Content uploaded by Adeoluwa Peter Abuloye
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adeoluwa Peter Abuloye on Aug 16, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Article Open Access
Open Access
Research Article
Journal of
Geography & Natural Disasters
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
&
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
D
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
s
ISSN: 2167-0587
Abuloye and Ajakaiye, J Geogr Nat Disast 2018, 8:2
DOI: 10.4172/2167-0587.1000223
Volume 8 • Issue 2 • 1000223J Geogr Nat Disast, an open access journal
ISSN: 2167-0587
Keywords: Lagos state; Nigeria; Sustainable development; Personal
ecological footprint; Human development status
Introduction
Recent trend in urbanization, industrialization, and population
increase around the world have necessitated the need for constant
evaluation of human impact on his ecosystem. In most of the developing
countries, especially in Africa, there has been a high level of demand for
resources leading to waste generation [1,2]. ese resources (renewable
and non-renewable) are oen used in great volumes to maintain
man’s lifestyle [3,4]. e levels of used resources and waste produced
accounts for the global ecological change [4-6]. Studies have however
shown that the earth’s ecosystem cannot sustain the current levels of
man’s demand for these resources, [7-10], hence the introduction of
sustainable development.
Sustainable development is a contested concept, with theories
shaped by people's and organizations' dierent world-views, which
in turn inuence how issues are formulated and actions proposed. It
is usually presented as the intersection between environment, society
and economy, which are conceived of as separate although connected
entities. Environmental sustainability is measured in quantitative basis
and most of the metrics used for the measurement are still evolving
[11]. Ecological footprint, one of the commonly used indicator of
sustainable development, is oen dened as the measurement of the
extent of human impact on the biosphere, also, it is the total area of
ecologically productive land and water anywhere in the world used for
the production of all the resources consumed and assimilation of all the
wastes generated by that population, using prevailing technology [10].
It is also seen as a model that estimates humanities demand on nature
(especially in the biosphere) and communicates it tangibly in terms of
hectares per person; thereby giving an understanding of how much a
population have, how much they use, and who uses what. Ecological
footprint is closely linked to such other indicators as biocapacity (or
ecological carrying capacity), ecological decit environmental space,
*Corresponding author: Adeoluwa Peter Abuloye, M.Sc. Environmental Control
and Management, Institute of Ecology and Environmental Studies, Obafemi
Awolowo University, Nigeria; E-mail: padeolu1@gmail.com
Received November 20, 2017; Accepted May 24, 2018; Published June 02, 2018
Citation: Abuloye AP, Ajakaiye OA (2018) Assessing the Relationship between
Human Development Status and Personal Ecological Footprint of Selected
Residents in Lagos State, Nigeria. J Geogr Nat Disast 8: 223. doi: 10.4172/2167-
0587.1000223
Copyright: © 2018 Abuloye AP, et al. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited.
Assessing the Relationship between Human Development Status and
Personal Ecological Footprint of Selected Residents in Lagos State, Nigeria
Abuloye AP* and Ajakaiye OA
Environmental Control and Management, Institute of Ecology and Environmental Studies, Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria
Abstract
This study examined the human development status (HDS) in selected residential areas of Lagos state; evaluated
the personal ecological footprint (PEF) across the residential areas; and examined the relationship between personal
ecological footprint and human development status in the study area. A structured and well calibrated ecological footprint
model was adopted for the evaluation of personal ecological footprint of Lagos state. This model was retrieved from the
Global Footprint Network and thus modied to suit the local environment. Individuals’ PEF were assessed in terms of
food consumption pattern, transportation, energy consumption, waste generation, clothing, water use and shelter. The
result showed that human developmental status, in terms of income and level of education, was highest in the high
income earning residential areas and lowest in the Low income earning areas. Based on the differences in the human
development status across the residential areas, disparities were recorded in all the subcategories of PEF. High income
residential areas consumed more food, use more energy, spend more on transportation and shelter but use least water
and generate less waste. Consequently, personal ecological footprint across the residential areas, as indicated in the
result of this study, showed that PEF varied across the residential areas with high income area having the highest PEF
(18.7 ha) and the low income earning residential areas having the least PEF (12.7 ha). The study also indicated that the
human development status has a strong inuence (r>0.5; p<0.05) on the ecological footprint of the sampled residential
areas. This study concluded that the pattern and relationship that exists between the personal ecological footprint and
human development status of respondents across the study area was signicantly different (P<0.05) and there exist
a strong positive relationship between human development status and personal ecological footprint in the study area.
total material requirement, natural capita, sustainability gap. e major
components of ecological footprint are food, shelter, mobility and
good [12]. Other components may include use of energy (electricity),
natural gas and water. Some of these component upon consumption
are ejected as municipal solid waste which also serves as a proxy for
determining human developmental status. Studies have shown that
ecological footprint is a unique indicator of human development on the
biosphere and extent of humans ecological demand on his environment
is a function of the carrying capacity of such environment [1,13].
Problem statement
e attempt by a large population to live a decent and comfortable
lifestyle in the world today is of great concern as every aspect of human
development depend largely on diverse interaction between social,
economic and physical components of the environment [14,15].
ese interactions oen time result in noticeable impacts on the
ecosystem [16,17]. Lagos state is the most populated and urbanized
state in Nigeria [18], characterized by the smallest landmass (1171.28
km2), and highest annual in-migration of about a million persons.
e high inux of people into the small land area has been reported
in several studies to be a major cause of environmental degradation
Citation: Abuloye AP, Ajakaiye OA (2018) Assessing the Relationship between Human Development Status and Personal Ecological Footprint of
Selected Residents in Lagos State, Nigeria. J Geogr Nat Disast 8: 223. doi: 10.4172/2167-0587.1000223
Page 2 of 5
Volume 8 • Issue 2 • 1000223J Geogr Nat Disast, an open access journal
ISSN: 2167-0587
due to accelerated over-exploitation of the limited earth resources
[19], and increased ecological stress. A settlement of this status is oen
associated with urban sprawl, slums, and a wide range of deviation in
human development among its populace leading to varying lifestyles.
is study therefore sought to evaluate the impact of these diverse
human lifestyles on the ecosystem.
Objectives
e specic objectives of this study are to;
i. Examine the human developmental status (HDS) and personal
ecological footprint across the study area, and
ii. Examine the relationship between Human development status
and personal ecological footprint in the study area.
Materials and Method
Study area
e study area is Lagos State, Nigeria. Lagos State lies approximately
between 6° 22ʹ and 6° 52ʹ North of the Equator and 2° 42ʹ and 3° 42ʹ
East of the Greenwich Meridian, with a land extent of about 3577 km2
(Figure 1). It is bounded in the East and West by Ogun state and in
the South and West by Gulf of Guinea and Benin republic respectively.
Lagos is regarded as the smallest state in the country with a population
of over 9.1 million people [20].
Methodology
e study employed survey research design. A structured and well
calibrated ecological footprint model was adopted for the evaluation of
personal ecological footprint of Lagos state. is model was retrieved
from the Global Footprint Network and thus modied to suit the
local environment. Individuals’ PEF were assessed in terms of food
consumption pattern, transportation, energy consumption, waste
generation, clothing, water use and shelter. e personal ecological
footprint of each sampled individuals were derived using eqn. (1). Also,
respondents’ level of education and income provided the basis for the
determination of their human development status.
2.47
100
Cloth Energy Transport Water Shelter Waste
Subtotal
PEF + + ++ +
= ÷
(1)
Studies [21,22] have reported that there are 1.2 million houses
in Lagos State, this was therefore considered as the population size.
e targeted population for this study are selected adults (head of the
family) in purposively selected residential areas across Lagos State.
People in perceived high (Lekki and Ikoyi), medium (Ogudu and Ikeja)
and low (Makoko and Ajegunle) human development areas provided
the sample frame for this study. ese areas were selected because
they are easily accessible to the researchers. Simple random sampling
technique was used to determine the respondents (Table 1) for the 385
sample size derived using eqn. (2).
Sample size=
( )
Ne
ppz
e
ppz
2
2
2
2
)1(
)1(
1
−×
−×
+
(2)
Where: N: Population size [1,200,000]
e: Margin of error [5%]
z: z - score [1.96 (95% condence interval)]
p: Distribution [50% normal distribution].
e well administered questionnaires were subjected to descriptive
(mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation) and inferential
(ANOVA, Pearson correlation) statistics to evaluate the variations and
strength of relationships between PEF across the HDS identied in the
study area.
Results
Table 2 shows the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents
in the sampled (high, medium and low income earning) residential
Figure 1: The study area, Lagos State.
Citation: Abuloye AP, Ajakaiye OA (2018) Assessing the Relationship between Human Development Status and Personal Ecological Footprint of
Selected Residents in Lagos State, Nigeria. J Geogr Nat Disast 8: 223. doi: 10.4172/2167-0587.1000223
Page 3 of 5
Volume 8 • Issue 2 • 1000223J Geogr Nat Disast, an open access journal
ISSN: 2167-0587
areas in Lagos state. ree hundred and eighty-ve respondents were
sampled in this study. e result showed that all age groups were
represented, majority of whom were Married (more than 70%) and
Female (at least 53.9%). Across the study area, Lagos State, more than
50% of all the sampled respondents claim to have a household size
of at least 4 people. Highest education attainment was Postgraduate
level, which was attained by 2.3%, 7.0% and 20.2% respondents
in the sampled low, medium and high income earning residential
areas respectively. e lowest educational attainment was Primary
education. is is an indication that all the sampled respondents could
understand the content and purpose of the questionnaire and were also
in a good position to give a cogent response to each of the questions.
Furthermore, the result on income give credence to the researchers
choice of residence classication (see section 3) as over 70% of the
respondent in the sampled high income earning areas earn at least
200,001 Naira monthly unlike in the low (1.6%) and medium (33.6%)
income earning areas.
Transportation in the context of this study does not just involve
the movement of vehicular device, but also the amount of time spent
on transportation, and the type and eciency of the vehicle involved.
Transportation subcategory in this study, as indicated in Table 3,
showed that high income earning areas recorded highest value (555.1
± 201.44) in transportation than the low (3444.3 ± 180.17) and
medium (477.4 ± 200.54) income earning areas. While the minimum
transportation is 25 in Medium and Low income earning areas, it was
50 in high income earning areas. e result of analysis of variance,
ANOVA, however showed that there is signicant dierence in the
pattern of transportation among the sampled respondents in the
sampled three categories of residential areas (F=38.674, P<0.05).
e food consumption pattern, energy use, clothing, and shelter
Settlement HD Status Settlement No of Administered Questionnaire No of Returned
Questionnaire
No of Analysed
Questionnaire
Low Ajegunle 69 68 128
Makoko 64 60
Medium Ogudu 70 66 128
Ikeja 70 62
High Ikoyi 68 64 129
Lekki 70 65
Table 1: Distribution of administered and analysed questionnaire.
Variable Option Low Medium High
f % f % f f
Age (Years) <25 3 2.3 25 19.5 12 9.3
25-40 73 57 65 50.8 58 45
41-60 17 13.3 34 26.6 21 16.3
>60 35 27.4 4 3.1 38 29.5
Sex Female 69 53.9 82 64.1 78 60.5
Male 59 46.1 46 35.9 51 39.5
Marital Status Married 93 72.7 98 76.6 104 80.6
Single 35 27.3 30 23.4 25 19.4
Level of Education No formal 0 0 0 0 0 0
Primary 45 35.2 15 11.7 4 3.1
Secondary 46 35.9 30 23.4 9 7
Tertiary 34 26.6 74 57.8 90 69.8
Postgraduate 3 2.3 9 7 26 20.2
Family Size <2 30 23.4 15 11.7 13 10.1
02-Apr 32 25 12 9.4 18 14
04-Jul 32 25 60 46.9 51 39.5
>7 34 26.6 41 32 47 36.4
Occupation Farmer 2 1.6 7 5.5 1 0.8
Trader 25 19.5 17 13.3 15 11.6
Teacher 2 1.6 1 0.8 9 7
Civil servant 34 26.6 47 36.7 40 31
Others 65 50.8 56 43.8 64 49.6
Monthly Income (Naira) <20,000 42 32.8 21 16.4 6 3.9
20000-50000 54 42.2 23 18 4 3.1
50001-100000 20 15.6 20 15.6 16 12.4
100001-200000 10 7.8 21 16.4 13 10.1
200001-400000 1 0.8 33 25.8 52 40.3
>400000 1 0.8 10 7.8 38 30.2
Low: Low Income Earning Residential Area
Medium: Medium Income Earning Residential Area
High: High Income Earning Residential Area.
Table 2: Social and economic status of the sampled respondents.
Citation: Abuloye AP, Ajakaiye OA (2018) Assessing the Relationship between Human Development Status and Personal Ecological Footprint of
Selected Residents in Lagos State, Nigeria. J Geogr Nat Disast 8: 223. doi: 10.4172/2167-0587.1000223
Page 4 of 5
Volume 8 • Issue 2 • 1000223J Geogr Nat Disast, an open access journal
ISSN: 2167-0587
are however similar to Transportation as the high income earning
residential areas consume more than the other areas and there is
statistical signicant dierence in the variables (P<0.05) across the
sampled residential areas. However, waste generation and water use
indicated a dierent pattern. While the high income earning areas
consume the least water (183 ± 51.50), due to the use of water eciency
devices, Medium income earners consumed the most (187.7 ± 55.26).
Waste generation, just like water use, is highest in the medium earning
residential areas (36.4 ± 87.46) and lowest in the low earning residential
areas (18.4 ± 90.14). e result of analysis of variation, however, showed
a statistical similarity (p>0.05) in the pattern of waste generation and
water use across the sampled residential areas.
e Personal Ecological Footprint of individuals sampled across
the selected residential areas varied between 6.01 ha and 29.29 ha, both
occurring in the income earning residential areas. is is an indication
of heterogeneity of living standard across the study area. While the
Maximum PEF ranged between 20.01 and 29.29, the minimum had a
range of 6.01 ha and 7.02 ha. e result further indicated that while the
highest mean PEF was recorded in High income earning residential area
(18.7 ± 5.81 ha), the lowest occurred in Low income earning residential
areas (12.7 ± 3.42 ha). is is an indication that high income residential
areas consume more than the medium and low income earning areas
and thus will require the highest land to sustain her lifestyle. e
results were however compared across the selected residential areas
and it indicated that the dierence in personal ecological footprint, as
measured by analysis of Variance, of across the residential areas was
statistically signicant (P<0.05).
Personal ecological footprint and human development status
e human development status of the sampled respondents,
as depicted by income and level of education, showed a diverse
strength of relationship with the personal ecological footprint and its
subcategories. e result (Table 4) indicates that a positive correlation
exists between income level and food consumption (r=0.935; p<0.05),
shelter (r=0.475; p<0.05), transportation (r=0.507; p<0.05), energy use
(r=0.425; p<0.05) and clothing (r=0.457; p<0.05) while it showed a
very weak positive correlation with water use (r=0.201; p<0.05). On the
other hand, the result indicated that there was no relationship between
waste generation and income (r=0.042; p<0.05).
Furthermore, the assessment of strength of relationship between
level of education and personal ecological footprint showed a strong
positive correlation (r=0.544; p<0.05) while all the subcategories
except water use (r=0.128; p<0.05), Clothing (r=0.180; p<0.05), Energy
use (r=0.240; p<0.05), Transportation (r=0.355; p<0.05) and waste
generation (r=0.350; p<0.05), indicated a strong positive correlation
(r<0.6).
Discussion
is study have examined the human development status (HDS) in
selected residential areas of Lagos state; evaluated the personal ecological
footprint across the residential areas; and examined the relationship
between personal ecological footprint and human development status
in the study area. e choice of residential areas selected for this
study was based on accessibility and proximity to the researchers.
e research instruments used for this study were administered to a
sample population across selected residential areas. Household heads
were the targeted respondents. e research instruments (structured
Questionnaire) were used to capture information on the respondents
human development status, in terms of level of education and income
level. Also, the personal ecological footprints of the individual
respondents were captured with this instrument.
e results have shown that human developmental status, in terms
of income and level of education, was highest in the high income
earning residential areas (Ikoyi and Lekki) and lowest in the Low
income earning areas (Makoko and Ajegunle). e dierence in HDS
across these areas may be as a result of dierence in employment status,
occupation, level of education and exposure, and other demographic
and social reasons. Based on the dierences in the human development
status across the residential areas, disparities were recorded in all the
subcategories of PEF. High income residential areas tend to consume
more food, use more energy, spend more on transportation and shelter.
However, they use least water and generate less waste. Consequently,
personal ecological footprint across the residential areas, as indicated
in the result of this study, showed that PEF varied across the residential
areas with high income earners having the highest PEF and the low
income earning residential areas having the least PEF. e study also
indicated that the human development status has a strong inuence on
the ecological footprint of the sampled residential areas.
Variable Status Mean ± Std
Dev
Min-Max F P0.05
Transportation Low 344.2 ± 180.17 25-800 38.674 0
Medium 477.4 ± 200.54 25-910
High 555.1 ± 201.44 50-910
Food Low 403.9 ± 164.07 180-870 17.554 0
Medium 468.8 ± 181.51 190-870
High 543.5 ± 217.28 190-1120
Energy use Low -12.5 ± 117.41 -460 18.586 0
Medium 18.1 ± 102.44 -440
High 70.4 ± 110.40 -410
Waste management Low 18.4 ± 90.14 -330 1.53 0.218
Medium 36.4 ± 87.46 -354
High 28.9 ± 68.57 -358
Clothing Low 260.1 ± 96.37 25-460 6.722 0.001
Medium 302.7 ± 83.43 85-460
High 279.1 ± 99.16 25-435
Water use Low 187.2 ± 51.47 80-300 0.266 0.767
Medium 187.7 ± 55.26 80-300
High 183.3 ± 51.50 80-260
Shelter Low 71.7 ± 113.85 -390 23.204 0
Medium 141.8 ± 154.66 -470
High 207.8 ± 199.70 -570
PEF (ha) Low 12.7 ± 3.42 6.33-20.01 51.999 0
Medium 16.3 ± 4.57 7.02-23.22
High 18.7 ± 5.81 6.01-29.29
Table 3: Personal ecological footprint across the sampled residential areas.
Variable rincome reducation
LSM 0.042 0.35
Water 0.201 0.128
Food 0.935 0.613
Transportation 0.507 0.355
Shelter 0.475 0.663
Energy use 0.425 0.24
Clothing 0.457 0.18
PEF 0.651 0.544
rincome: Pearson correlation coefcient of Income.
reducation: Pearson correlation coefcient of level of education.
Table 4: Strength of relationship between PEF and HDS.
Citation: Abuloye AP, Ajakaiye OA (2018) Assessing the Relationship between Human Development Status and Personal Ecological Footprint of
Selected Residents in Lagos State, Nigeria. J Geogr Nat Disast 8: 223. doi: 10.4172/2167-0587.1000223
Page 5 of 5
Volume 8 • Issue 2 • 1000223J Geogr Nat Disast, an open access journal
ISSN: 2167-0587
Conclusion
e result of this study did not state the personal ecological
footprint in terms of per acre contribution to available land, rather, it
measured the contribution of high, low and medium income earners,
as measured by their footprint. is study therefore concluded that the
pattern and relationship that exists between the personal ecological
footprint and human development status of respondents across the
study area was signicantly dierent (P<0.05) and there exist a strong
positive relationship between human development status and personal
ecological footprint in the study area. Although, little variations were
noticed as high income earning residential areas tend to consume use
less water, and generate less waste, which however have minimal eect
on the overall footprint.
References
1. Rees WE (1992) Ecological Footprints and appropriated carrying capacity:
What urban Economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization 4: 121-130.
2. Dincer I (2000) Renewable energy and sustainable development: A crucial
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 4: 157-175.
3. WWF (World-Wide Fund for Nature International, Global Footprint Network,
ZSL (2010).
4. Kissinger M, Sussman C, Moore J, Rees WE (2013) Accounting for GHG
Emissions of materials at the urban scale-Relating existing process life cycle
assessment studies to urban material and waste composition. LCE.
5. Newman P (2006) The environmental impact of cities. Environment and
Urbanization 18: 275-294.
6. Kissinger M, Haim A (2008) Urban Hinterlands: The case of an Israeli town
ecological footprint. Environmental Developmental Sustaintainability 10: 391-
405.
7. Goodland R (1991) The case that the world has reached limits. Population,
Technology, and Lifestyle-The Transition to Sustainability. Island Press,
Washington, DC, pp: 3-22.
8. Meadows DH, Potomac Associates (1992) The Limits to Growth: A report for
the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books:
New York.
9. Rees WE, Wackernagel M (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated
carrying capacity: Measuring the natural capital requirements of the human
economy. In: Jansson AM, Hammer M, Folke C, Costanza R (eds.) Investing
in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability,
Washington: Island Press.
10. Wackernagel M (1994) Ecological Footprint and Appropriated Carrying
Capacity: A Tool for Planning Toward Sustainability. PhD Thesis, School of
Community and Regional Planning. The University of British Columbia.
11. Dalal-Clayton B, Sadler B (2009) Sustainability Appraisal. A Sourcebook and
Reference Guide to International Experience. London: Earthscan.
12. Wilson J, Grant JL (2009) Calculating ecological footprints at the municipal
level: What is a reasonable approach for Canada? Local Environment, Taylor
& Francis 14: 963-979.
13. Rees WE (1996) Revisiting Carrying Capacity: Area-Based Indicators of
Sustainability. Population and Environment 17: 195-215.
14. Shrivastava P (1994) Castrated environment: Greening organizational studies.
Organization Studies 15: 705-726.
15. Alberti M, Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Bradley G, Ryan C, et al. (2003)
Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying
urban ecosystems. BioScience 53: 1169-1179.
16. Underwood AJ (1991) Beyond BACI: Experimental designs for detecting
human environmental impacts on temporal variations in natural populations.
Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 569-587.
17. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination
of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277: 494-499.
18. Barredo JI, Demicheli L, Lavalle C, Kasanko M, McCormick N (2004) Modelling
future urban scenarios in developing countries: an application case study in
Lagos, Nigeria. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31: 65-84.
19. Rees WE, Westra L (2003) When consumption does violence: Can there
be sustainability and environmental justice in a resource-limited world. Just
Sustainabilities, Routledge, pp: 99-124.
20. Global Footprint Network (2006) Africa Factbook.
21. Ugbodaga K (2011) 1.2 Million Houses In Lagos. PM newspaper.
22. Sessou E (2016) Lagos starts numbering of 1.2 Million buildings. Vanguard
Newspaper, June 26th Publication.
