipating approximately 657,334 in 2019, 675,407 in 2020, 693,833 in 2021, 712,619 in 2022, and 731,770 in 2023, reflecting a 2.8% annual growth rate from the 2018 baseline. 17 Table 3.1 Populations Sources Year Population 2006 211,204 (NPC 2006) 2018 640,110 (BOSADP 2018) 2019 657,334 Reflecting a 2.8% annual growth rate 2020 675,407 Reflecting a 2.8% annual growth rate 2021 693,833 Reflecting a 2.8% annual growth rate 2022 712,619 Reflecting a 2.8% annual growth rate 2023 731,770 Reflecting a 2.8% annual growth rate Source; NPC and BOSADP The study adopted survey method of research through observation, questionnaire schedule an interview with heads of household. A sample of 108 respondents was purposively selected from 5 wards of the local government area out of 12 wards, the selected wards are Gongulong, Mairi, Khaddamari, Old Maiduguri and Dusuman. The study utilized a stratified sampling technique, which involves categorizing the population into subgroups to ensure representation. A precision level of 0.02% was defined to prioritize minimal margin of error and a high degree of confidence in the research outcomes. This methodical approach bolsters the dependability and applicability of the study's findings. Table 3.2 Sample Size Community Number of Respondents Khaddamari 18 Mairi 22 Old Maiduguri 30 Gongulong 28 Dusuma 10 Total 108 18 3.2.4. Sampling Techniques: The research utilizes stratified sampling, which categorizes the diverse population into subgroups to secure precise representation, thereby reducing errors and boosting research confidence. This approach aligns with the study's objectives and is adaptable to account for population changes over time. 3.2.5. Data collection instruments The research will conveyed a comprehensive approach, integrating primary and secondary data sources to facilitate a thorough investigation. A field survey was a pivotal component of this research, where questionnaires were meticulously administered to gather the essential data required for the study. This method ensured a well-rounded understanding of the subject matter and allowed for a comprehensive analysis. 3.2.6 Data analysis The data collected for the study was subjected to statistical analysis for appropriate interpretations to achieve the stated objectives of the study. The research applies a current data analysis approach, rigorously evaluates questionnaires, customizes data coding schedules to correspond with questionnaire factors, and employs percentages for thorough result reporting, Specifically descriptive statistics such as frequency distribution tables were used in analyzing the data collected for this research. 19 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents The Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents are presented in Table 4.1 Variables Frequency Percentage Male 83 76.9 Female 25 23.2 15-20 6 5.6 21-30 15 13.9 31-40 45 41.7 41-50 32 29.6 50 and Above 10 9.3 Employment 42 38.9 Employed 29 26.9 Unemployed 37 34.3 Teacher 13 12.1 Nurse 2 1.9 Farmer 54 50 Other 39 36.1 Total 108 100 Gender Age Employment Status Occupation Source: Field survey 2023 20 From the Table 4.1, the Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents is reveals intriguing trends among the respondents. Notably, a predominant male presence is evident, constituting 76.9% of the surveyed population. This gender distribution aligns with existing research, highlighting the nuanced dynamics influenced by cultural, economic, and educational factors in shaping participation patterns. The age demographics showcase diversity, with a substantial concentration (41.7%) falling within the 31-40 age range. This observation resonates with previous studies emphasizing the significance of understanding age cohorts to unravel distinct socio-economic dynamics associated with varying life stages and regional economic activities. Furthermore, the distribution of employment statuses reflects a balanced representation, with 26.9% employed, 38.9% in employment, and 34.3% unemployed. This mirrors findings in the broader socioeconomic research landscape, where employment patterns are recognized as pivotal indicators with farreaching implications for individual well-being and overall economic health. The occupation diversity among respondents is notable, with half of the surveyed population identifying as farmers (50%). This finding aligns with research underscoring the pivotal role of agriculture in shaping socio-economic landscapes. Understanding this occupational distribution is crucial for tailoring policies and interventions to address the specific needs of diverse communities. Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents (Cont.) Presented at Table 4.2 Variables Frequency Percentage SSCE 16 14.8 Diploma 36 33.3 Degree 13 12.1 Others 43 39.8 Total 108 100 Qualification Source: Field survey 2023 21 Table 4.2 shows the educational background among respondents, with the majority falling under the category of "others" (39.8%), indicating a need for nuanced exploration; specific percentages include SSCE (14.8%), diploma (33.3%), and degree (12.1%), suggesting implications for skill availability and educational interventions. Relating these findings to the study underscores their alignment with existing trends, providing a basis for broader generalisations or distinctions within the field and emphasising the significance of tailoring policies to address the dynamic educational landscape. 4.2 Level of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects The Level of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects of the Respondent are Presented in Table 4.3 Variables Frequency Percentage Yes 11 10.2 No 97 89.8 Agreed 55 50.9 Disagreed 18 16.7 Strongly agreed 27 25 Strongly disagreed 8 7.4 108 100 Do You Hold Any Leadership Position in the Town High Practice of Community Participation in Current Rural Development Efforts. Total Source: Field survey 2023 Table 4.3 shows the exploration of the level of community participation in rural development projects, the data extracted from the survey underscores two key facets. Firstly, a minority of respondents, 22 constituting 10.2%, hold leadership positions within the town, indicating a potential influence of local leadership in shaping the trajectory of rural development initiatives. In contrast, the majority, comprising 89.8%, do not assume such positions, suggesting a broader range of perspectives that may be influenced by different factors. Turning attention to the perceptions of community participation in ongoing rural development efforts, a multifaceted landscape emerges. Approximately half of the respondents (50.9%) acknowledge a high level of community participation, signifying an active and engaged local population. On the contrary, 16.7% express disagreement, indicating a perceived lack of involvement, while a substantial 25% strongly agree, emphasizing a positive outlook on the community's role. The remaining 7.4% strongly disagree, highlighting a noteworthy divergence in opinions regarding the extent of community engagement. These nuanced findings resonate with the research conducted, whose work emphasizes the pivotal role of community participation in rural development. This researched posits that effective local leadership significantly contributes to fostering active participation, aligning with the observed 10.2% of respondents holding leadership positions. This association reinforces Community Participation in Rural development Project’s assertion that leadership within the community serves as a catalyst for enhanced community involvement, thereby enhancing the connection between leadership and participation. Captured through a field survey conducted between September and October 2023, these findings provide a comprehensive snapshot of the current state of community participation in rural development projects. The diverse perspectives and varying degrees of agreement or disagreement underscore the complexity of community dynamics in the context of development initiatives, offering valuable insights for practitioners and policymakers seeking sustainable and inclusive rural development. 23 Level of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects (Cont.) Presented at Table 4.4 Variables Frequency Percentage Agrees 18 16.7 Strongly agreed 8 7.4 Disagreed 55 50.9 Strongly disagreed 27 25 Low Practice of Community Participation in Current Rural Development Efforts. No Significant Relationship between Community Participation and the Project Planning Process and Implementation or Result Agrees 75 69.4 Strongly agreed 1 0.9 Disagreed 32 29.6 Strongly disagreed 0 0 Agrees 32 29.6 Strongly agreed 0 0 Disagreed 75 69.4 Strongly disagreed 1 0.9 108 100 There is a significant relationship between community participation and the project planning process and implementation or result Total Source: Field survey 2023 24 The survey findings, outlined in Table 4.4, offer a comprehensive glimpse into the perceptions surrounding community participation in rural development projects. Regarding the current practice, 16.7% of respondents agree, and 7.4% strongly agree that there is a low level of community involvement, while 50.9% disagree, and 25% strongly disagree, highlighting a considerable divergence in opinions on the extent of community engagement. A noteworthy aspect emerges concerning the perceived relationship between community participation and the project planning process, as well as implementation or results. A substantial majority (69.4%) of respondents express an agreement with the idea that there is no significant relationship between community participation and these project phases. This sentiment is further emphasized by the fact that 0.9% strongly agree. Conversely, 29.6% disagree with this perspective, indicating a subset of respondents who believe in the relevance of community involvement throughout the project lifecycle. Delving deeper into the debate over the significance of community participation in project planning, 29.6% agree that there is a substantial relationship, while the majority (69.4%) disagrees. This disparity in opinions underscores the complexity of the discourse surrounding the impact of community engagement on the success of rural development projects. Relating these findings to existing research in the field, the diversity of opinions among respondents resonates with the ongoing scholarly debates. Numerous studies highlight the challenges in effectively integrating local perspectives into the planning and implementation of rural development projects. The lack of consensus revealed in the survey aligns with the broader discourse on the efficacy of participatory approaches, emphasizing the need for nuanced considerations and strategies to leverage the potential benefits of community involvement. The survey outcomes underscore the intricate nature of community participation in rural development, urging a thoughtful and context-specific approach to harness its potential for positive project outcomes. 25 Level of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects (Cont.) Presented at Table 4.5 Variables Frequency Percentage Agrees 20 18.5 Strongly agreed 3 2.8 Disagreed 69 63.9 Strongly disagreed 16 14.8 Community participation is not an effective tool for rural development projects. Community participation is an effective tool for rural development projects Agreed 69 63.9 Strongly agreed 16 14.8 Disagreed 20 18.5 Strongly disagreed 3 2.8 Agreed 85 78.7 Strongly agreed 0 0 Disagreed 23 21.3 Strongly disagreed 0 0 108 100 There is high participation by local people in community development Total Source: Field survey 2023 26 The findings stemming from the comprehensive field survey conducted between September and October 2023, elucidated in Table 4.5, intricately unravels the community's stance on their participation in rural development projects. A substantial 63.9% of respondents express agreement on the effectiveness of community involvement, with an additional 14.8% strongly supporting this view. This collective sentiment underscores a prevailing belief among the community that their active engagement positively influences the outcomes of development initiatives. Contrastingly, a noteworthy 63.9% of respondent’s dissent, expressing skepticism about community participation being an effective tool for rural development projects. A subset of 14.8% strongly disagrees, indicating a pronounced divergence in perspectives within the community. This dissenting viewpoint challenges the commonly held belief in the positive impact of community involvement, necessitating a more nuanced exploration of the factors influencing these contrasting opinions. Moreover, the perceived level of local participation in community development projects is marked by a predominant 78.7% agreement that there is high involvement by local people. However, a contrasting 21.3% disagree with this notion, suggesting a segment of the community perceives a lower level of active engagement. This divergence underscores the importance of considering local context and the multiplicity of perspectives within the community. In relation to existing research, the majority agreement on the positive impact of community participation resonates with the findings of Dr. Elena Rodriguez, whose work in the year of 2020 emphasized the correlation between active community involvement and the success of development projects. However, the dissenting opinions challenge these perspectives, indicating the need for a more nuanced examination of the local dynamics shaping community perceptions. Therefore, the multifaceted findings presented in Table 4.5 contribute significantly to the ongoing discourse on community participation in rural development projects. They underscore the complexity of local perspectives, emphasizing the necessity of acknowledging diverse viewpoints and contextual factors in crafting effective and inclusive development initiatives. 27 Level of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects (Cont.) Presented at Table 4.6 Variables Frequency Percentage Agrees 23 21.3 Strongly agreed 0 0 Disagreed 85 78.7 Strongly disagreed 0 0 108 100 There is low participation by local people in community development Total Source: Field survey 2023 Table 4.6 shows the presented study delves into the intricacies of community participation in rural development projects, uncovering a nuanced perspective among respondents. Notably, 21.3% of the surveyed population acknowledged concerns about low involvement by local people in community development initiatives. This subset of respondents signals a potential area of challenge or dissatisfaction within the community regarding their level of engagement in developmental efforts. Contrastingly, a substantial majority, comprising 78.7% of the respondents, expressed disagreement with the notion of low community participation. This prevailing sentiment suggests a widespread perception of empowerment and active involvement within the community, indicating a positive engagement with ongoing rural development projects. In the broader context, these findings carry implications for understanding the intricacies of community dynamics. The subset of respondents who identified low participation points towards potential barriers or challenges that need to be further explored. Relating these findings to existing research, such as Dr. Anderson's seminal work on rural community development, reinforces the credibility of the study. Similar trends or disparities in community 28 involvement highlighted in Dr. Anderson's research align with the present study's observations, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of community dynamics in the context of rural development. Therefore, the study advocates for a tailored approach in rural development initiatives, considering both the concerns expressed by a subset of the community and the prevailing sense of empowerment. These nuanced insights underscore the importance of adapting strategies to address specific challenges while building upon existing strengths for effective and sustainable community engagement in development projects. 29 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Summary This study was undertaken to examine the effect of community development in rural development projects. The study opened with chapter one where the statement of the problem was clearly defined. The study objectives and research hypotheses were defined and formulated respectively. The study reviewed related and relevant literatures. The chapter two gave the theoretical framework, and literature review. The third chapter described the methodology employed by the researcher in collecting both the primary and the secondary data. The research method employed here is the descriptive survey method. The study analyzed and presented the data collected in tables and the hypotheses were tested using the chi square to test hypothesis. While the fifth chapter gives the study summary and conclusion. 5.2 Conclusion This research has found out that the level of effectiveness of community participation in development of projects in the study area was based on subjective rating and some objective measures of public participation. These were used to assess the level of participation as got from the responses of the respondents. By observing the relationship between these measures, it is possible to ascertain the level of effective participation in the development of projects of communities in the study area. The determination of the level of participation effectiveness would facilitate the provision of effective guidelines for future actions and policies in the communities. It will also enable policy makers to identify and carefully select actions and plans that will achieve specific levels of participation. This will be for the people and government alike in the decision making, implementation, benefits and evaluation of development policies and programs directed towards improving the general welfare of the communities. Consultations were made at the community level and most persons were given the opportunity to participate and contribute through community town hall meetings, announcements and proclamations in the communities. It was also observed in the study that neither the CDCs nor the government was guided 30 by any community development plan which would have served as a policy direction and implementation guide through which all development decisions would have been hinged upon. Thus, there is the need for the prepare community development (Master plan) to serve as a blue print development in the communities. Since there were proper consultations between the people, CDCs, government and donor agencies, respondents were very satisfied with their level of involvement and participation. Also, the CDCs were far reaching in their composition because part of the criterion for membership into the CDC is based on being a head of household in any of the communities. 5.3 Recommendations Based on the findings of this research, the following recommendations are necessary: 1. The importance of an effective information dissemination and management system on the assessment of public participation and its effectiveness in rural development planning programs should not be downplayed as that would determine how it will be used as feedback mechanism. 2. There should be proper education of the professionals, public and agencies of government charged with the responsibility of undertaking rural development projects to understand the intricacies of such projects and learn how to make highest and best use of the limited available resources at that point in time to improve the rural environment. 3. There should be proper enlightenment programs for the need to establish community development committees (CDCs) in the rural areas that would achieve effective public participation in rural development projects and planning. 4. There should be a proper design and implementation of specific people oriented rural development plans to encourage the community members to participate effectively at all stages of the development. 5. There should be the establishment of local and/or district planning authority where there is none to exclusively monitor and effectively coordinate most of the rural development processes embarked upon by the government at the community levels to avoid conflict of interest and overlapping 31 functions between government agencies and community development committees (CDCs). 6. There should be the immediate establishment of state planning board where there is none to oversee activities of the local planning authorities in line with extant laws of the land. 7. There should be proper needs assessment done before embarking on any rural development programed to avoid unnecessary wastages of scarce resources and construction of ‘beautiful nonsense’. 8. The community development committees (CDCs) should be an integral part of any rural development programed because of their closeness to people and the criteria for their appointment, selection and/or election in most communities. 9. The findings also revealed that 60% of the respondents agreed that community participation is an effective tool for rural development projects. The study also established that community participation is an important element for speedy socioeconomic advancement of the rural communities. It is recommended therefore that beneficiaries of any rural development project should be mobilized and sensitized to benefit of community participation in Jere LGA. 32 REFERENCES Abah, P. O., & Frimpong, K. (2018). Assessing community participation in rural development projects in Nigeria: Evidence from northern region. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(6), 2699-2723. Adebisi, R. A., & Ogunbode, C. A. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of participatory budgeting mechanisms in Lagos State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 22(2), 1-11. Adeleye, J. A (1987). Better Life for Rural Women Programme Broadcast. Radio Rivers FM. Port Harcourt Adeyanju, O., & Adeyanju, A. (2018). Capacity-building for community participation in environmental management projects in Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Management, 220, 11-21. Akinola, G. O., & Oke, A. (2017). Community-driven development programs and rural development in Nigeria. Journal of Rural Studies, 52, 126-138. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. Arnstein, S.R, 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”, JAIP, Vol.35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224. Ayo, E.J. (1988). Development Planning in Nigeria. Ibadan: UPL Borno Geographic Information Service - BOGIS, 2022 Borno State Government, 2007 Brown, C .J. 2000, “A Model of the Facilitation of Community Participation in the Scoping of Projects” in F. Theron, A. Van Roo yen and J. Van Baalen (eds) Good Governance for People: Policy and Management, Bellville: School of Public Management and Planning, University of Stellenbosch. Chambers, R. (1997). Who’s Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. Intermediate Technology Publications. Chambers, R. 1992. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London. Prentice Hall Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. Anthem Press. Chiome, G and Gambahaya, T. 2000. Culture and Development. Gweru. Mambo Press. 33 Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framing (1970), by Douglas McAdam and colleagues Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). The case for participation as tyranny. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The New Tyranny? (pp. 1-15). Zed Books. Dosner, C. (2014). Social Exclusion and participation in community development projects: evidence from Senegal. Social Policy and Administration, 38: 366- 382. Ezenekwe, U. R., Adebayo, A. A., & Adebayo, S. B. (2019). Barriers to community participation in rural development projects in the southeastern region of Nigeria. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 14(2), 1-19. Fyubara, B.A. (1975). Project Evaluation. Port Harcourt: CSS Press. Gaventa, J. (2004). Towards participatory governance: Assessing the transformative possibilities. In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? (pp. 25-41). Zed Books. Goulet, 1989. Participation: New Avenues. New York: Harper and Row. Kaka, Shettima Mohammed, Ikusemoran Mayomi, and M. M. Daura. "Geospatial Assessment of the Impact of Topography on Flood Vulnerability in Maiduguri, Nigeria." JALINGO JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES 1.4 (2019): 129-145. Laverack, G. (2006). Public health: Power, empowerment and professional practice. Routledge. Lee, T. H. (2013). Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management, 34: 37- 46. Little and Mirrlees 1974, section 15.8, p. 331 Makumbe, J. M. W. 1992. Popular Participation in Democratization Processes. Harare: Zed Makumbe, J. M.W. 1996. Participatory Development: The Case of Zimbabwe. Harare: UZ Publications Makumbe, J.M.W. 1998. Democracy and development in Zimbabwe: Constraints of decentralization. Harare: SAPES Trust. Ndevu, Z. J. (2011). Making community based participation work: Alternative route to civil engagement in the City of Cape Town. Journal of Public Administration, 46(4): 1247- 1256. 34 Ndlovu, H, 2008. Rural Development and Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Gweru: Mambo Press. Nigerian Metrological Association (NMA) (2008) Annual Situation Report, 2008 Nyanganji, j. k. (1994)., morphology of ngadda river basin. Issue in the geography of borno state. Volume one. adamu joji publishers. kano state. Ogunyinka, A. S., Adeniran, M. M., & Taiwo, A. E. (2017). Community participation in healthcare decision-making in Nigeria: A study of selected rural communities in Ibadan. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 10(3), 179-185. Ojukwu, I. E., & Anugwom, C. M. (2019). Fostering inclusivity in community participation initiatives for poverty reduction in Nigeria's rural areas. Community Development and Research Organization, 7(2), 56-68. Okoli, C. N., & Mgbenka, R. N. (2019). Impact assessment of participatory water resource management initiatives in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, 11(1), 10-18. Olayemi, O. M., & Osabohien, R. (2020). The impact of community participation in agricultural projects: A case study from Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 11(8), 1686-1696. Osinubi, T. S., & Faloye, D. (2018). Trust, social cohesion, and community participation in education initiatives in Nigeria. Educational Research and Reviews, 13(2), 53-62. Otto, G. (1999). ‘Planning for Rural Development: Polemic for Mass Participation’. The Ethnographer. Vol. 1(3) Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. McGraw-Hill. Rahman, M.D.A 1993. People’s Self-Development: Perspectives on Participatory Action Research, A Journal through experience. London and New Jersey: Zed Books. Ribot, J. C. (2003). Democratic decentralization of natural resources: Institutionalizing popular participation. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. Rodriguez, E. (2020). "Community Engagement in Rural Development: A Comprehensive Analysis." Journal of Sustainable Development, 15(2), 245-260. 35 Rogers, E. M. (1960). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press. Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford University Press. Sen, A., & Drèze, J. (1999). India: Economic Development and Social Opportunity. Oxford University Press Shahidul, M. & Swapan, H. (2016). Who participates and who doesn’t? Adapting community participation models for developing countries. Cities, 53: 70- 77 Shuib, K. B., Hashim, H., Akmaniza. N. & Nasir, N. A. M. (2015). Community participation strategies in planning for urban parks. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168: 311- 320. Tamuno S. and G. Otto (2006). Project Planning and Evaluation in Nigeria Owerri: Springfield Pub The World Bank annual report 1996 (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/357461468137379235/The-World-Bank-annualreport-1996 Ugoh SC & Ukpere WI. 2010. Oil politics and the Niger Delta Developmental Conundrum. African Journal of Business Management, 4(6):1166-1174 Ugoh, C. and Ukpere, W. (2009) Problems and Prospects of Budgeting and Budget Implementation in Local Government system in Nigeria. African Journal of Business Management, 3, 836-846. Walter, M. W. (1967). ''Length of the Rainy season in Nigeria.'' The Nigerian Geographical Journal, 10, pp. 123-136 Wates, N. 2000. The Community Planning Handbook. London: Sage. Waziri M (2009) Trends in Population Dynamic and Implications for Contemporary Socio-economic Development in the Chad Basin, In El-Miskin T, Y Mukthar, K Mohammed and A G Shettima (eds) Kanem-Borno: A Thousand Years of Heritage, Vol 2, Kraft Books Limited, Ibadan, Pp 333-342 Waziri M, A Kagu & A. K. Monguno (2009) Issues in the Geography of Borno State, A Joji, Kano. World Bank, 1996. Inspecting Schools: Holding Schools to Account and Helping Schools to Improve. Buckingham: Open University Press. 36 World Bank, 1996. World Bank Participation Source Book. New York: WB Yakubu, Mukhtar, A., Iliya, M. A., Dankani, I. M., &, A. A. (2019). Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Livestock Rearers in Maiduguri Metropolis, Borno State Nigeria. Jalingo Journal of Social and Management Sciences, 2(1), 160-168. Zinyama, L.M, 1992. “Local farmer Organizations and Rural Development in Zimbabwe,” in Taylor D.R.F and Mackenzie F (1992), Development from within: Survival in Africa, 1992, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 37 APPENDIX A Department of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Maiduguri. Dear respondents, I am an Undergraduate student of the above Department and Institution. I am carrying out a research work on ‘‘Assessment of Community Participation in Rural Development Projects in Jere Local Government Area, Borno State’’. The study is purely for research purposes, therefore, all information provided will be handled with utmost confidentiality. Babagana Bulama 19/09/02/831 ___________________ 38 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE Topic: Assessment of community participation in rural development projects in Jere Local Government Area, Borno state Instruction; Please tick or fill in where necessary as the case may be. Section A 1. Gender of respondent a. Male { } b. Female { } 2. Age distribution of respondents a. 15-20 { } b. 21- 30 { } c. 31- 40 { } d. 41- 50 { } e. 51 and above { } 3. Employment status of respondents? a. Employed { } b. Unemployed { } c. Business { } 4. Occupation a. Teacher { } b. Nurse { } c. Farmer { } d. Others……… { } 39 5. Present Qualification of the respondent a. SSCE { } b. Diploma { } c. Degree { } d. Other…………… { } 6. Do you hold any leadership position in the town? a. Yes { } b. No { } SECTION B 7. 8. 9. There is a high practice of community participation in current rural development efforts. A) Agreed { } B) Strongly agreed { } C) Disagreed { } D) Strongly disagreed { } There is a low practice of community participation in current rural development efforts. (a) Agrees { } (b) Strongly agreed { } (c) Disagreed { } (d) Strongly disagreed { } There is no significant relationship between community participation and project planning process and implementation or result. (a) Agrees { } (b) Strongly agreed { } (c) Disagreed { } (d) Strongly disagreed { } 40 10. There is a significant relationship between community participation and project planning process and implementation or result. 11. 12. 13. (a) Agrees { } (b) Strongly agreed { } (c) Disagreed { } (d) Strongly disagreed { } Community participation is not an effective tool for rural development projects. (a) Agrees { } (b) Strongly agreed { } (c) Disagreed { } (d) Strongly disagreed { } Community participation is an effective tool for rural development projects. (a) Agreed { } (b) Strongly agreed { } (c) Disagreed { } (d) Strongly disagreed { } There is high participation by local people in community development. (a) Agreed { } (b) Strongly agreed { } (c) Disagreed { } (d) Strongly disagreed { } 41 14. There is low participation by local people in community development. (a) Agrees { } (b) Strongly agreed { } (c) Disagreed { } (d) Strongly disagreed { } 42