An Appraisal of Underdevelopment of Rural Communities and Its Impact on Rural Quality of Life in Burutu Local Government Area, Nigeria

Introduction   

The globe is rapidly becoming urbanized due to a large migration of people from rural to urban areas [1]. This phenomenon is affecting the rural population. The rural population is fast declining, as the global rural population is now about 3.4 billion and might decline further to 3.1 billion by 2050 [2]. However, the Asian and African continents have over 90% of the global rural population, with India and China having the highest rural population of 893 million and 578 million, respectively [2]. According to [3], countries with the highest percentage of rural population globally are Trinidad and Tobago (91.45%), Burundi (88.24%), Papua New Guinea (87.02%) and Liechtenstein (85.70%).  A rural area is an area or countryside located outside towns and cities with low population density and small settlements. A rural population is a population in an area with a lower population density than an urban area, which spreads over a large area. The main focus of rural areas is on primary activities [4], such as agriculture, local mining and quarrying, hunting, exploitation of timber and non-timber forest products and a few secondary activities, including trading, craftwork and artisans [5].

Despite the enormous resources in rural areas, such as extensive land and natural resources, raw materials for agricultural and industrial production and a large human population as a workforce, it is observed that rural areas are becoming poorer and underdeveloped irrespective of the available socio-economic potentials. It has resulted in a mass exodus of rural people to urban areas. Africa accounts for many of the population residing in rural areas globally. Most African countries have large percentages of rural population and are considered poor socio-economically. The most rural countries in Africa are Burundi, Ethiopia, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda, with over 80% of their populations residing in rural areas [6]. These rural areas are characterized by small population size, low population density, lack of basic infrastructure and amenities, low cost of living, lower wages and more poverty, loss of nature and natural resources and sizeable ageing population [7]. This situation has created conditions for rural people to migrate to urban areas where they hope to have more opportunities to better their lives [8]. 

As a developing country, Nigeria also experiences these characteristics in its rural areas, with a fast-declining rural population migrating to urban areas. In Nigeria, the percentage of the rural population stands at 49.66% against 50.34% of the urban population [9]. This trend indicates that about half of the total population in Nigeria still lives in rural areas, characterized by underdevelopment, low income and low productivity, poor living conditions, abodes of diseases, lack of access to basic amenities and abject poverty, which affects the quality of life and social wellbeing of the inhabitants, resulting in out-migration of able workforce to urban areas [10]. According to [11], many rural areas in Nigeria are inundated with environmental and economic challenges that have hampered their physical and socio-economic growth and development. It is because of neglect and the lukewarm attitude of government and investors in terms of commitment to the planning and development of rural areas. These push factors affect rural areas in terms of the decline in the rural economy and living conditions which continue to contribute to out-migration and underdevelopment of the rural societies in Nigeria as the inequality gap increases [12]. Other factors that pull rural populations to urban areas include the availability of basic infrastructure and services such as educational opportunities, healthcare services, water and electricity supply, and employment opportunities lacking in rural areas [8]. These conditions observed in many rural areas of Nigeria also characterise the Niger Delta region, including the Burutu Local Government Area (BLGA) of Delta State.

Burutu Local Government Area faces these challenges as its population quickly declines because the resources available have not been adequately harnessed to develop the LGA and its surrounding regions. These conditions have affected the rural quality of life (QoL) as its inhabitants’ socio-economic conditions and well-being are reducing in terms of quality and satisfaction. Quality of life (QoL) can be defined as the sum of both positive and negative aspects of the life of individuals and their perceptions of the level of satisfaction in the society they live in when aggregating all indices of human wellbeing [13][14]. The rural conditions of the Burutu LGA display a decrease in socio-economic conditions, physical deterioration of infrastructure, and environmental degradation. There is a need to appraise the reasons for the underdevelopment of rural communities and how these conditions have impacted the quality of life of the rural population of Burutu LGA, Delta State, Nigeria and provide a sustainable and workable policy that would transform the LGA to an investment hub, for the socio-economic development and growth of the LGA and its inhabitants.

Statement of the Problem

Rural Development Plans (RDPs) have become the driving platform for socio-economic growth and development of rural areas as they are the vehicle for mobilizing the potential and capacities of human and capital resources in many European Union (EU) countries[15]. Thus, the lack of proper formulation, implementation, and institutionalization of rural development policies, programs, and plans in Nigeria due to urban bias and rural-urban dichotomy has made rural areas and the populace dwell in underdeveloped and poor conditions [16 ]. Burutu LGA, as a coastal and riverine region in the Delta State of Nigeria, has several prospects to grow and develop socio-economically, but the reverse is the case. It is observed that the LGA is underdeveloped as it faces inadequate physical, social, and economic infrastructure and services. There is a lack of accessibility to many communities, making connectivity difficult, including inadequate healthcare and educational facilities and potable water and electricity supply. There is the existence of insecurity and restiveness, high unemployment and environmental degradation exhibiting deplorable conditions.

The government’s inability to harness the available resources by planning and managing the sustainable use and development of the resources in the LGA has created constraints in the socio-economic development of the LGA. These conditions have further increased insecurity and restiveness, causing the able workforce to migrate to urban areas in the state and other states. There is a need to appraise the condition of underdevelopment of rural communities and its impact on rural QoL in the study area to provide an appropriate and sustainable policy that would harness and spur socio-economic growth and development of the study area, to ameliorate the current underdevelopment being experienced in the study area.

Aim and Objectives of the Study

The study aims to appraise the underdevelopment of rural communities and its impact on rural quality of life in Burutu Local Government Area, Delta State, Nigeria.

Objectives of the study were to:

1. Describe the socio-economic characteristics of inhabitants of the study area;
2. Appraise the causes of the underdevelopment of rural communities in the study area and
3. Identify the impacts of underdevelopment on rural QoL of the study area.

The Study Area

Burutu LGA is one of the prominent LGAs in Delta State of Nigeria. Its headquarters is Burutu Town, which was used to name the LGA. Burutu LGA is geographically located on the southwest coast of the Niger Delta on two sides of the Forcados River, which is a tributary of River Niger, and Burutu LGA lies 30 kilometres (20 miles) south of the Bight of Benin. The LGA is situated on longitude 5^o21’N and 5.35’N and latitude 5^o31’E and 5.50’E of the Greenwich Meridian. Notable towns and villages in the LGA include Burutu town, Iduwumi, Kolorugbene, Agbedebiri, Okrika, Egodor, Obotebe, Ayakoromo, Benibayo and Operemor (see Figure 1). Burutu LGA lies within the tropical region of Nigeria, with heavy and lengthy rainfall and a very short dry season[17]. The LGA’s location influences the climate because it is close to the Atlantic Ocean. The average temperature of the LGA is between 26.1oC and 29.1oC, with August having the lowest (coldest) temperature and the months of April and May having the highest temperatures.  The rainy season spreads between March and October with an average annual rainfall of 3000mm, while the dry short season with the prevailing North East Trade Wind (harmattan) is between December and January [17]. 

Geological and hydrogeological properties of Burutu LGA are characterised by fluvial and transition environments [18], influenced by the Forcados and River Niger systems. The river water is brackish, and soil types consist of fine-grained clays, silts, sand, gravels and peat soils influenced by Sombreiro-Warri Deltaic Plain deposits with a thickness of less than 200m [18]. The area’s drainage system is influenced by the Forcados River, with 6 hourly tides and lower and higher tides between 0.4m and 1.2m 19]. The underground water level ranges between 0.2m and 1.2m, which aids the surface water discharge during precipitation into the river in the rainy season.

Burutu LGA is inhabited by the Ijaw (Ijo) ethnic group, the fourth largest in Nigeria, and is known for inhabiting the riverine and coastal areas in the country 20]. The population of the LGA in 2006 was 209,666, and when projected to 2015, it was 276,892 [21]. In 2023, the population of the LGA stood at 420,876 using the exponential model of an average annual growth rate of 3.2% [22]. Burutu people are rich in culture, which is influenced by the environment they inhabit. Culturally, they are known for Owigiri, Andasei, Ogunsei, Ekpedesei, Duewesei, Owusei and Orusei cultural displays that involve wrestling, dancing, masquerading, marriage and burial festivals and ceremonies that are organised annually across communities in the LGA[20]. The predominant religions of the Burutu people are Christianity and African Traditional religions, which have influenced the belief systems and lifestyle of the people and affected development and growth patterns over the years. 

The advantageous location of Burutu LGA gave her to have economies of scale for promoting both local and international trades, which attracted the British Royal Niger Company (BRNC) to establish its base in the LGA in the late 19th century and later acquired by United Africa Company (UAC). Burutu then served as a port terminal for the company to discharge goods for shipping to other countries and parts of Nigeria through the Niger and Benue Rivers [23]. After Nigeria’s Independence in 1960, the port was later acquired by the [24]. The LGA is also known for its shipbuilding and repair activities because of the port terminal. The enormous natural resources of Burutu LGA, including oil and gas, natural beach, and timber and forest products, have attracted many multinational companies such as Nigeria Agip Oil Company (NAOC), Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), Nigerian Liquified Natural Gas (NLNG) Company and other oil and gas servicing firms, such that there are now oil fields, tank farms and terminals for production and export. However, the locals’ predominant occupations remain fishing, farming, and trading. The remoteness of the LGA, crisscrossed by rivers and creeks, makes accessibility cumbersome and further affects the development and growth of the LGA.

Burutu LGA has some infrastructure and services that keep life and businesses going. Some notable infrastructural facilities in the LGA include telecommunication masts, a large market, hotels and banking facilities. There are access roads and jetties for marine transport services, which should encourage other forms of livelihoods.

Literature Review

The Concept of Rural Area

Several authors and researchers have defined and explained the concept of rural areas. However, there is no consensus on the definitions, even though they have similar elements in their definitions. In this study, a rural area describes an open swath of land with few buildings and homes and not very many people residing or inhabiting the area [25]. According to[25], rural areas are characterized by a very low-density population. The population mainly engaged in economic activities such as farming, fishing, mining and trading, and exploitation of timber and non-timber forest products. Furthermore, [26] defined a rural area as any population, housing or territory not in an urban area. This means an area that does not have the characteristics of an urban area defined by the Bureau.

The [27] opined that rural area definitions reflect the reality and multidimensional concepts in context. The Agency said that a particular population density and threshold characterise a rural area geographically isolated and dispersed in a region. These definitions have clearly described rural areas and the type of elements in terms of population density, economy and level of development. In Nigeria, the NPC defined rural areas as settlements with less than 20,000 inhabitants [28]. Urban areas are settlements with more than 20,000 inhabitants, with fundamental physical and social infrastructure designated through legal or administrative criteria [29]. Population density has been used clearly to differentiate between Nigeria’s rural and urban areas, which is the case in many other countries, whether developed or developing economies.

The definitions of rural areas have portrayed rural areas as areas not fully developed socially and economically, having their natural conditions relatively intact and requiring inputs of government and investors for development. Rural development as a concept is referred to as a process of improving the quality of life and economic well-being of the inhabitants of the rural area [30]. This process requires deliberate and conscious actions by governments, international agencies and the private sector to make and carry out development policies, programs and projects that will sustainably exploit the resources of the rural area to improve the quality of life and reduce inequality among households in the area. Rural development aims to alleviate poverty and create employment opportunities, provide basic essential infrastructure and services, and promote activities that sustainably utilise the resources in rural areas [31].

Underdevelopment of Rural Areas and Its Impacts

Rural areas are characterised by one notable phenomenon: underdevelopment, especially in the Global South of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The underdevelopment of rural areas has changed the global geopolitical and economic landscape in recent times. The rural areas have drawn a map that clearly shows the shape and differences in regions between the rural and urban areas. This illustration indicates the poorer and more prosperous regions economically and politically and the widening disparities between the regions globally.  One visible and noticeable evidence of the impact of the underdevelopment of rural areas is the widening gap between rural and urban areas [32].

Inequality, poverty and disempowerment have increased the disparities between rural and urban societies. Government policies at the national, regional and state levels are geared towards urban development and growth. The regular investment in infrastructure and services in urban areas has impacted and created consequences on the rural areas by under developing the rural areas [33]. Opportunities within rural areas are constantly shrinking because the actions and inactions of governments to favour urban areas to the detriment of the rural regions are a common phenomenon, especially in developing countries. 

Rural areas in developing countries are filled with large quantities of uncoordinated rural programmes and projects targeted at rural development. This situation has negatively impacted many rural areas and has increased their backwardness [34]. This is often caused by the multi-level actors executing these programmes and projects in rural areas. Most of the time, there is no synergy between the governments at various levels and the communities involved, which brings a dearth of coordination and continuity in programs and project implementation [34]. This has caused a mirage in the development of rural areas and increased failure in their growth and development.

Rural Dwellers Perceptions and QoL of Rural Areas

The level of development and growth of rural areas directly affects the perceptions of the rural population about the environment they inhabit. According to[35], the perceptions of ruralites have significant consequences on actions in the rural environment, thereby impacting the economic development of the rural area. The out-migration of the rural population to urban areas is determined by the perceived QoL of the rural population and the perceived deprivation of economic resources in the rural area [35]. The further depletion of the rural population makes rural dwellers perceive their areas as backward regarding socio-economic growth and physical development.

The abundance of physical, social and economic resources in rural areas has not translated into the expected socio-economic growth and development of rural areas. This issue has brought underdevelopment to rural regions and their populace, especially concerning tourism-related activities that are supposed to promote and attract investments in rural areas [36]. This has led to negative perceptions of their environment, translating to poor QoL amongst rural dwellers from their perceived perceptions [36]. The lack of basic infrastructure and services in rural areas has made the rural dwellers perceive their environment as lowly, creating the opportunity for a mass exodus of its inhabitants to urban areas for greener pastures.

Methodology

The study adopted a mixed-method research approach employing a sequential explanatory design to provide a logical strategy to address the study’s aim and objectives [37]. The study employed simple random and judgemental sampling techniques to select and sample respondents. The simple random technique was employed to collect quantitative data by listing the total number of settlements in the study area. The study identified 226 communities in the study area, and 20% of these communities were selected for sampling, amounting to 45 communities sampled and studied. In order to determine the sample size of the study, the population of the selected communities were projected from the 1991 census report to the study year (2023) employing the Taro Yamane (1967) formula at a 3.2% growth rate with an average household size of 5 persons  [38][22][39]. A total of 397 were distributed across the 45 communities selected for sampling to represent the entire study area (see Table 1). Hence, a total of 354 questionnaires were returned and considered valid for analysis. Sequentially, for the collection of qualitative data, judgemental sampling was employed to select 8 key informants for interview from MDAs (Delta State Ministry of Urban Renewal, Delta State Urban and Regional Planning Board, Burutu Local Government Council) and Town Planners (academia and private practice).

Results and Discussions

Socio-economic Characteristics of Inhabitants of the Study Area

The socio-economic characteristics of rural dweller are critical to their growth and development. Population and demographic information provide the basis for providing and distributing social and economic facilities and services in rural areas and establish the platform policymakers can leverage in decision-making for rural growth and development. Thus, information on marital status, age, sex, education, employment status, occupation and income become crucial and reliable indicators for planning and managing rural areas and available resources needed for their development. However, the data presented in Figure 2 showed that the modal marital status as indicated by the respondents is “married” accounted for 47.7% of the responses in the distribution, followed by those that reported they are “single” and “widow”, accounting for 34.7% and 7.9%, respectively. Other responses from the data showed that some indicated they are “widower” and “separated” in their marriage status, accounting for 4.8% each, respectively, from the distribution. This scenario indicates that there will be a natural increase in the population size of the rural area as a large percentage of the population is married, which will increase the possibility of childbirth. In their study [46] validated that most household heads are married in rural areas, which increases household size.

The age and sex indicators, as juxtaposed, showed a bottom-heavy age-sex structure from the distribution of households in the study area as a result of many married households. From the data presented, the modal age-sex bracket in the study area was “10-14 years”, accounting for 19.1%, closely followed by “15–19 years” and “20-24 years”, accounting for 19% and 13.7% of the distribution, respectively. Other age-sex brackets of the respondents as indicated were “0-4 years”, “5-9 years”, “25-29 years”, “35-39” years and “30-34 years”, represented by 11.6%, 7.6%, 6.9%, 6.2% and 5.4%, respectively. The least age-sex brackets, as shown from the data distribution, were “50-54 years”, “55-59 years”, and “60-64 years”, accounting for 2.6%, 1.4% and 0.2%, respectively, while no respondent indicated 65+ years in their household. Thus, [40] further affirmed that rural areas have a high dependency on age population brackets affecting households’ incomes. The age-sex structure of households provides valid information on the educational statuses of household members in the study area. Table 3 presents the educational status attained by household members as the data indicated the modal educational status attained by respondents’ household was “primary school completed”, accounting for 21% of respondents, followed by those whose household educational statuses attained were “secondary school completed”, “tertiary education completed” and “secondary school uncompleted” accounting for 20%, 19.7% and 13.3%, respectively. Other educational statuses indicated by the respondents’ households were “primary school completed” and “secondary school uncompleted”, accounting for 11.1% and 10.3%, respectively. The lowest educational attainments of respondents’ households, as indicated from their responses, was “no formal education”, accounting for 4.6% of the distribution.

Sequentially, Table 3 reveals respondents’ employment status in the study area. The modal employment status of respondents in the study area was “employed”, accounting for 62% of the distribution, followed by “unemployed”, accounting for 34%. At the same time, ” retired ” responses accounted for 4% of the distribution. The employment statuses of the respondents introduced the occupations of the inhabitants of the study area. Table 4 shows the respondents’ percentage distribution of occupation in the study area. From the data presented, the modal occupations of the respondents in the study area were “civil servants”, “traders/businessmen”, and “teachers”, accounting for 15.8%, 14.7% and 9% of the distributions, respectively. Other occupations indicated from the respondents’ responses were “company workers”, “technicians/artisans”, “engineers”, and “fishermen”, accounting for 7.3%, 4%, 3.4% and 2.8%, respectively.

The least occupations engaged by respondents in the distribution were “religious leaders” and “contractors”, accounting for 1.1% each, and “legal personnel” and “politicians”, accounting for 0.6% each, respectively. Table 5 reveals the percentage distribution of monthly income categories of respondents in Naira in the study area. From the data, the modal monthly income earning category as reported by the respondents is “N31,001-N60,000″, accounting for 16.4% of the distribution, closely followed by those earning monthly, N60.001-N90,000” and “N18.001-N30,000” accounting for 14.4% and 13%, respectively. Other earning categories, as revealed by respondents, were “N121,001-N150,000”, “N91,001-N120,000”, and “less than N240,000”, accounting for 5.1%, 4.8% and 2.8%, respectively. The least income earning categories from responses claimed by respondents were “N151,001-N180,000” and “N181,000-N210,000” accounted for 1.7% each, and “N211,001-N240,000” and “N241,001 and above” accounted for 1.1%, respectively.

Causes of Underdevelopment of the Rural Communities of the Study Area

In appraising the causes of underdevelopment in rural communities of Burutu LGA, three aspects of the development cycle need to be understood. The appraisal covered the physical, economic and social resources found within the study area. These resources are the foci of socio-economic growth and development of any human settlement. Thus, from the findings, Table 6 indicates the leading causes of the underdevelopment of physical resources in the LGA include “government inability to identify potentials” and “lack of investment in the development of potentials found in the LGA”, which accounted for 38.3% and 17.4%, respectively of the responses. Other causes mentioned by the respondents were “lack of market to trade available potentials” and “poor economic status of households”, accounting for 14.7% and 11.8%, respectively, in the distribution. The least causes mentioned by the respondents of underdevelopment of physical elements were “insecurity in the LGA” and “giving an opportunity to locals to invest in existing potentials by the government”, accounting for 8.8% each, respectively, as indicated in the distribution.

Furthermore, the study found that the causes of the underdevelopment of economic resources in the LGA, as indicated by the respondents in Table 7, were “lack of economic policy and plan” and “government inability to identify economic potentials”, accounted for 24.2% and 15.9%, respectively of the responses. Other causes mentioned by the respondents were “lack of development economic infrastructure and services” and “rapid migration of able local workforce to urban areas”, accounting for 10% each. In contrast, “lack of collaboration between government, traditional institutions and communities” and “political instability” accounted for 9.8% each in the distribution. The least causes mentioned by the respondents of underdevelopment of economic elements were “lack of large market to trade local products”, “insecurity in the LGA”, and “lack of credit facilities to local people”, accounted for 8.1%, 6.1% and 5.9%, respectively as showed in the distribution. In addition, the study found in Table 8 the modal causes of the underdevelopment of social resources in the LGA by the respondents were “government inability to develop social infrastructure and services in communities” and “lack of skilled labour” accounted for 47.3% and 13.5%, respectively of the responses. Other causes mentioned by the respondents were “relegation of the rural population in the decision-making process” and “political instability”, accounting for 11.5% and 11.3%, respectively, in the distribution.

The lowest causes mentioned by the respondents of underdevelopment of social elements were “government concentration on the development of urban areas” and “poor traditional leadership”, accounting for 7.4% and 6.8%, respectively, as shown in the distribution. These conditions that have caused underdevelopment have been affirmed by ADB (2012) as the inability to provide rural infrastructure and services such as roads, educational and healthcare facilities, electricity and water supply, telecommunication services and security networking not only limits the socio-economic development of rural inhabitants it also reduces their opportunity to compete with other regions, especially the urban areas. However, key informants further collaborate with these facts from the findings by the inhabitants of the study area from responses as there are corrupt practices, lack of political will by the government to develop the rural areas to provide basic infrastructure and services, poor rural development policy and programme, and poor planning and management of available resources. Other study’s findings indicate that poor financing, inadequate infrastructure and services, poor policy framework and implementation, poor resources management, insecurity and rural-urban migration were some of the causes of underdevelopment in rural areas, which collaborate with the study findings [41][42][43][44][45].

Impact of Underdevelopment on Rural QoL in the Study Area      

The study findings in Table 9 indicate the impacts of underdevelopment on the RQoL of the study area. The data indicated that the modal impact of underdevelopment on RQoL, as indicated by the respondents, was “rapid migration of indigenes to urban areas”, which accounted for 19.5% of the responses, followed by those that said “lack of development of economic facilities” and “increase in insecurity” accounted for 9.4% and 9.2%, respectively. Other impacts mentioned by the respondents were “backwardness in the community”, “increase in poverty”, “increase in unemployment”, and “increase in conflict among inhabitants”, which accounted for 8.9%, 8.8%, 8.7%, and 8.7%, respectively, in the distribution.

The least mentioned impacts of underdevelopment were “decrease in social interaction between inhabitants”, “poor development of basic infrastructure and services”, “slowing down of the local economy”, and “reduction in income”, accounted for 7.4%, 7.3%, 7% and 5.2%, respectively as presented in the distribution. Also, key informants interviewed agreed with the respondents’ perceived impacts as migration and increasing unemployment, poor standard of living, and rise in social vices are the significant impacts of underdevelopment that have affected RQoL which has promoted poverty, community conflicts and insecurity and slow down local economy of the LGA as available resources are underdeveloped.

Furthermore, as indicated in Table 10, the study findings indicate that the modal responses of a satisfactory level of QoL in the communities indicated “dissatisfied” and accounted for 61.9% of the distribution. At the same time, the remaining respondents said their satisfactory level of QoL was “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”, accounting for 38.1% of the distribution. These responses confirmed the visibility of underdevelopment in the study area and require appraisal to address underdevelopment and improve the local economy and RQoL of the inhabitants of Burutu LGA. Consequently, [34], [35], [32], and [36] studies identified backwardness, uncoordinated projects, slow socio-economic growth and development, rapid out-migration to urban areas, increase in inequality and poverty, inadequate infrastructure and services lead to underdevelopment and poor QoL in rural areas.     

Conclusion

Rural areas have become invisible in policymakers’ and other development agencies’ decision-making in recent times. The neglect of rural areas with abundant resources for their growth and development has resulted in underdevelopment conditions. The study has appraised the underdevelopment of rural communities of Burutu LGA in Delta State of Nigeria, which has impacted the RQoL of ruralites of this sub-region. The study findings indicated a dependent age-sex population structure from the demographic data. It is bottom-heavy from the population pyramid as many married households earn less than N90,000 monthly. After attaining secondary education, most household members are educated and primarily engaged in civil service, trading/business, teaching, technical/artistry, and fishing.

Furthermore, the study found that the inability of the government to identify and develop existing potentials (resources), lack of economic policy and plans, political instability and insecurity, government inability to provide adequate basic infrastructure and services and lack of skilled labour force that drive socio-economic growth and development are the major causes of underdevelopment experienced in the LGA. These conditions have impacted the LGA fortunes and RQoL as many ruralites migrate to urban areas, increasing insecurity and conflicts, socio-economic backwardness in communities, increase in poverty and unemployment, and income reduction slowing down the local economy. In addition, these conditions have made 61.9% and 38.1% of inhabitants rate the satisfactory level of QoL as dissatisfied and neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. However, from the study’s findings, there is a need to address the challenges faced by Burutu LGA that have impacted the RQoL of the inhabitants and to build a sustainable socio-economic environment through the following suggested recommendations.

Recommendations

1. The governments (State and Local Government) should make a deliberate policy and plan to develop available resources in the LGA. This approach will strengthen and boost the local economy and diversify socio-economic growth and development amongst communities and inhabitants;
2. Government, international development agencies, and the private sector should form a synergy to provide the basic infrastructure and services needed in the LGA. This collaboration will create employment opportunities, reduce poverty, insecurity and conflicts, and foster community cohesion, thereby improving living standards and RQoL in the LGA;
3. The government should improve the human capacity of the inhabitants by providing skill-acquisition platforms and initiatives. This gesture will build the capacities of the inhabitants to fit into available job opportunities in the LGA, especially in the oil and gas sector, as this will halt the mass migration of the ruralites to urban areas and
4. A development framework should be established to promote inclusiveness and participation of community members and all stakeholders in decision-making to enhance cooperation, sustainability, and governance in the LGA.

References

1. Dudwick, N., Hull, K., Katayama, R., Shilpi, F. & Simler, K. (2011). From Farm to Firm: Rural-Urban Transition in Developing Countries. Washington, D.C., USA: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

• United Nations (UN) (2018). 68% of World Population Will Live in Urban Areas by 2050. Retrieved 12^th June, 2020 from https://m.phys.org/…/2018-05percent

• World Atlas (2017). Rural Population by Country. Retrieved 12^th June, 2020 from https://www.worldatlas.com>articles

• Campbell, A., Hanania, J., Stenhouse, K. & Donev, J. (2020). Rural Population. Retrieved 12^thJune, 2020 from https://energyeducation.ca>Rural_population.
• Akue, L. (2020). Basic Elements of Urban and Regional Planning: An Introductory Approach. Second Edition. Bori, Nigeria: Stenkpeba Computers.

• McArthur, J.W. (2014). Pushing the Employment Frontiers for Africa’s Rural and Urban Youth. Retrieved 12^th June, 2020 from https:www.brookings.edu>pushing_the_employment­_frontiers_africas_rural_and_urban-youth

• Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (2018). Guidelines on Defining Rural Areas and Compiling Indicators for Development Policy. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 

• Alarima, C.I. (2018). Factors Influencing Rural-Urban Migration of Youths in Osun State, Nigeria. Agro-Science: Journal of Tropical Agriculture, Food, Environment and Extension, 17(3), 34-39.

• Trading Economic (2018). Nigeria – Rural Population. Retrieved 16^th June, 2020 from https://tradingeconomics.com­_nigeria_rural_population

1. Eteng, F.O. (2005). Rural Development in Nigeria: Problems and Remedies. Sophia: An African Journal of Philosophy, 8(1), 65-71.

1. Johnson, K.E. & Ifeoma, U. (2018). Rural Development as a Panacea for Rural-Urban Migration in Nigeria. Art Human Open Access Journal, 2(5), 241-244. DOI: 10. 15406/ahoaj.2018.02.00065

1. Aworemi, J.R., Abdul-Azeez, L.A. &Apoola, N.A. (2011). An Appraisal of the Factor Influencing Rural-Urban Migration in Some Selected Local Government Areas of Lagos State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development, 14(3), 84-86

1. Eyenghe, T., Brown, I. &Ibisiki, T.G. (2022). Developing Sustainability in Analysing Sanitary and Environmental Conditions to Improve Quality of Life in Selected Informal Settlements of Port Harcourt Municipality, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Geological Research (AJOGER), 5(3), 40-51.

1. Ilenikhena, S.O.&Eyenghe, T. (2023). Exploring Environmental Quality Domain on Quality of Life in Informal Settlements of Port Harcourt Municipality. ISRG Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (ISRGJAHSS), 1(5), 48-55. https://isrgpublishers.com/isrgjahss

1. Kinsella, J., Renting, H., Gorman, M., Knickel, K. & Roep, D. (2005). The Driving Forces of Rural Development: A Comparative Analysis. In D.O’Connor, H. Renting, M. Gorman, and J. Kinsella (Eds.), Driving Rural Development: Policy and Practice in Seven EU Countries.Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum Publishers.

1. Paul, S.O., Agba, M.S. & Chukwurah, D.C. (2014). Rural Development Programmes and Rural Underdevelopment in Nigeria. International Journal of Public Administration and Management Research (IJPAMR), 2(4), 1-14.

1.  World Atlas (2017). Rural Population by Country. Retrieved 12th June, 2020 from https://www.worldatlas.com>articles

1. Ohwoghere-Asuma, O., Chinyem, I.F. &Essi, O.E. (2017). Saltwater Intrusion Appraisal of Shallow Aquifer in Burutu Area of the Western Niger Delta with 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography. Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Management (JASEM), 21(2), 372-377.

1. Ohwoghere-Asuma, O., Aweto, K.E. &Akpoborie, I.A. (2014). Investigations of Groundwater Quality and Evolution in an Estuary Environment: Case of Study of Burutu Island, Western Niger Delta, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Hydrology, 22(5), 1-14.

• Epanpou, E. (2008). Nigeria: The Ijaw Masquerades Culture and the BornAgain Critics. Retrieved 22^ndJune, 2020 from https://allafrica.com.

• National Population Commission (NPC) (2006). Data Sheet for Delta State. Abuja: Federal Government of Nigeria.

• National Population Commission (NPC) (2018). NPC Puts Nigeria’s Population at 198 Million. Retrieved 27^th May, 2021 from https://www.vanguardngr.com/2018/04/npc-puts-nigerias-population-198m/

• Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) (1948). Nigeria: Commission of Enquiry into Disturbances Which Occurred at Burutu on 21st June, 1947. Lagos: 1, Nigeria: OCLC 34553671.

• Buxton, J. (1976, February 18). Cargocats Revitalise Burutu. The Financial Times Historic Archive, p. 4.

• National Geographic Society (NGS) (2011). Rural Area. Retrieved 12^thAugust, 2021 from https//www.nationalgeographic.org.

• United States Census Bureau (UNCB) (2021) Rural? Retrieved 12^thAugust, 2021 from https//.www.census.gov>data>rural?

• United States Department of Agriculture – Economic Research Service (UNDA-ERS) (2019). What isRural? Retrieved 12^thAugust, 2021 from https//.www.ers.usda.gov?

• Madu, I.A. (2010). The Structure and Pattern of Rurality in Nigeria. GeoJournal, 75(2), 175-184.

• Ofem, B. (2012). A Review of the Criteria for Defining Urban Areas in Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology (Delhi, India), 37(3). DOI: 10.1080/09709274.2012.11906461. 

• Definition.net (2021). Rural Development. Retrieved 8^th September, 2021 from https://www.definitions.net/defnitio/rural+development

• Gangopadhyay, D., Mukhopadhyay, A.K. & Singh, P. (2008). Rural Development: A Strategy for Poverty Alleviation in India. India, Science and Technology, NISTADS/CSIR, 2008.

• Suttie, D. (2019). Overview: Rural Poverty in Developing Countries: Issues, Policies and Challenges. Retrieved 12^th May, 2021 from https://www.un.org/IFAD
• Lipton, M. (2007). Farm Water and Rural Poverty Reduction in Developing Asia. Irrigation and Drainage, 56, 127-146. https//doi.org/10.1002/ird.302

• Flora, C.B. (2003). Theoretical Framework for Participatory Rural Development: The Role of Public University

• Bosworth, G. & Willett, J. (2010). Perceptions of Rurality and their Implications for the Experience and Impact of Immigrants: Social and Economic Perspectives from Cornwall and Northumberland. Retrieved 18^th March, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266098056

• Giles, E.L. & Willett, J. (2013). The Role of Local Perceptions in the Marketing of Rural Areas. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(1), 4-13.

• De Vaus, D.A. (2001). Research Design in Social Research. London, UK: Sage

• National Population Commission (NPC). (1991). 1991 Population Census Report of Nigeria. Lagos, Nigeria: Federal Government Press.

• National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (2016). General Household Survey – Panel Wave 3 (Post Planting) 2015-2016. Abuja, Nigeria: National Bureau of Statistics.

• Vorobyov, S. & Bugai, Y. (2019). Factors of Socio-economic Development of Rural Areas. International Conference on Sustainable Development of Cross-Border Regions. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Sciences 395(2019) 012109. DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/395/012109 

• Khan, M.H. (2000). Rural Poverty in Developing Countries: Issues and Policies. IMF Working Paper, WP/0078. Washington D.C., USA: International Monetary Fund.

• Figueroa, A. (1999). Social Exclusion and Rural Underdevelopment. Paper Prepared for the World Bank Conference on Evaluation and Poverty Reduction, Washington D.C., 14^th -15^th, June, 1999.

• Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2020). Implementing the Rural Well-being Policy Framework: Guidelines and the Institutional Picture of OECD Countries. Retrieved 12^th May, 2021 from https:// www.oecd-library.org

• Gaal, H.O. & Afrah, N.A. (2017). Lack of Infrastructure: The Impact on Economic Development as a Case of Benadir Region and Hir-Shabelle, Somalia. Developing Country Studies, 7(1), 49-55.

• Osita-Njoku, A. &Chikere, P. (2015). Rural-urban Migration and the Underdevelopment in Selected Rural Communities in Imo State, Nigeria. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 10(1), 1-10. DOI: 10. 9734/BJESBS/2015/15420

• Mukaila, R., Falola, A. &Egwue, O.L. (2021). The Determinants of Rural Households’ Income in Nigeria. Fiscaoeconomia, 5(3), 978-989. DOI: 10.25295/second.974485