Section IV. Norms and Goals in Land Management Practice

The Need for Land Use Planning and Governance in Suleja Niger State, Nigeria: What It Is and What It Ought to Be

12.1 Introduction

A system of land governance should perceive land as a natural resource that must be sustainably developed and used. Land managers and administrators must operate within specific technical frameworks, as land governance is concerned with social, legal, cultural, and economic entities (Otubu, 2018). Land planning and governance is not negotiable amidst the population explosions in both urban and peri-urban areas. Lack of strategic planning or implementation of plans by constituted authorities, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, including Nigeria, exacerbates various land issues. The problem of population growth is linked with the urbanization that has created many negative effects on urban and peri-urban land, though the effect varies within communities. After the passive response of the government to solving the issues of unplanned use and growing misuse of land in Nigerian cities, a number of laws and policies were formulated by the Nigerian government which are applicable to all levels. These laws include the Land Use Act of 1978, the Urban Development Policy of 1992, the Urban and Regional Planning Decree of 1992, and the Housing and Urban Development Policy of 2002. It is sad to note that despite the enactment of these laws and policies, the anarchic system of land use activities still exists in Nigerian cities (Yahyaha and Ishiak, 2013). This calls for strategic synergy among all actors in land planning and development towards sustainable land governance.

Land in Suleja is becoming scarce due to high demand and immense settlements expansion as a result of population influx to Suleja due to its strategic location. Suleja is experiencing expansion, growth, and developmental activities due to its proximity to Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) of Nigeria. The movement of the FCT from Lagos in 1991 to Abuja contributed to the massive movement of people from other parts of the country to settle in Suleja, and also to the high cost of accommodation within the Abuja City that many low- and middle-income earners could not afford. Another factor responsible for the influx of men and women into Suleja was the demolition of illegal structures within the FCT and people from the northeastern part of Nigeria who left their state due to the activities of insurgents.

Suleja is about 20 km north of Abuja, the Federal Capital of Nigeria, and about 100 km northeast of Minna, the State Capital of Niger State (Buba, Makwin, and Ogalla, 2016). Suleja has about ten (10) wards within the Local Government Area. The existing land use of the study area includes residential, commercial, recreational, industrial, educational, and probably minor agricultural land uses. These land use types create spatial imbalance due to human needs. The ethnic culture of the people in Suleja has influenced the types, pattern, and design of housing construction.

Over the years, there have been signs of environmental stress, such as loss of vegetation and valuable land, erection of substandard and illegal houses, overcrowding, unplanned settlements, and slums with unpleasant living environments due to rapid population increase and migration leading to settlement growth, with people competing for limited available land and other resources which could lead to indelible damage to the study area. The concern of this work is centered on how to harmonize population pressure, urbanization, and gradual loss of valuable land in Suleja.

Against this background, there is the need to clearly understand the relationship between population growth within urban areas and its effect on peri-urban areas. In the light of the above, this study sets out to examine the dynamics of urban growth in relation to land consumption and also to forecast the future land risk in Suleja for sustainable planning and governance system (Figure 12.1).

  • 12.2 Literature Review
  • 12.2.1 Land Use Planning

All around Africa, and in the world at large, land use impacts, occupation, and allocation of land rights are changing; the impact of these changes include increasing land scarcity, rapid urbanization, and growing hazards which put larger numbers of people at risk (de Vries, 2018). Why is land use planning important in the modern world? Land use planning is regarded as one of the most sensitive issues across countries; it is politically connected as it affects people’s livelihoods and community’s essential needs (Chigbu et al., 2016). Planning and governance in land use is inevitable. Land use is connected with individual wellbeing, and is also a support to environmental sustainability, to a country’s economic growth, and social inclusion (OECD, 2017). However, if that is what land use does, then it has to be planned. Allocating available land resources to different land activities such as agricultural, residential, and industrial must be judiciously planned (Haseeb, 2018).

Map of the study area. Source

FIGURE 12.1 Map of the study area. Source: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Federal University of Technology. Minna (2018).

12.2.2 Need for Land Governance

Land governance is the process by which decisions are made regarding the access to and use of land, the manner in which those decisions are implemented, and the way that conflicting interests are reconciled (Global Tool Network). According to Hernandez (2017), reliable land information for land use planning, zoning, and administration is lacking in most countries. This lack has created negative effects on urban planning and design, infrastructure, and socio-economic development. There is therefore a need for urgent land governance as pressures keep mounting on land due to factors like rapid urbanization, growing population, economic development, food insecurity, water and energy shortages, and the effects of conflicts and disasters.

12.2.3 Responsible Land Management

To attain a responsible land management in rural or peri-urban areas, it has to possess some characteristics, such as responsive, respected, reliable, robust, reflexive, and recognizable (de Vries and Chigbu, 2017). In view of that, a better understanding of the interrelationships and coordination mechanisms in linking ecological, social, cultural, political, and economic dimensions by all stakeholders from local to national levels is important. Joint action at the community level towards participatory planning approaches will serve as a tool for the sustainability of land development efforts (Chigbu, 2013). Similarly, in developing peri-urban areas, preconditions like peri-urban planning, visioning, improving accessibility of growth centers, citizens’ participation, decentralization of responsibilities, and local governance are to be the focus of the local, state, and national government, (Magel, 2015).

12.2.4 Land Use Land Cover

The study of land use/land cover (LULC) has become an increasingly important, especially when it comes to monitoring urban dynamics and land consumption rate. Mohajane et al. (2018) described land use/land cover (LULC) changes as one of the most important applications of Earth Observation (EO) satellite sensor data; one of its main functions is that it provides a comprehensive and good understanding of ecosystem monitoring, and responses to environmental factors. In the same vein, remote sensing techniques have also been recognized as a powerful means to obtain information on Earth’s surface features at different spatial and temporal scales. It was used to assess the rate of urban expansion and loss of vegetation in Akure North and South Local Government Areas of Ondo State of Nigeria; the study utilized multi-temporal and multi-source satellite imageries of Landsat data for 1991, 2002, and 2016. The study concluded that substantial land use/land cover (LULC) changes have taken place and the built-up land and agricultural land have continued to expand over the study period; while the forest land, bare rock, and water body have decreased. It was noted that the development of the urban built-up areas has resulted in reduction of the land under agriculture and other natural vegetation. The study recommended that monitoring of LULC through remote sensing and GIS should be institutionalized at local and state levels in order to provide coordination in environmental monitoring at all levels.

  • 12.3 Methodology
  • 12.3.1 Data Collection

The study utilized data from secondary sources. The secondary data for the research was the documented materials such as population and annual growth rate (National Population Commission (NPC) 2006), historical records, and a topographic map of the study area which was collected from the Ministry of Lands and Survey, Minna, Niger State. The satellite imagery of the study (Enhance

TABLE 12.1

Land Use and Land-Cover Classification Scheme

S/N

Classification

Description

1

Built-up area

All residential, commercial, and industrial areas, village settlement and transportation infrastructure.

2

Bare surface

Cropland and pasture, orchards, groves, vineyards, nurseries, and ornamental, horticultural areas, confirmed feeding operations.

3

Vegetation

Trees, shrubland, and semi-natural vegetation, deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forests, palms, orchids, herbs, gardens, and grasslands.

(Authors’ classification, 2019)

Thematic Mapper (ETM) 2000,2005,2010, and 2018) over a period of 18 years were obtained from the National Remote Sensing Centre, Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria and analysed to determine land use trends. To determine the population figure for 2000 and 2005, the population figure of 1991, 108,561, from the National Population Commission was projected to obtain the figures for the years 2000 and 2005 (Table 12.1).

12.3.2 Image Processing Techniques (Classification)

The bands 3, 2, 1 satellite imagery was used to form the false color composite for the study. On the bands 3, 2, 1, false color composite, vegetation appears as red, built-up areas appear in cyan color, and bare surfaces/degraded lands appears in white color. The area of interest (Suleja) was clipped out from the four satellite images acquired (2000, 2005, 2010, and 2018), and sample sets (built-up areas, vegetation, and bare surfaces) were created for the respective years under study. A sample set stores locations of sampled pixels and the assigned class names. The sample sets created were then subjected to a supervised maximum likelihood classification on ILWIS 3.3 Academic software for the four satellite images used.

12.3.3 Overlay Process

Image overlay operation is the geospatial process or procedure prior to the determination of spatial topological relationships. The aim of an image overlay operation is to determine “what spatial feature is on top of what.” An overlay operation is much more than mere merging of points, lines, and polygonal features, but it involves all the attributes of the features taking part in the overlay operations. For this study, the feature overlay analysis was carried out. In carrying out the feature overlay analysis, all the classified imageries were transformed from raster to polygon using ILWIS 3.3 Academic. The polygons for built-up areas were created on each of the four satellite images classified (2000, 2005, 2010, and 2018), and the layers of the polygons were overlaid with the polygon of built-up area 2018 serving as the base year (See Figure 12.2). The overlay of the built-up area shows how urban developments within Suleja have displaced or encroached upon other land uses/land cover.

  • 12.4 Results
  • 12.4.1 Examination of the Dynamics of Urban Growth in Suleja Local Government Area

A population figure of 144,149 and 169,154 was obtained for the years 2000 and 2005 respectively, while the 2006 population figure for Suleja (216,578) was used for the projection of the population

Percentage increase in population in Suleja between 2000 and 2018. (Authors’ computation, 2018.)

FIGURE 12.2 Percentage increase in population in Suleja between 2000 and 2018. (Authors’ computation, 2018.)

figure of the year 2010 and 2018. Population figures of 245,599 and 315,987 were computed for years 2010 and 2018. The population figure of the years under study was calculated by Equation (12.1):

Po = the population figure for 1991, i.e. 108,561 Pt = projected population r = annual growth rate (3.2) of Suleja n = time lag between the base year and the target year

Figure 12.2 shows that there was a percentage increase of 17% in the population of Suleja between 2000 and 2005, between 2005 and 2010, there was 45% increase, while between 2010 and 2018, there was an increase of 29% in the population figure. The percentage increase was calculated by subtracting the previous population from the original or current population, then the total was divided by the previous population and multiplied by 100.

  • 12.4.2 Examination of Land Consumption Rates in Suleja
  • 12.4.2.1 Change in Land Cover of Suleja between 2000 and 2018

Figure 12.3 shows the land cover of Suleja in the year 2000. The bare surface covered land area of 9.23 km2 (4.4%), and the built-up area and vegetation covered 16.32 km2 (7.7%) and 186.08 km2 (87.92%) respectively.

Figure 12.4 shows the land cover of Suleja in the year 2005. In the year 2005, there was a significant change in the land cover of Suleja. Also, it revealed that bare surface covered a land area of 5.37 km2. The built-up area and vegetation covered 21.87 km2 and 184.85 km2 respectively.

Figure 12.5 revealed the land cover of Suleja in the year 2010; it shows that bare surface covers a land area of 0.27 km2, the built-up area covers 27.10 km2, and vegetation covers 184.0 km2.

Figure 12.6 shows the extent of land cover of Suleja in the year 2018. Bare surface covers a land area of 1.72 km2, the built-up area covers 45.74 km2, and vegetation covers 289.4 km2.

12.4.3 Magnitude of Change between the Years 2000 and 2005

In Table 12.2, the magnitude of change in Suleja (C) between the year 2000 and 2005 was calculated by subtracting the annual land use frequency A from В (land use in 2000 from 2005). The

Land cover of Suleja in 2000. (Authors’ computation, 2018.)

FIGURE 12.3 Land cover of Suleja in 2000. (Authors’ computation, 2018.)

Land cover of Suleja in 2005. (Authors’ computation, 2018.)

FIGURE 12.4 Land cover of Suleja in 2005. (Authors’ computation, 2018.)

annual frequency of change (D) is derived by dividing the magnitude of change of each land use by five years (reference year). The percentages of change (E) were calculated by dividing the magnitude of change of each land use by A and multiplying by 100. Table 12.2 shows that the built-up area has been growing at 0.95 km2 yearly and bare surface has suffered a loss of -0.77 km2 yearly.

12.4.4 Magnitude of Change between the Years 2005 and 2010

In Table 12.3, the magnitude of change in Suleja (C) between 2005 and 2010 was arrived at by subtracting A from В (land use in 2005 from 2010). The annual frequency of change (D) was arrived at by dividing the magnitude of change of each land use by five years (reference year). The percentages of change (E) were calculated by dividing the magnitude of change of each land use by A and multiplying by 100. Table 12.3 shows the built-up area has been growing at 1.21 km2 yearly, and bare surface growing at 1.02 km2 yearly.

Land cover of Suleja in 2010. (Authors’ computation. 2018.)

FIGURE 12.5 Land cover of Suleja in 2010. (Authors’ computation. 2018.)

Land cover of Suleja in 2018. (Authors’ computation, 2018.)

FIGURE 12.6 Land cover of Suleja in 2018. (Authors’ computation, 2018.)

12.4.5 Magnitude of Change between the Years 2010 and 2018

In Table 12.4, the magnitude of change in Suleja (C) between 20Ю and 2018 was calculated by subtracting A from В (land use in 20Ю from 2018). The annual frequency of change (D) was derived by dividing the magnitude of change of each land use by eight years (reference year). The percentages of change (E) were calculated by dividing the magnitude of change of each land use by A and multiplying by 100. Table 12.4 shows the built-up area has been growing at 2.33 km2 yearly, but the bare surface reduced by 0.18 km2 yearly compared to 2005 and 2010.

12.4.6 Land Use Pattern/Cover of Suleja

Figure 12.7 shows the image characteristics of Suleja for the year 2000. The bare surface areas cover 9.23 km2 (4.4%). The built-up area is 16.32 km2 (7.7%). Vegetation has a total area of 186.08 km2

TABLE 12.2

Magnitude and Percentage of Change in Land Cover between 2000 and 2005

CLASSES

A

2000

В

2005

C

MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE (B-A)

D

ANNUAL FREQUENCY OF CHANGE C/5

E

PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE C/A * ЮО

Bare surface

9.23

5.37

-3.86

-0.77

-41.82

Built-up area

16.32

21.07

4.75

0.95

29.11

Vegetation

186.08

184.85

-1.23

-0.25

-0.66

Total

211.63

211.29

-0.34

0.70

-13.37

(Authors’ computation. 2018)

TABLE 12.3

Magnitude and Percentage of Change in Land Cover between 2005 and 2010

CLASSES

A

2005

В

2010

C

MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE (B-A)

D

ANNUAL FREQUENCY OF CHANGE C/5

E

PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE C/AMOO

Bare surface

5.37

0.27

-5.1

1.02

95.0

Built-up area

21.07

27.10

6.03

1.21

28.62

Vegetation

184.85

184.00

-0.85

-0.17

0.50

Total

211.29

211.37

0.08

2.06

124.12

(Authors’ computation, 2018)

TABLE 12.4

Magnitude and Percentage of Change in Land Cover between 2010 and 2018

CLASSES

A

2010

В

2018

C

MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE (B-A)

D

ANNUAL FREQUENCY OF CHANGE C/8

E

PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE C/A *100

Bare surface

0.27

1.72

1.45

0.18

537.03

Built-up area

27.10

45.74

18.64

2.33

68.78

Vegetation

184.00

289.4

105.4

13.175

57.28

Total

211.37

211.37

125.50

15.70

663.1

  • (Authors’ computation. 2018)
  • (87.92%). Figure 12.2 shows the image characteristics of Suleja in 2005. The bare surface area has an area of 5.37 km2 (2.5%). The built-up area covers an area of 21.07 km2 (10%), and vegetation has an area of 184.85 km2 (87.5%).

Figure 12.2 depicts the spread of Suleja in 2010; the bare surface covers an area of 0.27 km2 (0.1%). The built-up area covers an area of 27.10 km2 (12.8%). Vegetation covers an area of 184.00 km2 (87.1%), and Figure 12.2 also shows the spread of Suleja in 2018; a bare surface covers an area of 1.72 km2 (0.5%). The built-up area covers an area of 45.74 km2 (13.6%). Vegetation has an area of 289.4 km2 (85.9%).

Changes in land cover 2000-2018

FIGURE 12.7 Changes in land cover 2000-2018.

12.4.7 Forecasting the Future Land Risk in Suleja

Figure 12.7 shows that Suleja is growing toward the southeast of the city which is the main express road linking to the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria. Many scholars have identified a failure to evolve master plan provision, the general lack of development control, environmental inconvenience, a debilitating state of disorder, chaos, and high crime rate, a massive backlog of infrastructure neglect, and a shortage of qualitative housing dwellings as part of Suleja’s problems emanating from incessant growth; these problems will double in ten years’ time. The economic situation of the country has forced more people to leave the Federal Capital Territory Abuja of Nigeria to search for cheaper accommodation and a cheaper life that is available in the study area. Likewise, people along this axis are vulnerable to flooding and epidemics.

Changes in spatial extent 2000-2018

FIGURE 12.8 Changes in spatial extent 2000-2018.

12.5 Conclusion

This study has shown the pattern and direction of growth of Suleja between year 2000 and 2018 using remote sensing and GIS tools. The results show that the city is growing at a rapid rate; there was a percentage increase of 17% in the population of Suleja between 2000 and 2005 and between 2005 and 2010, there was a 45% increase, while between 2010 and 2018, there was an increase of 29%. The population figure is also growing toward the southeastern direction mainly along the main transportation routes (see Figure 12.8). The growth pattern is largely influenced by factors such as low rent and cheap household commodities. The growth in Suleja as observed from the prediction may lead to a high cost of housing, decline in agricultural lands, high cost of living, chronic slum generation, increased crime rate patterns, and by extension, a high rate of unemployment.

In the next 10 to 15 years, many more areas not fit for habitation will be occupied, and many more will lose land rights through demolition as they continue to build towards the FCT.

12.5.1 Recommendations

Based on this research, the following recommendations were made:

  • 1. The research suggests that valuable plots of land on the major and strategic locations be redesigned as fit for purpose so as to regulate and stop leapfrog development;
  • 2. The state government should partner with the National Centre for Remote Sensing and the Federal University of Technology, Minna for training and capacity-building of the staff of the Niger State Urban Development Board;
  • 3. Immediate update of the existing master plan and adoption of computerized land records (GIS) for proper land registration and titling in the Suleja should commence.

References

Buba, Y. A., Makwin, U. G., & Ogalla, M. (2016). Urban Growth and Landuse Cover Change in Nigeria Using GIS and Remote Sensing Applications. Case Study of Suleja L.G.A., Niger State. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 5(8), 124-138.

Chigbu, U. E. (2013). Rurality as a Choice: Towards Ruralising Rural Areas in sub-Saharan African Countries. Development Southern Africa, 30(6), 812-825.

Chigbu, U. E., Haub, O., Mabikke, S., Antonio, D., & Espinoza, J. (2016). Tenure Responsive Land Use Planning: A Guide for Country Level Implementation. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-Habitat.

de Vries, W. T. (2018). Potential of Big Data for Pro-Active Participatory Land Use Planning. Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, 5(2), 205-214.

de Vries, W. T, & Chigbu, U. E. (2017). Responsible Land Management-Concept and Application in a Territorial Rural Context, fub. Fldchenmanagement und Bodenordnung, 79(2), 65-73.

Haseeb, J. (2018). Land Use Planning - Techniques, Classification & Objectives, https://www.aboutcivil.org/ land-use-planning.html, on 03/02/2019.

Hernandez. (2017). Responsible Land Governance in Urban Areas. https://equalrights4womenworldwide. blogspot.com/2017/04/responsible-land-governance-in-urban.html.

Magel, H. (2015). Where Is the Rural Territorial Development Going? Reflections on the Theory and Practice. Geomatics, Land Management and Landscape, I, 55-67.

Mohajane. M., Essahlaoui. A.. Oudija, F.. El Hafyani, M.. Hmaidi. A. E., El Ouali. A.. & Teodoro, A. C. (2018). Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) Using Landsat Data Series (MSS. TM. ETM+ and OLI) in Azrou Forest, in the Central Middle Atlas of Morocco. Environments, 5(12), 131.

OECD. (2017). The Governance of Land Use; Policy Highlight. (February), https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional -policy/governance-of-land-use-policy-highlights.pdf.

Otubu, A. (2018). The Land Use Act and Land Administration in 21st Century Nigeria: Need for Reforms. Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy, 9(1), 80-108.

Wehrmann, B. (2017). Land Governance: A Review and Analysis of Key International Frameworks, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat).

Yahyaha, O. Y., & Ishiak, Y. (2013). Effective Urban Land Use Planning in Nigeria: Issues and Constraints. Journal of Environmental Management and Safety, 4(2), 103-114.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >