Abstract:
Infrastructural development such as health facilities, roads, communication facilities and irrigation facilities promotes rural livelihood activities and impacts on Socio-Economic Status (SES) of rural dwellers. Over the years, lack of or inadequate infrastructure persists in rural areas and has negatively impacted on rural dwellers‟ livelihood activities and by extension their SES. Therefore, the extent to which infrastructure has aided livelihood activities of rural dwellers for improved SES were investigated.
A four-stage sampling procedure was used to select Household Heads (HHs). Oyo, Osun and Ekiti States were randomly selected and rural LGAs were identified. 20% of rural LGAs, 10% of wards and 2% of communities in each ward were randomly selected to give eight LGAs, eight wards and 40 communities, respectively. Using sampling proportionate to size, a total of 348 HHs were selected. Interview schedule was used to elicit information on HHs personal characteristics (age, educational attainment, sex, primary occupation and social group) and enterprise characteristics (years of experience and monthly income), livelihood activities, perceived constraints, benefits derived, perceived effects, SES, infrastructure availability, status, access and extent of use of infrastructure. Indices of infrastructure status (low 15.0-65.0; high 65.1-106.0), access (low 5.0-37.2; high 37.3-72.0), and extent of use (low 0.0-58.3; high 58.4-110.0) were generated. Furthermore, indices of livelihood activities (low 0.0-21.9; high 22.0-114.0), perceived effects of infrastructure use (low 52.0-128.3; high 128.4-150.0), benefits derived (low 0.0-21.7; high 21.8-40.0) and SES (low 0.19-2.32; moderate 2.33-5.68; high 5.69-10.76) were also generated. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square, Pearson product moment correlation and ANOVA at α0.05.
Mean age, years of enterprise experience and monthly income of HHs were 43.0±13.0, 13.4±1.04 and ₦18,728:53±9,870:87, respectively. Most HHs (86.6%) had formal education, while 56.3%, 49.0% and 52.1% were male, farmers and belonged to cooperative societies, respectively. Available infrastructure facilities were electricity (63.2%), rural health centre (72.1%) and road (80.9%). Status of infrastructure was adjudged poor by
ii
59.8% of HHs. Livelihood activities, access and extent of use of infrastructure were low for 64.4, 58.6 and 56.0% of HHs, respectively. Most severe constraints to infrastructure use were inaccessibility to infrastructure (1.51±0.68), irregular power supply (1.43±0.67) and unavailability of infrastructure (1.40±0.59). More HHs (59.5%) perceived the effects of infrastructure on livelihood activities as positive; however, 52.6% derived low benefits from the use of infrastructure. The SES of most HHs (71.0%) was moderate. Respondents‟ primary occupation (χ2=32.8), membership of social group (χ2=5.8), years of formal education (r=0.19), household size (r=0.24), age (r=0.12) and status of available infrastructure (r=0.14) were significantly related to respondents‟ SES. The SES was significantly higher in Oyo (1.56±0.65) than in Osun (1.29±0.56) and Ekiti (1.15±0.47) States.
Infrastructure for livelihood activities impacted moderately on rural dwellers‟ socioeconomic status in South-western Nigeria. Governments should endeavour to create an enabling environment for adequate infrastructure for improved socio-economic status of rural dwellers
