The Socio-Economic Impact of the Greater Port Harcourt Development Project on the Residents of the Affected Areas

This study investigates the relationship between the socio-economic affected Communities and the Greater Port Harcourt Development Project in Rivers State. The data used for study were obtained through questionnaire. The generated data were analyzed using the factor analysis and paired t test. It was observed that the computed t-scores (-2.729) and (-2.895) exceeded the values of t, indicated in the table. The T-test, values showed that the occurrence of hazards and risks on the residents of affected communities in Port Harcourt was significantly related to the activities of greater Port Harcourt project, and also the socio-economic life of residents of the communities was significantly affected by the activities of greater Port Harcourt project. The study has shown that there is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the greater Port Harcourt project in many of the comments put forward by the communities because of historical reasons. However, whatever reasons the host communities may have is manifestly not strong enough to stop the government in its proposal to transform the city decay to a world class city internationally recognized for excellence.


Introduction
New Towns are seen as new settlements built away from the congested urban centers that are economically and socially independent of the older cities or towns.They are designed to offer healthier, more efficient and satis-fying environment.However, their philosophies vary slightly from one era and country to another.Over the years, especially in developing countries, the rural areas continue to push out human and material resources; the urban areas continue to absorb these resources, most times to its detriment.The pushing out and pulling in have in the main exacerbated the seemingly intractable problems which are concomitant with urbanization.Port Harcourt city has long played the role of a gate way to the northern and eastern Nigeria and even beyond to neighbouring countries such as Niger and Benin Republic etc.The sea port is the natural focus of the rail and road routes of the eastern region and the coal field at Enugu, the tin mines in Jos and the Beniseed and Soya bean producing region around Markurdi.These commodities became early exports in addition to oil palm, rubber, palm kernels and cocoa of the southern forest zone and ground nut and cotton of northern Nigeria [1].Port Harcourt sea port is the second largest port in Nigeria and handles some importation and exportation activities for the eastern parts of the country.
In recent times, the Petroleum industry has had a direct and significant impact on the growth of the city of Port Harcourt.Both in regional and national context, the city has remained an important urban area because of its commercial activities, large sea port, good railway terminal, a modern international air port and one of the best planned urban centre in Nigeria (the garden city).Port Harcourt city has increased steadily and rapidly since its foundation.According to the 1952-53 population census of Nigeria, the population of Port Harcourt was 79, 634.In 1963, it rose to 179, 563, which represents an average annual growth rate of 8.7 percent.From 1963 t0 1972, the population of Port Harcourt was estimated to have risen from 179,563 to 213,343, an annual growth rate of almost three percent [2].By 1973, Port Harcourt Population stood at 231, 632.The 1991 census figure put the population of Port Harcourt/Obio-Akpor city local government areas at 703,416, with Obio/Akpor accounting for 263,017 and Port Harcourt city local government area at 440,399 [3].
The growth and expansion of the city of Port Harcourt has been through the submerging of neighbouring independent villages into a rapidly growing conurbation.Today, the city has grown in spatial terms from the mere 40 square kilometer area by [1912][1913] Hargrove agreement to about 313 square kilometer [3].This astronomical growth has made obsolete the city's master plan of 913 and 1975 respectively.The above facts have greatly influenced the presence of Federal projects such as liquefied natural gas project phase 1 and 11, export processing zone (EPZ) at Onne; Head offices of multi-national companies such as SPDC, Total-Fina Elf and NAOC etc which are of strategic economic importance to the area.These serve as centripetal or magnetic pull in attracting immigrants into the already congested city.More so, the city plays host to a number of higher institutions; the University of Port Harcourt, the Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Ignatius Ajuru University of Education, the Rivers state College of Arts and Science and the Rivers State College of Health Technology to mention a few.These activities culminates on the attendant congestion experienced in all sectors of the city today which creates the need for decongestion of the city by establishment of new towns as proposed by the Greater Port Harcourt Development Authority.This study is set to ascertain the effect of greater Port Harcourt project on the residents of the host communities.

The Study Area
Port Harcourt, the capital of Rivers State is situated in the sub-equatorial region and lies in a peninsula approximately 4˚421 North and 4˚471 North latitude and 6˚551 east, 7˚081 East longitude (see Figure 1).It is located on the eastern part of Rivers State and the metropolitan area occupies about 180,000 hectares [4].The city came into prominence with the desire of the British colonial government in Nigeria at the time in 1912 to construct a railway line from the interior to the coast to move agricultural produce and other natural resources.Thus, the railway and a terminus were constructed in Port Harcourt linking the interior to the coast in 1927.The construction of the railway and harbour attracted more business from within and other parts of the world making the city to quickly acquire a cosmopolitan status and more so, the discovery of oil aggravated this influx of people, thereby making the city to expand rapidly till today.Port Harcourt consists of relatively flat land with a gradient of not more than 3%.Its elevation is 3 m at the lower limits of the dry land and 2.5 m tidal variation [4].The city has a low-lying coastal plain that rarely rises above 60 ft (20 m) above sealed level.The Northern coastal terrain consists of dry land, but the lower delta plain consists of small isolated island of firm ground in the vast delta which is continuously being rearranged by strong tidal and flood current [4].The city has a high water table, with an upper soil layer of soft mud, of (6 m) thick having high organic material in the delta.The dry land area has an upper soil layer of silt and sand of the same thickness [4]).Port Harcourt has a tropical climate with an annual mean temperature of 30˚C (86˚F) and a relative humidity of between 80% -100% [4].These conditions support the easy decay of organic materials.It has rain fall all year round with the highest of 480 mm between July and September.Although having a small break in between the month of August, its drier months are from December to February but its mean yearly rainfall is about 23,000 mm.Port Harcourt has a relatively still air condition and the prevailing wind being basically south-west and north-East trade wind.About 47% of the period experiences no wind while 2% of the time witnesses a wind speed of between 5 to 7 meters/second, only rarely does it exceed 17 meters/second [4].

Methods of Data Collection
The study adopted the field survey of the communities affected by the greater Port Harcourt.The sample for the study was drawn using a multi stage systematic random sampling and simple random sampling techniques.At the first stage, a sample frame was designed to depict the grid system across the Greater Port Harcourt Spatial Development Plan (GPHSDP) as shown in Table 1.
From Table 1, the designed grid squares tally with the grid on the Greater Port Harcourt Spatial Development Plan (GPHSDP).These numbers were written on pieces of papers, folded and then placed in a container.The papers shaken and the number 18 were drawn at random, and were recorded (see Table 2).
In order to have a representative sample of the selected seven community out of the eight communities covered by the Greater Port Harcourt Project, the selected seven communities were subjected to another random sampling technique and at the end, four communities were randomly chosen for the study, they are Rukpoku, Omagwa, Eneka and Oyigbo communities respectively (see Table 2).The Greater Port Harcourt covers an area of approximately 1900 square Kilometres (190,000 Hectares of land) spanning eight local government area with a projected population of about two million (2,000,000) persons.Therefore to get a sampling ratio for the study, the researchers wish to draw a sample of 400 persons from the selected communities, e.g., 400/2,000,000 = 0.0002% or 0.2% of the population would be sampled.The study adopted administration of questionnaire to obtained data on the socio-economic impact of the greater Port Harcourt project on the residents of the affected areas.The questionnaire administration was carried out by means of face to face interviews.On the whole a total of 400 questionnaires were administered in the four communities on the basis of 100 in each selected community in the study area, and focus group discussion.The data were presented with statistical diagram and analyzed with multivariate statistics such as factor analysis.Factor analysis is a high powered multivariate statistical technique used in explaining observed relationships among numerous variables in terms of fewer and simpler mutually independent factors.This is achieved by collapsing a set of inter-correlated variables into smaller numbers of basic dimensions, which are capable of explaining a high percentage of variance in the original data set.The basic dimension or common factors are thus diagnostic of the underlying influence structure [6].The factor analysis technique extracts from given set of variables of "n" variables "m" orthogonal dimensions (where m > n).The "m" dimension generally represents a large part of the original variance among the "n" variables.The factor analysis model is given as: Zj ajiF1 aj F2 ajmfm djuj = + − +  where Zj = variables j in standardized form.F1F2 = hypothetical factor.Uj = standardized multiple regression coefficient or I commonly referred to as factor loading.Dj = standardized regression coefficient of variable or unique Factor j.
The factor analysis was used to ascertain the significant effects of greater Port Harcourt project on socio economic lives of resident of affected communities, as well as the significant hazards and risks faced by communities affected by the Greater Port Harcourt Development Project.

Results and Discussion
Table 3 showed that the population was fairly evenly distributed between the youngest age cohorts (those less than 20 years old), the younger productive age groups (20 -44 years), and the older productive age groups and retirees (over 45 years).This type of distribution is not consistent with the typical bottom-heavy population structure for developing countries and regions.For Nigeria as a whole, for instance, as at the 1991 census [7], the three broad age cohorts referred to above, accounted for about 9.92, 10.6.8 and 15.26 percent, respectively.Table 4 shows the household educational attainment in the four communities.On the whole, educational attainment tended to be dominated by secondary/vocational/Technical school level achievement with a percentage of 37%, followed by those with Polytechnics/University certificates with 26.8%, while those with Primary school and none formal education are 12% and 24% respectively.
The occupational distribution of the inhabitants in the four communities is shown in Table 5.And it reveals that contracting (31%) is the most importance occupation in the area.This could ascribe to the emerging city development in these communities, followed by clerical office workers (25%), and unemployed persons (23%).Trading and farming were 6% and 5% respectively and Drivers/Technicians are 12%.
Table 6 discuses the status of the buildings/property in the affected communities.And it showed that 51% of the buildings were built by their owners while 49% bought their buildings.
Table 7 shows the land status of residents of affected communities, and it revealed that 68% of the lands in the area were bought, while 32% were owned by indigenes of the communities.
Table 8 shows the income distribution per household in the communities.At a glance, it reveals that most of the residents earn above ₦100,000, this confirms the aforementioned in the occupational distribution of house household member as contractors.This is followed by ₦8000 and above (32%), which are in the class of clerical office workers 24%.Other income categories are as represented in Table 8.
Table 9 shows the four communities, a summary of respondents' first, second and third mentions, regarding their perceived benefits of Greater Port Harcourt Development projects (GPHDP) on affected communities.Amongst first mentions, improvement in infrastructure emerged as the modal perceived benefit (122%); "increase in commercial activities" and "employment" was the modes amongst second and third mentions (65% and 49%, respectively. Table 10 shows the effects of GPHDP presence on the affected communities.The table at a glance shows that about 33.5% of affected communities were displaced, 45.8% lost their buildings, and 6.0% lost ownership of their land, property and farm.Furthermore, 8.5% had psychological problems and 6.2% were sick for different ailments and diseases.It is obvious from the analysis on the table above that the GPHDP affected the communities negatively.Table 11 shows the four communities, a summary of respondents' first, second and third mentions, regarding their perceived adverse effects of Greater Port Harcourt Development Projects (GPHDP) on affected communities.Amongst first mentions, more commercial sex workers emerged as the modal perceived adverse effects (70.0%); pollution of environment and pressure on existing infrastructure was the modes amongst second and third mentions 57.6% and 43%, respectively.
Table 12, Table 13 and Table 14 showed the rating of Communities' Pleasure/Displeasure with GPHDP, an important aspect of group discussion, respondents in the target populations were asked to rate their relationship with GPHDP and to highlight the reasons for their ratings.The rating scale was as follows: 1) Very displeased.
From Table 12 and Table 13, the results of the ratings generally revealed that the four communities tended to be more displeased than pleased with GPHDP.The reasons for this kind of situation are summarized in Table 13 and Table 14, respectively.

Application of Factor Analysis
The study also utilized the factor analysis to measure the hazards, risks and socio economic factors faced by communities affected by the Greater Port Harcourt project in Rivers State.This was done to strengthen the explanatory power of the descriptive statistics which was used to analysis results in the study.The factor analysis uses the extraction method to identify the factors that actually explains the physical and socio economic characteristics in the study area.The factor analysis was used to analyze a table of component matrix.A 19 by 19 component matrix, using principal factors analysis as extraction method was used.The communalities indicate the amount of variance in each variable that is accounted for by the factors.The communalities in Table 15 are all high indicating that the extracted factors are true representation of the variables.
Only cases for which socioeconomic = loss of property Intrusion into the privacy of the community are used in the analysis phase in the four communities.
Table 16 shows the extractions of eigen values from total variable rotated factor loading on orthogonal common factors from Table 16.The four communities are represented on Table 16 as four factors which accounted for 78.183% of the total variance.
The factor analysis and paired t test results are used to test the following hypotheses: 1) That the occurrence of hazards and risks on the residents of affected communities is not significantly related to the activities of greater Port Harcourt project.
2) That the socio economic life of residents of the communities is not significantly affected by the activities of greater Port Harcourt project.

Test of Hypothesis 1
The T test used test this hypothesis is one.Two independent variables were used in pair for the comparison; hazards and risk factors against location.In application of T-test, it is generally known that the normal curve is Table 11.Other perceived adverse effects of the GPHDP's on affected communities (percentage distribution).distributed about a mean of zero, with a standard deviation of one (1).A, t-score can fall along the normal cure either above or below the mean; either plus or minus some standard deviation unit from the mean.The results are shown in Table 17.
From Table 17, it is observed that the computed t-scores (−2.729) are greater than the values of t, indicated in the table.Also, from T-test, there is significant difference at (p < 0.004) between the comparisons done for the pairs.Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected, and we states the occurrence of hazards and risks on the residents of affected communities is significantly related to the activities of greater Port Harcourt project.

Test of Hypotheses 2
The socio economic life of residents of the communities is not significantly affected by the activities of greater Port Harcourt project.

T-Test to test hypothesis 2
The T test used test this hypothesis is two.Two independent variables were used in pair for the comparison; hazards and risk factors against location.In application of T-test, it is generally known that the normal curve is distributed about a mean of zero, with a standard deviation of one (1).A, t-score can fall along the normal cure either above or below the mean; either plus or minus some standard deviation unit from the mean.The results are shown in Table 18.
From Table 18, it is observed that the computed t-scores (2.895) exceed the values of t, indicated in the table.Also, from T-test, there is significant difference at (p < 0.004) between the comparisons done for the pairs.Thus the null hypothesis is rejected, and we states that the socio economic life of residents of the communities is significantly affected by the activities of greater Port Harcourt project.

Limitations in the Study
The first problem was how to sample the eight local government areas covered by the greater Port Harcourt Project.This was solved by means of simple random sampling technique adopted.Furthermore, the bureaucracy that exists in the public service hampered efforts to obtain primary and secondary data.In spite of all these, the quality of work expected was achieved.

Conclusion
The study reveals the occurrence of hazards and risks on the residents of affected communities in Port Harcourt, which is significantly related to the activities of greater Port Harcourt project, and also the socio economic life of residents of the communities is affected by the activities of greater Port Harcourt project.But these effects are temporary in nature, as such it is recommended that the state government should continue with the project because, when completed it will transform the city decay to a world class city internationally recognized for excellence.

Table 1 .
Selections of communities from the (GPHSDP).

Table 2 .
List of selected communities in the study area.

Table 3 .
Age-sex distribution in the study area (percentage distribution).

Table 4 .
Educational status of community members.

Table 5 .
Occupational status of community members.

Table 8 .
Percentage distribution of household income in the study area.

Table 9 .
Perceived benefits of the greater port Harcourt development project on affected communities (percentage distribution).

Table 10 .
Effects of GPHDP Presence on the affected communities.

Table 12 .
Rating of pleasure and displeasure with GPHDP (percentage distribution).

Table 13 .
Reasons for pleasure with GPHDP.

Table 14 .
Reasons for displeasure with GPHDP in the four communities.

Table 15 .
Extracted communalities from the nineteen principal factors.

Table 16 .
Extraction of eigen values from total rotated variables.