The high rate of urbanisation and population explosion in the world has placed high demand for food especially the demand for fish, which has continued to rise. Aquaculture, therefore, has manifested as a significant means of nutritious food production, income generation and livelihood support in the lives of so many natives around the globe. Buguma community residents who were primarily into traditional fishing to earn a living can hardly go out for fishing because of pipeline vandalism triggered pollution, rape of women fisher folks and criminal activities such as piracy, kidnapping, theft, etc. in the creeks. It is apparent that there is the loss of livelihood in Buguma thus the establishment of the Buguma fish farm as an intervention project. The researcher on this note develops the nexus to investigate the perception of Buguma residents to the Buguma fish farm and its potential to revitalize the livelihood base of the area. Specific objectives of this study are: to assess the level of awareness of the Buguma aquaculture farm and its products by Buguma community residents, ascertain the residents’ perceptions of the aquaculture farm project and its activities in terms of positive and negative impacts, identify the benefits enjoyed from the Buguma fish farm by the respondents and appraise the operational successes and challenges of the Buguma fish farm development from 2013-2016. This study was undertaken as a mixed method research with the use of convenience and stratified random sampling of households in 28 streets of Buguma. The research design used was the “Triangulation Mixed-Method Design”. The number of questionnaires administered to residents’ households was 384, while the number returned was 376. Data analysis employed descriptive statistical techniques - bar charts, pie charts, histogram with mode and percentages. In general, the result of the research work affirms that there was livelihood loss due to oil pollution from pipeline vandalism; and high level of criminal activities such as kidnapping and robbery but that the Buguma fish farm as an intervention project reinvigorated the livelihood base and improved the living standard of Buguma residents as it opened window of investment opportunities, serve as a tourism destination and provides jobs/ employment for Buguma residents. The researcher designs an agropolitan centre model for the area and recommends effective implementation.
At a glance
- Household survey analysed 376 returned questionnaires across 28 streets
- Specific interviews with 48 fisherfolk among the survey respondents
- Proposed agropolitan settlement model includes a zoning plan and contour profile
- Agropolitan project model links Buguma with three proposed village centres
- 97 sources in the bibliography
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Background to the Study
1.2 Statement of the Problem
1.3 Aim of the study
1.4 Objectives of the Study
1.5 Research Questions
1.6 Justification for the Study
1.7 Scope of the Study
1.8 Description of the Study Area
1.9 Historical Information on the Buguma Fish Farm
1.10 Significance of the Study
1.11 Limitation / Research Gap
1.12 Conceptual/ Operational Definition of Terms
2. Literature Review
2.1 Conceptual Framework
2.2 Models of Regional development
2.2.1 The Chinese Model of Rural Territorial Organisation
2.2.2 Review of John Friedmann and the Agropolitan Concept of Regional Development
2.2.2.1 Definition of Agropolitan
2.2.2.2 The Objectives of Agropolitan Development
2.2.2.3 The Basis of Agropolitan Development
2.2.2.4 Basis for Agropolis (Agricultural-Based Urban Growth Center)
2.3 Aquaculture Planning and Management
2.4 Perceptions of Aquaculture Development
2.4.1 Determinants of Residents Perceptions of Aquaculture
2.5 Summary to literature reviewed
3. Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Design
3.3 Data Sources
3.4 Field Research Strategies
3.3 Population and Sample
3.3.1 Population of Study (Sample Frame)
3.3.2 Sample Size
3.3.3 Sampling Technique
3.3.4 Target Population
3.4 Questionnaire Design
3.5 Data Preparation and Storage
3.6. Reliability and Validity of Research Instrument
3.7. Analytical Techniques
4. Data Presentation and Analysis
4.1 Household questionnaire distributed and returned
4.2 Sex of Respondents
4.3 Age of Respondents
4.4 Literacy (Educational Attainment) of Respondents
4.5 Respondents Employment Status
4.6 Respondents Occupational Status
4.7 Supplementary Occupational Status of Respondents
4.8 Marital Status of Respondent
4.9 Income Status of Respondents
4.10 Number of persons in Household
4.11 Origin of Residents in the study area
4.12 Household members employed
4.13 Sources of Drinking Water
4.14 Mode of Household Travel
4.15 Primary Source of Power Supply
4.16 Length of Stay in Buguma
4.17 Residents Security Rating of Buguma Community
4.18 Communication Device owned by Respondent
4.19 Ways of communication by respondents who do not own a device
4.20 Where latest information is obtained
4.21 How financial dealings are transacted
4.22 Nearness/Proximity to Bank
4.23 Heard of the term “Aquaculture”
4.24 Awareness of Aquaculture in Buguma
4.25 Sea foods produced by aquaculture farms in Buguma
4.26 How often respondents eat sea foods
4.27 How respondents get fish they eat
4.28 Name of sea foods/ fishes sold in Buguma
4.29 When last Respondents’ eat Buguma Aquaculture fish
4.30 Reason why respondents have not eaten aquaculture products from the Buguma fish farm
4.31 State of sea food production without aquaculture
4.32 Other Uses of Buguma coastal environment
4.33 Whether respondent own a boat or not
4.34 How often you have gone fishing for recreation
4.35 Reason for not going on fishing for recreation
4.36 Respondents overall Perception of the aquaculture farm in Buguma
4.37 Reason for having positive views about the Buguma aquaculture farm
4.38 Reason for having negative views about the Buguma aquaculture farm
4.39 Suggestion on how to make more persons patronize Buguma aquaculture products
4.40 Sources of information about the Buguma Aquaculture farm
4.41 Residents’ Personal view of Impact of the Buguma aquaculture on residents
4.42 Buguma residents use of the coast been positively impacted by aquaculture
4.43 Buguma residents’ use of the coast has been negatively impacted by aquaculture
4.44 Operationalization of Aquaculture
4.45 Reasons for disagreeing that aquaculture is a sustainable way to produce food
4.46 Ways respondents’ think aquaculture poses a risk to natural sea life
4.47 As a fisherfolk, How often do you go a fishing
4.48 Fishing Implements respondents own
4.49 Quantity of fish catches per outing by respondents
4.50 Uses of fishes harvested in the open river
4.51 Where fisher folks sell their fishes
4.52 Fish preservation methods
4.53 Challenges faced in the sea while fishing
4.54 Fishers folk willingness to embrace new way of catching or rearing fish
4.55 Whether the Buguma aquaculture farm is a welcome development
4.56 Reasons fisher folks give why it is a welcome development
4.57 Whether there is competition between fisher folks and aquaculture farm activities
4.58 Extent of competition
4.59 Reasons for disagreeing that there is competition
4.60: Things the Buguma fish farm management need do to boast activity
4.61 Summary of Research Findings
5. Discussion of Findings
5.1 Characteristics of Respondents
5.2 Occupational classification
5.3 Literacy Level/Educational Attainment of Respondents
5.4 Income Level of Respondent
5.5 Length of Stay in Buguma
5.6 Residents Security Rating of Buguma Community
5.7 Awareness of Aquaculture in Buguma
5.8 Respondents’ consumption of Buguma Aquaculture fish
5.9 Benefits of Buguma Aquaculture fish farm
5.10 Overall residents’ perception of the aquaculture farm in Buguma
5.11 Residents’ opinion of the challenges of the Buguma fish farm
5.12 Respondent Suggestion on Buguma aquaculture farm
6. Recommendation and Conclusion
6.1 Conclusion
6.2 Recommendations
6.2.1 Agropolitan Settlement Plan Proposals
6.2.2 The Agropolitan Project Model for Asari-Toru Local Government Area
6.2.3 Content of AGC
6.2.4 Content of the Sub- Regional Agropolitan Industrial Center
6.2.5 Employment to be provided
6.2.6 Implementation Strategy for the Agropolitan Development
6.2.7 Project Implementation
Objectives and Themes
This dissertation examines how Buguma residents perceive the Buguma Fish Farm and asks how aware they are of its activities and products, what benefits and impacts they associate with it, and what operational challenges they identify for 2013–2016.
- Community awareness and perceptions of aquaculture
- Fishing livelihoods and coastal environmental pressures
- Economic, social and environmental impacts
- Household and fisherfolk perspectives
- Community participation and agropolitan development
Excerpt from the Book
2.2.2 John Friedmann and the Agropolitan Concept of Regional Development
The agropolitan concept was proposed by Friedmann (1975). It was proposed as a strategy aimed at meeting communities basic needs. He said needs are basic to the extent that their satisfaction is regarded as essential for human existence. He pointed out three conditions that are necessary for successful agropolitan development. The first is that the rural communities must be territorially closed and integrated. These characteristics give the people the feeling of oneness and the desire to work together for their own common interest. Secondly, land and water resources must be communally owned. By communalizing these resources, the power to determine the critical uses and division of land and water would rest with the community. Thirdly, access to the fundamental buildup of social power must be equal. Where this access is equally circulated, it prepares the ground for entering freely on co-operative relations but if access to the use of social power is not equal, it enhances the power of the few to control the many.
Furthermore, Friedmann is of the opinion that agropolitan centres are the smallest units that are still capable of providing for the basic needs of all their inhabitants with only very few resources imported from outside the centre. In his opinion, an agropolitan centre can have a population density of 200 persons per square kilometres of cultivated land and can be designed to have a total population of as low as 2,000 as in South Vietnam. The population of an agropolitan centre can also range from 15,000 to 60,000 for rural areas (the population figure will base on the country’s definition of rural areas) having in mind the need for face-to-face governance of agropolitan affairs (Friedmann, 1984:211-214).
Friedmann went forward in presenting that the principle of territoriality should be applied to problems of economic organisations. This in effect means strengthening the territorial (regional) economy at all relevant levels, that is the agropolitan centre and the level immediately superior to it (district centre). It is based on these that he derived a number of related principles on development; that development should aim at diversifying the territorial economy, attempt to maximise development of physical resources consistent with the principles of conservation, encourage the expansion of regional and inter-regional domestic markets, be based on much as possible or the principle of self-financing and finally, seek to promote self-governance of agropolitan centres such that they have authority over their productive and residential activities.
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: Introduces the research problem, Buguma’s fishing livelihoods and the history of the fish farm. It sets out the study’s objectives and questions.
Literature Review: Reviews regional development models, aquaculture management and research on the factors shaping public perceptions.
Research Methodology: Explains the mixed-method design, sampling, questionnaire and descriptive analysis.
Data Presentation and Analysis: Presents household and fisherfolk responses on awareness, livelihoods, perceived impacts and the farm’s operations.
Discussion of Findings: Discusses respondent characteristics, perceptions, reported challenges and suggestions for the farm.
Recommendation and Conclusion: Draws together the study’s conclusions and presents an agropolitan development proposal for the local government area.
Keywords
aquaculture, Buguma Fish Farm, residents’ perceptions, Rivers State, Nigeria, fishing livelihoods, community participation, agropolitan development, food security, environmental impacts, mixed methods, rural planning
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this dissertation about?
It studies residents’ perceptions of aquaculture development through the case of the Buguma Fish Farm in Nigeria.
What are its central themes?
The work considers awareness, livelihoods, environmental and economic impacts, community participation and regional development.
What is the primary research question?
The central question is how Buguma residents perceive the local aquaculture development and its activities.
What research method does the author use?
The study uses a triangulation mixed-method design, combining household questionnaires with qualitative sources and descriptive statistics.
What does the main analysis cover?
It examines household characteristics, awareness of the farm, seafood consumption, perceived impacts and fisherfolk perspectives.
Which keywords characterise the work?
Key terms include aquaculture, residents’ perceptions, fishing livelihoods, community participation and agropolitan development.
How were fisherfolk included?
The survey included specific questions for fisherfolk identified among the household respondents.
What regional development model does the author propose?
The author proposes agropolitan centres linked to a sub-regional industrial centre in Buguma, with facilities for fish farming and processing.
What period of the farm’s operations does the study assess?
One objective is to appraise operational successes and challenges from 2013 to 2016.
- Citar trabajo
- Tamunoikuronibo Ikiriko (Autor), 2017, Residents’ Perception of Aquaculture Development. The Case of Buguma Fish Farm in Rivers State, Nigeria, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/544510
