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

Year Population Sources

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

Gender

Male 83 76.9

Female 25 23.2

Age

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 Status

Employment 42 38.9

Employed 29 26.9

Unemployed 37 34.3

Occupation

Teacher 13 12.1

Nurse 2 1.9

Farmer 54 50

Other 39 36.1

Total 108 100

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 socio-

economic research landscape, where employment patterns are recognized as pivotal indicators with far-

reaching 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

Qualification
SSCE 16 14.8

Diploma 36 33.3

Degree 13 12.1

Others 43 39.8

Total 108 100

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

Do You Hold Any Leadership Position in the Town

Yes 11 10.2

No 97 89.8

High Practice of Community Participation in Current Rural

Development Efforts.

Agreed 55 50.9

Disagreed 18 16.7

Strongly agreed 27 25

Strongly disagreed 8 7.4

Total 108 100

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

Low Practice of Community Participation in Current Rural
Development Efforts.

Agrees 18 16.7

Strongly agreed 8 7.4

Disagreed 55 50.9

Strongly disagreed 27 25

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

There is a significant relationship between community

participation and the project planning process and implementation
or result

Agrees 32 29.6

Strongly agreed 0 0

Disagreed 75 69.4

Strongly disagreed 1 0.9

Total 108 100

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

Community participation is not an effective tool for rural

development projects.

Agrees 20 18.5

Strongly agreed 3 2.8

Disagreed 69 63.9

Strongly disagreed 16 14.8

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

There is high participation by local people in community

development

Agreed 85 78.7

Strongly agreed 0 0

Disagreed 23 21.3

Strongly disagreed 0 0

Total 108 100

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

There is low participation by local people in community

development

Agrees 23 21.3

Strongly agreed 0 0

Disagreed 85 78.7

Strongly disagreed 0 0

Total 108 100

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-annual-
report-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. There is a high practice of community participation in current rural development efforts.

A) Agreed { }

B) Strongly agreed { }

C) Disagreed { }

D) Strongly disagreed { }

8. There is a low practice of community participation in current rural development efforts.

(a) Agrees { }

(b) Strongly agreed { }

(c) Disagreed { }

(d) Strongly disagreed { }

9. 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.

(a) Agrees { }

(b) Strongly agreed { }

(c) Disagreed { }

(d) Strongly disagreed { }

11. Community participation is not an effective tool for rural development projects.

(a) Agrees { }

(b) Strongly agreed { }

(c) Disagreed { }

(d) Strongly disagreed { }

12. Community participation is an effective tool for rural development projects.

(a) Agreed { }

(b) Strongly agreed { }

(c) Disagreed { }

(d) Strongly disagreed { }

13. 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