Evaluation of Environmental Awareness Level among Stakeholders in Rural and Urban Communities, Southern Nigeria

Abstract

This study was carried out to evaluate the level of environmental awareness of stakeholders in the urban and rural settlements in Delta State, southern Nigeria so as to infer the depth of environmental education that would be embarked on. Five major stakeholders in the state that constituted the major strata of sampling were selected. A total of 14 communities; 7 in the urban/semi urban local governments and 7 in the rural local governments were studied using the stratified sampling technique. Descriptive statistic was adopted for the study and questionnaires were administered to stakeholders. The study revealed that contrary to findings from a number of studies in other part of the globe, students were more knowledgeable on environmental issues followed by public/civil servants and traders/businessmen among stakeholders from the urban settlements. Stakeholders younger in age were not more knowledgeable than older stakeholders in the rural settlements about environmental problems. Male stakeholders had higher percentage level of awareness than their female counterparts. A higher percentage of stakeholders from the rural settlements are still not aware on the environmental terms sought for in this study than stakeholders from urban settlements. This study recommends that given the current level of environmental degradation experienced on a daily base in Nigeria and the limited awareness level of stakeholders on environmental issues, government at various levels should through wider publicity in the ministries of environment and education intensify the campaign on environmental education.

Full text

1
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS LEVEL AMONG STAKEHOLDERS
IN RURAL AND URBAN COMMUNITIES, SOUTHERN NIGERIA
Solomon Akpafun1
Gabriel C. C.
Ndinwa2+
Charity O.
Chukumah3
1Department of Urban & Regional Planning, School of Environmental
Studies, Delta State School of Marine Technology, Burutu, Nigeria.
2,3Department of Industrial Safety & Environmental Management
Technology, School of Environmental Studies, Delta State School of Marine
Technology, Burutu, Nigeria.
(+ Corresponding author)
ABSTRACT
Article History
Received: 21 October 2019
Revised: 19 November 2019
Accepted: 30 December 2019
Published: 11 February 2020
Keywords
Environmental awareness
Climate change
Stakeholders
Urban settlements.
This study was carried out to evaluate the level of environmental awareness of
stakeholders in the urban and rural settlements in Delta State, southern Nigeria so as
to infer the depth of environmental education that would be embarked on. Five major
stakeholders in the state that constituted the major strata of sampling were selected. A
total of 14 communities; 7 in the urban/semi urban local governments and 7 in the
rural local governments were studied using the stratified sampling technique.
Descriptive statistic was adopted for the study and questionnaires were administered to
stakeholders. The study revealed that contrary to findings from a number of studies in
other part of the globe, students were more knowledgeable on environmental issues
followed by public/civil servants and traders/businessmen among stakeholders from
the urban settlements. Stakeholders younger in age were not more knowledgeable than
older stakeholders in the rural settlements about environmental problems. Male
stakeholders had higher percentage level of awareness than their female counterparts.
A higher percentage of stakeholders from the rural settlements are still not aware on
the environmental terms sought for in this study than stakeholders from urban
settlements. This study recommends that given the current level of environmental
degradation experienced on a daily base in Nigeria and the limited awareness level of
stakeholders on environmental issues, government at various levels should through
wider publicity in the ministries of environment and education intensify the campaign
on environmental education.
Contribution/Originality: This study is one of the very few studies which have investigated the
environmental awareness level among stakeholders in the rural-urban communities of Nigeria. The analysis
and findings will enrich the depth of available literature on environmental awareness of stakeholders in
developing nations.
1. INTRODUCTION
Environmental issues are one of the main problems of humanity that have perhaps attracted more lively
discussion than any other scientific topics across the globe [1, 2]. The extent of this phenomena however
differ from continent to continent, country to country, and region to region depending on the population size,
birth rate of population, advancement in technology available to the people, how vulnerable is the
environmental units of that region and their characteristics, as well as the percentage level of the region’s
socio-economic development which have recently awakened global fears and reactions [3]. Humans like any
International Journal of Climate Research
2020 Vol.4, No.1, pp. 1-15
ISSN: 2690-2796
DOI: 10.18488/journal.112.2020.41.1.15
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
2
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
other creature on earth rely heavily on the natural environment as life support system. Environmental
deterioration has no respect for territorial boundaries. The global environment has negatively been impacted
by various human activities; thereby giving rise to several environmental problems ranging from acid rain,
climate change, ozone layer depletion, rise in sea level, extinction of biodiversity, urban flooding, deforestation
and pollution of air, water and land [2].
The quality of our immediate environment affects the quality of human lives. Human’s action as
producers, consumers, and procreators cumulatively impact on the quality of the environment that sustains
life [4]. In advanced countries, cleanup operations, green technological innovation, and socio-economic
policies have considerably helped to reduce the negative impact of human activities on the environment;
particularly at the local level of our immediate surroundings [5]. With the current record of growth in human
population globally, many nations have exploited excessively from the available earth’s resources which in
turn has impacted negatively on planet earth at every increasing rate. Unfortunately, some of the renewable
resources have been used at rates that exceed the speed at which they could be replenished. It is believed that
the extent at which these have happened would not have been, if the citizenries concerned had been aware of
the detrimental effects of their actions on the environment [6].
Sustainability of the natural environment has been a growing perspective in the 21st century that is aimed
at changing the orientation of stakeholders for the betterment of the environment. Environmental
sustainability implies the need to strike a balance between current socio-economic activities and the geometric
pace in infrastructural development, on one hand; and on the other ensures environmental protection and
preservation of cultural diversity for future generations [7, 8]. Education has been understood to be a vital
key in promoting sustainable environment and improving people’s capacities to manage with the pace of
development-related issues and environmental challenges [9]. Learning is the key ingredient in becoming
more sustainable. Over the past two decades, the stress which the environment has been undergoing have
attracted the attention of decision makers, scientists, non-government organizations and even laymen in many
parts of the world. In response to a growing understanding that the environment is being impacted negatively
by human activities; an aspect of education called environmental education has been more focused on how to
reduce human impact on the environment and promote a more sustainable future.
Some of the major global environmental issues include ozone layer depletion, waste production, toxin
from chemicals, climate change, soil degradation, deforestation, land use, intensive farming, flooding, over
population, global warming, acid rain and carbon footprint. Many rural and urban dwellers are ignorant on
how their actions and inaction have contributed to these challenges. Noticeable scholars have worked and
reported findings on people’s perception and understanding in handling these environmental problems [10-
14]. In most reported findings, some researchers observed that the groups studied have low understanding on
the issues; whereas some others discovered that theirs have a fair understanding on the issues mainly due to
environmental education which they have been subjected to. Skamp, et al. [11] posit that in order to change
behaviours of individuals to reduce greenhouse emissions, it is likely that a multidisciplinary approach will be
needed, with education being an important component. Given the magnitude and the imminence of the
problem of climate change, it is reasonable to suggest that such education should now be directed at least in
part, to including behaviour change. One of the best ways of preserving our environment is by creating
environmental awareness among several segments of the society including public servants, farmer, artisans,
civil servants, traders and politicians. Awareness should also be created according to Alerby [15] among
students who are the future leaders, policy makers, planners, future custodians and educators of the
environment and its issues. This awareness among the students provides them with the opportunity on how
to nurture nature as well as prepare them to become environmental responsible managers. Improvement in

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
3
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
public awareness and consciousness on environmental matters may offer future generation healthier life and a
more sustainable environment.
Choker [16] asserted that public environmental awareness is a synthesis of people’s conception,
interpretations and perceptions of environmental issues. It is assumed that such conceptions and the like
would affect their behaviour, and the quality of responses and reactions to environmental problems. It’s usage
in shaping desirable environmental management practices and affecting control can therefore not be
overemphasized. Choker [16] summarized the role of environmental awareness as thus:
 A vigorous programme of public awareness that can enlighten the people on the dangers of
environmental problems and promote appropriate attitudes to them and thereby minimize the impact
on environmental health. Not majority of Nigerians for instance knows the effect of indiscriminate
discharge by industries liquid, solid and gaseous wastes on farmlands and rivers, or toxic effects of
pesticides and lead on human beings. Greater awareness of such issues can raise public consciousness
and redirect efforts on tacking them.
 Public awareness can promote environmental pressure groups and spirited public participation in
pollution control. Such a force would give birth to a more healthy debate on the environment. Public
awareness can thus act as an effective counterforce to elite or industrialists’ interest.
 Much of the traditional management practices like economic evaluation, ecological ideas and
government regulations often arouse conflict. Public awareness and debate on issues can promote a
forum of dialogue and conflict resolution in environmental management.
 Public awareness can also enable policy makers to identify problems of most concerns to people and
their actual significance from a scientific point of view.
 Public awareness of pollution can in the long run be expedient, effective and cost saving, as expected
attitude change following awareness of hazards would not only minimize the extent of the hazard but
reduce the need for control. Natural resources such as farmlands would also in the process be preserved.
 Public awareness can create public pressure by stimulating public debates especially over controversial
issue and promote public commitment to policies.
Intensifying the effort on awareness of a target population on environmental issues can lead to, but not
guaranteed of, their being sensitized [17]. To strengthen environmental awareness through enlightenment is
simply to make the target population to become conscious of the prevailing environmental issues and possible
solutions, whereas to sensitize them is to stimulate their feelings in such a way that they develop concern, and
responsible attitudes towards the environment [17]. Hence, sensitization leads to cultivation of positive
environmental attitudes which in normal circumstances, translate into positive environmental behaviours that
are best expressed in actions. This study therefore seeks to evaluate the level of environmental awareness
among stakeholders in rural and urban communities in Delta State, Nigeria in order to ascertain the level of
environmental sensitization they need to be given to live sustainably.
1.1. Delta State and Environmental Challenge
Delta state is located in the south-south geographical region of Nigeria. The state occupies a landmass of
16,842 square kilometers and is located in the Niger Delta region. It lies approximately between longitude
5000 and 60451 East and latitude 5000 and 6130 North see Figure 1. The state is bounded in the north and west
by Edo state, the east by Anambra, Imo and Rivers state, southwest by Bayelsa state and on the southern
extreme is the Bight of Benin which covers about 160 kilometres of the state coastline [18]. The state capital
is Asaba, located at the northern end, whereas Warri, Effurn, Sapele, Ughelli and Kwale are the industrial hub
of the state. Agbor, Bomadi, Ibusa, Ogwashi uku, Oghara and Udu are the commercial centres in the state.
Delta state comprises of 25 local government areas and 268 communities. The state population as at 2006

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
4
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
census is 4,112,445 (Males: 2,069,309; Females: 2,043,136) [19]. The people of Delta state are multi-ethnic
comprising of the Enuani people, Ika, Ukwuani, Isoko, Urhobo, Itsekiri and Ijaw. Their occupations include
farming, fishing, trading, skilled work, industry, civil and public servants as well as academic among others.
68% of the state population is estimated to live in the urban areas resulting from rapid industrialization. The
resultant effect on urbanization is the emergence of urban slums since social facilities and infrastructure are
stretched above their limits. The indigenes of the state are hardworking, resourceful and enterprising. There
are reputable federal indices acknowledging the state as one of the highest man power employer, though with
a considerable moderate level of poverty. Education is a major industry in the state with series of established
tertiary institutions.
Figure-1. Map of Delta State showing the study area.
Source: Topographic map sheet (2018).
Delta state like every other state within the country continues to urbanize with its pace in
industrialization and attendant level in population explosion. There are recorded major urban centres in the
state namely; Asaba, Agbor, Ibusa, Kwala, Ogwashi uku, Sapele, Warri, Effurun, Ughelli, Agbarho, Bomadi,
Obiarukwu and Ozoro. This massive rate in urban expansion increases exponentially the number of people
that move in and out of the state on daily basis with its attendant environmental disturbances. The current
environmental status of the state is a clear indication that the level of environmental literacy in the state is
quite moderate.
The environmental challenges confronting the state may include; flooding, air pollution and high
temperature from gas flaring sites, erosion, inadequate management of hazardous waste, water and land
pollution from industrial wastewater discharge and oil spillage, poor municipal solid waste management,

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
5
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
proliferation of illegal structures, deforestation, socio-cultural practices and other global contemporary
environmental issues of which activities from Delta state contribute to like ozone layer depletion, acid rain and
global warming.
An overall evaluation reveals that people are not only unaware of some of the environmental challenges
but are also not informed on their causes and effects. Hence, there is no gain saying the fact that a grass root
environmental sensitization campaign is very crucial so as to create awareness and alleviate the environmental
problems confronting the state. Environmental education is therefore an important tool that is needed to be
employed as a strategy in enlightening citizenries on the environmental problems; to make them more
knowledgeable about their actions and inactions that directly or indirectly contribute to the challenges,
provide them with skills and motivation on how to resolve these problems and prevent new ones from
occurring. For this to be achieved, a baseline study evaluating the level of awareness of stakeholders is
fundamental. This is the gap this study seeks to address.
1.2. Sampling Data and Method of Analysis
In order to assess the awareness and sensitization levels of the public about environmental issues and
obtain an all inclusive public participation in decision making process for planning attempts, descriptive
survey research design was adopted for the study [10]. The five major stakeholders (artisans, public/civil
servants, farmers, students and traders/business) in the state selected for this study constituted the major
strata from which sampling of sub-stratum that makeup the respondents were taken. A total of 14
communities (7 in the urban/semi urban local governments and 7 in the rural local governments) were
studied using the stratified sampling technique. A total of 2000 questionnaires were administered through face
to face interview among the stakeholders that constituted the sample; 1000 for urban communities and 1000
for their rural counterparts. This ensured that the researchers achieved a response percentage of 98% which
was higher than any other expected methods to be employed. A test questionnaire was developed in reference
to the subject in order to measure the knowledge level of the stakeholders about the environment and
environmental issues. The instrument was sectionalized into two aspects. The first section was designed to
obtain demographic information of respondents whereas the second aspect seeks to elicit direct responses
from respondents on level of awareness on environmental issues confronting the state. Descriptive statistical
methods were employed in the analysis of data. Descriptive here refers to the usage of contingency table in
analyzing the level of awareness among the sampled stakeholders.
2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Demographic data as reported in Table 1 revealed that 614(62.7%) from the sampled urban stakeholders
are male, whereas 366(37.3%) of the stakeholders are female. More so, 407(41.5%) from the sampled rural
stakeholders are male while 573(58.5%) of them are female. This clearly revealed that majority of the
stakeholders in the urban communities are male; whereas the female stakeholders are higher in population
when compared to the male stakeholders in the rural communities.
Also displayed in the table above is the percentage of stakeholders’ age range; as Table 1 revealed that
stakeholders from the urban communities shows that 187(19.1%) were within the age range of 18-27 years,
258(26.3%) were within the age range of 28-37 years; 324(33.1%) were within the range of 38-47 years;
113(11.5%) were within the age range of 48-57 years and 98(10%) were over 57 years of age. For stakeholders
from the rural communities, it was revealed that 139(14.2%) of the sample were within the age range of 18-27;
85(8.7%) were within the range of 28-37 years; 169(17.2%) were within the age range of 38-47 years;
276(28.2%) were of the age range of 48-57 years while the other 311(31.7%) of the sampled stakeholders were
over 57 years of age. This study clearly revealed that a higher percentage of the stakeholders which were

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
6
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
younger in age range reside within the urban communities when compared to the rural communities that were
mainly dominated by stakeholders that were older in age. This finding corroborated the report of Milfont
[20] and Milfont and Duckitt [21].
Table-1. Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of stakeholders.
Variables
Options
Urban communities
Rural communities
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
Gender
Male
614
62.7
407
41.5
Female
366
37.3
573
58.5
Total
980
100
980
100
Age range
18-27
187
19.1
139
14.2
28-37
258
26.3
85
8.7
38-47
324
33.1
169
17.2
48-57
113
11.5
276
28.2
Over 57
98
10
311
31.7
Total
980
100
980
100
Level of education
Illiterate
62
6.3
115
11.7
Primary school
117
11.9
142
14.5
Junior secondary school
138
14.2
286
29.2
Senior secondary school
210
21.4
253
25.8
Diploma/NCE
253
25.8
109
11.1
University/Polytechnic
200
20.4
75
7.7
Total
980
100
980
100
Source of income
Farming
78
7.9
324
33.1
Artisans
148
15.1
128
13.1
Traders/business
302
30.8
294
30
Public/civil servants
196
20
98
10
Student
256
26.2
136
13.8
Total
980
100
980
100
Source: Fieldwork (2019).
Investigation concerning stakeholders’ level of educational attainment revealed that stakeholders from
urban communities had 62(6.3%) illiteracy level, 117(11.9%) attended primary school; 138(14.2%) stopped at
junior secondary school; 210(21.4%) attended senior secondary school; 253(25.8%) consented to have obtained
the National Diploma/NCE certificate and 200(20.4%) of the sampled urban stakeholders attended either
university or polytechnic. Report for stakeholders from rural communities revealed that 115(11.7%) were
illiterate; 142(14.5%) attended primary school; 286(29.2%) acclaimed to have stopped at junior secondary
school level; 253(25.8%) consented to have obtained senior secondary school certificate; 109(11.1%) had either
National Diploma or NCE certificate whereas only 75(7.7%) from the rural stakeholders had attended either
the university or polytechnic. Comparatively, the result revealed that on average, a higher percentage of
stakeholders from the urban communities are more educated than those from the rural communities. This
finding was in conformity with the studies of Sullivan, et al. [22]; Yan, et al. [23] and Mei, et al. [24]
whereas differs with the report of Ogunbode and Arnold [28] who studied the effects of education and income
on environmental awareness and attitudes of Ibadan, south western Nigeria.
The socio-economic status of the stakeholders as revealed from their opinions showed that respondents
from urban communities had 78(7.9%) stakeholders as farmers; 148(15.1%) were artisans; 302(30.8%) were
into business or trading; 196(20%) of them were public or civil servants that works in various government
ministries and parastatals; whereas 256(26.2%) were students. Analysis of respondents from rural
communities revealed that 324(33.1%) stakeholders were engaged in farming; 128(13.1%) were artisans; those
into business or trading accounted for 294(30%) of the stakeholders; 98(10%) of them were public or civil
servants whereas 136(13.8%) were students residing in the sampled rural communities. This study revealed a
higher percentage of students in the urban communities than the rural communities. This may be attributed

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
7
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
to the fact that urban communities have better educational facilities, quality teachers/instructors and
conducive studying environment when compared to the rural communities that are starved with quality
teachers/instructors and modern teaching facilities; hence rapidly encouraging rural-urban migration. Also
revealed in the study was that the rural communities commanded a higher percentage of stakeholders who
were into farming than their urban stakeholders. This may be attributed to the fact that majority of the rural
communities are endowed with arable land for farming.
Four major environmental terms that awareness level of the stakeholders was sought for include: global
warming, ozone layer depletion, acid rain and climate change. Major stakeholders responded either Yes or No
to being aware or having heard of the environmental terms as presented in Table 2.
Table-2. Stakeholder responses on environmental problems by knowledge.
Variables
Option
Urban communities
Rural communities
YES
NO
YES
NO
F %
F %
F %
F %
Have you heard of
global warming
Farming
66 (84.6)
12 (15.4)
151 (46.6)
173(53.4)
Artisans
106 (71.6)
42 (28.4)
66 (51.6)
62(48.4)
Traders/business
215 ( 71.2)
87 (28.8)
134 (45.6)
160(54.4)
Public/civil servants
195 (99.5)
1 (0.5)
98 (100)
0 (0)
Student
248 (96.9)
8 (3.1)
114 (83.8)
22 (16.2)
Have you heard of
ozone layer
depletion
Farming
70 (89.7)
8 (10.3)
109 (33.6)
215 (66.4)
Artisans
106 (71.6)
42 (28.4)
58 (45.3)
70 (54.7)
Traders/business
182 (60.3)
120 (39.7)
128 (43.5)
166 (56.5)
Public/civil servants
195 (99.5)
1 (0.5)
96 (97.9)
2 (2.1)
Student
248 (96.9)
8 (3.1)
114 (83.8)
22 (16.2)
Have you heard of
acid rain?
Farming
66 (84.6)
12 (15.4)
129 (39.8)
195 (60.2)
Artisans
106 (71.6)
42 (28.4)
63 (49.2)
65 (50.8)
Traders/business
206 ( 68.2)
96 (31.8)
107 (36.4)
187 (63.6)
Public/civil servants
192 (98)
4 (2.0)
96 (97.9)
2 (2.1)
Student
233 (77.1)
23 (8.9)
114 (83.8)
22 (16.2)
Have you heard of
climate change
Farming
66 (84.6)
12 (15.4)
136 (41.9)
188 (58.1)
Artisans
106 (71.6)
42 (28.4)
83 (64.8)
45 (35.2)
Traders/business
215 ( 71.2)
87 (28.8)
195 (66.3)
99 (33.7)
Public/civil servants
195 (99.5)
1 (0.5)
95 (96.9)
3 (3.1)
Student
248 (96.9)
8 (3.1)
136 (100)
0 (0)
Source: Fieldwork (2019).
Table 2 showed major stakeholders responses on their knowledge of global warming, ozone layer
depletion, climate change and acid rain. Evidence from the data collected and analysed revealed that
respondents that were into farming in the sampled urban communities had more knowledge of global
warming, climate change, ozone layer depletion and acid rain than stakeholders from the rural communities
that were into farming. It was also revealed in Table 2 that a higher percentage of students’ respondents
248(96.9%) in the urban communities were more knowledgeable on the environmental items sought for in this
study compared to students’ respondents 114(83.8%) from the rural communities. On the other hand,
stakeholders that were traders or engaged in business and artisans from the urban communities revealed to
have a better knowledge on global warming (71.2% and 71.6%), climate change (71.6 and 68.2%), acid rain
(71.6% and 68.2%) and ozone layer depletion (71.6% and 60.3%) than when compared to stakeholders from the
sampled rural communities that were artisans and traders/businessmen on global warming (48.4% and
54.4%), ozone layer depletion (54.7% and 56.5%), acid rain (50.8% and 63.6%) and climate change (35.2% and
33.7%) respectively. Although, the study revealed that among the 980 sampled stakeholders from urban
communities; students had a higher percentage level on knowledge of environmental problems followed by
public/civil servant, and traders/businessmen than stakeholders that were farmers and artisans. This trend
was also exhibited among stakeholders from the sampled rural communities.

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
8
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
To ascertain if there was age bias in responses of stakeholders; the study further sought to disaggregate
the responses by age of the sampled stakeholders within urban and rural communities and found out, that
stakeholders from urban communities who were within the age range of 28-37 had more knowledge on global
warming (78.7%), ozone layer depletion (71.5%), climate change (78.7%), and acid rain (67.4%); followed by
age group of 38-47 and finally, those of 48-57 years. See details as presented in Table 3 below. This may be
adduced to the fact that age group of 28-37 years in urban communities were mainly students who had been
educated through recent research and advancement in technology on environmental issues. This finding
confirms the assertion of other studies by Arcury and Christianson [25]; Mckenzie-Mohr [26]; Abdul-
Wahab and Abdo [27] and Yildiz, et al. [10]. Further findings, revealed that stakeholders from rural
communities within age range of over 57 years had a better knowledge on global environmental awareness;
followed by age group of 18-27, and 38-47 years. This may also be attributed to the fact that age group of
over 57 years are mainly elderly stakeholders who had lived their entire youthful age working as public/civil
servants or technicians in the urban communities hence exposing them to real life situation. This finding was
in uniformity with the report by Ogunbode and Arnold [28] who asserted that age alone has been identified
as a major determinant of environmental attitudes among rural dwellers. The study further revealed that
stakeholders from urban settings in term of age range were more knowledgeable on the concept of
environmental variables like global warming, ozone layer depletion, acid rain and climate change than their
rural counterparts.
Table-3. Stakeholders’ responses on climate change by age.
Age
Option
Urban communities
Rural communities
YES (%)
NO (%)
YES (%)
NO (%)
Have you heard of global warming
18-27
52.3
47.7
42.9
57.1
28-37
78.7
21.3
47.5
52.5
38-47
72.5
27.5
46.3
53.7
48-57
64.1
35.9
35.4
64.6
Over 57
58.6
41.4
22.8
77.2
Have you heard of ozone layer depletion
18-27
54.8
45.2
39.4
60.6
28-37
71.5
28.5
44.9
55.1
38-47
72.5
27.5
48.6
51.4
48-57
66.4
33.6
39.2
60.8
Over 57
60.9
39.1
25.4
74.6
Have you heard of acid rain?
18-27
53.7
46.3
39.4
60.6
28-37
67.4
32.6
44.9
55.1
38-47
70.1
29.9
48.6
51.4
48-57
61.5
38.5
39.2
60.8
Over 57
55.2
44.8
25.4
74.6
Have you heard of climate change
18-27
52.3
47.7
49.1
50.9
28-37
78.7
21.3
51.4
48.6
38-47
72.5
27.5
56.7
43.3
48-57
64.1
35.9
51.8
48.2
Over 57
58.6
41.4
49.5
50.5
Source: Fieldwork (2019).
Inquiry on stakeholders based on their gender responses followed the above first two enquiries and found
out that male stakeholders from urban communities were more informed on the environmental terms: climate
change, global warming, acid rain and ozone layer depletion than their rural counterparts. This finding is in
line with the submission of Ogunbode and Arnold [28] who reported that male respondents scored
significantly higher percentage than the female respondents in terms of measured knowledge on
environmental issues, and as well reported a higher rate of encounter with environmental information.

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
9
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
Table-4. Stakeholders’ responses on climate change by gender.
Sex
Option
Urban communities
Rural communities
YES (%)
NO (%)
YES (%)
NO (%)
Have you heard of global warming
Male
73.5
26.5
30.6
69.4
Female
66.8
33.2
21.8
78.2
Have you heard of ozone layer depletion
Male
74.6
25.4
46.3
53.7
Female
78.9
21.1
37.4
62.6
Have you heard of acid rain?
Male
82.7
17.3
63.2
36.8
Female
77.1
22.9
58.8
41.2
Have you heard of climate change
Male
86.3
13.7
67.6
32.4
Female
78.5
21.5
55.3
44.7
Source: Fieldwork (2019).
Another major question that was asked to stakeholders has to do with causes of environmental problems
such as acid rain, ozone layer depletion; global warming and climate change because if this is ascertained, it
will be a stepping stone towards discouraging activities that can continuously aggravate the challenge. The
result as presented in Table 5 suggested that the percentage of students that were aware of the cause and
solution to environmental problems such as global warming, ozone layer depletion, acid rain and climate
change were the highest for stakeholders from urban communities; followed by that of public/civil servants
and finally traders/businessmen. These findings can be said to have met the prior expectation, given the fact
that most of the traders in the state were nonchalant of issue not affecting their businesses directly. The result
further revealed that stakeholders that were farmers from the rural communities were the least among the
respondents who had limited knowledge on the causes of environmental problems; followed by
traders/businessmen and artisans. The study revealed that students were the stakeholders from the rural
communities that were more knowledgeable on the causes of environmental problems; followed by those who
were public/civil servants. Overall, stakeholders from urban communities had a higher percentage of
knowledge on the causes of environmental problems than their rural counterparts.
A look at Table 5 critically, shows that though the proportion of stakeholders that were students and
public/civil servants who are knowledgeable on the causes of ozone layer depletion from rural communities
were higher than that of traders/businessmen, artisans and farmers but in terms of action plans that should be
taken to reduce these environmental problems such as global warming and ozone layer depletion, the
proportion of stakeholders that were traders/businessmen, artisans and farmers who are aware of these
further reduced. This is an indication that there is need for public awareness creation on the subject matter
since our everyday activities contribute to some of these global environmental challenges.
Critical study of the analysis in Table 6 which sought to know the general responses of stakeholders on
different actions that can affect the climate as well as the general understanding of the different roles and
awareness of climate problems by the five major classified stakeholders in the state revealed that a higher
percentage of them from urban settlements consented to the question that the use of chemicals for agriculture,
cutting down of tress and bush burning as well as firm emission from vehicles impacts on the climate.
However, a lower percentage of stakeholders from the urban communities acclaimed to dispose their waste
indiscriminately without recourse to sorting or separation. Also revealed in Table 6 is that a higher
percentage of urban stakeholders fell short of switching off their electrical appliances before leaving their
apartments.

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
10
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
Table-5. Stakeholders’ responses on the causes of environmental problems.
Urban communities
Rural communities
Global warming
Do you know the
cause?
Do you know of any action
you can take to reduce it?
Global warming
Do you know the
cause?
Do you know of any action you can
take to reduce it?
Yes
F %
No
F %
Yes
F %
No
F %
Yes
F %
No
F %
Yes
F %
No
F %
Farming
55 (70.5)
23 (29.5)
55 (70.5)
23 (29.5)
Farming
126 (38.8)
198 (61.2)
126 (38.8)
198 (61.2)
Artisans
81 (54.7)
67 (45.3)
81 (54.7)
67 (45.3)
Artisans
52 (40.6)
76 (59.4)
52 (40.6)
76 (59.4)
Traders/ business
166 (55.0)
136 (45.0)
160 (52.9)
142 (47.1)
Traders/business
119 (40.5)
175 (59.5)
99 (33.6)
195 (66.3)
Public/ civil servants
195 (99.8)
1 (0.2)
190 (96.9)
6 (3.1)
Public/civil servants
95 (96.9)
3 (3.1)
95 (96.9)
3 (3.1)
Student
248 (96.8)
8 (3.2)
248 (96.8)
8 (3.2)
Student
125 (91.9)
11 (8.1)
125 (91.9)
11 (8.1)
Ozone layer depletion
Do you know the
cause?
Do you know of any action
you can take to reduce it?
Ozone layer depletion
Do you know the
cause?
Do you know of any action you can
take to reduce it?
Yes
F %
No
F %
Yes
F %
No
F %
Yes
F %
No
F %
Yes
F %
No
F %
Farming
47 (60.3)
31 (39.7)
47 (60.3)
31 (39.7)
Farming
119 (36.7)
205 (63.3)
113 (34.8)
211 (65.2)
Artisans
86 (58.1)
62 (41.9)
86 (58.1)
62 (41.9)
Artisans
61 (47.7)
67 (52.3)
50 (39.1)
78 (60.9)
Traders/ business
215 (71.2)
87 (28.8)
209 (69.2)
93 (30.8)
Traders/ business
123 (41.8)
171 (58.2)
108 (36.7)
186 (63.3)
Public/ civil servants
196 (100)
0 (0)
196 (100)
0 (0)
Public/civil servants
91 (92.8)
7 (7.2)
91 (92.8)
7 (7.2)
Student
252 (98.4)
4 (1.6)
252 (98.4)
4 (1.6)
Student
131 (96.3)
5 (3.7)
131 (96.3)
5 (3.7)
Acid rain?
Do you know the
cause?
Do you know of any action
you can take to reduce it?
Acid rain?
Do you know the
cause?
Do you know of any action you can
take to reduce it?
Yes
F %
No
F %
Yes
F %
No
F %
Yes
F %
No
F %
Yes
F %
No
F %
Farming
59 (75.6)
19 (24.4)
55 (70.5)
23 (29.5)
Farming
100 (30.8)
224 (69.2)
100 (30.8)
224 (69.2)
Artisans
96 (64.9)
52 (35.1)
91 (61.5)
57 (38.5)
Artisans
42 (32.8)
86 (67.2)
42 (32.8)
86 (67.2)
Traders/ business
222 (73.5)
80 (26.5)
189 (62.6)
113 (37.4)
Traders/ business
102 (34.7)
192 (65.3)
102 (34.7)
192 (65.3)
Public/ civil servants
193 (98.5)
3 (1.5)
193 (98.5)
3 (1.5)
Public/civil servants
97 (98.9)
1 (1.1)
97 (98.9)
1 (1.1)
Student
247 (96.5)
9 (3.5)
247 (96.5)
9 (3.5)
Student
134 (98.5)
2 (1.5)
134 (98.5)
2 (1.5)
Climate change
Do you know the
cause?
Do you know of any action
you can take to reduce it?
Climate change
Do you know the
cause?
Do you know of any action you can
take to reduce it?
Yes
F %
No
F %
Yes
F %
No
F %
Yes
F %
No
F %
Yes
F %
No
F %
Farming
67 (85.9)
11 (14.1)
67 (85.9)
11 (14.1)
Farming
114 (35.2)
210 (64.8)
90 (27.8)
234 (72.2)
Artisans
117 (79.1)
31 (20.9)
117 (79.1)
31 (20.9)
Artisans
50 (39.1)
78 (60.9)
34 (26.6)
94 (73.4)
Traders/ business
237 (78.5)
65 (21.5)
237 (78.5)
65 (21.5)
Traders/ business
111 (37.8)
183 (62.2)
88 (29.9)
206 (70.1)
Public/ civil servants
196 (100)
0 (0)
196 (100)
0 (0)
Public/civil servants
95 (96.9)
3 (3.1)
95 (96.9)
3 (3.1)
Student
254 (99.2)
2 (0.8)
254 (99.2)
2 (0.8)
Student
136 (100)
0 (0)
136 (100)
0 (0)
Source: Fieldwork (2019).

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
11
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
Table-6. General responses of different actions that can affect the climate (yes responses).
Urban Communities
Variable
Do you think
that use of
chemicals for
agriculture
affects the
environment
Do you think
that cutting
down trees
and bush
burning
affect the
environment
Are you
concerned
about
smoke
emitted by
vehicles?
Do you
separate
your waste
at source?
Do you
know the
effects of
disposing
waste in the
drainage
channel
during
rainfall?
Do you
switch off
your
electrical
appliances
before
leaving
your
apartment?
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Farming
80.8
19.2
68.3
31.7
56.4
43.6
48.1
51.9
57.6
42.4
46.5
53.5
Artisans
77.4
22.6
61.6
38.4
51.8
48.2
42.2
57.8
61.5
38.5
41.9
58.1
Traders/business
71.9
28.1
70.8
29.2
53.3
46.7
41.6
58.4
67.3
32.7
43.2
56.8
Public/civil
servants
83.6
16.4
84.3
15.7
73.9
26.1
48.3
51.7
86.1
13.9
47.4
52.6
Student
91.2
8.8
92.5
7.5
81.4
18.6
52.5
47.5
91.7
8.3
49.8
50.2
Rural Communities
Variable
Do you think
that use of
chemicals for
agriculture
affects the
environment
Do you think
that cutting
down trees
and bush
burning
affect the
environment
Are you
concerned
about
smoke
emitted by
vehicles?
Do you
separate
your waste
at source?
Do you
know the
effects of
disposing
waste in the
drainage
channel
during
rainfall?
Do you
switch off
your
electrical
appliances
before
leaving
your
apartment?
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Farming
42.6
57.4
38.3
61.7
45.0
55.0
19.3
80.7
34.5
65.5
18.0
82.0
Artisans
45.3
54.7
43.0
57.0
35.1
64.9
25.3
74.7
37.9
62.1
34.2
65.8
Traders/business
43.1
56.9
36.1
63.9
37.8
62.2
28.1
71.9
41.4
58.6
31.7
68.3
Public/civil
servants
67.8
32.2
76.5
23.5
60.4
39.6
41.5
58.5
73.0
27.0
43.4
56.6
Student
74.5
25.5
81.9
18.1
73.8
26.2
46.4
53.6
77.2
22.8
46.0
54.0
Source: Fieldwork (2019).
Table 6 further revealed that more than 50% of stakeholders that were traders/businessmen, artisans and
farmers in the rural communities were deficient in knowledge that the use of chemicals for agriculture, cutting
down of trees and bush burning impacts on the environment; and equally were not concerned about the
smoke/firms emitted by their vehicles and other automobiles. A higher proportion of these same stakeholders do
not separate their waste at source neither do they switch off their electrical appliances before leaving their
apartments. Also more than 50% of stakeholders from the rural communities that were students and public/civil
servants interviewed, do not separate their waste at source before final disposal nor switch off their electrical
appliances before leaving their various apartments.
Similarly, results presented in Table 7 below which analyses the general understanding of the different roles
and awareness level of climate problems by stakeholders from both urban and rural communities, suggested that
only stakeholders who were students and public/civil servants from urban scored over 80% for responses which
confirmed that they have a role to play in resolving the environmental problems; and also believing that
environmental awareness is necessary. Although, responses of stakeholders from the sampled rural communities
who believed that they have a role to play in resolving environmental problems revealed students’ as the only
stakeholders to score over 80%; followed by public/civil servants (76.8%), artisans (63.1%), trades/businessmen

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
12
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
(58.4%) and farmers (57.3%). Overall, stakeholders from the rural communities consented that environmental
awareness is necessary with all scoring above 50%.
Table-7. General understanding of their different roles and awareness of climate problems.
Urban communities
Rural communities
Occupation
Do you think
you have role
to play in
environmental
problems?
Do you think
that
environmental
awareness is
necessary?
Occupation
Do you think
you have role
to play in
environmental
problems?
Do you think
that
environmental
awareness is
necessary?
YES
(%)
NO (%)
YES
(%)
NO
(%)
YES
(%)
NO (%)
YES
(%)
NO
(%)
Farming
71.6
28.4
68.5
31.5
Farming
57.3
42.7
52.0
48.0
Artisans
67.9
32.1
73.2
26.8
Artisans
63.1
36.9
50.4
49.6
Traders/business
72.3
27.7
80.5
19.5
Traders/
business
58.4
41.6
65.9
34.1
Public/civil
servants
85.8
14.2
92.1
7.9
Public/civil
servants
76.8
23.2
71.3
28.7
Student
94.1
5.9
96.0
4.0
Student
80.5
19.5
77.3
22.7
Source: Fieldwork (2019).
Table-8. Environmental attitude of the respondents.
Questions
Options
Urban
Communities
(%)
Rural
Communities
(%)
How do you normally deal with
wastewater, such as washing waster
etc.?
splashed somewhere conveniently
69.2
87.6
Sewage pipes (no treatment)
28.3
11.7
Sewage pipes (with treatment)
2.4
0.7
How do you normally deal with
domestic garbage?
Dispose off conveniently without
recourse to the environment
72.4
88.2
Dispose in garbage can
9.2
3.7
Disposed after sorted
1.1
0
Other ways
17.3
8.1
How do you normally deal with
human & animal wastes?
Use as fertilizer
6.8
28.7
Dispose on an close water body
35.4
16.5
Throw in garbage bin
4.6
2.1
Pay someone to clean up
19.3
0.4
Centralized treatment
0.8
0
No treatment (just dispose off in any
close by)
33.1
52.3
Source: Fieldwork (2019).
Environmental attitude includes individual attitude towards the environment in everyday life, and is measured
by the participation attitude exhibited by stakeholders in the field of environmental protection and oversight.
Among these, the attitude of stakeholders residing in the communities on daily bases is commonly deemed to be the
most important feature. An analysis of responses on environmental attitude of stakeholders revealed that
stakeholders from urban communities terms to be more cautious in mismanaging the environment than their rural
counterparts. This is revealed in Table 8 as 69.2% of urban dwellers against 87.6% of rural communities’ term to
splash their wastewater somewhere convenient for them, 28.3% against 11.7% make use of sewage pipe with no
treatment and 2.4% against 0.7% uses sewage pipes with treatment. Further revealed in Table 8 is how both
stakeholders normally manage their domestic garbage. The result shows that 72.4% of stakeholders from urban
communities against 88.2% of their rural counterparts dispose off their domestic garbage conveniently without
recourse to the environment; 9.2% against 3.7% dispose in garbage can, 17.3% against 8.1% uses other methods to
dispose their waste. Finally, analysis on how they manage human and animal wastes revealed that 28.7% of the
rural stakeholders against 6.8% of urban stakeholders make use of the waste as fertilizer for farming, 16.5% against

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
13
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
35.4% dispose on any close water body, 2.1% against 4.6% throw in garbage bin, 0.4% against 19.3% pays someone
to clean up, 52.3% of rural stakeholder against 33.1% of urban just dispose off in any close by without recourse to
treatment.
Table-9. Behaviour of respondents toward environmental improvement.
Questions
Options
Urban
communities (%)
Rural
communities (%)
Who do you think should bear
the responsibility to improve
the environment?
No need to improve
1.9
6.1
Improve by government
55.3
76.5
Improve by individuals &
society
42.8
17.4
What do you think of
government’s policy on
measures to protect the
environment?
I oppose this measures
1.4
16.7
I do not care about it
0.6
33.5
Comply with government
directions
42.3
22.9
I support these measures
24.1
12.3
I strongly support these
measures
31.6
14.6
Would you consent to make
payment to implement some
measures for environmental
protection?
Unwilling to pay
4.3
19.4
follow general trend (other
advice)
18.3
38.2
Comply with the direction made
by local government
49.6
33.8
willing to pay
27.8
8.6
Source: Fieldwork (2019).
The behaviour of stakeholders toward environmental improvement includes respondents’ responsibility to
improve the environment, willingness to pay for environmental protection and a cultured attit ude toward
environmental protection measures. Table 9 revealed that stakeholders from the urban communities had a relatively
positive behaviour toward environmental improvement compared with their rural counterparts. On the spot
assessment and interview revealed that the main reason was that stakeholders from the urban settlements were
more exposed to modern technology and informed than their rural counterparts. For instant, their responses to the
question on if they will consent to make payment to implement some measures for environmental protection
revealed that 49.6% of stakeholders from urban dwelling consented to comply with the directives made by their
local government when compared to 33.8% of their rural counterparts. Also, 27.8% of urban stakeholders showed
willingness to pay whereas only 8.6% of the rural stakeholders were willing to pay. With particular emphasis on the
issue of who should bear the responsibility of improving the environment, 76.5% of the rural stakeholders against
55.3% of the urban stakeholder claimed that it is the sole responsibility of government to improve the environment;
17.4% against 42.8% of urban stakeholders consented that individuals and society should improve the environment
and 6.1% of rural stakeholders against 1.9% of urban confirmed that there was no need to improve the environment
Table 9. Similarly, stakeholders whose thought that it would be wise to oppose government policy on measures to
protect the environment accounted for 16.7% for rural stakeholders to 1.4% for urban stakeholders. 33.5% of rural
stakeholders against 0.6% of stakeholders from urban dwellings do not care of complying with the policies.
3. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study attempt to evaluate the level of awareness that have been created in Delta state among stakeholders
on environmental problems. Findings from the study have revealed that by and large, there is a very low awareness
level on the environmental challenges assessed across the state with emphases on the responses of stakeholders that
resides within the urban and rural settlements in the state which call for more awareness creation. Also, the study
revealed that majority of the stakeholders in the rural settlements of the state are still not aware of the effects of
chemical usage for agriculture; falling down of trees and bush burning; firms emitted by vehicles and automobiles;

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
14
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
separation of waste at source; disposing waste in the drainage channel during rainfall as well as switching off
electrical appliances before leaving one’s apartment. There is need for aggressive environmental awareness
campaign in the state in order to make headway in her fight for environmental sustainability. It should also be
stressed that different stakeholders including the government and the governed have their various roles to play in
maintaining a stable environment. Therefore, this study recommends that given the current level of environmental
degradation experienced on a daily base in Nigeria and limited awareness level of stakeholders on environmental
issues, government at various levels should through wider publicity in the ministries of environment and education
intensify the campaign on environmental education in order to develop a reasonable level of stakeholders
knowledge base on environmental problems.
Funding: This study received no specific financial support.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.
REFERENCES
[1] G. L. David, J. Kennedy, and C. McKeiver, "An empirical study of environmental awareness and practices in SMEs,"
Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 84, pp. 45-63, 2009.
[2] A. C. Okoye and U. Amakom, "Assessment of the level of environmental awareness among stakeholders in Anambra
state, Nigeria," Journal of Geography, Meteorology and Environment, vol. 2, pp. 33-40, 2017.
[3] F. Shao, Y. Wang, and H. Wang, "Investment on environmental awareness of college students in Jinan," Journal of
Environmental Science and Management, vol. 359, pp. 152-157, 2010.
[4] X. Liu, A. Vedlitz, and L. Shi, "Examining the determinants of public environmental concern: Evidence from national
public surveys," Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 39, pp. 77-94, 2014. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.02.006.
[5] C. Vlek and L. Steg, "Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems, driving forces, and research
topics," Journal of Social Issues, vol. 63, pp. 1-19, 2007. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00493.x.
[6] M. Bodur and E. Sarigöllü, "Environmental sensitivity in a developing country: Consumer classification and
implications," Environment and Behavior, vol. 37, pp. 487-510, 2005. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504269666.
[7] A. Benavot, "A critical analysis of comparative research," Prospects, vol. 32, pp. 51-73, 2002.
[8] A. M. Khataybeh, M. Subbarini, and S. Shurman, "Education for sustainable development, an international
perspective," Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 599-603, 2010.
[9] A. E. J. Wals and G. Kieft, Education for sustainable development: Research overview. Stockholm: SIDA, 2010.
[10] N. D. Yildiz, H. Yilmaz, M. Demir, and S. Toy, "Effects of personal characteristics on environmental awareness; A
questionnaire survey with university campus people in a developing country, Turkey," Scientific Research and Essays,
vol. 6, pp. 332-340, 2011.
[11] K. Skamp, E. Boyes, and M. Stannistreet, "Global warming responses at the primary secondary interface 1. students'
beliefs and willingness to act," Australian Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 25, pp. 15-30, 2009. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0814062600000379.
[12] A. Kilinc, M. Stanisstreet, and E. Boyes, "Turkish students' Ideas about gobal warming," International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education, vol. 3, pp. 89-98, 2008.
[13] V. Koulaidis and V. Christidou, "Models of students' thinking concerning the greenhouse effect and teaching
implications," Science Education, vol. 83, pp. 559-576, 1999. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-
237x(199909)83:5<559::aid-sce4>3.0.co;2-e.

International Journal of Climate Research, 2020, 4(1): 1-15
15
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved.
[14] E. Boyes and M. Stanisstreet, "Children's models of understanding of two major global environmental issues (ozone
layer and greenhouse effect)," Research in Science & Technological Education, vol. 15, pp. 19-28, 1997. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514970150102.
[15] E. Alerby, "A way of visualising children's and young people's thoughts about the environment: A study of drawings,"
Environmental Education Research, vol. 6, pp. 205-222, 2000. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620050076713.
[16] A. H. Choker, "Major factors contributing to environmental awareness among people in a third world
country/Jordan," Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 12, pp. 135-145, 1988.
[17] M. Inyang, "Health and safety risks amongst the municipal solid waste collectors in Port Harcourt Metropolis of the
Niger Delta Region of Nigeria," in International Conference -Waste Management, Environmental Geotechnology and Global
Sustainable Development (Icwmeggsd’07-Gzo’07) Ljubljana, Slovenia, August 28-30, 2007, 2007.
[18] G. C. C. Ndinwa and S. Akpafun, "Environmental impacts of oil exploration and exploitation in Niger Delta region of
Nigeria," in In Five decades of oil production in Nigeria Edited A. S. Akpotor, S.H. Egboh, A. I. Ohwona, C. O. Orubu, S. B.
Olabaniyi and R. O. Oloma, 2012, pp. 333-360.
[19] NBS, "Nigerian population census results." National Bureau of Statistics, Annual Abstract of Statistics. Federal
Republic of Nigeria, pp. 33, 2011.
[20] L. T. Milfont, "A functional approach to the study of environmental attitudes," Medio Ambiente Comportamiento
Humano, vol. 10, pp. 235-252, 2009.
[21] T. L. Milfont and J. Duckitt, "The structure of environmental attitudes: A first-and second-order confirmatory factor
analysis," Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 289-303, 2004. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.09.001.
[22] S. Sullivan, D. Erickson, and R. K. D. Young, "Environmental awareness, economic orientation, and farming practices:
A comparison of organic and conventional farmers," Environmental Management, vol. 21, pp. 747-748, 1997. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900064.
[23] G. Yan, J. Kang, G. Wang, H. Lin, J. Zhu, C. Liu, W. Sun, Y. Li, and T. Jin, "Change trend of public environmental
awareness in Shanghai (2007 to 2011)," Energy Procedia, vol. 16, pp. 715-721, 2012. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.01.116.
[24] N. S. Mei, C. W. Wai, and R. Ahamad, "Environmental awareness and behaviour index for Malaysia," Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 222, pp. 668-675, 2016. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.223.
[25] T. A. Arcury and E. H. Christianson, "Environmental worldview in response to environmental problems: Kentucky
1984 and 1988 compared," Environment and Behavior, vol. 22, pp. 387-407, 1990. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916590223004.
[26] D. Mckenzie-Mohr, "New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Promoting sustainable behavior: An
introduction to community-based social marketing," Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, pp. 543-554, 2000. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00183.
[27] S. A. Abdul-Wahab and J. Abdo, "The effects of demographic factors on the environmental awareness of Omani
citizens," Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, vol. 16, pp. 380-401, 2010. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10807031003670410.
[28] C. A. Ogunbode and K. Arnold, "A study of environmental awareness and attitudes in Ibadan, Nigeria," Human and
ecological risk assessment: An International Journal, vol. 18, pp. 669-684, 2012. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2012.672901.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of Climate Research shall not be responsible or
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.