:: E-Journals :: Corona College Of Education E-Resources

A Critical Assessment of Road Infrastructural Development in Akwa-Ibom State, Nigeria

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

African Research Review: An International

Multidisciplinary Journal, Ethiopia

AFRREV Vol. 14 (1), Serial No 57, January, 2020: 179-193

ISSN 1994-9057 (Print) ISSN 2070-0083 (Online)

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v14i1.16

A Critical Assessment of Road Infrastructural Development in

Akwa-Ibom State, Nigeria

Okafor, Chukwuma Onwuagana

Department of Government and Public Administration

Baze University, Abuja

FCT, Abuja, Nigeria

E-mail: onwuagana.okafor@bazeuniversity.edu.ng

Phone: +2348033147968

Abstract

Road infrastructure is one of the major channels of economic development in Nigeria. This

study critically examined some of the factors that affect road infrastructure development in

Akwa-Ibom State, Nigeria. The study made use of primary data through the use of

questionnaire shared to respondents in various professions in the state. The data was analyzed

using the relative significance index (RSI). The result showed that over-dependence of road

development on public financing was the major factor impacting road infrastructure in Akwa-

Ibom state. Also, absence of specific ministry/agency saddled with role of road infrastructure

development was the least ranked factor affecting road development in the state. The study

thus recommended, among others, that there should be a holistic technical evaluation and cost

assessment of road projects before its inclusion into annual budgets.

Key Words: Road, Infrastructure, economic, development, Nigeria

Introduction

Infrastructure is an umbrella term for many activities referred to as social overhead capital by

development economists such as Paul Rosenstein Rodan, Ragnar Nurske and Albert

Hirschman (Adger, 2015; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000).

Road infrastructure has a very high economic impact on the rural/urban integration especially

with the creation of any developing State or economy. It is a fundamental requirement for

facilitating industrial, agricultural and other socio-economic development. Road infrastructure

is central to the activities of household and economic production. It is common knowledge

that adequate road networks are very essential aspects of economic activities. Hence, road

infrastructure is a key facilitator of industrial, agricultural and other socio-economic

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

179

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

development (Owei, 2018). This reality becomes painfully evident when natural disaster or

civil disturbances destroy roads, culverts, bridges, electricity lines, water mains, and so on. In

such circumstances, communities’ quality of life and productivity becomes radically reduced.

Thus, providing road infrastructure to meet the demands of households, businesses and other

users is central in contemporary development discourse. Thus, poor access to road

infrastructure could add a new challenge toward jobs creation and poverty alleviation (Lustig,

2005,& Maria, 2017).

The deplorable condition of the roads, the dependence as the major means of transportation

and the socio-economic importance of roads in the region have resulted in greater concern in

the recent time by the stakeholders (public, policy makers and researchers) on the need for

improvement. A factor which could have contributed to non-sustainability of road

development in the region is that road infrastructure procurement has remained a traditionally

public task through public budgetary financing (Opawole, Jagboro, & Babatunde, 2011). The

increasing advocacies on the shift from the traditional budgetary financing approach to

public-private partnership (PPP) financing initiative for road infrastructure development,

especially concession, has only attracted less significant private sector participation. Reason

for this may be that the framework for alternative financing initiatives in Nigeria is not yet

available.

While road development thus depends substantially on budgetary financing in the region,

most roads projects undertaken through public budgetary allocations seem to be poorly

implemented with the result that they are partially completed, suspended or abandoned.

According to Opawole, Jagboro, and Babatunde, (2011) only 45.3% of the road projects

covered by public budgets are implemented in Nigeria. This phenomenon, though has long

been worrisome, seems traceable to deficiency in budgetary allocation to cope with the

desirable level of road constructions, lack of proper implementation of the government budget

on road infrastructure, or lack of data on these to aid policy making and implementation, or

some other factors.

In Nigeria, most rural areas receive fewer infrastructures than the urban areas. The

implication is that the kind of infrastructure put in place determines the level of poverty. Most

of the poor are in rural areas, and the growth of farm productivity and non-farm rural

employment is linked closely to the type and quality of infrastructure in place (World Bank,

2007). This means that countries that will provide adequate infrastructure in rural areas will

succeed in reducing poverty drastically. However, the use of basic socio-economic

infrastructure as a development strategy forms the World Bank’s parameter for assessing the

level of poverty anywhere in the world. Thus, accessibility to basic infrastructure is a measure

of regional standard of living. Although the federal and state governments have adopted

various measures of meeting the basic needs of the people, the results lacked far reaching

effects especially in rural areas where majority of the people still lack access to basic

necessities of life. To this end, this phenomenon thus demands empirical investigation.

Classification of Nigerian Roads

Nigeria has a network of federal, state and local government roads. Kadiri and Alade (2016)

maintained that road infrastructure categorized as local government roads rose from total

length of 27, 950 km in 1953 to 85, 000km in 1992. This represents 60 percent of the 144,100

km of roads in the country. Of greater importance is the fact that only 870 km or 0.6 percent

of the local roads is paved (Kadiri and Alade, 2016) as at 2014.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

180

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

The emphasis on local government roads is based on the fact that they have implications for

rural development. Besides the fact that the roads are more in length than the other two

categories combined, it is the category that is most under-developed as seen in Table 1. This

means that rural roads need greater attention if their roles in freight movement are recognized.

Table 1. Classification of Nigeria Roads

TYPE

PAVED (KM) UNPAVED (KM)

Federal

23,000 (16.0)

5,600 (3.9)

State

10,430 (7.2)

20,070 (13,9

Local government

870 (0.6)

84,130 (58.4)

Total

34,300 (23.0)

109,800 (76.2)

Source: Compiled from Kadiri and Alade (2016)

TOTAL (KM)

28,600 (19.9)

30,500 (21,1)

85,000 (59.0)

144,100 (100.0)

Despite the importance of rural roads, the government concern was marginal until 1986 when

the Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural infrastructure (DFRRI) was set up. Before then, the

attitude was that of neglect as various national development plans have shown. According to

Kadiri and Alade (2016), rural feeder roads were neither the responsibility of the federal nor

state governments while the financial involvement for their development was beyond the

executive capacity of local governments. Thus, poorly designed and maintained road

infrastructure has been an issue of concern to many. For instance, a well-maintained paved

road should last for about 10-15 years before needing resurfacing but poor maintenance has

led to severe deterioration of roads shortly after commissioning. Road infrastructure in

particular, is very important for political, economic, social and military purposes

(Kadiri&Alade, 2016). It is also capital intensive. At 2015 prices, it was estimated that the

nation’s road infrastructure has an asset nominal replacement value of one thousand, two

hundred and fifty billion naira (Oni, 2017). Though, there are over 200, 000 Kilometers of all

categories of roads (Kadiri&Alade 2016), not all settlements are adequately served. This

inadequacy may be the reason for emphasis on road development by the different tiers of

government.

Literature Review

The significant issues affecting infrastructure development in Nigeria related to procurement

process and funding (Oyegoke, 2005; Oforeh, 2006). A survey conducted by Wahab (2017)

on infrastructure development revealed that before 1999, Nigeria was losing an average of

$265 million annually through various kinds of manipulation of the procurement procedure in

award and execution of public contracts. These manipulations were in the forms of inflation

of contract costs, use of contract system to divert public funds to private pockets, award of

contracts for non-existent projects, use of inexperienced contractors, over-invoicing, influence

peddling, award of contracts to friends, relations and family members, and award of contacts

without adequate planning and budgetary provisions. Also, Babalola, Babatunde, and

Opawole (2010) identified these abuses as major causes of abandonment of public projects

and by implication a major threat to sustainable infrastructure development in Nigeria.

According to Oforeh (2006), another major problem of infrastructure development in Nigeria

is attributed to policy formulation on infrastructure development being undertaking with

minimum input of the construction professionals at macro-economic level.

Also, public investment in infrastructure development in Nigeria has been criticized to be

inadequate (Oforeh, 2006). This assertion supported by growing bodies of evidence

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

181

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

substantiating the importance of public investment in infrastructure for development is

identified as an accumulation of evidence that infrastructure investment in developing

countries is suboptimal. Another problem of road infrastructure sustainability in Nigeria could

be traced to poor budget implementation. According to Olufidipe (2006), budget

implementation in Nigeria is identified as low, exemplified by huge budget deficits and poor

physical performance. Olufidipe (2006) identified significant number of projects contained in

the annual budgets of government at all levels in Nigeria as either partly implemented or not

implemented at all, thus resulting in wide divergence and persistent disparity between the

actual and projected budget figure.

Moreover, sensitive stages, especially, identification, definition, planning, and budgeting, for

infrastructure sector at macro-level have also been criticized to be dominated by the executive

arm of the government with minimum input of the construction professionals (Mogbo, 2018).

Oforeh (2006) asserted that the policy makers who plan for infrastructure development in

both the national and state budgets lack adequate knowledge of the complex technological

processes of construction and the cost characteristics of infrastructure constructions. These

factors could have been critical to poor road infrastructure sustainability in Nigeria.

Olayiwola and Adeleye (2005) asserted that one of the major factors responsible for low level

of rural development is the imbalance in infrastructure distribution. Ukpong (2017) describes

the low level of development in Akwa-Ibom State in terms of high poverty incidence with

estimated poverty level of one US Dollar per adult per day and that more than 74 percent of

the adult population live below the poverty line. People in such conditions are said to be

extremely poor (Abdullahi, 2018). The high incidence of poverty scenario has made the

World Bank to declare that its task on poverty has become “vast, important and urgent”

(World Bank, 2007). Afonja and Ogwumike (2017) have attributed poverty to the quality and

quantum of infrastructure provision as well as unequal distribution of production assets. In

Akwa-Ibom State, preliminary investigation has indicated that the level of infrastructure

development is indisputably low, although the pattern of infrastructure development from the

perspective of road infrastructure has not been substantially established.

Apparently, there is an existing research gap in this regard. It is hoped that this study would

showcase the trend of development in road infrastructure and thus, reveal the extent of

government commitment towards road infrastructure development in the state.

Methodology

Akwa-Ibom State located in the South-Southern region of Nigeria, was considered

appropriate for this study because road infrastructure development in the State depends

substantially on budgetary financing (Opawole,Jagboro, Babalola, and Babatunde, 2012). A

total of 72 (out of 106 copies administered) properly completed questionnaire by 6 architects,

4 quantity surveyor, 6 town planner, 5 estate surveyors, 4 builders, 21 engineers (mechanical,

civil, and electrical) and 26 economists/accountants representing a response rate of 68%

provided quantitative data for the study. Data analysis was done through, mean, percentage

and relative significance index.

Data on the total length of all the roads in the state and total area of all the 31 Local

Government Areas in the state were obtained from the State Ministry of Works and Transport,

which serve as input data for computation of road density. The data on topological

accessibility index and the distance of sampled communities to nearest highway (in

kilometres) were obtained through map work analysis. To assess the levels of road

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

182

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

development in the rural areas, field observations were conducted in 50 spatially sampled

rural communities in the state.

Spatial sampling framework was employed and a political map of the state was divided into

480 quadrates (grid cells). To sample the communities, a table of random numbers was

applied and 50 out of 480 spatial units were selected. In all the sampled communities, the

quality of road leading to sampled communities was measured in terms of type of roads

(paved or un-paved), categories of roads, major means of transportation and usage intensity of

roads as indicators or surrogates for assessing road infrastructure development.

Study Area

Akwa-Ibom State is the study area which is one of the states in the Niger Delta Region of

Nigeria. Generally, the region is characterized by rising waves of restiveness due to low

levels of development in the face of increasing oil exploration and exploitation activities. The

State is a major oil producing state and thus, contributes significantly to the total revenue base

of the nation. Located in the southeastern coast of Nigeria, Akwa-Ibom state was created on

September 23, 1987 from the former Cross River state of Nigeria. The State is wedged in

between Rivers, Abia and Cross river States and the Republic of Cameroon to the Southwest,

North, East and Southeast respectively while the Bight of Bonny bordered the State to the

South. It lies between latitudes 4o32' and 5o32' North of the Equator, and longitudes 7o28'

and 8o 25' East of the Greenwich Meridian. According to the 2006 National Population

Census result, Akwa-Ibom State had a total population of 3,920,208 persons out of which

87.89 percent constituted rural population while 12.11 percent formed the urban population

(National Population Census (NPC), 2007), thereby accounted for 2.7 percent of the overall

national population.

Data Analysis

According to NPC (2007), Akwa-Ibom state has a total land area of 6,187 km2, which

represents 0.67% of the total land mass of Nigeria. The State has 31 Local Government Areas

with Uyo, Eket, Ikot-Ekpene, Abak, Etinan, Ikot-Abasi and Oron being the most developed

urban centres. The most striking characteristic of the population of Akwa-Ibom state is its

crude density. When compared with other states in the south-south and southeast, the region

is one of most densely settled state. In fact, apart from Imo and Anambra states, Akwa-Ibom

state is the most densely populated state with densities as high as 634 persons per square

kilometer in Nigeria (NPC, 2007)

The statistical tools used for data analysis were percentage and relative significance index and

the linear trend graph. The formula for the relative significance index (RSI) is given as:

RSI = Σ5NiKi

NRh

Where, Ni = number of respondents; Ki = 1-5 on the Likert scale; N = total number of

questionnaires collected and Rh = highest value in ranking. A rating scale of 1 to 5 was

adopted with 1 representing the lowest level and 5 representing the highest level.

Demographic Result of Respondents

Table 2 shows the percentage representation of the respondents. Respondents that were

architects represents 8.3%, 8.3% were town planners, 5.6% were builders, 5.6% were quantity

surveyors, 29.2% were engineers, 6.9% were estate surveyors and 36.1% were

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

183

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

economists/accountants. This result expressed adequate opinion of the infrastructure

stakeholders as both the financial administrators and construction professional were

adequately represented.

Table 2: Type of Respondent

RESPONDENTS

NUMBER

PERCENTAGE

ADMINISTERD COLLECTED (%)

Architects

8.3

Town planners

8.3

Builders

5.6

Quantity surveyors

5.6

Engineers

29.2

Estate Surveyors

6.9

Accountants/Economists 32

36.1

Total

106

100.0

Source: Author’s Field Survey (2019)

In Table 3, 26.4% of the respondents were holders of Master of Science or Masters of

Technology; 44.5% were holders of Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Technology; 18.1%

obtained Post Graduate Diploma (PGD); 9.7% held Higher National Diploma (HND); and

1.4% held Doctor of Philosophy.The result shows that all the respondents possess the

minimum registration qualification of their various professional bodies in Nigeria and are of

adequate academic training to supply reliable data for this study

Table 3: Academic Qualification of Respondents

QUALIFICATION

Ph.D.

M.Sc/ M.Tech

B.Sc/B.Tech

PGD (Post Graduate Diploma)

HND (Higher National Diploma)

TOTAL

NUMBER OF

RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE (%)

1.4

26.4

44.4

18.1

9.7

100.0

Source: Author’s Field Survey (2019)

Table 4: Working experience of Respondents

YEARS

MID-POINT (X)

FREQUENCY

0-5

2.5

5-10

7.5

11-15

15-20

20-25

22.5

Above 26

Total

Source: Author’s Field Survey (2019)

17.5

75.0

52.0

234.0

607.5

286

1272

The professional qualification of the respondents is shown in Table 5. Sixty-seven (67)

respondents representing 93.1% of the total respondents were either associate or corporate

members of their various professional bodies. The result shows that the respondents are either

associate or corporate members of the various professional bodies or possess some other

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

184

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

professional qualification. This shows that the respondents are in the position to supply

reliable data for this research.

Table 5: Professional Qualification of Respondents

PROFESSIONALS

Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA)

Nigerian Institute of Town Planners (TPL)

Nigerian Institute of Building (NIOB)

Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (NIQS)

Nigerian Society of Engineers (NSE)

Nigerian Institute of Estate Valuers and Surveyors

(NIEVS)

Institute of Chartered Accountant

(ICAN)/Association of National Accountants of

Nigeria (ANAN)

Others

Non-Professionally Qualified (NPQ)

Total

NUMBER

PERCENTAGE

5.6

6.9

5.6

26.4

6.9

34.7

1.4

6.9

100

Source: Author’s Field Survey (2019)

Table 6: State of Roads in Akwa-Ibom State

AVAILABILITY

AND

CONDITION

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

VERY POOR

MEAN

REMARK

FEDERAL ROAD

TWF

5.0

24.0

138.0

34.0

2.0

2.82

Fair

STATE ROAD

LOCAL ROAD

TWF

10.0

68.0

117.0

26.0

1.0

3.08

Fair

TWF

0.0

8.0

87.0

60.0

11.0

2.31

Poor

Source: Author’s Field Survey (2019): TWF= Total Weighted Value.

Analysis of Result

Table 7 shows the assessment of the condition of Federal, State, and Local roads in the State.

The assessment was based on the scale of 5 = excellent, 4 = good, 3 = fair, 2 = poor, and 1 =

very poor. The interpretation of the scale as adopted from Central Bank of Nigeria (2003)

report on the spot assessment of the state of roads in Nigeria is shown in Table 7. The mean

rating was highest in the State road which indicates fair on the scale of assessment, while

Federal and Local roads were rated 2.82 and 2.31 which indicate fair and poor respectively.

This result revealed that the budgetary allocations to road development by the governments is

either inadequate or the budget allocations are poorly implemented. The result also provides

basis for assessment of road condition. Thus, roads in excellent, good, fair, poor and very

poor condition could be assessed with 4.5-5.0, 3.5-4.0, 2.5-3.0, 1.5-2.4 and 1.0-1.4 indices

respectively on a scale of 0-5.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

185

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

Table 7: Road Assessment Index

CONDITION

ASSESSMENT

Characteristics as adopted from

Central Bank of Nigeria (2015) Report

Assessment Index Range

as Used in the

Survey Questionnaire

TWF

EXCELLENT

Free of potholes, peel offs, and cracks.

4.5-5.0

GOOD

Very few pot holes and peel offs

3.5-4.0

FAIR

Some potholes and peel-offs that could be

refilled to make traffic flow better.

2.5-3.0

POOR

Potholes and peel offs at almost every

kilometre, the shoulder of the road had

eroded off.

1.5-2.4

VERY POOR

Many potholes with gullies and ditches,

major cracks (longitudinal and

1.0-1.4

transverse), depressions, broken down

bridges, the shoulder, and the road had

eroded off.

Source: Author’s Field Survey (2019); TWF= Total Weighted Value.

Table 8 shows the profile of budgetary allocations for road projects in the State between 2006

and 2015. The mean budget allocation was established as N2, 458.8m. This represents 23.7%

and 10.7% of the capital budget and total budget respectively. The statistical detail of the

trend of budget allocations is presented in the table below

Table 8: Trend of Budgetary Allocation for Road Projects in Akwa-Ibom State (N,

Million)

Year

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Total

Budget

4,790.00

11,820.00

20,480.00

18,870.00

14,530.00

18,910.00

25,220.00

29,050.00

34,770.00

38,010.00

Capital

Project

1,530.00

6,700.00

12,040.00

10,710.00

4,830.00

6,910.00

11,630.00

13,500.00

17,790.00

16,310.00

Budget

Allocation to

Road

Infrastructure

405.00

1,060.00

3,500

2,430

609.00

724.00

3,930

4,170

3,960

3,800

Budget

Allocation as

% of Capital

Budget (%)

26.44

15.84

29.02

22.72

12.62

10.48

33.81

30.86

22.23

23.30

Budget

Allocation as %

of Total Budget

(%)

8.46

8.97

17.09

12.88

4.19

3.83

15.58

14.35

11.39

10.00

Source: Akwa-Ibom State Budget Estimate

The trend of budget allocation for road projects between 2006 and 2015 is as shown in Table

8. The table revealed a gradual increase in the allocation from N405m in 2006 to N3, 500m in

2008. This progressively declined to N609m in 2010. The upward increase was restored in

2011 and this continued till 2013. The upward trend was, however, reversed in 2014 and

steadily declined to 3,800m in 2015.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

186

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

Road Network Density in Akwa-Ibom State

In the present dispensation, Akwa-Ibom state has a total landmass of about 7289 Km2 and a

cumulative road network length of about 6288 kilometres. Out of this, 1272.6 kilometres

(21.6%) have paved surfaces while 5015.4 kilometres (78.4%) constitute unpaved roads as

Table 2 shows. The table 9 shows the proportional distribution of paved and unpaved roads in

each sub-region as well as road density and the ratio of tarred road per km2. The overall

network density in the state is about 0.86 kilometre per kilometer square. The total length of

the paved category of roads in the state (1272.6 Kms) yielded a density value of about 0.17

kilometres per kilometer square while that of the unpaved category indicated 0.69 kilometres

per kilometer square respectively.

From this analysis, it may be inferred that road infrastructure development in the state is at

low ebb going by the low network density values for paved roads. At the intra-regional level,

network density values equally reflect deplorable levels of development of the road

infrastructure.

Table 9: Statistics on Road Network in Akwa-Ibom State in 2018

S/N L.G.A.

Total Length % of Length % of Area** Tarred** **R

Length Tarred Total Untarred Total (Km2) road/

oad

(Km)* (Km)*

(km)*

Km2

Den

sity

1 Abak

152.4 37.7

24.7 114.7

75.3 252

0.14

0.6

2 Eastern Obolo

141.0 20.0

14.2 121.0

85.8 117

0.17

1.2

3 Eket

218.5 132.0 60.4 86.5

39.6 175

0.75

1.2

4 Esit-Eket

41.0

26.0

63.4 1.5

36.6 164

0.16

1.2

5 Essien-Udim

364.0 55.0

15.1 30.9

84.9 295

0.18

1.2

6 Etim-Ekpo

189.9 0.0

0.0 189.9

100.0 235

0.00

0.8

7 Etinan

214.2 63.3

29.6 151.0

70.4 182

0.34

1.1

8 Ibeno

19.0

3.0

15.8 16.0

84.2 248

0.01

0.1

9 Ibesikpo-Asutan 501.0 70.0

14.0 431.0

86.0 191

0.36

2.6

10 Ibiono-Ibom

273

11.0

4.0 262.0

96.0 333

0.03

0.8

11 Ika

97.2

0.0

0.0 97.2

100.0 68

0.00

1.4

12 Ikono

150.3 4.0

2.7 146.3

97.3 390

0.01

0.3

13 Ikot-Abasi

318.6 62.0

19.5 256.6

80.5 335

0.18

0.9

14 Ikot-Ekpene

216.9 71.0

32.7 145.9

67.3 115

0.61

1.8

15 Ini

129.0 30.0

23.3 99.0

76.7 320

0.09

0.4

16 Itu

193.0 23.0

11.9 170.0

88.1 273

0.08

0.7

17 Mbo

83.6

20.0

23.9 63.6

76.1 335

0.05

0.2

18 Mkpat-Enin

393.0 47.0

12.0 346.0

88.0 332

0.14

1.1

19 Nsit-Atai

174.0 0.0

0.0 174.0

100.0 101

0.00

1.7

20 Nsit-Ibom

194.1 15.0

7.7 179.1

92.3 109

0.13

1.7

21 Nsit-Ubium

202.5 5.0

2.5 197.5

97.5 243

0.02

0.8

22 Obot-Akara

75.00 25.2

33.6 49.8

66.4 227

0.11

0.3

23 Okobo

77.5

27.9

36.0 49.6

64.0 360

0.07

0.2

24 Onna

291.3 147.3 50.6 144.0

49.4 174

0.84

1.6

25 Oron

59.8

25.0

41.8 34.8

58.2 96

0.26

0.6

26 Oruk-Anam

449.9 117.0 26.0 332.9

74.0 512

0.22

0.8

27 Udung-Uko

113.5 7.0

6.2 106.5

93.8 64

0.10

1.7

28 Ukanafun

223.4 52.0

23.3 171.4

76.7 254

0.20

0.8

29 Uruan

356.0 15.0

4.2 341.0

95.8 422

0.03

0.8

30 UrueOffongOruko 121.6 19.0

15.6 102.6

84.4 118

0.16

1.0

31 Uyo

253.9 142.3 56.0 111.6

44.0 249

0.57

1.0

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

187

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

Total Length

% Total of % total of

(Km)*

Tarred road

untarred road

100.0

21.6

78.4

Local Roads

State Roads

Federal Roads

3526.8 (56.1%)

2195.2 (34.3%)

602.0 (9.6%)

Source: Ministry of Works and Transport, Headquarters, Uyo (2018)

The nature of the result of the density analysis is however as expected in the sense that

network density is a measure of the total length of roads per unit area. Thus, the higher the

density values per unit area, the higher the level of development of road infrastructure and

vise-versa.

On the basis of the quality of road infrastructure from the perspective of the network density

of paved road per unit area, the condition of road infrastructure in EtimEkpo (0.00), Ibeno

(0.01), Ibiono (0.03), Ika (0.00), Ikono (0.01), Ini (0.09), Itu (0.08), Mbo(0.05), Nsit-

Atai(0.00), Nsit-Ubium (0.02), Okobo (0.02) and Uruan (0.03) Local Government Areas is

deemed as deplorable as exemplified by their very weak density values. A total of 27 local

government areas belong to this category but 12 of them with network density value range of

0.00 – 0.09-kilometre length of paved road per kilometer square may be termed the most

vulnerable in terms of road infrastructure development. The second category of local

government areas are those with density value range of 0.50 – 1.00 kilometre of paved road

per kilometer square.

Only 4 out of the 31 LGAs in the state fall into this category and comprise of Uyo (0.57),

Ikot-Ekpene (0.61), Eket (0.75) and Onna (0.84) respectively. This category is considered as

having moderate levels of network density. Densities of 1 Km length of paved road per unit

area, an index that could be considered a developed situation were not observed.

In a study conducted to assess the conditions of road infrastructure in Nigeria, Israel (2015)

observed that 26% of the paved network was in poor condition requiring rehabilitation and

reconstruction while 42% was in fair condition that requires resurfacing to prevent further

decline to poor conditions. The conditions of unpaved roads were even worse.

Unpaved roads have many disadvantages as not all of them can be used in all seasons.

Besides, maintenance costs are high and they have the propensity to reduce the economic life

of automobiles plying them. Unpaved roads also contribute to high cost of transport fares.

This is because, unpaved roads are generally deficient for effective movement and thus,

require new development and rehabilitation to improve and aid mobility.

According to Kadiri and Alade (2016), the local government roads are the most under-

developed category of Nigerian roads. The result of this study has strengthened this assertion.

Considering the importance of road infrastructure in socio-economic development and

welfare of the people, major road rehabilitation, maintenance and upgrading efforts are

required in communities where roads are unpaved. This may require significantly increased

road funding commitment by the government at all levels particularly at local government

level.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

188

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

The existing maintenance strategies and practices may also be upgraded to aid effective and

efficient movement and accessibility.

Table 10: Factors Affecting Road Infrastructure Development in Akwa-Ibom State

Factors

Policy Issues

Over dependence of road 31

development on public

financing

Lack of clear long-term

sector programme for road

infrastructure development

Absence of specific

ministry/agency saddled

with role of road

infrastructure development

Non-availability of reliable 10

data for road infrastructure

planning and supply by

government

Absence of database system 11

for road infrastructure

development

43 2

18 15 5

1 TWV RSI R

3 285.00 0.792 1

OVERALL

RANK

22 25 7 6 243.00 0.676 4 10

19 20 19 8 212.00 0.588 8 14

22 23 11 6 235.00 0.652 5 11

22 17 16 6 232.00 0.644 6 12

Dominance of the political 9

17 26 17 3 228.00 0.634 7 13

executive opinion in

budgetary preparation for

road infrastructure sector

Excessive bureaucracy in 15 25 20 11 1 246.00 0.716 2 7

project implementation

process

Funding/Financing Issues

Huge funding

25 20 18 7 2 275.00 0.764 2 3

profile/requirement of road

projects

Low investment base

19 21 19 12 1 260.00 0.726 4 5

(budgetary allocation) by

government for road

development

schemes/projects

Long gestation (pay back) 16

23 25 4

4 259.00 0.720 5

period of most road

infrastructure projects

Inadequate funding of

22 16 9

1 275.00 0.764 2

maintenance of

infrastructure projects

Non-revenue generating

27 10 8

3 277.00 0.770 1

nature of road projects

Absence of legal framework 17

22 20 10 3 256.00 0.712 6

for commercialization or

privatization of road

infrastructure projects to

take advantage of their

revenue generation potential

Source: Author’s Field Survey (2019)

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

189

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

Table 10 shows the factors influencing road infrastructure development in Akwa-Ibom State.

The relative significance indices (RSI) obtained for the factors ranges between 0.588-0.792

which indicate that all the factors were significant. In the case of policy issues, over

dependence of road development on public financing ranked highest with RSI of 0.792. This

was closely followed by dominance of the political executive opinion in budgetary

preparation process for road infrastructure sector, excessive bureaucracy in project

implementation process and lack of clear long-term sector programme for road infrastructure

development with respective indices of 0.716, 0.684 and 0.676. Absence of specific

ministry/agency for road infrastructure development and absence of clear monitoring system

for road infrastructure development were ranked lower with RSI of 0.0.634 and 0.588

respectively. Funding/financing issues had non-revenue generating nature of road projects

with RSI of 0.770, huge funding profile/requirement of road projects and inadequate funding

of maintenance of infrastructure projects both with the respective RSI of 0.764 as the factors

with the highest ranking. Factors with the least ranking are absence of legal framework for

commercialization or privatization of road infrastructure projects to take advantage of their

revenue generation potential and long gestation (pay back) period of most road infrastructure

projects with RSI of 0.072 and 0.712 respectively.

On the overall, over dependence of road development on public financing ranked highest with

RSI of 0.792, non-revenue generating nature of road projects with RSI of 0.770, huge funding

profile/requirement of road projects with index of 0.764 and low investment base (budgetary

allocation) by government for road development schemes/projects with index of 0.726. On

the other hand, factors with the least ranking were those of absence of specific

ministry/agency saddled with role of road infrastructure development (0.588), absence of

clear monitoring system for road infrastructure development with RSI of 0.634, absence of

database system for road infrastructure development (0.644) and non-availability of reliable

data for road infrastructure planning and supply by government (0.652).

These results showed that the factors that were critical to road infrastructure development

were substantially funding/financing issue, that is, sole dependence of road infrastructure

development on budgetary financing, non-revenue generating nature of road projects, huge

funding profile/requirement of road projects and low investment base (budgetary allocation)

by government for road development schemes/projects. This, therefore, presupposes the need

for improved budgetary allocations for road development, adoption of alternative financing

initiative and establishment of commercial and legal framework to take the advantage of the

revenue generating potentials of some road projects. This would not only facilitate better

development, but also provides attraction for the private sector participation in road

infrastructure development in the state.

In the case of policy issues, dominance of the political executives’ opinion in the budgeting

process for road infrastructure development was identified as most significant that should be

looked into. Though this problem had been asserted by Oforeh (2006) with respect to

infrastructural development in Nigeria, it seems no attention had been given to the issue. This

was established as an important issue with respect to budgeting process for road infrastructure

development.

Moreover, this result identified the need for curtailing undue bureaucratic process in the

implementation process of the road projects and the need for government to develop a long-

term road development programme that would enhance development continuity should there

be a change in government, a factor that has often lead to abandonment of public projects in

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

190

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

Nigeria. The fact that absence of specific ministry/agency saddled with role of road

infrastructure development and absence of clear monitoring system for road infrastructure

development were indicated as less significant suggests that existing Ministry of Works and

Transportation (MWT) saddled with this role is suitable for road infrastructure development

in the State. This has again been strengthened by the establishment of Ministry of

Infrastructure in the State by the present administration.

Conclusion

This study revealed that the mean budget allocation for road infrastructural development in

Akwa-Ibom State as 23.7% and 10.7% of the capital budget and total budget respectively.

The study revealed budgetary allocations for road infrastructure development as lacking

holistic technical evaluation and cost assessment. This was reflected in poor connectivity

between road projects budgeted for execution and the budgetary allocations and is significant

to poor implementation of road projects in the State. This study has also been able to analyze

road infrastructure in Akwa-Ibom State at the regional and rural perspectives. The result

shows that the quality of road infrastructure development in the study area is poor based on

the proportion of paved road per kilometer square. Spatial vulnerability in road quality was

observed among the 31 LGAs. A large proportion of the total length of all the roads in state is

unpaved. Moreover, the study shows the factors that are critical to road infrastructure

development as over dependence of road development on public financing, non-revenue

generating nature of road projects, huge funding profile/requirement of road projects and low

investment base (budgetary allocation) by government for road development

schemes/projects, which are substantially funding issue.

Recommendations

1. The study recommends a holistic technical evaluation and cost assessment of road

projects before inclusion into annual budgets and the adoption of alternative

financing. This would not only facilitate better funding and implementation of road

projects but also provides attraction for the private sector participation in road

infrastructure development.

2. There is urgent need to rehabilitate roads in order to improve accessibility especially

in rural areas. Road infrastructure works as a bridge between the rural and urban

worlds.

3. An improvement in road quantity in terms of length and density as well as quality

lowers travel time and reduces vehicle running and maintenance costs, which in turn

lowers the actual cost of marketing produce and reduces the costs of delivering

inputs, increasing the inter-linkages between urban and rural areas.

4. Since physical infrastructure which includes road network and affordable transport

can have far –reaching consequences on producers’ prices, as inadequate roads

usually entail prohibitive transport costs, improved rural – urban interaction through

improved road infrastructure development would reduce rural – urban disparities,

reduce prices of goods and services, and thus help fight inflation to a reasonable

extent.

5. There is also the need to put up a framework for routine maintenance of paved roads

so as to prevent them from degenerating to deteriorating conditions.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

191

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

References

Abdullahi, A. (2018). Poverty reduction and food security. Paper presented at a Dialogue

organized by Akwa-Ibom State Government to mark the 2018 World Poverty day.

Adger, W. N. (2015). New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Norwich, United

Kingdom: Centre for Climate Change Research.

Afonja, B., & Ogwumike, F. (2017). Poverty, meaning, measurement and causes. In integrating

poverty alleviation strategies into plans and programmes in Nigeria, NCEMA and World

Bank.

Atser, J. (2008). Analysis of spatial patterns of social infrastructure in rural areas of Akwa-Ibom

State, Nigeria. A Ph.D Thesis submitted to the department of Geography and Regional

Planning, University of Uyo.

Babalola O., Babatunde, S.O., &Opawole, A. (2010). Financial probity in public projects

procurement and the millennium development goals.Ife Journal of Environmental Design

and Management, 4(2), pp. 15-22.

Central Bank of Nigeria (2003). Highway maintenance in Nigeria: Lessons from other

country.Research Department Occasional Paper No. 27, pp.1-65.

Cross River State Government (1975). Cross River State government’s 3rd development plan,

Calabar: State Ministry of Finance and Economic Development.

Ezirim, O.N. (2003). Infrastructure development: The institutional options for demand-oriented

services management.NITP’s 34th Annual Conference Proceedings, Abeokuta, pp 79-92.

Israel, A. (2015). Issues for infrastructure management in the 1990s, Washington D.C.: The

World Bank.

Kadiri, W.A., &Alade, W. (2016). Development for who? An examination of infrastructural

development and host communities.NITP’s 58th Annual Conference Paper, Abeokuta.

Lustig, N. (2005). Economics with a social face. Finance and Development, 42(4), pp 4-7.

Maria, R. (2017). Foundation for progress in physical and social infrastructure. Cape Town,

South Africa: Friendly Version Press.

Mogbo, T.C. (2018). The construction sector and the economic growth of Nigeria. Journal of the

Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, 35(2), pp. 8-13.

National Population Commission (2007). 2006 National Population Census Result: Legal notice

on the details of the breakdown of the national and state provisional totals.Lagos: Federal

Government Printer.

Oforeh, E.C. (2006). The Nigerian institute of quantity surveyors as an agent of economic

development. Paper Presented at 22nd Biennial Conference and General meeting of the

Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, 22nd-25th November at Channel View

Hotel/Conference Centre, Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria.

Olayiwola, L.M., &Adeleye, A. (2005). Rural infrastructure development in Nigeria between 1960

and 1990: Problems and challenges. Journal of Social Science, 11(2), pp.91-96.

Olujimi, I. B. (2001). Sustainable development of rural infrastructure in Nigeria: An approach to

poverty alleviation. International Journal of Environmental Issues, 1(1) pp. 148-155.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

192

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

Olufidipe, O. (2003), Government budgeting in Nigeria: Principle, policies, and practices. Ile-Ife,

Nigeria: Obafemi Awolowo University Press Ltd.

Oni, S. I. (2017). The status of mobility Africa and its relationship to sustainable development:

The case of Nigeria. Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia: Africa Mobility Conference Proceedings.

Opawole A., Jagboro, G.O., & Babatunde, S.O. (2011). An evaluation of the trend of budgetary

allocations for infrastructural development in Osun State, South-Western, Nigeria.

Proceeding of West Africa Built Environment Research (WABER) Conference, 19-21

July 2011, Accra, Ghana, pp. 105-117.

Opawole, A., Jagboro, G.O., Babalola, M.O. and Babatunde, S.O. (2012). Evaluation of the

contribution of construction professionals in budgeting for infrastructure development in

Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology,

3(2), 83-95.

Oyegoke, A.S. (2005). Infrastructure project finance and execution development strategies,

Journal of the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, 52(3), pp. 11-19.

Owei, O.B. (2018). Participatory approaches to infrastructural development and management:

Policy implications and challenges. NITP 60th Annual Conference Proceedings,

Abeokuta pp. 3-18.

Tacoli, C. (2004). Rural-Urban linkages and pro-poor agricultural growth: An overview.

Prepared for OECD DAC POVNET Agriculture and Pro-Poor Growth Task Team,

Helsinki Workshop, 17-18 June.

Ukpong, E. (2017). Akwa-Ibom state socio-economic study report. Uyo, MOED Publishers.

United Nations (2001). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies.

United Nations, New York.

UN (2000) Millennium Development Goal, http://www. sovereignty.net/p/gov/made.html.

Wahab, K.A. (2017). Implementation of public procurement reforms in Nigeria. Presentation at

Workshop on World Bank Procurement Procedures, Organized by the Nigeria Economic

Summit Group at the Golden Gate Restaurant, Ikoyi, Lagos, 28th September.

Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implication for development theory,

research and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2) pp. 225-324.

World Bank (2007). Poverty and the environment: Understanding linkages at the household level.

USA: World Bank.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

193