Sand Mining in African Coastal Regions: Exploring the Drivers, Impacts and Implications for Environmental Sustainability in Lagos Nigeria (SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences) 3031165217, 9783031165214

Citation preview

SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences Ibrahim Rotimi Aliu · Isaiah Sewanu Akoteyon · Olayemi Soladoye

Sand Mining in African Coastal Regions Exploring the Drivers, Impacts and Implications for Environmental Sustainability in Lagos Nigeria

SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences Series Editors Gerrit Lohmann, Universität Bremen, Bremen, Germany Lawrence A. Mysak, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada Justus Notholt, Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany Jorge Rabassa, Labaratorio de Geomorfología y Cuaternar, CADIC-CONICET, Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina Vikram Unnithan, Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Jacobs University Bremen, Bremen, Germany

SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications. The series focuses on interdisciplinary research linking the lithosphere, atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, and hydrosphere building the system earth. It publishes peer-reviewed monographs under the editorial supervision of an international advisory board with the aim to publish 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages (approx. 20,000—70,000 words), the series covers a range of content from professional to academic such as: ● ● ● ● ●

A timely reports of state-of-the art analytical techniques bridges between new research results snapshots of hot and/or emerging topics literature reviews in-depth case studies

Briefs are published as part of Springer’s eBook collection, with millions of users worldwide. In addition, Briefs are available for individual print and electronic purchase. Briefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination, standard publishing contracts, easy-to-use manuscript preparation and formatting guidelines, and expedited production schedules. Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in this series.

Ibrahim Rotimi Aliu · Isaiah Sewanu Akoteyon · Olayemi Soladoye

Sand Mining in African Coastal Regions Exploring the Drivers, Impacts and Implications for Environmental Sustainability in Lagos Nigeria

Ibrahim Rotimi Aliu Geography and Planning Lagos State University Lagos, Nigeria

Isaiah Sewanu Akoteyon Geography and Planning Lagos State University Lagos, Nigeria

Olayemi Soladoye Geography and Planning Lagos State University Lagos, Nigeria

Nigerian Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND) ISSN 2191-589X ISSN 2191-5903 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences ISBN 978-3-031-16521-4 ISBN 978-3-031-16522-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16522-1 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Ibrahim Rotimi Aliu Isaiah Sewanu Akoteyon

Preface

Africa is an extensive continent with scores of its members located along Ocean coast from Atlantic Ocean on the western flank to the Indian Ocean on the eastern flank and along the Mediterranean Sea in the Northern region. One of the African coastal countries is Nigeria which is located along the Atlantic Ocean Coast in West African Sub-region. Nigeria has a huge area of its territory along the Atlantic Ocean Coast with numerous settlements extending from the south western region to the south eastern region. In the south western region of the country is Lagos, which is a coastal settlement located along the Gulf of Guinea and in riparian creeks and lagoons where abundant sands are mined. Sand mining is a global activity that provides livelihoods for a huge number of local residents and professional contractors as well as materials for housing and construction industries. However, recent studies have shown that the rate of sand removal in the coastal areas of the world could be detrimental to the sustainability of coastal communities. Unregulated coastal sand mining activity portends a huge risk to environmental sustainability as sand mining activity increases the formation of sinkholes, soil contamination, deforestation, coastal erosion, property damage, loss of aquatic biodiversity, alteration of coastal shorelines, threat to tourism and ecological destabilization. Sand mining has also shown to be a threat to a large number of the coastal settlements, properties and populations in developing countries. In spite of this, very sparse research has been conducted to explain the socio-environmental impacts and sustainability implications of sand mining in marginal environments in Nigeria. This book therefore presents a study of the sociospatial and environmental analysis of sand mining in fourteen communities within four Lagos coastal areas (BADAGRY, OJO, AMUWO-ODOFIN AND ETIOSA) using geo-spatial and survey data collected on the coastal sand mining activity in the areas. The specific objectives of this book are to: (I) Describe the socio-economic and demographic attributes of sand mining coastal communities in Lagos, (III) Determine the drivers of coastal sand mining in Lagos, (IV) Analyze the sand mining socio-environmental impacts using socio-economic and ecological parameters in the study area, (V) Assess the environmental sustainability implications of sand mining activities in the study area. Using both descriptive and inferential statistics the study vii

viii

Preface

found that the sand mining activities are majorly located along the coastal and lagoon regions, formally registered with the NIWA, have operated for long years, usually small in operation, close to settlements, and employed both simple and complex machinery for extracting sand. Sand mining activities contribute to local development in terms of employment, source of sand for housing construction, revenue to government, local chiefs and land owners. The mass of sand dredged in Lagos coastal areas is estimated to about 4,704 tons daily, 141,120 tons monthly and about 1,693,440 tons of sand per annum. This is a huge extraction from both the terra firma and terra incognito parts of the ecological system. However, sand mining activities in the study area also constitute critical environmental risks to the communities. The impacts of sand mining in the region include noise, dusts, road damage, loss of habitat, flooding, erosion, landslide, loss of crops, loss of animals, loss of plants, effects on fishing, change in livelihoods and building collapse. Using PCA we found that the socio-environmental impacts of sand mining could be summarized by four components namely livelihood impact which explained about 32.22 % of the variance, environmental quality impact which explained 12.24%, public health impact which explained 10.66% and built environment impact which explained 6.78% of the variance explained. The four extracted impact components explained 61.90% of the total variance in the data. There are numerous factors that actually drive sand mining in the region. These drivers include housing, urbanization, community support, economic gain, viability, revenues, livelihood, job, government policy and poverty. These drivers of sand mining are summarized by four components namely urban housing which explained 32.60% of the variance, economic-livelihood which explained 12.87%, job which explained 10.71% and policy which explained 8.25% of the variance. The whole four driving components explained 64.43% of the variance in the data. The findings from the study have strong implications for housing and environmental sustainability. Urban built environment and the housing industry depend on the sharp sands extracted from the Creeks and Ocean. Access to cheap sand lessens the cost of housing construction, provides opportunities for achieving affordable housing and precludes housing deprivation in the long run. However, the environmental impacts of sand mining such as constant noise, dusts, destruction of aquatic habitats and organisms, erosion, road damage, ground water pollution, flooding and depletion of farm lands are too severe to ignore. This study provides current information and actions that can assist the governments and other urban stakeholders to coordinate and formulate relevant control policies on sand mining in the state. Based on the results from the study the following recommendations are therefore suggested for the stakeholders especially government and environmental planers ● A proper and exhaustive monitoring of sand mining organizations and their activities should be regularly ensured to promote global best practices. ● An automated sand mining information system (ASMIS) should developed for the sand mining activities and operators in order to effectively monitor and control activities relating to sand dredging in Lagos

Preface

ix

● The miners should be encouraged to engage in pre-operation environmental impact assessment (EIA) ● Government should encourage alternative livelihoods for sand miners majority of whom are indigenes of the communities where sand mining take place ● The residents must have some contributions in the determination of the suitability of the operational status of the miners ● The miners must be compelled to embark on corporate responsibility projects for improving the conditions of the communities such as road maintenance, noise control and land reclamations ● Immediate assessment of the sustainability of the existing sand mining sites should be embarked upon to ascertain the safety of the communities ● The idea of using sand mining as sources of revenue by the government and community leaders should be halted forthwith. This will enable the agencies to control the operators firmly ● Constant enlightenment is needed to keep the sand mining operators aware of the need to be sustainability alert every time ● The non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should show more interest in the activities going on in the coastal areas of the state and make public any form of socio-ecological abuse of the riparian environment This treatise is written in a very simple and lucid way to facilitate easy reading and comprehension by all categories of readers. The analyses provided are clearly presented in tables and figures while a deep and exhaustive discussion of the implications of the findings from policy and practical perspectives on the consequences of sand mining in Lagos gives the book a more insightful edge. It is our expectation that this book will be useful to students, lecturers, researchers, professionals and the general public that are interested in the environmental management of coastal regions particularly in Africa and the whole world in general. Lagos, Nigeria

Ibrahim Rotimi Aliu Isaiah Sewanu Akoteyon Olayemi Soladoye

Acknowledgements

This book is a product of an intense research undertaken to study the nature, patterns and impacts of sand mining in the coastal region of Lagos Nigeria. The study benefitted from the financial support given by the TETFUND Abuja Nigeria to conduct the field survey. The authors wish to therefore acknowledge with gratitude the sponsorship of the fieldwork from which findings that led to the publication of this book were derived by the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND) with Ref. No: LASU/VC/TETF/RP/19/002. We are also grateful to the Management of the Lagos State University that provided infrastructural support and motivation to carry out the study as members of the institution. We thank all the field assistants and the many sand miners as well as the residents of the coastal communities covered in the study that provided prompt, sincere and helpful information on the subject matter of the study. The authors are greatly indebted to the SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences editorial board and reviewers for their suggestions and comments towards improving the quality of the book. We are grateful to our colleagues in the Department of Geography and Planning Lagos State University Ojo Nigeria who made some constructive remarks in the course of the study and preparation of this book. While we are highly grateful to God for the privilege to add to the body of knowledge in environmental management of the Nigerian coastal regions and take credit for the contents of this book we however take responsibility for all inadvertent errors the book might contain.

xi

Contents

1 Introduction to Sand Mining Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Background to Sand Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 5 6

2 Contributions of Sand Mining to Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Socio-Economic Change and Sand Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Physical Change and Sand Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Contributions of Sand Mining to Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 9 14 16 19 19

3 Perspectives on Sand Mining and Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Theoretical Perspectives on Sand and Sand Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Theory of Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Concept of Sustainable Livelihoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Vulnerability Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Model of Dynamic Livelihoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 25 27 28 30 31 32 32

4 Lagos Coastal Region and Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Lagos Coastal Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Population and Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Coastal Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Research Design and Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Research Instrument and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Training of Field Assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Ethical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 35 38 43 47 49 50 51

xiii

xiv

Contents

4.8 Analytical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 5 Sand Mining Sites Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Sand Mining Sites and Operational Characterization in Lagos . . . . . . 5.2 Analysis of Socio-Economic Benefits of Sand Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53 53 58 59

6 Drivers and Impacts of Sand Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Drivers of Sand Mining in Coastal Areas of Lagos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 61 64 70

7 Implications for Sustainability and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Implications of Sand Mining for Environmental Sustainability . . . . . 7.3 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix I: Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix II: Socio-Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining . . . . . . . . . . Appendix III: PCA of Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining Showing Extracted Components and Communalities . . . . Appendix IV: Drivers of Sand Mining Activities in Lagos . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix V: PCA of Drivers of Sand Mining Showing Extracted Components and Communalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71 71 72 74 75 81 85 87 89 91

About the Authors

Ibrahim Rotimi Aliu is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geography and Planning Lagos State University Ojo Lagos Nigeria where he has been teaching since the past 15 years. He obtained his Ph.D. Degree in Housing and Urban Studies from the Department of Geography Obafemi Awolowo University Ile-Ife, Master of Science M.Sc. Degree in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) from the University of Ibadan, M.Sc. and B.Sc. Degrees in Geography and Urban Planning from the Lagos State University Ojo Lagos Nigeria. His research interests cover urban analysis, housing studies, urban design, the built environment, urban management and sustainability. A widely published scholar and proponent of high quality research Dr. Aliu has to his credit about 35 exceptional publications in reputable international and local journals including Habitat International, Cities, Waste Mgt and Research, Energy Efficiency, GeoJournal, South African Geographical Journal, African Geographical Review, Indoor and the Built Environment, Bulletin of Geography, Tourism Analysis, Environment Development and Sustainability, SAGE Open, Journal of Poverty all published by the global publishers with Web of Science Impact Factors. Dr. Aliu reviews for a number of outstanding journals worldwide. Many of his works are found on researchers’ platforms such as Research Gate, Web of Science PUBLONS, SCOPUS, Google Scholars, ORCID and KUDOS. He has attended and presented papers in several international and local conferences. He won two research grants from TETFUND Institutional Based Research (IBR) in 2016 & 2019 and a grant from TETFUND National Research Fund (NRF) in 2021. Dr. Aliu belongs to a number of academic associations including African Urban Planning Research Network (AUPRN), Association of Nigerian Geographers (ANG), Association of American Geographers (AAG) and Nigerian Institute of Town Planners (NITP). His recent research focuses on sustainable housing and urban development in the Global South. Isaiah Sewanu Akoteyon is an Associate Professor and the current Acting Dean, Faculty of Environmental Sciences and the immediate past Acting Head of the Department of Geography and Planning, Faculty of Social Sciences, Lagos State University where he has been a faculty member since 2007. He holds a Ph.D. xv

xvi

About the Authors

in Geography with a specialization in Hydrology from the University of Lagos, Akoka. His research areas include but are not limited to hydrology, water resources management, water quality, environmental studies, water supply and sanitation, and social research. Isaiah is the instructor for Introduction to Physical Geography, Geomorphology, Vegetation/Soil Studies, Environmental quality control, Hydrology, Methods in Physical Geography and Research Methods at the undergraduate level. At the postgraduate level, he is the instructor for Coastal Geomorphology, Applied Geomorphology, River Basin Studies, Water Resources Management and Groundwater hydrology. Isaiah has served on several conferences and workshop program committees and has attended and presented papers both at international and local levels. He is a member of several professional bodies and had occupied positions of responsibilities among which are: Association of Nigerian Geographers; Assistant Secretary Local Organizing Committee, Southwest coordinator, Nigerian Association of Hydrological Sciences; member, International Association of Hydrological Sciences; Member, Technical review workshop on Global Inventory Project at toxic sites, examination officer; member, Research Policy and Grants Advisory Committee, Lagos State University, commissioned item writer; Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examinations Board, Faculty representative at the Postgraduate School, LASU. Dr. Isaiah is a recipient of many awards and scholarships among which are: Lagos State Government Scholarship (Local) for Ph.D., Lagos State Research & Development Council (LRDC), Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND)-conference attendance, Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND)institutional based research, Scholarship grant, Institute of Research Development (IRD), France for conference attendance. He is a prolific reviewer of several academic journals. He has more than 30 publications in peer-reviewed journals. His hobbies include; research field trips football and fishing. He is married with children. Olayemi Soladoye a prolific and erudite researcher is with the Department of Geography and Planning Lagos State University Ojo Lagos Nigeria. She holds a B.Sc. Degree in Geography, M.Sc. Degree in Geography and Ph.D. Degree in Geography (Environmental Resource Management) from the University of Ilorin Nigeria. Dr. Soladoye has acquired a vast research and teaching experience at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Her research focuses on exploring interlinks between environment and cultural activities, climate change, water resource management, groundwater and surface water quality and urban household access to quality water. Her passion for the environment has inspired her to embark on diverse research projects. Consequently, she has to her credit several articles of topical and ongoing interest in reputable journals within and outside of Nigeria. She was a member of the three-man research team that won the TETFUND Institutional Based Research (IBR) grants in 2016 and 2019. She has attended with paper presentation a number of local and international conferences in Africa and the United States of America. Dr. Soladoye is currently the Head of Department Geography and Planning Faculty of Social Sciences Lagos State University Ojo Lagos. She is a member of Association of Nigerian Geographers (ANG) and Association of American Geographers (AAG). She is married with children.

Acronyms

ANOVA ASMIS COVID-19 EIA GDP GIS GPS IDS LASEPA LGA LMA MDG NBS NGO NIWA NPC PCA SDG SL SIWA SPSS SWOT UNDP UNEP UNO USD VA WCED

Analysis of Variance Automated Sand Mining Information System Coronal Virus Disease 2019 Environmental Impact Assessment Gross Domestic Product Geographic Information Systems Global Positioning System In-Depth Survey Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency Local Government Authority Lagos Metropolitan Area Millennium Development Goal National Bureau of Statistics Non Governmental Organization National Inland Waterways Authority National Population Commission Principal Component Analysis Sustainable Development Goal Sustainable Livelihood State Inland Waterways Authority Statistical Package for Social sciences Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Organization United States Dollars Vulnerability Assessment World Commission on Environment and Development

xvii

Chapter 1

Introduction to Sand Mining Activity

1.1 Background to Sand Mining Sand mining is probably the largest mining activity and the most profitable extractive economic activity in the world as have been shown by ‘tales of sand rush’ in American and Mexican Gulf (Collins & Dunne, 1989). After air and water sand is probably the next most exploited materials in the world (UNEP, 2019; Aliu et al., 2022). When bound with cement and coarse gravel sand concrete becomes the building blocks that connect the entire built environment of the modern world. No doubt, sand mining is a global, legitimate activity that is required to actuate the cause of human development yet indiscriminate and excessive sand mining in sensitive and fragile ecological systems or environments like coastal and wetland areas of Lagos constitutes a huge risk to environmental sustainability. Sand mining is an old activity which has become a highly popular and thriving vocation world over (Collins & Dunne, 1989; Hilton, 1989; Mensah, 1997; Masalu, 2002; Ashraf et al., 2011; Padmalal & Maya, 2014; Jonah et al., 2015; Asabonga et al., 2017; Djihoussei et al., 2017; Haghnazar & Saneie, 2019; Koehnken et al., 2020). In all parts of the world sand mining produces aggregate sand materials for constructing buildings, roads, bridges, land filling and making silica bottles. The importance of sand as a resource to the built environment and industries cannot be overemphasized as the sand mining market has contributed tremendously to peoples livelihoods and nations’ GDP (Awudi, 2002; Akabzaa, 2009; Onwuka et al., 2013; Tariro, 2013; Asante et al., 2014; Djihouessi et al., 2017; Tastet, 2019). Sand is obviously the second most abundant and consumed extractive resource after water (UNEP, 2014, 2019). Between 32 and 50 billion tons of sand and gravel are extracted globally each year with increasing demand especially in developing countries (UNEP, 2014). However, because of sand’s slower rate of replenishment on consumption and its undeniable utility in world development, there are both political economy and environmental sustainability angles to the phenomenon of sand mining as a thriving livelihood to many people today. On the one hand, sand mining activity provides a number © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. R. Aliu et al., Sand Mining in African Coastal Regions, SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16522-1_1

1

2

1 Introduction to Sand Mining Activity

of localized opportunities for economic development and building construction industry to support thriving urbanization and industrialization globally. It provides a crucial source of materials for road and housing construction, materials for concretes, livelihood for a teeming number of coastal populations, revenues for governments, materials for land filling and beach reclamation (Ashraf et al., 2011; Djihouessi et al., 2017; Jonah et al., 2015). On the other hand, sand mining especially in marginal, coastal environments portends a grave risk to sustainability. Sand mining is a beneficial source of gravel and sand for projects, but it also creates many negative hydraulic, physical and environmental effects (Harold, 2005; Yen & Rohasliney, 2013; Haghnazar & Saneie, 2019). In this era of climate change eventualities, the potential negative externalities of coastal sand mining activities are simply horrendous. Apart from the risk posed to the general population of humanity in what has been dubbed ‘the tragedy of the common’, unbridled and uncoordinated sand dredging activity also poses a greater threat to the immediate communities (Aurora et al., 2017; Tastet, 2019). Sand mining increases the formation of sinkholes, soil contamination, deforestation, coastal erosion, property damage, loss of aquatic biodiversity, alteration of coastal shorelines, and a source of ecological destabilization (Masalu, 2002; Mensah, 1997; Harold, 2005; Ako et al., 2014; Jonah et al., 2015; Asabonga et al., 2017; Sridhar et al., 2019). Surprisingly, unregulated sand mining activities occur along the coastal regions where a massive number of settlements are also situated. The Nigerian coastal regions are increasingly being abused and misused through a series of illegalities and informalities that have no regards for environmental planning and communal rules or controls (Aliu, 2016). From a number of studies covering coastal cities in Africa, for instance Asabonga et al. (2017) that reported sand mining issues in OR Tambo areas of South Africa, Jonah et al. (2015) that reported sand mining problems in Cape Coast in Ghana, it is clear that when not well coordinated, coastal sand mining can constitute a horrific menace to Africa coastal settlement areas. The multiple negative externalities of pervasive sand mining along coastal settlements in Africa suggests that excessive sand mining in the coastal region of the continent may have far reaching consequences for the physical and socio-economic wellbeing of the African population. As a ubiquitous global activity today, sand mining is both a socio-economic issue and an environmental sustainability dilemma which requires close monitoring and rigorous analyses. Hence, the challenge really is the understanding of the drivers of sand mining activities and their socio-environmental implications. Drivers of sand mining in coastal regions can be traced to the rapid rate of urbanization which increases material consumption, structural change in livelihood, unemployment, poverty and crass absence of regulatory capacity to deal with abuse of sensitive ecological regions (Hilton, 1989; Mensah, 1997; Masalu, 2002; Peprah, 2013; Atejioye & Odeyemi, 2018; Tastet, 2019). Existing studies in Nigeria have revealed that rapid urbanization and population growth are major causes of sand demand and mining in many parts of the country (Onwuka et al., 2013; Ako et al., 2014; Atejioye & Odeyemi, 2018; Adeoti & Peter, 2018; Abam & Oba, 2018; Aliu et al., 2022).

1.1 Background to Sand Mining

3

Although, sand dredging activities began over a long period ago, it however assumed a major dimension of coastal residents’ livelihoods in the late 20th century in Lagos Nigeria, due perhaps to increased free-market economy, industrialization, rapid urbanization and high impact technologies that had facilitated greater access to sand materials in marginal regions and areas that were hitherto inaccessible. The regulation and control of sand mining activities in the marginal environment of Nigeria has not been very decisive until recently. At federal level National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) was established in 2004 to regulate and control sand dredging across Nigeria coastal regions. It was only lately in 2016 that Lagos Government decided to invoke an environmental edict that covered sand mining activities in sensitive coastal areas of Lagos in direct challenge of numerous miners numbering about 5,000 members who have assumed almost Lord to themselves in the region. Anonymity of the coastal zones has reduced the region to all comers’ jungle where all forms of sand mining operators can afford to engage one another. Presently, sand mining in the coastal, wetland regions of Lagos is a festering business with numerous players ranging from casual artisans who cut the bush and prepare the sites to drivers, loaders, and some skilled legal experts who support the thriving sand business cartels in their legal pursuits. Of course, the dilemma now is– how to strike a balance between an evolving socio-economic livelihood and environmental sustainability? Putting Lagos in specific perspective, sand mining is driven by rapid industrialization, housing for the teeming population and urbanization. Lagos is the most industrialized, most populous and most urbanized state in Nigeria—the combined effects that have led to increased demand for housing and construction of offices and industrial outfits which require high volume of sand and gravel. Intensive sand mining on the lagoon and Atlantic coast of the Lagos is a direct response to the demand occasioned by rapid industrialization and population. However, while much is known about the nature, scope and risks of sand mining in normal terrains or environments, only little is known about the nature, risks and spatial dimensions of sand mining activities generally in the coastal and marginal riparian regions of Nigeria. The major importance of this study is the focus on the socio-spatial dimensions of sand mining from the residents rather than physical perspectives. In Lagos much of the activities of sand miners have been limited to the lagoons, water logged regions and coastal flood plains largely dominated by the informal operators and contractors. Since sand mining in Lagos has become both a socio-economic and environmental issue there is need for intelligent coordination, control and monitoring of sand mining activities in the state. This study offers three important potentials for monitoring and controlling of sand mining in Lagos—it gives clear spatial dimensions of sand mining in Lagos, it flags off the endangered zones where intensity of dredging might cause serious damage and it gives a comprehensive understanding of the socio-environmental implications of sand mining activities in the coastal region of Lagos. When perceived from global perspectives sand is almost infinitely abundant but when perceived from local perspective sand is relatively finite especially in the unsustainable way in which it is being consumed in industrialization, housing and urbanization. Precise data on sand mining activities in the developing economies are rarely

4

1 Introduction to Sand Mining Activity

available thus compounding the challenge of proper management for sustainability. However, the UNEP estimate that overall global sand extraction could be in the region of about 40 million tons per year which translates to approximately 18 kg of sand per capita every year is worrisome (UNEP, 2019). This could rise to about 60 billion tones by 2030 if the same trends continue. United States of America (USA), Germany and Netherlands are the three highest producers of sand globally and Singapore, Canada and Belgium are the leading consumers of sand globally (Koekhnken & Rintoul, 2018). In the developing countries the Asian Tigers, China, Indonesia, India and Singapore are the leading consumers of sand as sand is not only demanded to support the housing of the teeming population, but also to support the burgeoning urbanization and industrialization of the region. The rate of sand extraction globally has been viewed as a graphic example of how we have entered what many environmentalists refer to as ‘anthropecene or a geological epoch’ in which man activity is defining the global environmental change. The growing rate of coastal sand quarries in developing economies raises palpable concerns about the effects of such reckless abuse of environmental quality on human and non-human lives. A number of studies have shown that many sand mining activities occur regularly at informal level in many countries that happen to be located along the creeks, sea and large rivers and these are deleterious to environmental sustainability and socio-economic wellbeing of both individuals and communities (Hilton, 1994; Mensah, 1997; Masalu, 2002; Lawal, 2011; Ako et al., 2014). Sand extraction at the explosive scale can kick up silt that smothers fisheries and affect local biodiversity and the ecosystem as it can also accelerate erosion, aquatic habitat destruction, undermine bridge integrity, change the flow of rivers, increase the risk of flooding and eliminate buffers against storm surges and negatively transform residents’ livelihood (Kanehl & Lyons, 1992; Kondolf, 1994, 1997; Dissanayake & Rupasinghe, 1996; Gelabert, 1997; Mensah, 1997; Brown et al., 1998; Meador & Layher, 1998; Masalu, 2002; Kelly et al., 2004; Phua et al., 2004; Padmalal et al., 2008; Peckenham et al., 2009; Ashraf et al., 2011; Peprah, 2013; Gavriletea, 2017; UNEP, 2014, 2019; Jonah et al., 2015; Kobashi & Jose, 2018; Da-Silva et al., 2020). In a heavily populated coastal city like Lagos the potential effects of unregulated and uncoordinated sand dredging may pose more risks to the population than can be envisaged in terms of land slide, flooding, erosion and loss of lives in the extreme cases. Moreover, Lagos as a coastal riparian environment has witnessed in recent times some environmental disasters especially coastal flooding, mud slides and sea incursions that are detrimental to the sustainability of the adjoining coastal communities (Aliu, 2016). Although, some studies have alluded to the many benefits of sand dredging from income generation, means of livelihood to cheaper sources of materials for construction generally, it is yet quite dangerous to pretend that illegal sand mining activities are devoid of potential grave consequences. The severity of the externalities of illegal and unregulated sand mining calls for some concerns over the modus operandi of the sand mining activities in the coastal areas of Lagos. Hence, there is a need to assess sand mining activities in the region from the perspectives of the residents living around the mining sites (off-site and on-site) in order to ensure

1.2 Summary

5

proper regulation, legitimacy, control and sustainability. The questions are—what are the spatial patterns of the coastal sand mining sites? What are the socio-environmental impacts or risks of sand mining to the coastal communities in Lagos? What are the potential economic benefits and drivers of coastal sand mining activities in Lagos? This study is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is paucity of research on coastal mining in Lagos. Even when many studies in Africa have examined the inherent issues in sand mining activities generally (Mensah, 1997; Akabzaa, 2000; Masalu, 2002; Aromolaran, 2012; Ako et al., 2014; Jonah et al., 2015; Asabonga et al., 2017), only scanty studies have evaluated sand mining activities in the coastal region of Nigeria. Secondly, a socio-spatial analysis of sand mining activities in Lagos will account for inter-locational variations and give insights on how to coordinate and control mining activities in the region. The application of mapping skills in environmental studies and management has been long and it is only in the recent time that attempts at using digital mapping through Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have seen tremendous improvement in the spatial analysis of events including mining generally (for example Jonah et al., 2015). As coastal sand mining is now a sensitive issue associated with residents’ livelihood and environmental risks, a study that emphasizes a social and spatial characterization of sand mining activities is very likely to give better explanation of the depth and extent of sand mining challenges in Lagos State for policy formulation. Thirdly, this study will also unravel the intricate processes that underlie coastal sand mining and highlight the identities of the operators in the state. Lastly, the study will contribute to knowledge on how to optimize coastal mining activity for the development of the communities, revenue generation drive and environmental sustainability. The aim of this study is to examine the socio-spatial patterns of coastal mining activities in Lagos. The specific objectives of this study are to: Describe the socioeconomic attributes of sand mining coastal communities in Lagos, Create operational maps of sand mining locations and activities in Lagos State, Analyze the sand mining socio-environmental impacts using socio-economic and ecological parameters in the study area, Determine the drivers of coastal sand mining in Lagos and Assess the housing and environmental sustainability implications of sand mining activities in the study area.

1.2 Summary Existing studies have shown that sand mining is a global economic activity that supports urbanization, community livelihood and housing, and construction sector thereby contributing immensely to the gross domestic products (GDP) of all countries. However, sand mining produces some externalities that put the physical environment into great risk. These negatives consequences of sand mining need to be monitored to avoid hazards and fatalities.

6

1 Introduction to Sand Mining Activity

References Abam, T. K. S., & Oba, T. (2018). Recent case studies of sand mining, utilization and environmental impacts in the Niger Delta. Journal of Environmental Geology, 2(2), 64–67. Adeoti, S., & Peter, A. (2018). Appraisal of sand mining activities at Ado Ekiti, Ekiti State Nigeria. International Journal of Research, 5(19), 617–629. Akabzaa, T. M. (2009). Mining in Ghana: Implications for national economic development and poverty reduction. International Development and Research Centre (IDRC), Canada. Akabzaa, T. M. (2000). Boom and dislocation: The environmental and social impacts of mining in the Wassa West District of Ghana. Third World Network Africa. Ako, T. A., Onoduku, U. S., Oke, S. A., Essien, B. I., Idris, F. N., Umar, A. N., & Ahmed, A. A. (2014). Environmental effects of sand and gravel mining on land and soil in Luku, Minna, Niger State North Central Nigeria. Journal of Geosciences and Geomatics, 2(2), 42–49. Aliu, I. R., Akoteyon, I. S., & Soladoye, O. (2022). Sustaining urbanization while undermining sustainability: The socio-environmental characterization of coastal sand mining in Lagos Nigeria. GeoJournal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10563-7PublishedonlineJanuary102022 Aliu, I. R. (2016). Marginal land use and value characterizations in Lagos: Unraveling the drivers and implications for sustainability. Environment Development and Sustainability, 18(4), 1615–1634. Aromolaran, A. K. (2012). Effects of sand mining activities on land in agrarian communities of Ogun State Nigeria. Continental Journal of Agricultural Science, 6(1), 41–49. Asabonga, M., Betek, C., Musampa, C. M., & Nakin, M. D. V. (2017). The physical and environmental impacts of sand mining. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 72(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/0035919X.2016.120970. Asante, F., Kabila, A., & Afriyie, K. (2014). Stone quarrying and livelihood transformation in Peri-urban Kumasi. Journal of Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(13), 93–107. Ashraf, M. A., Maah, M. J., Yusoff, I., Wajid, A., & Mahmood, K. (2011). Sand mining effects, causes, and concerns: A case study of Bestari Jaya, Selangor Peninsular Malaysia. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(6), 1216–1231. Atejioye, A. A., & Odeyemi, C. A. (2018). Analyzing impact of sand mining in Ekiti State, Nigeria using GIS for sustainable development. World Journal of Research and Review, 6(2), 26–31. Aurora, T., Jodi, B., Kristen, L., & Jianguo, l. (2017). A looming tragedy of the sand commons. Science, 357(6355), 970–971. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0503. Awudi, G. (2002). The role of foreign direct investment in the mining sector of Ghana and the environment. In CCNM Global Forum on International Investment. OECD. Brown, A. V., Lyttle, M. W., & Brown, K. B. (1998). Impacts of gravel mining on Gravel bed streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 127(6), 979–994. Collins, B. D., & Dunne, T. (1989). Gravel transport, gravel harvesting and channel-bed degradation in rivers draining in Southern Olympic Mountains, Washington USA. Environmental and Geological Water Science, 13(3), 213–224. Da-Silva, E. F., Bento, D. F., Mendes, A. C., da Mota, F. G., Fonseca, A. I. T., Almeida, R. M., & Santos, L. O. (2020). Environmental impacts of sand mining in the city of Santarem, Amazon region, Northern Brazil. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(1), 47–60. Dissanayake, C. B., & Rupasinghe, M. S. (1996). Environmental impact of mining, erosion and sedimentation in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 51(1), 35–50. Djihouessi, M. B., Aina, M. P., Kpanou, B. V., & Kpondjo, N. (2017). Measuring the total economic value of traditional sand dredging in the coastal Lagoon complex of Grand-Nokoue (Benin). Journal of Environmental Protection, 8, 1605–1621. Gavriletea, M. D. (2017). Environmental impacts of sand exploitation: Analysis of sand market. Sustainability, 9, 1118(26 pages). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071118. Gelabert, P. (1997). Environmental effects of sand extraction practices in Puerto Rico. Managing Beach Resources in the Smaller Caribbean Islands (pp. 63–68). Haghnazar, H., & Saneie, M. (2019). Impacts of pit distance and location on river sand mining management. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 5, 1463–1472.

References

7

Harold, M. (2005). Sand mining in Baja and Alta California. San Diego Int’l Law. Journal, 6(2), 435–459. at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/ilj/vol6/iss2/10. Hilton, M. J. (1994). Applying the principle of sustainability to coastal sand mining: The case of Pakiri-Mangawhai Beach New Zealand. Environmental Management, 18(6), 815–829. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF02393612 Hilton, M. J. (1989). Management of the New Zealand coastal sand mining industry: Some implications of a geomorphic study of the Pakiri coastal sand body. New Zealand Geographer, 45(1), 14–25. Jonah, F. E., Adjei-Boateng, D., Agbo, N. W., Mensah, E. A., & Edziyie, R. E. (2015). Assessment of sand and stone mining along the coastline of Cape Coast Ghana. Annals of GIS, 21(3), 223–231. Kanehl, P., & Lyons, J. (1992). Research Report 155: Impacts of in-stream sand and gravel mining on stream habitat and fish communities, including a survey on the Big Rib River, Marathon County, Wisconsin, and Madison. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Kelly, S. W., Ramsey, J. S., & Bymes, M. R. (2004). Evaluating shoreline response to offshore sand mining for beach nourishment. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(1), 89–100. Kobashi, D., & Jose, F. (2018). Potential impacts of sand mining on hydrodynamics and fine sediment suspension and deposition on an inner-shelf shoal. Journal of Coastal Research, 81, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI81-010.1 Koehnken, L., & Rintoul, M. (2018). Impacts of sand mining on ecosystem structure. In Process and biodiversity in rivers. WWF UK. Koehnken, L., Rintoul, M. S., Goichot, M., Tickner, D., Loftus, A., & Acreman, M. C. (2020). Impacts of riverine sand mining on freshwater ecosystems: A review of the scientific evidence and guidance for future. River Research and Applications, 36, 362–370. Kondolf, G. M. (1994). Geomorphic and environmental effects of in-stream gravel mining. Landscape and Urban Planning, 28, 225–243. Kondolf, G. M. (1997). Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environmental Management, 24(4), 533–551. Lawal, P. O. (2011). Effects of sand and gravel mining in Minna Emirate area of Nigeria on stakeholders. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4, 193–200. Masalu, D. C. P. (2002). Coastal erosion and its social and environmental aspects in Tanzania: A case study of illegal sand mining. Coastal Management, 30(4), 347–359. Meador, M., & Layher, A. (1998). In-stream sand and gravel mining: Environmental issues and regulatory process in the United States. Fisheries Habitat, 23(11), 6–13. Mensah, J. V. (1997). Causes and effects of coastal sand mining in Ghana. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 18(1), 69–88. Onwuka, S. V., Durodola, J. O., & Amaechi, I. E. (2013). Socio-economic impacts of sand and gravel mining activities in Nsugbe, Anambra State Nigeria. Albanian Journal of Agricultural Science, 12(2), 229–235. Padmalal, D., & Maya, K. (2014). Sand mining environmental impacts and selected case studies (p. 5). Springer. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/2F978-94-017-9144-1.pdf. Padmalal, D., Maya, K., Sreebha, S., & Sreeja, R. (2008). Environmental effects of river sand mining: A case from the river catchments of Vembanad Lake Southwest Coast of India. Environmental Geology, 54(4), 879–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0870-z Peckenham, J. M., Thornton, T., & Whalen, B. (2009). Sand and gravel mining: Effects on ground water resources in Hancock County, Maine, USA. Environmental Geology, 56, 1103–1114. Peprah, K. (2013). Sand Mining and Land Degradation: Perspective of Indigenous Sand Winners of Wa, Ghana. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 3(14), 185–194. Phua, C., Akker, S., Baretta, M., & Dalfsen, J. V. (2004). Ecological effects of sand extraction in the North Sea. Netherlands. http://www.vliz.be. Sridhar, M. K. C., Ana, G. R. E. E., & Laniyan, T. A. (2019). Impact of sand mining and sea reclamation on the environment and socioeconomic activities of Ikate and Ilubirin coastal low income communities in Lagos Metropolis, Southwestern Nigeria. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 7, 190–205. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2019.72013

8

1 Introduction to Sand Mining Activity

Tariro, M. (2013). Case studies of environmental impacts of sand mining and gravel extraction for urban development in Gaborone. Unpublished M.Phil Thesis, University of South Africa. Tastet, E. (2019). Stealing beaches: A law and economics policy analysis of sand mining. LSU Journal of Energy Law & Resources, 7 (2), 11. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jelr/vol7/iss 2/11. UNEP. (2014). Sand, rarer than one thinks. United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP. (2019). Sand and sustainability: Finding new solutions for environmental governance of global sand resources. United Nations Environment programme. Yen, T. P., & Rohasliney, H. (2013). Status of water quality subject to sand mining in the Kelantan River Malaysia. Tropical Life Science Research, 24(1), 19–34.

Chapter 2

Contributions of Sand Mining to Development

This chapter of the book deals with the review of existing literature and theoretical foundations relevant to sand mining activities. The chapter discusses literatures on socio-environmental impacts, hydrological and geomorphic effects of sand mining and contributions of sand mining to development.

2.1 Socio-Economic Change and Sand Mining Sand mining is carried out to achieve some socio-economic benefits for the miners, government and the communities where sand mining activities occur. Available literature draws out important empirical regularity supporting the socio-economic and environmental impacts of sand mining activities locally and globally. Existing studies on coastal sand and gravel mining activities are though insubstantial but quite revealing. World over, a number of studies have generally observed sand mining activities in normal ‘Terri-firma’ and in coastal, riverrine ‘Terri-incognito’ communities with different conclusions. For example, Padmalal and Maya (2014) the exponential rise in the demand for construction materials resulting from economic growth and liberal policies over the years has aggravated indiscriminate scooping of sand and gravel from river beds and flood plains of most rivers in the world. The recent article by Da Silva et al. (2020) showed the environmental impacts of sand mining in Santarem city of Brazil and the sand dredgers’ lack of technical knowledge and standards for extraction leading to environmental degradation and pollution of the nearby communities. In Australia Sincovich et al. (2018) reviewed a couple of studies on the impacts of mining on local residents and found that mining impacts generally could be compartmentalized into effects on non-resident workforces, pressure on families and relationships, drug and alcohol abuses, pressure on infrastructure, housing and services, and impacts on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. R. Aliu et al., Sand Mining in African Coastal Regions, SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16522-1_2

9

10

2 Contributions of Sand Mining to Development

In US, Kobashi and Jose (2018) studied the impacts of sand mining on shoal’s hydrological sediment suspension concluding that large scale sand mining will profoundly alter the hydrodynamics, sediment suspension and deposition processes which may likely influence the benthic ecology of the shoal. The study by Kelly et al. (2004) revealed that the shorelines along the coasts of Florida, North Carolina, Oregon and New Jersey in America had changed due to sand dredging across the North Eastern corridor of America. Extensive studies on the sand mining effects on the coastal shoreline of New Zealand are quite exciting (Hilton, 1989, 1994). In a study of Pakiri-Mangawhai coastal community in Zealand, Hilton (1994) showed the interrelationship between cautious sand mining extraction and sustainability. Consequently, he argued that an application of sustainability principle is the only antidote to a degrading impact of sand dredging in the coastal community of Pakiri as the mining industry does not define the dimensions of the active sediment system and does not quantify the volume of related resources, or state the period within which sustainability is achievable. In Washington USA, Collins and Dunne (1989) observed that the rapid rate of gravel mining across rivers that drain the Southern Olympic Mountains annual replenishment rate over was exceeded ten times by the supply rate suggesting that bed degradation produced the difference between the replenishment rates and volumes of gravel harvested from the river beds. In Iran Hagnazar and Saneie (2019) conducted an experimental study of effect of pit distance and location on river sand mining management finding that pit distance does not significantly affect upstream pit filled volume but both the sedimentation rate and sand migration are decreased at the downstream pit. Ashraf et al. (2011) in a study of the impacts of sand mining activities in Malaysia noted that sand mining can easily lead to biodiversity loss, change in micro climatic dynamics and landslides. In a study of the environmental effects of river sand mining on the Vembanad Lake around a thriving city of Kochi in western Indian coast, Padmalal et al. (2008) found that the river beds and the lake catchment areas of lake Vembanad were indiscriminately mined causing their storage capacities to be lowered by 5–7 cm/year for 2 decades and leading to severe damages to physical and biological environment the river systems surrounding the lake. Sheeba (2009) also investigated the sand mining impacts on river Kerela in Ithikkara area of Indian Southwestern coasts and concluded that the activity had negative effects on the quality of aquatic biodiversity of the river and the adjoining streams. The sand activity also affected the socioeconomic well-beings of the fishermen around the region as quality of fishes had declined severely overtime due to indiscriminate scooping for sand along the river. In a study of the water quality parameters of rivers where sand mining activities are carried out in Kelantan River Malaysia, Yen and Rohasliney (2013) found that total suspended solid TSS and turbidity of the river water were very high perhaps due to sand mining activities on the river bed. According to Dissanayake and Rupasinghe (1996) almost all forms of mining cause erosion and sedimentation, which have negatives consequences for the physical environment of In Sri Lanka. The authors found that extensive sand mining in some rivers had led to the collapse of river banks, destabilization of structures such as bridges, causing landslides and influx of salt water.

2.1 Socio-Economic Change and Sand Mining

11

A number of studies in Africa have been reported. For instance, Gondo et al. (2019) studied sand mining activities along Nzhelele River in South Africa and the need to develop effective regulatory guidelines to govern sand mining in the country. Using household survey data, clustering analysis and SWOT analysis, they concluded that sand mining has morphological, ecological, socio-ecological, institutional and operational implications in South Africa fragile ecosystems and hence strong policy framework for steam lining sand mining are required. Mngeni et al. (2016) studied sand mining activity as a source of livelihood in rural communities of South Africa with a view to understanding the contribution of sand mining socioeconomically and concluded that it serves as an income and job generators for the communities’ residents. The study by a team of researchers led by Asanbonga et al. (2017) provided a fresh report on the menacing effects of sand mining in South Africa. The study conducted in Mngazi, Chwebeni, and Coffee Bay communities of OR Tambo District South Africa, considered the physical and environmental effects of sand mining on the immediate environment, and found a correlation between sand mining activities and soil erosion, vegetation loss and landslides in the communities. In another study Mensah (1997) examined the causes and effects of sand dredging in Cape Coast Ghana and submitted that though the vocation provided a leeway to rapid income generation for the local indigenous population, desperate attempts at obtaining cheap construction materials, lack of awareness of the damage of sand mining on the ecological systems and pure economic reasons, are the main causes of illegal sand mining in the coastal area. The study by Djihouessi et al. (2017) investigated operational structure and total economic values of sand dredging in Grand-Nkoue Benin Republic and found that women and men are involved in the activity with the former majorly participating at unloading the sand from the ship while men do the major extraction from the river. The economic value of USD 2.4 million per year is very high in terms of revenue generated by the sand miners. Jonal et al. (2015) in a study of sand and stone mining in Cape Coast in Ghana using remote sensing imageries and geographic information systems (GIS) came to the conclusion that sand mining activities in the area have altered the shoreline, destroyed aquatic richness and led to massive coastal erosion over a long period of time. They argued that while sand mining provides an inexpensive source of materials for the construction industry it however destroys the tourism potentials of the coastal community. Masalu (2002) in a study of illegal sand mining activities in Tanzania observed that the vocation has enlisted a great number of local youths and is driven by structural unemployment and inexorable poverty. He further attributed the gory coastal and beach erosion in the coastal communities of Tanzania to uncoordinated and somewhat illegal sand mining activities. In the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, Abam and Oba (2018) discussed the imperatives of sand mining and its negatives consequences in the region with emphasis on the need to mitigate the potential impacts of coastal erosion, surface water turbidity on the environment. The study by Ako et al. (2014) was conducted on river flood plains in Luku town of Minna in Nigeria and the researchers observed that sand mining activities in the area had led to the destruction in landscape, reduction in farm and grazing land areas, collapse of river dams, deforestation, and water pollution with

12

2 Contributions of Sand Mining to Development

severe implications for plant and animal biodiversity. Onwuka et al. (2013) carried out a study of sand mining on rivers in Anambra Nigeria and discovered that the sand mining has very deleterious impacts of the social, economic and environmental development of the immediate communities. Adeoti and Peter (2018) appraised sand mining activities at Ado Ekiti Nigeria, found that sand mining increased development and income revenues but also endangered vegetation and biological diversity of the region suggesting a more holistic approach to community resource management. In another study in Ekiti Atejioye and Odeyemi (2018) analyzed using GIS method amount of sand excavated in three areas namely Ifao, Poly-road and Ijan all in Ado Metropolitan region to 3,624,000 m3 , 1,342,500 m3 and 510,780 m3 respectively. Gavriletea (2017) underlined this fact when he noted that considering the fact that sand exploitation produces severe negative environmental effects, most studies rarely touch on the positive effects. Compared with those of the social and economic impacts, the list of environmental impacts of sand mining is almost inexhaustible ranging from those relating to direct land degradation such those dealing ecosystem. Sridhar et al. (2019) investigated sand mining in IKate and Ilubirin coastal communities in Lagos and discovered that the water quality of the communities have been severely affected with high concentration of Lead (Pb) and Cadmium (Cd) as wee as more particulate being found in the air. However, among the nature of damages quality and quantity of water, quality of air, are mostly affected although other impacts include farmlands loss and depreciated land value. In the study of impacts of sand exploitation Gavriletea (2017) argued that either surface or underground sand mining activities connected to the industry produces serious negative environmental impacts that lead to major changes in the flora and fauna, contaminate the groundwater and disrupt the landscape. The paper added that while there are five major processes in sand mining each of which is complex, and affects the environments and cause severe damages, it highlighted the fact that many of the associated environmental consequences are unquantifiable. Hemalatha et al. (2005) revealed in a study of impact of sand mining on groundwater depletion that intensity of sand mining of the dried river paths reflects in inability of the groundwater to recharge. According to the paper, the impact was more pronounced in the filter wells in the vicinity of the river channels than in those more remote sites. Impacts were characterized by failure of groundwater, draw down reflecting in high irrigation cost borne by farmers which affected their income. Also, Costea (2017) revealed the impact of flood plain assessment of gravel mining on landforms and processes that, given the local geomorphic conditions and the flow variability, the intense harvesting of gravels is the most important control factor that contributes to the changing of floodplain morphology, fluvial processes and riverbed pattern. The results in the study case area from Romania showed that the gravel harvesting has a net effect on floodplain geomorphic, hydrological and ecological functions and floodplain landscape through the decrease in elevation, chaotic morphology with large gravel deposits and rectangular pits flooded by water. From the socio-economic perspective, Ahiadu and Ahove (2005) left no one in doubt that sand mining activities in most coastal communities in Badagry rarely improve the social and economic conditions or leads to a higher level of well-being

2.1 Socio-Economic Change and Sand Mining

13

of the residents in the community. Rather, the study reported social and economic deprivations of their traditional homes and alienation to some peripheral areas and from homeland occupations due to erosion, while for some, it’s outright abandonment to seek for living in the cities thus compounding housing infrastructural challenges in the cities. However, the environmental impacts occasioned by coastal erosion resulted from mechanical methods which lead to rapid landmass loss covering large tracts of natural coconut stands, mangroves forests. One major factor attributed to these scenarios according to the study, was the willful sale of land to sand miners by people at the vanguard of common good, that is, the native rulers in the mould of ‘obas’. Onwuka et al. (2013) in an assessment of impacts of sand mining in Lagos state revealed that, the activity created a boom which draw attention of several local dwellers including traditional rulers to this new trend of economic activity. However, this led to many offering lands for sale to sand miners. As a consequence, incomes/revenue appreciated and standard of living improved. The expected vices that would ordinarily have accompanied swelling population were just absent as a consequence. This seems to support the question we raised above as to whether, the activity leads to a higher level of well-being. There is a need to investigate in a confirmation study to affirm that sand mining did not appreciably lead to higher level of well-being since the two results of hypothesis testing signified that there are no significant social, and economic impacts that is associated with the sand mining activity in the study area. In the corollary, it also confirms the fact that many of the associated social and economic benefits accruing may have been short terms and so does not give any room for anyone to observe the true position of these positive impacts. In a study of environmental impacts of sand mining and gravel extraction for urban development, Madyise (2013) showed that sand and gravel mining were a source of revenue for the government in form of mining lease, 3% royalties levied on gross market value per month including mining companies while at the same time provide jobs for many others. In a manner in which it provides jobs for people, the mining company sells to the buyers who may be drivers hired to drive the trucks or personally owned, then load and transport the sand to cities for resell. In this way, the study reported that 12% villagers attested to the fact that their involvement with sand mining activities was the source of their living. What is so pathetic is that according to the study, many of the residents were alienated through attacks from illegal miners forcing them out of the land and rivers. On the environmental side, the study reported changes to geometries of the river channels in form of widen and deepened river. Amongst the damaging effects reported were deforestation and loss while there were other threats to bridges consequent upon excessive river sand mining and gravel excavation. Johnbull and Brown (2017) examined the effects of sand mining on the socioeconomics of communities around Victory River in Port-Harcourt. The study recognized livelihood chain of the people were been distorted leading to diminishing purchasing power, increased poverty level and consequently the associated social vices. The study also recognized employments and generation of revenue as among

14

2 Contributions of Sand Mining to Development

the social-economic benefits. However, according to the study, social and economic accruals from the mining activities were merely available to those engaged in the value chain but the economic gains were short-lived, because the dynamics of negative social and economic changes elicited by these actors were in most situations irreversible on the environment and the collective psyche of the people in the impacted communities. In comparison the impacts were negative and appear to override any positive impacts that might result in social and economic impacts. Beyond this fact, though positive impacts were meager, yet short-lived). Adeoti and Peter (2018) appraised sand mining activities in Ado-Ekiti examining trends and volume and the implications of the mining activities for socio-economic and the environment of the study area. The study found that increasing market demands for sand for developments thus created increasing rate of mining which threaten fertile agricultural lands. This situation provides business opportunities for many as sand suppliers; opening door for workers in the related occupation such as drivers, sand loaders, building construction workers, block industry to join a booming sand mining. To realize benefits of economics of scale, according to the study, the new entrants were quickly forming associations. In view of this, the study reported that respondents were in doubts as to benefits of the booming sand mining business to the society. It can be deduced from the foregoing, that benefits accruing from sand mining activities were merely concentrated within individuals and associations of related workers in sand mining. This goes without saying that the said benefits were rarely felt by the affected communities because as long as revenues enter government coffers boasting revenue base, the multiplier effect were not very visible to the society even respect of their common good. Moreover, a serious land degradation comprising ecosystem destruction, exposure to soil erosions, loss of fertile agric lands were the resulting environmental consequences more so that many of the previous sites were been abandoned. However, according to the study not only were the old sites abandoned for new sites, but increasing demands had stretched into farmlands of the neighboring communities with a high rate. Rais et al. (2019) examined the impact of sand mining on socio-economic conditions of the community. The paper sought to discover whether there was a positive change in the economy of the Busoa community. The result showed that miners experienced positive change in their income but reflected an insignificant welfare improvement in their respective families and consequently fulfilling the needs of the miners has thus been increasing. At the initial stage, chances are that there will be the initial improvements in the level of income, but this may likely diminish with time as the resource in the area depletes or enters critical threshold.

2.2 Physical Change and Sand Mining The effects of sand mining on rivers and earth terrain stretch across the globe. In the Vembanad Lake in India, the riverbed lowers approximately seven to fifteen centimeters a year due to the removal of more than twelve million tons of sand

2.2 Physical Change and Sand Mining

15

(Tastet, 2019). Lake Poyang is the largest source of sand in China, producing around 236 million cubic meters of sand per year (Tastet, 2019). The exponential rise in sand mining resulted in the deepening and widening of the lake, increased water discharge into the Yangtze River. In San Diego, the San Luis Rey River experienced significant erosion due to sand mining, which undermined infrastructure and aqueducts and caused a large loss of vegetation and animal habitats in the river as sand mining destroys the wildlife living in the rivers as well (Aurora et al., 2017). The local ecology experiences problems with river sand mining, such as reduced fish resources, insect population, and diversity in wildlife, as well as other effects caused by a physical disturbance to the habitat (Harold, 2005; Tastet, 2019). One of the principal causes of environmental impacts from in-stream mining is the removal of more sediment than the system can replenish. Coarse material transported by a river (bedload) commonly is moved by rolling, sliding, or bouncing along the channel bed. The amount of coarse material moved, how long it remains in motion, and how far it moves depend on the size, shape, and packing of the material and the flow characteristics of the river. According to Rinaldi et al. (2005) and Collins and Dunne (1990), the potential impacts of sand and gravel mining include: ● Bed degradation and consequent effects on channel and bank stability can undermine bridge supports, pipelines, or other structures. ● Increased sediment loads, decreased water clarity, and sedimentation. ● Change in channel morphology and disturbance of ecologically important roughness elements in the river bed with significant impact on substrates that may underlie the gravel, which could, in turn, affect the quality of aquatic habitat. ● Ecological effects on bird nesting, fish migration, angling, etc. ● Modification of the riparian zone including bank erosion. ● Reduction in groundwater elevations. ● Bio-security and pest risks; ● Impacts on coastal processes. The geomorphic effects of sand and gravel mining include changes in geomorphology, increased sedimentation, turbidity, and river bank full widths, higher stream temperatures, reduced dissolved oxygen, lowered water table, decreased wetted periods in riparian wetlands, and degraded riparian habitat (see Kanehl & Lyons, 1992; Meador & Layher, 1998; Brown et al., 1998). Channel geomorphology changes, such as a wider and shallower streambed (Brown et al., 1998; Kanehl & Lyons, 1992) which may consequently result in increased stream temperature (Kondolf, 1997). Studies have also shown chemical changes such as reduced dissolved oxygen and changes in pH levels downstream of in-stream mining areas (Nelson, 1993; Meador & Layher, 1998). Loss of riparian habitat may result from direct removal of vegetation along the stream bank to facilitate the use of a dragline or through the process of lowering the water table, bank undercutting, and channel incision (Brown et al., 1998; Kondolf, 1997). The physical composition and stability of substrates are altered as a result of in-stream mining and most of these physical effects may exacerbate sediment entrainment in the channel. Furthermore, the process of in-stream mining and gravel washing produces fine sediments under all

16

2 Contributions of Sand Mining to Development

flow conditions, resulting in the deposition of fine sediment in riffles as well as other habitats at low discharge (Kanehl & Lyons, 1992). Environmental impacts are specific to each mining site depending on numerous factors such as the location of the sand mine, size of the mining area, time of exploitation, secondary mineralogy, habitats and vegetation in the mining area, and method of exploitation (Tastet, 2019). According to Akabzaa (2000) and Awudi (2002), sand mining and the exploitation of natural resources across the globe, have significant adverse effects on the environment. The negative impacts of sand mining on the environment can be categorized into three: ● Damage to riparian and non-riparian habitat and organisms ● Destruction of water bodies and ● Damage to public and private properties. The activities of sand mining lead to the destruction of vegetation, agricultural and non-agricultural lands (Hedge, 2011; Aromolaran, 2012). Sand mining along streams has led to the destruction of several hectares of fertile streamside lands annually. Also, a lot of valuable timber resources and wildlife habitats have been lost to the activities of sand mining. Sand miners have created gullies on agricultural lands and forest reserves in several places (Tariro, 2013). The scooping of sand from the ground destroys vegetation cover and the soils which serve as the habitat for wildlife. This situation destabilizes the ecosystem of living organisms thereby imperiling their lives (Lawal, 2011; Ambak & Zakaria, 2010; Phua et al., 2004). Sand mining is also responsible for the direct destruction to the riparian and non-riparian habitats, flora, and fauna (Kelley et al., 2004). The extraction of sand from river beds creates gullies on the floors of the rivers. These deep pits on the river beds degrade or lower the groundwater table consequently, wells in such places become dry (Hemalatha et al., 2005; Selvakumar et al., 2008; Peckenham et al., 2009). Also, the lowering or dropping of the water table from the activities of alluvial sand mining affects the smooth flow of streams thereby negatively impacting riparian wetlands. Sand mining diminishes water clarity and quality due to high turbidity levels, reduction of dissolved oxygen, and high temperatures in such water bodies (Reid, 2006; Kondolf, 1994). This leads to bio-security and pest risks which decreases the efficacy of crop production and also contributes to food insecurity (Rinaldi et al., 2005). Sand mining is directly responsible for causing damages to public and private properties. The activities of the sand miners weaken the structure of the land; leading to the collapse of bridges, roads, and pipelines (Collins and Dunne, 1990; Mensah, 1997).

2.3 Contributions of Sand Mining to Development Sand or mineral aggregate is a naturally occurring granular material composed of finely divided rock and mineral particles. It is one of the most widely used commodities for different purposes with the majority in construction activities (Hull, 2001).

2.3 Contributions of Sand Mining to Development

17

The United Nations Environmental Programme noted that sand mining has the capacity of reducing the productivity levels of agricultural lands. Globally, the basic sources of sand for human activities are terrestrial deposits. These are made up of sand from the channels of rivers and residual soil deposits on agricultural lands. Sand is used primarily in the construction of houses for shelter, landscaping, and other infrastructure projects (e.g. bridges, roads, railway lines airports) thereby provides both economic and social benefits to the revenue base of any country (Velegrakis et al., 2010; Tastet, 2019). Sand is used for all kinds of projects like land reclamations, the construction of artificial islands and coastline stabilization. According to UNEP (2014), it is estimated that between 32 and 50 billion tonnes of aggregate (sand and gravel) are extracted globally each year (Steinberger et al., 2010). Additionally, sand is used to make glass and microchips and to expand landmass to combat coastal erosion (Tastet, 2019). Across the globe, countries use sand differently based on the country’s infrastructural needs. For example, the demand for sand in India has grown tremendously. Similarly, China has been reported to use more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the United States used in the entire twentieth century. Singapore, the largest sand importer in the world from neighboring countries such as; Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, and Vietnam uses sand to expand its territory, adding around fifty square miles in the past forty years (Tastet, 2019). In the United States, sand is used to extend shorelines and in the hydraulic fracturing process (Renuka, 2015). Sand and gravel have underpinned the construction industry since Roman times, and are the materials upon which the buildings, roads, and infrastructure in all cities are based. It is also the material of choice for land reclamation (Koehnken & Rintoul, 2018). Sand is mainly found in the oceans, rivers, lakes & reservoirs, streams, flood plains, and hills & mountains. Among all the sources, the river bed is the most common and prevalent source of sand worldwide. Sand is classified as a “minor mineral”, minor mineral means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes. Each ton of concrete requires approximately six to seven tons of sand and gravel (Marius, 2017). Sand is vital to certain industries, particularly the construction industry but the increased mining of this aggregate has major environmental consequences. Over-extracting sand mainly occurs in underdeveloped or developing countries, where governments lack the authority or capacity to establish and enforce regulations. This lack of enforcement capacity and political accountability allows for illegal sand mining, which only exacerbates environmental and economic problems. There are many different types of sand, including river, marine, and desert sand. River sand and gravel are more commercially profitable to mine than other types of sand (Tastet, 2019). Desert sand is not suitable for construction or land reclamation because wind erosion makes the grains perfectly round and thus unable sand to adhere together. Due to the increasing demand for marine sand globally, the demand for marine sand has escalated 21. Marine sand mining consists of sand from the beaches, inland dunes, and dredging from the ocean beds (Gelabert, 1997; Chambers, 1997; Phua et al., 2004). Miners have employed different methods to extract sand from the river manually or mechanically, using high-power jet pumps. Marine sand mining is gaining popularity however, this process is more expensive than mining

18

2 Contributions of Sand Mining to Development

river sand compared to the marine sand for concrete, as it must first undergo a washing process to remove any salt particles (Tastet, 2019). River and marine sand are the main aggregates used for building and land reclamation. Rivers and in-stream gravel are a preferred source of sand and gravel for several reasons: they require less processing, the best construction sand is found in riverbeds and land quarries, cities tend to be located near rivers so transport costs are low, the energy in a river grinds rocks into gravels and sands, thus eliminating the costly step of mining, grinding, and sorting rock and the material produced by rivers tends to consist of resilient minerals of angular shape that are preferred for construction. Deposits of river sand also offer the advantages of being naturally sorted by grain-size, easily accessible, and able to be transported inexpensively using barges. Despite the advantages of River sand mining, it can damage private and public properties as well as aquatic habitats. Excessive removal of sand may significantly distort the natural equilibrium of a stream channel. By removing sediment from the active channel bed, in-stream mines interrupt the continuity of sediment transport through the river system, disrupting the sediment mass balance in the river downstream and inducing channel adjustments (usually incision) extending considerable distances (commonly 1 km or more) beyond the extraction site itself. The magnitude of the impact depends on the magnitudes of the extraction relative to bed load sediment supply and transport through the reach (Kondolf et al., 2001). Apart from the positive aspects of sand mining, it is viewed by many scholars as an activity that destroys the livelihoods of people. The extraction of sand and gravel resources has adverse environmental impacts which eventually pose livelihood risk to people (Sonak et al., 2006; Kondolf, 1997). For example, sand mining causes turbidity which reduces water quality and hinders the growth of fishes and other aquatic lives. Eventually, people who depend on fishing as a means of sustenance in these communities are negatively affected (Supriharyono, 2004). In Alappuzha coast of Kerala (India), sand mining has destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and others who depend on fish for their jobs such as fish distribution, curing, and peeling. In the same area, sand mining has further led to the loss of employment for the hundreds of people who depend on the land for rice cultivation and the coastal coconut trees for their survival (Sekhar & Jayadev, 2003). Also, sand mining activities in the Selangor state of Malaysia have caused extreme damage to the environment and livelihoods of many local communities such as Hulu, Kuala, Langat, and others that engage in fishing and crop production (Ashraf et al., 2011). In Ghana, sand mining activities have also led to the reduction of farmlands; consequently, many people are facing livelihood security problems (Peprah, 2013; Musah, 2009). Reduced farmlands bring about economic hardships mostly because the affected people are usually given inadequate compensations (Abuodha & Hayombe, 2006). The activities of sand mining also lead to the destruction of public properties such as roads, electricity poles, telephone masts, underground pipes, and other social amenities which support people’s livelihoods (Saviour, 2012; Collins and Dunne, 1990; Viswanathan, 2002). Sand mining activities further weaken the livelihood foundation of people because it brings about land use conflicts due to its numerous negative externalities (Willis & Garrod, 1999; Rodriguez et al., 2006; Turner et al.,

References

19

2007). The effects of sand mining on livelihoods could either be positive, negative, or a combination of both (Akabzaa, 2009). The consequences of sand mining activities are considered positive when desired or profitable outcomes emerge from it. It may be viewed as negative when unintended or destructive outcomes are experienced. Sand mining activities are considered as one of the major contributors to livelihood enhancement and economic development of many nations. It is also a major source of employment for many people globally (Ashraf et al., 2011). For example, the total amount of money earned from the exportation of sand globally by countries such as Germany, Turkey, India, Italy, Belgium, and others in 2010 amounted to over $31 billion. Sand mining is also a major source of employment for many people around the globe (Ashraf et al., 2011). The activities of sand mining are also associated with high and lucrative profits which could be used for the betterment of people’s livelihoods (Mensah, 1997; Musah, 2009; Stewart, 2013). Similarly, the huge income obtained through the activities of sand mining helps to secure the livelihoods of the beneficiaries. Sand and stone mining further lead to increased sales of goods and services such as selling of water, foodstuffs, and high patronage of taxi cabs in areas where these activities occur (Asante et al., 2014). Sand mining is also noted to be a major source of funding for many community projects such as schools and hospitals which provide livelihood security for many people (Mensah, 1997). This comes in the form of tolls and levies charged by chiefs and community leaders on sand mining activities that occur within their traditional areas. Sand mining can therefore be considered as one of the avenues in protecting and providing livelihood security to many people residing in various communities.

2.4 Summary From all parts of the world it is obvious that sand mining is a legitimate economic activity that supports human livelihoods, construction sector and housing. It has contributed greatly to the development of nations. Sand mining has improved the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) through greater revenues, employment and taxes to governments and individuals. It has also provided a means of livelihood to the local residents who are fully dependent on the vocation. However, sand mining externalities such as degradation, sink holes, hydrological alteration, and subsidence are capable of compromising sustainability on the long run.

References Abam, T. K. S., & Oba, T. (2018). Recent case studies of sand mining, utilization and environmental impacts in the Niger Delta. Journal of Environmental Geology, 2(2), 64–67.

20

2 Contributions of Sand Mining to Development

Abuodha, J. O. Z., & Hayombe, P. O. (2006). Protracted environmental issues on a proposed Titanium mineral development in Kenya’s South Coast. Marine Geo-Resources and Geo-Technology, 24(2), 63–75. Adeoti, S., & Peter, A. (2018). Appraisal of sand mining activities at Ado Ekiti, Ekiti State Nigeria. International Journal of Research, 5(19), 617–629. Ahiadu, H. O., & Ahove, M. A. N. (2005). Sand mining in the Badagry Creek of Lagos State Nigeria.: Environmental and socioeconomic implications. Knowledge Review, 10(2), 57–63 Akabzaa, T. M. (2009). Mining in Ghana: Implications for national economic development and poverty reduction. International Development and Research Centre (IDRC). Akabzaa, T. M. (2000). Boom and dislocation: The environmental and social impacts of mining in the Wassa West District of Ghana. Third World Network Africa. Ako, T. A., Onoduku, U. S., Oke, S. A., Essien, B. I., Idris, F. N., Umar, A. N., & Ahmed, A. A. (2014). Environmental effects of sand and gravel mining on land and soil in Luku, Minna, Niger State North Central Nigeria. Journal of Geosciences and Geomatics, 2(2), 42–49. Ambak, M. A., & Zakaria, M. Z. (2010). Freshwater fish diversity in Sungai Kelantan. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management, 5(1), 13–20. Aromolaran, A. K. (2012). Effects of sand mining activities on land in agrarian communities of Ogun State Nigeria. Continental Journal of Agricultural Science, 6(1), 41–49. Asabonga, M., Betek, C., Musampa, C. M., & Nakin, M. D. V. (2017). The physical and environmental impacts of sand mining. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 72(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/0035919X.2016.120970. Asante, F., Kabila, A., & Afriyie, K. (2014). Stone quarrying and livelihood transformation in Peri-urban Kumasi. Journal of Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(13), 93–107. Ashraf, M. A., Maah, M. J., Yusoff, I., Wajid, A., & Mahmood, K. (2011). Sand mining effects, causes, and concerns: A case study of Bestari Jaya, Selangor Peninsular Malaysia. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(6), 1216–1231. Atejioye, A. A., & Odeyemi, C. A. (2018). Analyzing impact of sand mining in Ekiti State, Nigeria using GIS for sustainable development. World Journal of Research and Review, 6(2), 26–31. Aurora, T., Jodi, B., Kristen, L., & Jianguo, l. (2017). A looming tragedy of the sand commons. Science, 357(6355), 970–971. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0503. Awudi, G. (2002). The role of foreign direct investment in the mining sector of Ghana and the environment. In CCNM Global Forum on International Investment. OECD. Brown, A. V., Lyttle, M. W., & Brown, K. B. (1998). Impacts of gravel mining on Gravel bed streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 127(6), 979–994. Chambers, G. (1997). Managing beach resources in the smaller Caribbean Islands. Papers presented at a UNESCO—University of Puerto Rico Workshop, 21–25 October 1996, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Coastal region and Small Island papers, No.1, UPR/SGCP-UNESCO, Mayaguez, 269. Collins, B., & Dunne, T. (1990). Fluvial geomorphology and river-gravel mining: A guide for planners. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, USA. Collins, B. D., & Dunne, T. (1989). Gravel transport, gravel harvesting and channel-bed degradation in rivers draining in Southern Olympic Mountains, Washington USA. Environmental and Geological Water Science, 13(3), 213–224. Costea, M. (2017). Impact of floodplain gravel mining on landforms and processes: a study case in Oriat gravel pit Romania. Environmental; Earth science, 777, 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12 665-018-7320-y. Da-Silva, E. F., Bento, D. F., Mendes, A. C., da Mota, F. G., Fonseca, A. I. T., Almeida, R. M., & Santos, L. O. (2020). Environmental impacts of sand mining in the city of Santarem, Amazon region, Northern Brazil. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(1), 47–60. Dissanayake, C. B., & Rupasinghe, M. S. (1996). Environmental impact of mining, erosion and sedimentation in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 51(1), 35–50. Djihouessi, M. B., Aina, M. P., Kpanou, B. V., & Kpondjo, N. (2017). Measuring the total economic value of traditional sand dredging in the coastal Lagoon complex of Grand-Nokoue (Benin). Journal of Environmental Protection, 8, 1605–1621.

References

21

Gavriletea, M. D. (2017). Environmental impacts of sand exploitation: Analysis of sand market. Sustainability, 9, 1118(26 pages). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071118. Gelabert, P. (1997). Environmental effects of sand extraction practices in Puerto Rico. Managing Beach Resources in the Smaller Caribbean Islands (pp. 63–68). Gondo, T., Mathada, H., & Amponsah-Dacosta, F. (2019). Regulatory and policy implications of sand mining along shallow waters of Njele River in South Africa. Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 11(3), 727. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v11i3.727. Haghnazar, H., & Saneie, M. (2019). Impacts of pit distance and location on river sand mining management. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 5, 1463–1472. Harold, M. (2005). Sand Mining in Baja and Alta California. San Diego Int’l Law. Journal, 6(2), 435–459. https://digital.sandiego.edu/ilj/vol6/iss2/10. Hedge, M. (2011). Sand mining swallowing revenue land. Sun-oasis Writers Network. Hemalatha, A. C., Chandrakanth, M. G., & Nagaraj, N. (2005). Effect of sand mining on groundwater depletion in Kamataka. Conference paper at University of Agricultural science Bangalore. https:// doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.43619. Hilton, M. J. (1994). Applying the principle of sustainability to coastal sand mining: The case of Pakiri-Mangawhai Beach. New Zealand. Environmental Management, 18(6), 815–829. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF02393612 Hilton, M. J. (1989). Management of the New Zealand coastal sand mining industry: Some implications of a geomorphic study of the Pakiri coastal sand body. New Zealand Geographer, 45(1), 14–25. Hull, D. N. (2001). Sand and Gravel. Geo-Facts. Division of Geological Survey. Johnbull, S. W., & Brown, I. (2017). Socioeconomic consequences of sand mining along the Victory River in Portharcourt, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Environment and Ecology, 3(2), 1–15. Jonah, F. E., Adjei-Boateng, D., Agbo, N. W., Mensah, E. A., & Edziyie, R. E. (2015). Assessment of sand and stone mining along the coastline of Cape Coast Ghana. Annals of GIS, 21(3), 223–231. Kanehl, P. & Lyons, J. (1992). Research Report 155: Impacts of in-stream sand and gravel mining on stream habitat and fish communities, including a survey on the Big Rib River, Marathon County, Wisconsin, and Madison. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Kelly, S. W., Ramsey, J. S., & Bymes, M. R. (2004). Evaluating shoreline response to offshore sand mining for beach nourishment. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(1), 89–100. Kobashi, D., & Jose, F. (2018). Potential impacts of sand mining on hydrodynamics and fine sediment suspension and deposition on an inner-shelf shoal. Journal of Coastal Research, 81, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI81-010.1 Koehnken, L., & Rintoul, M. (2018) Impacts of sand mining on ecosystem structure. In Process and biodiversity in rivers. WWF UK. Kondolf, G. M. (1994). Geomorphic and environmental effects of in-stream gravel mining. Landscape and Urban Planning, 28, 225–243. Kondolf, G. M. (1997). Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environmental Management, 24(4), 533–551. Kondolf, GM., Smeltzer, M., & Kimball, L. (2001). Fresh water gravel mining and dredging issues: A whitepaper for Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Center for Environmental Design Research, University of California, Berkeley: http://wdfw.gov/publications/00056/wdfw00056. pdf. Lawal, P. O. (2011). Effects of sand and gravel mining in Minna Emirate area of Nigeria on stakeholders. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4, 193–200. Madyise, T. (2013). Case studies on environmental impacts of sand mining and gravel extraction for urban development in Gaborone. A. Masters Degree Thesis. Marius, D.G. (2017). Environmental impact of sand exploitation. Analysis of sand market. Sustainability. https://perma.cc/TZ66-A5BD. Masalu, D. C. P. (2002). Coastal erosion and its social and environmental aspects in Tanzania: A case study of illegal sand mining. Coastal Management, 30(4), 347–359.

22

2 Contributions of Sand Mining to Development

Meador, M., & Layher, A. (1998). In-stream sand and gravel mining: Environmental issues and regulatory process in the United States. Fisheries Habitat, 23(11), 6–13. Mensah, J. V. (1997). Causes and effects of coastal sand mining in Ghana. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 18(1), 69–88. Mngeni, A., Musampa, C. M. & Nakin, M. D. V. (2016). The effects of sand mining on rural communities. In Conference on Sustainable Development and Planning VIII. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment (Vol. 210, pp. 443–453). https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP160371. Musah, J. A. (2009). Assessment of sociological and ecological impacts of sand and gravel mining: A case study of East Gonja District (Ghana) and Gunnarsholt (Iceland). Final Report, Land Restoration Training Programme, Keldnaholt, Iceland. Nelson, K. L. (1993). Instream sand and gravel mining. In CF Bryman and DA Rutherford (eds) Impacts of warmwater streams: Guidelines for evaluation. South Division Americam Fisheries & Society. Little Rock Arkansas USA. pp 13-18 Onwuka, S. V., Durodola, J. O., & Amaechi, I. E. (2013). Socio-economic impacts of sand and gravel mining activities in Nsugbe, Anambra State Nigeria. Albanian Journal of Agricultural Science, 12(2), 229–235. Padmalal, D., & K. Maya, K. (2014). Sand mining environmental impacts and selected case studies (p. 5). Springer. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/2F978-94-017-9144-1.pdf. Padmalal, D., Maya, K., Sreebha, S., & Sreeja, R. (2008). Environmental effects of river sand mining: A case from the river catchments of Vembanad Lake. Southwest Coast of India. Environmental Geology, 54(4), 879–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0870-z Peckenham, J. M., Thornton, T., & Whalen, B. (2009). Sand and gravel mining: Effects on ground water resources in Hancock County, Maine, USA. Environmental Geology, 56, 1103–1114. Peprah, K. (2013). Sand mining and land degradation: Perspective of indigenous sand winners of Wa, Ghana. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 3(14), 185–194. Phua, C., Akker, S., Baretta, M., & Dalfsen, J. V. (2004). Ecological effects of sand extraction in the North Sea. http://www.vliz.be. Rais, Abdullah, R., Malik, E., Mahmuda, D., Pardana, D., Abdullah, L. O. D., Dja’wa, A., Suriadi, Jasiyah, R., Naping, H., & Manuhutu, F. Y. (2019). Impact of sand mining on social economic conditions of community. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 343012132. http://www.iopscience.iop.org/article/https://doi.org/10.1088/1755=1315/343/1/0121322. Reid, B. (2006). Global early warning systems for natural hazards: Systematic and people centered. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 364, 2167–2182. Renuka, R. (2015). Even Desert City Dubai import its sand. This is Why, BBC. https://perma.cc/ 9X6G-Q8A4. Rinaldi, M., Wyzga, B., & Surian, N. (2005). Sediment mining in alluvial channels: Physical effects and management perspectives. River Research and Applications, 21(7), 805–828. Rodríguez, J. P., Beard, Jr., T. D., Bennett, E. M., Cumming, G. S., Cork, S., Agard, J., Dobson, A. P., Peterson, G. D. (2006). Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 28. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art28/. Saviour, N. M. (2012). Environmental impacts of soil and sand mining: A review. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, 1(3), 125–134. Sekhar, L. K., & Jayadev, S. K. (2003). Mineral beach-sand mining in the Alapuzha coast of Kerala— A people’s perspective. In M. J. Bunch, V. M. Suresh, & T. V. Kumaran (eds.), Proceedings of the Third Conference on Environment and Health (pp. 470–488). Department of Geography, University of Madras and Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University. Selvakumar, R., Venkataraman, R., & Sundaravaradarajan, K. R. (2008). Effect of sand mining on economic performance of groundwater irrigation in Cuddalore District of Tamil Nadu. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 21, 183–190. Sheeba, S. (2009). Biotic environment and sand mining-A case study of Ithikkara River, South West Coast of India. Journal of Industrial Pollution Control, 25(2), 133–138. Sincovich, A., Gregory, T., Wilson, A., & Brinkman, S. (2018). The social impacts of mining on local communities in Australia. Rural Society, 27(1), 18–34.

References

23

Sonak, S., Pangam, P., Sonak, M., & Mayekar, D. (2006). Impact of sand mining on local ecology (pp. 101–121). Teripress Publications. Sridhar, M. K. C., Ana, G. R. E. E., & Laniyan, T. A. (2019). Impact of sand mining and sea reclamation on the environment and socioeconomic activities of Ikate and Ilubirin coastal low income communities in Lagos Metropolis, Southwestern Nigeria. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 7, 190–205. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2019.72013 Steinberger, J. K., Krausmann, F., & Eisenmenger, N. (2010). Global patterns of materials use: A socioeconomic and geophysical analysis. Ecological Economics, 69, 1148–1158. Stewart C. G. (2013). The regulation of sand mining in South Africa. Unpublished M.Phil Thesis, University of Cape Town. Supriharyono. (2004). Effects of sand mining on coral reefs in Riau Islands. Journal of Coastal Development, 7(2), 89–103. Tariro, M. (2013). Case studies of environmental impacts of sand mining and gravel extraction for urban development in Gaborone. Unpublished M.Phil Thesis, University of South Africa. Tastet, E. (2019). Stealing beaches: A law and economics policy analysis of sand mining. LSU Journal of Energy Law & Resources, 7 (2), 11. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jelr/vol7/iss 2/11. Turner, B. L., & Lambin, E. F. (2007). The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 52, 20666–20671. UNEP. (2014). Sand, rarer than one thinks. United Nations Environment Programme. Velegrakis, A. F., Ballay, A., Poulos, S., Radzevicius, R., Bellec, V., & Manso, F. (2010). European marine aggregate resources: Origins, usage, prospecting and dredging techniques. Journal of Coastal Research, 51, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI51-002.1. Viswanathan, S. (2002). Mining dangers. Frontline, 19, 10. http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1910/ 19100440. Willis, K. G., & Garrod, D. (1999). Externalities from extraction of aggregates regulation by tax or land-use controls. Resources Policy, 25, 77–153. Yen, T. P., & Rohasliney, H. (2013). Status of water quality subject to sand mining in the Kelantan River Malaysia. Tropical Life Science Research, 24(1), 19–34.

Chapter 3

Perspectives on Sand Mining and Sustainability

The chapter discusses the conceptual and theoretical perspectives to sand mining as an activity. It examines the meaning of sand mining, what motivates sand mining, the theory of sustainable development, and the concept of livelihoods. The importance of this discussion is to guide the study on the knowledge frontier in sand mining and the theories that can throw more light on the interconnected issues in sand mining.

3.1 Theoretical Perspectives on Sand and Sand Mining Sand predates human existence sand was collectively called the soil. It is a bye product of weathered rock (Tastet, 2019). It is found in waters, hills and mountains of the earth, broken down, transformed, and transported by the erosive actions of water, and wind, over several kilometers before being deposited. Over time, weathered particles of rock create natural sand (Padmalal & Maya, 2014). Consequently, origins of sand can be traced to land and waters (Gavriletea, 2017). According to Saviour (2012) and Madyise (2013) sand is a mineral which protects the environment, serves as buffers to strong tidal waves and storms, habitat for crustacean species and marine organisms. Sand and gravels collectively called aggregates are the unrecognized foundational materials of economies (UNEP, 2019). They remain as indispensable materials for molding concrete blocks for housing, asphalt mixing, glass making and roads construction, building of hospitals, and other infrastructures necessary for construction and industrial production systems. According to Ashraf et al. (2011) sand mining is the removal of sand from its natural configuration. Koehnken et al.(2020) define sand mining as a generic term used for describing the extraction of any riverine aggregates regardless of the particle size. Sand mining is a process of removing or extracting sand from a place which could be in an open area, beaches inland dunes, mountainsides, as well as riverbeds and banks (Adeoti & Peter, 2018). Although, this activity is rampant in the coastal © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. R. Aliu et al., Sand Mining in African Coastal Regions, SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16522-1_3

25

26

3 Perspectives on Sand Mining and Sustainability

and marine environment, it is usually found in other mainland areas. Globally, sand mining activities have been a practice among the traditional fishermen and farmers who engage in this activity in order to upscale income levels and organized companies who extract sand and gravels to raise revenues and livelihoods. Motivation for sand mining often ranges from socio-economics, increasing urbanization to demands for housing construction works. Rais et al. (2019) reported that in a bid to escape poverty, villagers of Busoa in Batauga districts resorted to sand mining which perhaps may serve as an alternative livelihood or as an additional income generation. Bearing the foregoing in mind, a surge in housing especially the residential gave rise to increasing demands from the constructive industry thus creating a ‘mine boom’ which is now making this activity so lucrative business. Frankly speaking, it needs be emphasized, there is national shortfall in housing stock, increasing demand for construction especially of housing emanates from societal perspective which springs from unguided desire and drive for material wealth acquisition. This is being fueled by many land merchants offering intoxicating prices and stirring in the citizens, the urge for material possession at all cost. Understandably, sand as a naturally occurring and resource of the environment has several uses. Some of the uses of sand in construction include brick molding, glass making, wall plastering, bridge construction, ceramics molding to mention a few. A number of issues relating to this activity thus emerge in the analysis that must be addressed in order to forestall destruction of the environment. These relate on the one hand to the socioeconomics which borders on job creation, income generation for the operators, relatives, communities at large and some other benefits. On the other hand, there are environmental concerns relating to degradation of the entire marine environments, enlargement of the river geometries which might lead to increase in river water level, burrow pits on the surface, and some other defects. While the existing locations of the sand mining were known, with the boom been generated especially from the constructive industry demands, a number of other mine centres may have been created in and around the state. Reliable data on the distribution of these places and their spatial coverage were rarely captured and available for any analyses. Apart from the spatial characteristics of this activity, the temporal metrics and volumetric account (metric tons) of sand scooped per annum were rarely documented for tax assessments, and for entries into GDP and or national income documentation. Besides, by what structure or arrangements the miners operate the business -whether as individual or as groups, and the number of groups involved— might have equally been unknown and once unknown, these might as well have escaped documentation. The requirement for this stems from the fact that if well structured, opportunity for employment for the indigenes and the residents can thus be formalized. In most economies where interests of the citizens are uppermost in the government policy it is well known as Duley and Deller (2014) highlighted proceeds from such activities are often repatriated out of the economy thus encouraging losses in form of leakages from the system. No doubts, certain benefits accrue to the operators, communities at large. Such benefits include raising status of the miners, creation of jobs for the unemployed and alternative income to augment the existing sources. Notwithstanding the benefits,

3.2 The Theory of Sustainable Development

27

there is a need to strike a balance between human sustenance (livelihoods) built around this activity and the need to protect the environment from an impending disaster. Looking at the scale of the environmental damages orchestrated, one would tend to ask a question or which could be hypothesized thus: does mining in any of these sand mining activities leads to higher levels of socio-economic wellbeing? UNEP (2019) noted environmental and social consequences of sand mining raises issue of serious global concern. The concern is even more with dominant illegal activities. The environmental and social impacts of sand extraction are an issue of global significance (UNEP, 2019). While it is acknowledged that people need to make living from the resources in their environment, the concomitant potential and actual impacts on the environments which can be very considerable must be estimated for appropriate action. In view of the foregoing, the concern of this paper is the assessment of the livelihoods built around booming sand mining activities and the impacts it has generated in the environment. It is common knowledge that people derive their livelihoods from and are simultaneously sheltered in and by the environment. This is very significant realization that must be strongly upheld. It must be borne in mind that the environment is able to provide this dual support to human species at least, is the very foundation for making their continuous living in the environment. Should the house (environment) crash, then people would have nowhere to turn. This is the fundamental basis for sustainable development.

3.2 The Theory of Sustainable Development Many natural resources including sand are non-renewable and exhaustible on continuous use and therefore require cautious and frugal utilization for sustainability (Hilton, 1994; Turner & Lambin, 2007; UNEP, 2019). With increasing urbanization and population agglomeration the need to balance the relationship between resources and man’s consumption becomes more critical. This man-resource equilibrium becomes more imperative in order to ensure human sustainability on the planet earth. Since the early 1980s, the concept of sustainable development (SD) has attempted to bridge the gap between economic growth and the sound use of renewable and non-renewable natural resources. Humans use natural resources in a variety of ways to support and enhance life. Sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations (WCED, 1987). Sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (WCED, 1987). The 1987 Brundtland Commission report was a precursor to the Earth summit of Brazil in 1992. The central idea underlying Earth summit was that it made it clear that human beings are at the centre of the concern for sustainable development. The central message from this is that the earth exists because of man and

28

3 Perspectives on Sand Mining and Sustainability

not vice versa. From that perspective, sustainability places before human beings a challenge of wise use of common good which will require ingenuity, technology, and which should add values rather than deplete that common good. Sustainability encourages people to make decisions in terms of environmental, social, and human impacts on a long-term basis rather than short-term gain. The concept of sustainability comprised three pillars namely: (1) economic sustainability (2) environmental sustainability and (3) social sustainability. These pillars are also referred to as the 3 Ps (Protect, Planet, and People). The concept of sustainability was formed in the 1987 by the United Nations’ Brundtland Commission report ‘Our Common Future’. It started from an ecologically-based concept in the 1970s and the world conservation strategy but transformed into a more comprehensive socio-economic approach. In order to understand the concept of sustainability, the characteristics of sustainable development should be identified. The characteristics of sustainable development are: ● Sustainable development is geared towards improving the quality of human life. ● Aimed at providing resources and life support services. ● Represent the standards of judgment and behavior that are expected as the human society seeks to satisfy its needs of survival and well-being. The concept of sustainable development is guided by some principles namely; Right of own, use or exploit resources without damaging the environment.; the need for all sectors of the economy (government, education, business) and the community to work together to create a booming local economy and the need to set plan and the implementation of goals and strategies for sustained economic development. Incidentally, the SD theory has been transformed by the United Nations Organization (UNO) into global decisions which culminated in the formulation of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) at the beginning of the 21st century in 2000 and sustainable development goals (SDGs) in 2015.

3.3 The Concept of Sustainable Livelihoods The livelihoods framework encompasses the skills, assets (both material and social), and the approaches which will be used by individuals and communities to survive. It can also be viewed as an analytical framework used to understand the various factors which can affect choices around subsistence and to examine how these factors interact amongst themselves. Sustainable livelihood (SL) is a systemic and adaptive approach that links issues of poverty reduction, sustainability, and empowerment processes (for example participation, gender empowerment, and good governance). The attractiveness of SL lies in its applicability to different contexts, situations of uncertainty, and in its capacity as a consultative and participatory process for the cross-fertilization of ideas and strategies between various stakeholders. Sustainable livelihoods are derived from people’s capacity to make a living by surviving shocks and stress and improve their material condition without jeopardizing the livelihood

3.3 The Concept of Sustainable Livelihoods

29

options of other people, either now or in the future. This requires reliance on both capabilities and assets (stores, resources, claims, and accesses) for a means of living. A crucial element of the sustainable livelihood (SL) approach is the notion of mutuality and reciprocity. The approach provides a lens through which to view people and their environments in a reciprocal relationship. Thus, people are neither cast as powerless objects, nor as free agents who can become whatever they choose. In other words, there is a feedback loop not only between people themselves but also between people and the political, social, economic situations in which they find themselves. Based on experimentation and lessons from the field, the SL approach has been operationalized in five interactive steps: ● Identification of the risks, assets, entitlements, livelihood activities, and knowledge bases of communities and individuals through the use of participatory research techniques. ● Analysis of macro, micro, and sectoral policies impinge on people’s livelihoods. ● Assessment and determination of key technology contributions to sustainable livelihood. ● Identification of existing investment (example micro-finance) opportunities. ● Making sure that the first four stages are integrative and interactive in real-time. A possible option for a conceptual framework within which to place SL is one developed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). The framework integrates the concepts of sustainable development and sustainable livelihoods. It is best conceptualized as a diagram merging two interactive triangles, one representing the cornerstones of sustainable development (economic efficiency, environmental integrity, and human well-being) and other the showing those of sustainable livelihoods (local knowledge, science and technology, and policy structures). It is opined that elements and issues that make for sustainable livelihoods lie at the critical interface of human-environment interactions. Political, cultural, religious, social, economic, biological, and geo-physical factors simultaneously interact with and in combination with each other to produce a variety of functions, processes, and products, which shape the way a community makes a living in a given ecozone. The framework is shown in Fig. 3.1. The core features of the SL framework comprise five major aspects namely: ● Human Capital: It represents the abilities, experience, work skills, and the physical state of good health which, when combined, allow populations to engage with different strategies and fulfill their objectives for their livelihoods. ● Social Capital: It refers to the social resources, which populations will rely on when seeking their objectives relating to livelihoods (in the present study this refers specifically to local social capital, this being networks, associations, local authorities, local officials, and broader population receiving program assistance). ● Natural Capital: It is the term used to refer to the stocks of naturally occurring resources (soil, water, air, genetic resources, etc.) which can be used as inputs to create additional benefits, such as food chains, protection against soil or coastal erosion, and other natural resources which can support livelihoods.

30

3 Perspectives on Sand Mining and Sustainability

Fig. 3.1 Integration of Sustainable development and livelihoods ENVIRONMENT

ECONOMY SCIENCE POLICY & KNOWLEDGE

SOCIAL WELLBEING

● Physical Capital: This refers to the basic infrastructure and production inputs needed to support livelihoods. ● Financial Capital: This refers to the financial resources which populations employ to achieve their objectives regarding livelihoods.

3.4 Vulnerability Assessment Another similar concept is the vulnerability assessment (VA) model. The notion of “vulnerability” and “sustainability” in the context of livelihoods can be viewed as two ends of a continuum. The properties of a vulnerable livelihood system are contrary to those of a sustainable livelihood system. For example, SL aims to: ● Manage (reduce) the risk of exposure to crises, stress, and shocks. ● Enhance the capacities to cope with stress, crises, and shocks, thus reducing vulnerability. ● Focus on potentiality by maintaining and enhancing enabling environments within which people can realize their livelihood aspirations. Sustainability and vulnerability are processes that involve livelihood systems and groups (individuals, households, and communities). Based on the specific configuration of space, livelihood systems can be located at a certain point on this continuum. Additionally, accounting for vulnerable and sustainable livelihoods as processes allows one to view the relationship between, economic growth and social equity, or sustainability and vulnerability not in either terms, but as more complex relationships where the existence of such contradictions is a part of the process. An added advantage of the VA model, and its natural link to SL, is that it recognizes that not everybody is equally at risk and therefore takes coping and adaptive strategies as the entry point for developing strategies. Thus, using this framework, one can state that the most vulnerable livelihood systems can be identified as those which

3.5 Model of Dynamic Livelihoods

31

are most exposed to perturbations, which possess the most limited coping capacity and suffer the most from the impact of a crisis or environmental perturbations, and which are endowed with limited potential for recovery. Accordingly, the prescriptive and normative response to vulnerability-the SL approach- is to reduce exposure, enhance coping capacity, strengthen recovery potential, and finally create, maintain and enhance an enabling environment within which people can realize their livelihood aspirations. It needs to be pointed out that peoples adaptive strategies are a function of their position on vulnerability.

3.5 Model of Dynamic Livelihoods A nonlinear model of livelihood evolution can explain how the elements that constitute a livelihood system change over time. The model of change extends the work of Gould (1980). Braudel’s is a three-fold model that differentiates change between the instant (at the level of everyday occurrences), the cyclical (less transitory change) and structural in nature (where change is virtually imperceptible). Applying the Braudelian scheme of change to livelihood systems, the change in livelihood systems can be categorized as interaction change, rank order change, or change in constitutive units. Interaction change is manifested at the individual or household level of decision making, for example, in daily coping strategies. Rank order change pertains to cyclical changes, for example, seasonal shifts in capabilities of different livelihood groups. Also, one can find the livelihood strategies which individuals or households undertake as either vulnerable or sustainable in different seasons. Finally, change in constitutive units (unit change), for example, the change in the governance structure, is similar to the Braudelian scheme. This type of change or transformation does not happen often. Based on the above information, the idea of the space of a livelihood system can be defined by three distinct processes which are linked through a tripartite structure (See Fig. 3.2). The three sides of the analytical triangle are Human Ecology, Expanded Entitlements, and Policy Matrix. The core of the triangle comprises coping and adaptive strategies of the livelihood group. Coping and adaptive strategies are reactive and proactive decisions by the livelihood groups for reducing risk, regaining their EXPOSURE

Fig. 3.2 Analytical framework for sustainable livelihood

HUMAN ECOLOGY

EXPANDED ENTITLEMENT

CAPACITY

POTENTIALITY POLITICAL MATRIX

32

3 Perspectives on Sand Mining and Sustainability

capacities and capabilities, and maintaining or enhancing their livelihood options by creating a positive change in their lives. Each point of the triangle (that is exposure, potentiality and capacity) represents a network of interconnected ideas and indicators that can be categorized based on processes, structures, values, and decisions. Ideally, one can understand the three sides concerning one another in addition to the points of the triangle which help shape decision-making. For example, the impact of policies on adaptive strategies of subsistence farmers needs to be understood concerning the quality of resource base on which they depend and also within the context of the social milieu (some notion of social capital). In a general sense, the human ecology side of the triangle refers to the relations between nature and human society. The emphasis in the model of a livelihood system emphasizes the relationship between livelihood systems, reproduction (population growth), and consumption patterns and their implications for sustainability. This relationship raises several pertinent issues. One of the questions is, whether livelihood activities maintain and enhance, or deplete and degrade, the local natural resource base. On the positive side, livelihood activities can improve the productivity of renewable resources like air and river water, organic soil fertility, and trees. On the negative side, livelihood activities may contribute to sand mining, desertification, deforestation, soil erosion, declining water tables, salinization, pollution, and the like. The major concern here is whether livelihood activities make a net positive or negative contribution to the long-term (environmental) sustainability of other livelihoods? Livelihood activities can be regarded as unsustainable if they have a net negative effect on the adaptive capacities and recovery potential of people themselves, others, future generations, or the physical environment.

3.6 Summary This section has dwelt with the intricate principles and theories as well as the concept that underline sand mining as an activity and a vocation. Sand mining is predicated on sustainability theory as well as livelihood concepts. As an economic activity sand mining is a very profitable venture and livelihood that many residents of the coastal regions of the world have found to be engaged. Due to the livelihood dimensions of sand mining it is increasingly difficult to exterminate the activity despite its potential environmental negative consequences.

References Adeoti, S., & Peter, A. (2018). Appraisal of sand mining activities at Ado Ekiti, Ekiti State Nigeria. International Journal of Research, 5(19), 617–629.

References

33

Ashraf, M. A., Maah, M. J., Yusoff, I., Wajid, A., & Mahmood, K. (2011). Sand mining effects, causes, and concerns: A case study of Bestari Jaya, Selangor Peninsular Malaysia. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(6), 1216–1231. Duley, C., & Deller, S. (2014). The economics of sand mining in Buffalo County. http://www.res earchgate.et/publication/259739529. Gavriletea, M. D. (2017). Environmental impacts of sand exploitation: Analysis of sand market. Sustainability, 9, 1118(26 pages). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071118. Gould, S. J. (1980). The Panda’s thumb: More reflections in natural history (1st edn.). Norton. Hilton, M. J. (1994). Applying the principle of sustainability to coastal sand mining: The case of Pakiri-Mangawhai Beach, New Zealand. Environmental Management, 18(6), 815–829. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF02393612. Koehnken, L., Rintoul, M. S., Goichot, M., Tickner, D., Loftus, A., & Acreman, M. C. (2020). Impacts of riverine sand mining on freshwater ecosystems: A review of the scientific evidence and guidance for future. River Research and Applications, 36, 362–370. Madyise, T. (2013). Case studies on environmental impacts of sand mining and gravel extraction for urban development in Gaborone. A. Masters Degree Thesis. Padmalal, D., & Maya, K. (2014). Sand mining environmental impacts and selected case studies (p. 5). Springer. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/2F978-94-017-9144-1.pdf. Rais, M., Abdullah, R., Malik, E., Mahmuda, D., Pardana, D., Abdullah, L. O. D., Dja’wa, A., Suriadi, Jasiyah, R., Naping, H., & Manuhutu, F. Y. (2019). Impact of sand mining on social economic conditions of community. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 343012132. http://www.iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755=1315/343/1/0121322. Saviour, N. M. (2012). Environmental impacts of soil and sand mining: A review. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, 1(3), 125–134. Tastet, E. (2019). Stealing beaches: A law and economics policy analysis of sand mining. LSU Journal of Energy Law & Resources, 7(2), 11. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jelr/vol7/iss 2/11. Turner, B. L., & Lambin, E. F. (2007). The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 52, 20666–20671. UNEP. (2019). Sand and sustainability: Finding new solutions for environmental governance of global sand resources. United Nations Environment programme. WCED (1987). Our Common Future. Washington DC: World Commission on Environment and Development

Chapter 4

Lagos Coastal Region and Study Design

This chapter discusses the study location, the research design—data collection and analytical techniques for the study. It describes the study area geometrics, physical and socio-economic attributes, the types and sources of data used, sampling techniques, sample size, research instrument and administration of instrument as well as the different statistical techniques used to analyze data collected from the field survey.

4.1 Lagos Coastal Areas The Nigerian coastal region straddles on about 853 km from the south western to the south eastern region of the country. As indicated in Fig. 4.1. Nigeria is a country with an extensive coastal territory on the Gulf of Guinea along the Atlantic Ocean with several communities including Lagos, Lekki, Portharcout, Calabar, Warri, Yenagoa, Ilaje, Forcados, Akasa, Nembe, Bonny, Eket, Brass and many others. Lagos the sand mining area of interest for this study enjoys substantial coastal territory of about 75 km length extending from Badagry on the Westerns flank to Epe on the Eastern flank of State. The study area consisted of four Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Lagos Nigeria namely Badagry, Ojo, Amuwo-Odofin, and Eti-Osa. As indicated in Fig. 4.2, the four areas are coastal settlements sharing boundaries with lagoons and the Atlantic Ocean. Badagry is located outside of the Metropolis on the western flank of Lagos while Ojo, Amuwo-Odofin and Eti-Osa are within the Metropolitan area of Lagos. The Lagos Metropolitan Area (MLA) which forms the Lagos Megacity region consists of 16 LGAs that are located between 3°22' 0'' E and 3°24' 0'' E and Latitudes 6°22' 30'' N and 6°30' 30'' N. The Badagry Creek and Ojo LGAs are on the western flank, while Eti-Osa LGA is on the eastern flank and Amuwo-Odofin LGA is located in between them. The Lagos coastal areas cover over 60% of the total land areas of Lagos and are areas with more natural vegetation and with soil and geologic © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. R. Aliu et al., Sand Mining in African Coastal Regions, SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16522-1_4

35

36

4 Lagos Coastal Region and Study Design

Fig 4.1 The coastal region of Nigeria

Fig 4.2 The study area lagos showing the coastal communities

formations of the pre-Cambrian era. The climate is tropical type with mean daily temperature of about 30 °C, annual mean rainfall of about 1,532 mm, two major seasons namely the dry season between November and March and the wet season spanning between April and October (Odumosu et al., 1999) (Fig. 4.3).

4.1 Lagos Coastal Areas

37

Fig 4.3 The sampling units

The major vegetation consists of tropical swamp forest (fresh water/mangrove swamp forests and dry lowland rain forest). The drainage system consists of Lagoons and creeks that occupy almost 22% of the state’s total landmass. The area is drained by River Ogun at the centre, River Osun towards the east while it is drained by River Yewa in the west. As at 2006 when the last national census was held in Nigeria by NPC, Lagos was 9, 684,105 (NPC, 2006)—a population that was widely contested as undercounted by the Lagos State Government. Currently based on NPC projection the population of Lagos is about 15, 087,520. The Lagoon areas of Lagos occupy about 40% with 12 million people of the population (Sridhar et al., 2019). Lagos city is located in riverine, water logged coastal environment with sensitive ecological system that creates land management challenges (Aliu, 2016). Traditionally, the residents are fishermen and farmers, but have in recent decades turned to sand mining as means of livelihood. The sand mining activity is common in all communities that share boundaries directly with the ocean and the Lagoon. Fourteen (14) of these communities namely Ajido, Topo, Gberefu in Badagry; Otto, Era, Ijede, and Muwo in Ojo; Abule-Osun, Imore and Ijegun in Amuwo-Odofin; Sangotedo, Ajah, Ilaje and Ikota in Eti-Osa were covered in the study (See Plates 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5).

38

4 Lagos Coastal Region and Study Design

Plate 4.1 Sand mining site @ Gberefu Badagry Lagos

Plate 4.2 Sand mining site @ Otto Ojo Lagos

4.2 Population and Economy Lagos is home to the Awori and Ogu people of Yoruba ethnic group in SouthWestern Nigeria. The Ogu people are majorly confined to Badagry area while the Aworis are found in all parts of Lagos. The Lagos Metropolitan Area including the study area as at 2006 had a population of 6, 684,105, which was nearly 50% of Lagos total population of 9,013,534 (NPC, 2006). As indicated in Table 4.1, the largest of the four LGAs covered is Ojo with a population of 598, 071 in 2006 and 838,900 in 2016, and the smallest LGA is Badagry with a population of 241,093 in 2006 and 327,400 in 2016. The National Bureau of Statistics’ population estimates put Lagos Metropolitan Area at 10,778,000 in 2011 and 12,634,000 in 2016 (NBS, 2016). Majority of Lagos megacity including the study area is located in riparian

4.2 Population and Economy

39

Plate 4.3 Sand mining site @ Era Ojo

Plate 4.4 Sand mining site @ Sandgotedo Etiosa Lagos

water logged coastal environment within sensitive ecological zones which create land management challenges (Aliu, 2016). The study area as a part of Lagos Metropolitan Area (LMA) has very strong and complex economy. Majority of the residents engage in informal activities like trading, fishing, cottage production and sand mining. As the most virile economy in Nigeria, Lagos accounted for 26.7% of Nigeria total GDP in 2015. It is the economic nerve

40

4 Lagos Coastal Region and Study Design

Plate 4.5 Sand mining site @ Ijede Ojo Lagos

Table 4.1 Population of the study area LGA

Areas covered in Km2

Population from 1991 to 2016 1991

2006

2016

Amuwo-Odofin

225,823

318,166

453,000

134.6

Badagry

119,267

241,093

327,400

393.9

Eti-Osa

157,387

287,785

390,800

192.3

Ojo

215,837

598,071

838,900

158.2

Source NBS (2016) http://www.citypopulation.de

centre of the nation with over 70% of the industrial entities. Lagos plays host to Apapa port which is the largest maritime port in Africa. The study area comprises major markets like Alaba International Market, Trade Fair Complex, Dangote Oil Refinery, Lagos State University (LASU), 81 Naval Command, Administrative Staff College of Nigeria (ASCON) and other important economic entities. The huge Lagos population and the burgeoning economy are supported by sand markets that are majorly concentrated along the coastal regions of the state. Most of the sand dredging is done in the Creeks and the Lagoon edges that abut the communities. Traditionally, the residents are fishermen and farmers, but have in recent decades turned to sand mining as means of livelihood. The sand mining activity is common in all communities that share boundaries directly with the Atlantic Ocean and the Lagoon. Fourteen (14) of these communities namely Ajido, Topo, Gberefu in Badagry; Otto, Era, Ijede, and Muwo in Ojo; Abule-Osun, Imore and Ijegun in Amuwo-Odofin; Sangotedo, Ajah, Ilaje and Ikota in Eti-Osa were covered in the study (See Figs. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5).

4.2 Population and Economy

41

a 60 50 BADAGRY OJO AMUWO ETIOSA

40 30 20 10 0 FEMALE

MALE

b 90 80 70 60

BADAGRY OJO2 AMUWO ETIOSA

50 40 30 20 10 0 SINGLE

MARRIED

c 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

BADAGRY OJO AMUWO ETIOSA

UNDER 5 YRS

5-10 YRS

11 YRS AND MORE

d 70 60 50 BADAGRY OJO AMUWO ETIOSA

40 30 20 10 0 UNDER 3 PERSONS

3-5 PERSONS

6 PERSONS AND MORE

Fig. 4.4 Demographic characteristics of respondents. a Gender. b Marital status. c Years spent in Lagos. d Household size

42

4 Lagos Coastal Region and Study Design

a 70 60 50 BADAGRY OJO AMUWO ETIOSA

40 30 20 10 0 NO FORMAL/PRIMARY

SECONDARY

TERTIARY

b 100 90 80 70

BADAGRY OJO AMUWO ETIOSA

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 UNEMPLOY

c

FISHING

PRIVATE WORKER

PUBLIC WORKER

70 60 50 BADAGRY OJO AMUWO ETIOSA

40 30 20 10 0 RENTER

LANDLORD

Fig. 4.5 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents. a Educational attainment. b Job status. c Residential status

4.3 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics …

43

4.3 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Coastal Communities The demographic and socio-economic characteristics of Lagos coastal communities around which sands are dredged include the gender, age, marital status, household size, education, employment status and income. Others include length of stay in the neighborhood, ethnicity, and residential status. The summary statistics of these characteristics are shown in Tables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 on the one hand and Figs. 4.4 and 4.5 on the other hand. Firstly, six variables namely gender, age, marital status, place of origin, family size and length of stay were analyzed. Based on gender distribution of residents, information in Table 4.2 shows that the respondents contained nearly equal number (50% each) of female and male. This is interesting because of the implication for gender parity that is desired in social enquiries in the society today. This close number of both female and male residents would engender gender equality and balanced opinions. The Chi-square χ2 of 1.55 at P = 0.671 was however not significant at 95% confidence level showing in terms of gender distribution there was no difference among the communities under study. Following gender was the age distribution of coastal residents investigated. From the mean age of 43.83 years it shows that majority of them were quite young and within the working active age brackets. Further analysis showed that respondents in Badagry areas were the youngest (39.94 years) while those in Ojo were the oldest respondents (44.92 years) interviewed in the four communities. As for the marital status of respondents analysis confirmed that about 76.9% of the residents were married and 23.1% were single including the divorced and separated households. The household sizes of respondents were equally high as households of between 6 members and more were in the majority (58.9%) followed by households of 3–5 members (25.1%). Information on Table 4.2 also shows that majority 51.4% of the respondents in all four communities were non-indigenes from other parts of Nigeria compared to those 48.6% that were from Lagos. Majority of the respondents representing 58.9% had lived more than 11 years in the neighborhoods where they were interviewed. Table 4.3 clearly demonstrates using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) the variation of age and monthly income in the four communities. From this ANOVA table, it is obvious that while there is significant differences in the means of age across the communities given the F = 2.712 at P = 0.045, the difference in the means of income across the communities is not significant given the F = 2.308 at P = 0.077. Table 4.4 shows the socioeconomic characteristics of respondents involved in this study. The socioeconomic characteristics consist in the education, employment, income and residential distributions of Lagos coastal residents. Based on educational attainments of respondents results showed that over 51.40% had secondary school certificates while about 20% were either holders of primary school certificate or absolutely illiterate. As indicated in Fig 4.4 most of the people without formal education were from Badagry communities and those with tertiary education were mostly from the communities in Ojo. However, the Chi-square χ2 of 12.371 at P =

40 (55.6%)

22 (30.6%)

50 (69.4%)

Male

Single

Married

30 (41.6%)

39 (54.2%)

6 persons & more

53 (73.6%)

11 years and more

3–5 persons

13 (18.1%)

5–10 years

3 (4.2%)

6 (8.3%)

Under 3 persons

47 (51.1%)

57 (79.2%)

Lagos

Under 5 years

53 (57.6%)

34 (37.0%)

5 (5.4%)

60 (65.2%)

18 (19.6%)

14 (15.2%)

45 (48.9%)

78 (84.8%)

14 (15.2%)

44 (47.8%)

48 (52.2%)

44.92

Ojo N = 92

15 (20.8%)

Others

32 (44.4%)

39.94

Badagry N = 72

Coastal communities

Female

Source Fieldwork, 2021

Household size

Length of stay

Ethnicity

Marital status

Gender

Age (Mean in years)

Demographic variable

Table 4.2 Demographic characteristics of residents

40 (43.8%)

38 (28.7%)

12 (27.5%)

35 (43.8%)

23 (28.7%)

22 (27.5%)

21 (26.3%)

59 (73.8%)

61 (76.2%)

19 (23.8%)

37 (46.2%)

43 (53.8%)

43.94

Amuwo N = 80

58 (54.7%)

34 (32.1%)

14 (13.2%)

58 (54.7%)

34 (32.1%)

14 (13.2%)

45 (42.5%)

61 (57.5%)

80 (75.5%)

26 (24.5%)

54 (50.9%)

52 (49.1%)

42.15

Etiosa N = 106

206 (58.9%)

88 (25.1%)

56 (16.0%)

206 (58.9%)

88 (25.1%)

56 (16.0%)

170 (48.6%)

180 (51.4%)

269 (76.9%)

81 (23.1%)

175 (50.0%)

175 (50.0%)

42.83

Total N = 350

χ2 = 13.174; DF = 3; P = 0.040

χ2 = 21.532; DF = 3; p = 0.001

χ2 = 44.759; DF = 3; p = 0.000

χ2 = 5.604; DF = 3; p = 0.133

χ2 = 1.551; DF = 3; p = 0.671

Chi-square

44 4 Lagos Coastal Region and Study Design

Sum of squares

59,682.86

63,641.51

4,257,486,209.49

213,282,310,933.37

217,539,797,142.86

Within

Total

349

346

3

349

346

3

DF

24,966.44

34,016.856

21,578.53

20,047.47

16,108.76

11.98

10.43

11.48

12.94

12.91

Std. Dev

Between

Source Fieldwork, 2021

Income

50,050.39

350

Total

Total

106

Etiosa

61,750.00

57,010.87

48,900.52

80

Amuwo

Within

92

Ojo

54,972.22

1149.87

72

Badagry

42.83

42.15

Between

350

Total

Source

106

Etiosa

43.94

Variable

80

Amuwo

44.92

39.94

Mean

Age

Anova

Income

72

92

Ojo

Age

N

Badagry

Community

Variable

Table 4.3 Descriptive statistics of age and income distributions

1334.51

3304.01

2412.55

2090.09

1898.44

0.64

1.01

1.28

1.35

1.52

Sd. error

57,058.16

57,090.27

56,947.93

5289.16

51,186.85

41.58

40.14

41.38

42.24

36.91

616,422,863.97

1,419,162,069.83

141.33

383.29

Mean square

2.30

2.71

F

62,307.56

7192.75

66,552.07

61,162.58

58,757.60

44.09

44.16

46.49

47.60

42.98

Upper

95% Confidence interval for mean Lower

0.077

0.045

Sig

25,000

45,000

25,000

45,000

45,000

20.00

22.00

22.00

22.00

20.00

Min

250,000

250,000

150,000

175,000

125,000

78.00

70.00

75.00

78.00

75.00

Max

4.3 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics … 45

Coastal communities

Landlord

Source Authors fieldwork, 2021

67 (72.8%)

61 (66.3%)

47 (65.3%)

5 (5.4%) 31 (33.7%)

30 (41.7%)

3 (4.2%)

Private worker

Public worker

1 (1.1%)

25 (34.7%)

5 (6.9%)

Fishing/farming

19 (20.7%)

32 (34.8%)

17 (23.6%)

Tertiary

34 (47.2%)

39 (54.2%)

Unemployed

23 (25.0%) 37 (40.2%)

Informal/primary 16 (22.2%)

33 (41.2%)

47 (58.8%)

11 (13.8%)

62 (77.5%)

3 (3.8%)

4 (5.0%)

27 (33.8%)

38 (47.5%)

15 (18.8%)

45 (42.5%)

61 (57.5%)

6 (5.7%)

92 (86.8%)

1 (0.9%)

7 (6.6%)

20 (18.9%)

66 (62.3%)

20 (18.9%)

Badagry (N = 72) Ojo (N = 92) Amuwo (N = 80) Etiosa (N = 106)

Secondary

Residential tenure Renter

Employ

Education

Socio-economic variable

Table 4.4 Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents

186 (53.1%)

164 (46.9%)

25 (7.1%)

251 (71.7%)

10 (2.9%)

64 (18.3%)

96 (27.4%)

180 (51.4%)

74 (21.1%)

χ2 = 20.066; DF = 3; P = 0.000

χ2 = 74.984; DF = 3; P = 0.000

χ2 = 12.371; DF = 3; P = 0.054

Total (N = 350) Chi-square

46 4 Lagos Coastal Region and Study Design

4.4 Research Design and Sampling Procedure

47

0.054 shows a significant difference between the communities at 95% confidence levels. Analysis of the employment status distribution showed that majority of the respondents 71.7% were employed in the private sector while 18.3% were unemployed. The Chi-square χ2 of 74.984 at P = 0.000 shows a significant difference between the communities. As coastal communities about 2.9% were engaged in fishing and farming vocations. Over 47% of the unemployed were actually found in Badagry while the least unemployed 5.0% were from Amuwo-Odofin community. Figure 4.5 also speaks more clearly about the variation in the socio-economic characteristics of respondents considered in this study. Beside employment status this study also considered the income levels of residents and analysis in Table 4.4 showed that majority of the residents earned very low incomes ranging from N25,000.00 ($50.00)1 to N250,000.00 ($500.00) per month. The total mean monthly income of N59, 397.14 though higher than the national minimum wage of N30,000.00 per month but showed a relatively low wage for a more economically competitive region like Lagos where cost of living is very high. The mean distribution of resident income showed that the residents from Amuwo and EtiOsa with N63, 312.00 and N61, 518.00 respectively earned higher income that those from Badagry and Ojo communities. Lastly, the residential status of respondents interviewed was analyzed. Analysis in Table 4.4 showed that majority (53.1%) were landlords occupying their own properties while 46.9% were renters. The Chi-square χ2 of 20.066 at P = 0.000 shows a significant difference between the communities. However, across the communities analysis also showed that in Badagry and Ojo highest proportion of the respondents were land lords as against renters compared to Amuwo and Eti-Osa where majority of the residents were renters as against landlords. The basic reasons for the variation in residential status between the communities was location as Badagry and Ojo are actually on the suburbs of the Lagos city while Amuwo and Eti-Osa were parts of the metropolitan areas of Lagos where it is very hard to build for self occupation due to the pressures from land values and economic rent from leasing housing to renters.

4.4 Research Design and Sampling Procedure The study was a mixed cross sectional survey based research which employed both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. Figure 4.6 shows the research design and methods of data collection and analysis for the study. The study used four sets of data namely primary data, in-depth survey (IDS), secondary data and spatial data. The primary data were drawn from a field survey of the study area using a structured questionnaire with appropriate rating scales. The IDS data was used to explain in more detail issues that could not be tackled using the questionnaire. Secondary data on general environmental issues in Lagos was gotten from the Ministry of Environment, Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency (LASEPA), 1

At the time of this study the official exchange rate of a USD $1.00 to Naira was $1: N466.00.

48

4 Lagos Coastal Region and Study Design Data Collection and Analysis

Results against Objectives

Data from field including geospatial, socioeconomic survey, and IDS on sand mining activities in different locations and sites

SOCIOECONOMIC ATTRIBUTES OF RESIDENTS

Data input process- Coding smoothing and verification

DATABASE OF ATTRIBUTE AND SPATIAL MAPS OF COASTAL SAND MINING ACTIVITY IN LAGOS

Spatial data from GPS on sand mining sites

Sand Mining Activity Data

Socioeconomic & Environmental Data

No

Do Data Address Objectives?

Yes

Analytical tools – maps, graphs, percentages, cross tabulations, ANOVA and factor analysis

SOCIOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF COASTAL SAND MINI9NG

FACTORS THAT DRIVE SAND MINING ACTIVITY IN LAGOS

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS OF SAND MINING

Fig. 4.6 Research design

and the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Some base maps of the region were procured from the ministry of Environment. Spatial data for geographic information systems (GIS) analysis was gotten from the field using Global Positioning System (GPS). The field work for primary data collection was conducted between November 2020 and January 2021.2 The Cochran (1953) equation for sample size estimation 2

The entire study was adversely affected by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic which led to the total lock down of the Nigerian economy for six months between April 30th and October 30th 2020. The most affected part of the study was the fieldwork survey which was delayed till November, 2020. Even after the lock down, the consequences of this pandemic continued to constrain the pace of work and completion of the fieldwork. By the end of January 2021 the fieldwork was concluded and analysis of data commenced. The researchers could only complete the study after providing the field assistants necessary COVID-19 protocols—masks, sanitizers, convenient transport and accommodation.

4.5 Research Instrument and Administration

49

Table 4.5 Sampling of respondents for survey S.no

Community

1.

BADAGRY (Ajido, Gberefu and Topo)

Questionnaire administered 90

Questionnaire retrieved 72

2.

OJO (Otto, Era, Muwo and 120 Ijede)

92

3.

AMUWO-ODOFIN (Abule-Osun, Imore and Ijegun)

90

80

4.

ETIOSA (Sangotedo, Ajah, ILaje and Ikota)

120

106

Total

4

420

350

was used to yield a representative sample of 420 for the population of the study area as presented in Eq. 4.1: s=

Z 2 ∗ p(1 − p) e2

(4.1)

where S represents sample size; Z represents the value at 95% confidence levels usually 1.96; p is the proportion of the target population that could be surveyed usually 50%; e represents the error margin 5%. The equation parameters ordinarily gave a sample of 384 respondents which were rounded off to 420 respondents to allow for shortage due to loss and non-retrieval of questionnaire. Multisampling procedure was used to select the respondents. Firstly, four (4) Local Government Areas out of nine (9) Local Government Areas along the Atlantic Ocean with numerous coastal communities where sand mining activities are thriving— BADAGRY, OJO, AMUWO-ODOFIN and ETIOSA-were selected as the sampling units for the study. Secondly, fourteen (14) coastal communities were selected such that 3 communities were selected in Badagry, 4 communities were selected in OJO, 3 communities were from Amuwo-Odofin and 4 communities from ETIOSA (see Table 4.5). Thirdly, in each selected community 30 respondents were randomly given structured questionnaires to fill. All together 420 respondents were interviewed with the questionnaire. In addition, one sand miner in each sand mining site participated in IDS on sand mining operations and environmental sustainability discourse. However, 350 copies of the questionnaire (83.3%) were retrieved for analysis.

4.5 Research Instrument and Administration The instrument for data collection was a structured questionnaire. The details can be gleaned from Appendix I. The research questionnaire was divided into four sections. Section A consisted of the background data of the respondents; Section B consisted

50

4 Lagos Coastal Region and Study Design

of the Sand mining activities and contributions to development; Section C comprised questions on the socio-environmental impacts of sand mining, while Section D addressed the drivers of sand mining activities in Lagos. Apart from section A that contained pre-coded choice questions, other sections of the questionnaire contained 5 point-Likert-Rating questions aimed at appraising the level of perception of respondents in the study area. The IDS was moderated using structured pre-determined questions which were thrown up to the participants. This method was applied to elicit deeper understanding of the operation of sand miners and their awareness of environmental implications on the residents of this region. In this study, a total of 63 variables covering socio-economic and environmental impacts variables were employed to describe sand mining activities in Lagos. Section A consists of eleven (11) socio-economic variables namely location, gender, age, marital status, household size, place of origin, educational attainment, job status, income level and residential tenure used to capture the background information of the respondents. Section B consists of fifteen (15) items used to describe the sand mining contribution variables such as level of awareness, direct benefit, jobs provision, sand for building, sand for housing, sand for construction, cash for residents, economic potential, revenue for government, protection against floods, improvement on navigation, while section C consists of twenty-four (24) socio-environmental impact variables such as water quality, ecological condition, change in aquatic biodiversity, erosion, flooding, livelihood risk, house collapse, feuds in community, accidentdrowning, and general insecurity. Section D consists of thirteen (13) variables to measure the drivers of sand mining activities. Beside the socioeconomic variables other variables in the study were measured using 5-point-Likert scale. The scores were aggregated for each domain and the weighted average of the scores was found.

4.6 Training of Field Assistants We employed four (4) field assistants to assist in the collection of primary data for the study. The field assistants were undergraduate students of Geography and Planning Lagos State University Ojo Lagos Nigeria who were specially trained to carry out the administration of the instrument on the respondents in 4 Local Government Areas of Lagos. They were taught how to explain and interpret the contents of the questionnaire since majority of the target population were known a priori to be less literate. The four students were indigenes of the study areas and could speak the local languages spoken in the communities. This was to facilitate easy interaction with the community, engender residents’ confidence and safety of the field work team members. The field assistants could speak English, Pidgin English, Yoruba and Ogu the local dialect of the Ogu people of Badagry. They were trained on the handling of GPS for collection of spatial data and instructed to observe all COVID-19 protocols.

4.9 Summary

51

4.7 Ethical Issues The study employed and considered all ethical issues in research as stipulated in the LASU Research Policy 2020. The respondents were well informed of the purpose of the study, the voluntary participation, and confidentiality of responses as well as the anonymity of respondents. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the field assistant and respondents were asked to observe all the protocols.

4.8 Analytical Techniques The data collected were organized, smoothened, coded and computed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0. The study used a number of statistical and geo-spatial techniques for analysis of data. Firstly, the descriptive statistics such as frequencies and percentages derived from the analysis were presented in tables and charts to describe and organize information on various issues addressed by the study objectives. Secondly, the multivariate statistical techniques such as Chi-square χ2 and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) used to estimate significant differences in variables of interest across sand mining locations and communities as well as factor analysis were used to show the main factors underlining sand dredging activity and drivers in the region and. To facilitate the FACTOR and ANOVA analyses the variables were normalized so that they assumed normal distribution—as a condition for using the multivariate statistics. Finally, the summarized indices of social, economic, environmental, and physical domains were exported into the ArcGIS10 environment to generate spatial patterns of sand mining activities across the region.

4.9 Summary Almost all communities located around the Atlantic Coastal region in Lagos are engaging in sand mining activity. The reason for this is quite clear because of the fact that sand extracted from the creeks and coastal regions are more in demand for construction and housing development in Lagos and other parts of the South Western region. In fact some of these sands are exported to nearby Countries around Nigeria. For a proper analysis of sand mining in Lagos coastal region we used a well designed framework, multi-stage random sampling and both descriptive and multivariate analytical techniques. These analytical techniques followed the objectives of the study.

52

4 Lagos Coastal Region and Study Design

References Aliu, I. R. (2016). Marginal land use and value characterizations in Lagos: Unraveling the drivers and implications for sustainability. Environment Development and Sustainability, 18(4), 1615–1634. Cochran, W. G. (1953). Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley NPC (2006). National Population Commission’s Census. NPC, Abuja NBS (2016). National Bureau of Statistics Population Projection. NBS Abuja Odumosu, T., Balogun, Y., & Ojo, K. (1999). Location and regional setting of Lagos State. In Y. Balogun, T. Odumosu, & K. Ojo (Eds.), Lagos in maps (Chapter 1, pp. 1–3). Rex Charles Publication. Sridhar, M. K. C., Ana, G. R. E. E., & Laniyan, T. A. (2019). Impact of sand mining and sea reclamation on the environment and socioeconomic activities of Ikate and Ilubirin coastal low income communities in Lagos Metropolis, Southwestern Nigeria. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 7, 190–205. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2019.72013

Chapter 5

Sand Mining Sites Analysis

This chapter of the study provides the results from the data analyses, their organization and presentation, as well as the discussion of the relevance of the results in light of the objectives and existing studies. The chapter is organized in four sections. Firstly, the sand mining sites and operations are described in detail. The negative impacts of sand mining activities on the environment and communities around them are analyzed. The beneficial impacts of sand mining to the adjoining communities are analyzed. Lastly, the drivers of sand mining activities are discussed extensively.

5.1 Sand Mining Sites and Operational Characterization in Lagos Sand mining or dredging activities are carried out in many areas of Logos coastal communities. Our regular visits and fieldworks to the four coastal regions of Lagos namely Badagry, Ojo, Amuwo-Odofin and Eti-Osa showed that sand mining is widely practiced in virtually all the regions. Fourteen (14) mining sites were discovered from the fieldworks conducted to the coastal communities. The sites are Gberefu, Topo, and Ajido in Badagry, Otto, Era, Igbede and Muwo in Ojo area, Imore, Abule, Ijegun in Amuwo area and Sangotedo, Ilaje, Ikota and Ajah in Eti-Osa area. A close study of the sites and their operations revealed that the sand mining activities are organized and well entrenched in Lagos. We studied the organizations using the following variables—sand miners operational status, scale of operation, length of years, area of operation area relative to road, operational area relative to river or sea, number of workers, mass of sand dredged, payment to government and community leaders. Results are presented in Figs. 5.1 and 5.2. Information in Figs. 5.1 and 5.2 shows that majority of the miners were formally registered, with the relevant government and professional bodies, they are majorly small scale operators, they have been in operation for very long time and they employ © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. R. Aliu et al., Sand Mining in African Coastal Regions, SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16522-1_5

53

54 Fig. 5.1 Operational features of sand mining activities

5 Sand Mining Sites Analysis

a 70

64%

60 FORMAL

50 40

INFORMAL

36%

30 20 10 0

b 70

OPERATIONAL STATUS 64%

60

SMALL MEDIUM LARGE

50 40 30 22% 20

14%

10 0

c

SCALE OF OPERATION

80

72%

70 60 UNDER 5 5 to 10 11 & MORE

50 40 30 20

14%

14%

10 0 YEARS IN OPERATION

d 60

57% COMPLEX SIMPLE

50 43% 40 30 20 10 0 MACHINERY USED

5.1 Sand Mining Sites and Operational Characterization in Lagos

Fig. 5.2 Spatial dimensions of sand mining operations

55

56

5 Sand Mining Sites Analysis

complex machinery to extract sand from the wetlands and the Atlantic Ocean in Lagos. This means that sand mining activities in Lagos costal zones are well organized and perhaps controlled by the relevant environmental and official agencies in the state. Sand mining is a thriving business along the coastal region of Lagos and this vocation has become an economic and livelihood matter with different social and economic underlying interests. As indicated in Fig. 5.3a sand mining is a major labor employer as majority of the mining outfits employed more than 11 people with different skills and capacities including engineers, local divers, unskilled dredgers, and loaders. The multiplier effects of mining activities also make the participation of other groups such as drivers, and truck pushers relevant in the business. Figure 5.3b showed that the mass of sand dredged daily in Lagos coastal areas was huge. Majority of the observed sites dredged over 16 tons per day. Figure 5.3c shows that most of the sites uploaded over 21 trucks of 16 * 14 tons daily (Total sand dredged = no of trucks * truck tons * no of sites covered). These translate to about 4,704 tons daily, 141,120 tons monthly and about 1,693,440 tons of sand per annum. This is a huge extraction from both the terra firma and terra incognito parts of the ecological system. Since sand mining in Lagos has become more of a livelihood and an economic concern, the activity has been a source of revenue to both government and groups. In order to establish the involvement of community and government in sand mining activity in the state the charges paid by the sand mining entrepreneurs are investigated and analysis as indicated in Fig 5.3 shows that they paid different amount of money depending on the scale of operation to both governments and the community leaders. Three tiers of government in Nigeria that are involved in land and water resources collect money from sand miners. Figure 5.4 (Fig. 5.4a, b) shows that sand miners are paying relevant agencies and individuals for mining across the coastal region of Lagos. The federal government represented by the National Inland Waterways Agency (NIWA),1 the State government represented State Inland Waterways Agency (SIWA) and the Local Government Area collect money from these sand miners regularly. Although we found it difficult extracting the actual fees paid to these tiers of government empirical evidence shows that all tiers of government collect certain yearly dues from the operators. Also the local community leaders under the suzerainty of the ‘Oba or Baale’ collect as a pre-condition for operation an undisclosed sum of money for peaceful operation within the coastal area adjoining their territories. In fact, the emerging facts about sand mining activities in Lagos indicate that both formal and informal agencies are being settled regularly to keep the activity going.

1

NIWA issues licenses for inland navigation, piers, jetties and dockyards; examine and survey inland watercraft and shipyard operators, grants permit and licenses for sand dredging, pipeline construction, dredging of slot and approves designs and construction of inland river crafts.

5.1 Sand Mining Sites and Operational Characterization in Lagos

a 80 71% 70 60 50 LESS 10 40

11 AND MORE 29%

30 20 10 0

b

NUMBER OF WORKERS

60 50%

50

40

36%

LESS THAN 10 TONS 10-15 TONS 16 TONS & MORE

30

20 14% 10

0 MASS OF SAND

c 30 25%

25

LESS THAN 10 10-20 TRUCKS 21 TRUCKS AND MORE

20 15

15% 11%

10 5 0 NUMBER OF TRUCKS

Fig. 5.3 Mass of sand dredged daily in Lagos

57

58 Fig. 5.4 Operational charges paid to governments and communities

5 Sand Mining Sites Analysis

a 100

93%

90 80 70 60

LG/STATE/FEDERAL NONE

50 40 30 20 7%

10 0

b

OPERATIONAL CHARGES

100 90

86%

80 70 60

COMMUNITY LEADERS

50

NONE

40 30 20

14%

10 0 OPERATIONAL CHARGES

5.2 Analysis of Socio-Economic Benefits of Sand Mining From available literature and experience it is obvious that sand mining is a thriving economic business which fetches huge economic and social benefits to the operators as well as the residents as individuals or as community leaders. For this reason we observed the level of benefits accruable from sand mining to the communities in our study. Results from this observation as put in Table 5.1 showed that 97.7% of the residents agreed that sand mining activities in their domains actually give some economic and social benefits. This level of agreement was similar in all the communities covered. Further analysis also showed that the type of benefit mostly

5.3 Summary

59

Table 5.1 Benefits of sand mining to the coastal communities Benefit variable

Benefitted

Benefit type

Communities

Total (N = 350)

Chi-square

1 (0.9%)

8 (2.3%)

105 (99.1%)

342 (97.7%)

χ2 = 15.497; DF = 3; P = 0.001

Badagry (N = 72)

OJO (N = 92)

AMUWO (N = 80)

ETIOSA (N = 106)

No

6 (8.5%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.3%)

Yes

66 (91.5%)

92 (100.0%)

79 (98.8%)

As worker

4 (5.6%)

12 (13.0%) 17 (21.2%)

11 (10.4%) 44 (12.6%)

Cheaper Sand

3 (4.1%)

2 (2.2%)

8 (10.0%)

7 (6.6%)

Money

11 (15.3%)

4 (4.4%)

12 (15.0%)

14 (13.2%) 41 (11.7%)

None

54 (75.0%)

74 (80.4%) 43 (53.8%)

74 (69.8%) 245 (70.0%)

20 (5.7%)

χ2 = 9.932; DF = 3; P = 0.128

Source Authors fieldwork, 2021

enjoyed around the communities included being engaged as sand mining workers (12.6%) followed by getting money from the miners (11.7%) and purchasing cheaper sand from the sand miners (5.7%). However, a whooping 245 respondents or 70% of them did not enjoy any of the three benefits from the sand mining activities in their communities. This is to say that though the sand mining activity generates economic opportunities around the sites yet only very few residents could tap into these opportunities. While there was a significant difference between the communities in terms of the benefit of sand mining activities as depicted by the Chi-square χ2 of 15.497 at p < 0.05, there was no significant difference between the communities on the account of benefit types received by the residents given Chi-square χ2 of 9.932 at p > 0.05.

5.3 Summary Empirical results of data analysis based on the objectives of the case study have shown that the sand mining sites are very many some are large while some are small scale operators. These sand mining operators used both simple and complex machinery to extract sand and suck sand away from the bed of the creeks and coastal beaches. This activity has assumed a livelihood dimension that benefit both the operators and some of the residents around the mining sectors as well as the government who derive magnificent revenues from taxation and special levies.

Chapter 6

Drivers and Impacts of Sand Mining

This chapter of the study provides the results the drivers and impacts of sand mining in Lagos coastal regions. Firstly, the different factors that drive sand mining activity in the coastal areas of Lagos are analyzed. Secondly, the negative impacts of sand mining activities on the environment and communities around them are analyzed.

6.1 Drivers of Sand Mining in Coastal Areas of Lagos Despite the increasing adverse effects of sand mining on the coastal environment and communities, the vocation has continued to subsist and even grow. The reason for this continuous growth of sand mining in the Lagos coastal regions cannot be divested from the benefiting effects of the activity to both individuals and governments. Certainly, the varying factors that have kept sand mining activity in operation perpetually are the drivers of the vocation and they are many. Table 6.1 consists of results on the drivers of sand mining activities in the coastal communities of Lagos. There are thirteen (13) variables that drive sand mining in Lagos and these include job sources, marginal plain, livelihood, economic gain, economic viability, revenues and taxes, housing development, urbanization, community support, syndicate and groups, concealment, government policy and poverty alleviation. Particularly from Table 6.3, it is very clear that community support (M = 4.42), syndicate group (M = 4.27), housing development (M = 4.20), urbanization (M = 4.17) and revenues for government (M = 4.11) constituted the major factors that drive sand mining activities in Lagos. Other very important variables include economic gain (M = 3.90), livelihood (M = 3.83), poverty (M = 3.82) and viability (M = 3.75) and concealment (M = 3.60). Of course, the least factors that drive sand mining in the study area were marginal plain (M = 2.83), job (M = 2.65) and policy (M = 2.50). From the information in Table 6.1 it is very clear that community support, syndicate, housing, urbanization, economic viability, poverty and government support are © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. R. Aliu et al., Sand Mining in African Coastal Regions, SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16522-1_6

61

62

6 Drivers and Impacts of Sand Mining

Table 6.1 Descriptive statistics of drivers of sand mining Sand mining driver

Min

Max

Total mean

Badagry mean

Ojo mean

Amuwo mean

Etiosa mean

Community support

1.00

5.00

4.4229

4.1528

4.5543

4.3250

4.5660

Syndicate group

1.00

5.00

4.2657

4.1528

4.4239

4.1125

4.3208

Housing

1.00

5.00

4.2029

3.7817

4.1630

4.2375

4.4906

Urbanization

1.00

5.00

4.1657

3.6111

4.1522

4.2125

4.5189

Revenues & taxes

1.00

5.00

4.1086

3.3750

4.1739

4.1375

4.5283

Economic gain

1.00

5.00

3.8971

3.5000

3.9348

4.0125

4.0472

Livelihood

1.00

5.00

3.8314

2.9861

4.1196

3.7750

4.1981

Poverty

1.00

5.00

3.8171

4.0139

3.9565

3.8500

3.5377

Viability

1.00

5.00

3.7457

3.3056

3.7283

3.7250

4.0755

Concealment

1.00

5.00

3.6029

3.4167

3.4783

3.5875

3.8491

Marginal plain 1.00

5.00

2.8286

3.1250

2.8696

2.2250

3.0472

Job

1.00

5.00

2.6514

3.2361

2.7065

2.2500

2.5094

Government policy

1.00

5.00

2.2971

2.6944

2.3913

1.9875

2.1792

Source Authors field work, 2021

major drivers of sand mining activities in Lagos. Variation also exists between and among the communities based upon their perception of the drivers of sand mining. As could be seen in Table 6.2, results from the ANOVA indicated there were significant differences in the means of the drivers of sand mining among the four communities as most of F-test values were significant at p < 0.05. However, the only exception to these general trend was syndicate variable with F-test 2.492 at p = 0.06 which was marginally insignificant at 95% confidence level. More information on the analyses of the drivers of sand mining in the coastal areas of Lagos could be gleaned from Appendix IV. Due to the multiple variables or indicators of drivers of sand mining, we further analyzed the data using principal component analysis (PCA) which helped to reduce and re-order the indicators into smaller but more meaningful components. Table 6.3 shows the results from the PCA analysis of the factors. From this table it is glaring that the 13 drivers could be summarized into 4 major components. The first component tagged URBAN HOUSING was from six variables namely housing development, urbanization, syndicate, community support, concealment and revenues. The first component accounted for 32.60% of the variance in the data. The second extracted component was captioned LIVELIHOOD because three variables namely economic viability, economic gain and livelihood loaded strongly on it and the component accounted for 12.87% of the total variance.

6.1 Drivers of Sand Mining in Coastal Areas of Lagos

63

Table 6.2 ANOVA of drivers of sand mining activities in Lagos Sum of squares DF

Sand mining driver Job

Between groups Within groups

Marginal plain

Between groups Within groups

Livelihood

Between groups Within groups

Economic gain

Between groups Within groups

Viability

Between groups Within groups

Revenues & taxes

Between groups Within groups

Housing

Between groups Within groups

Urbanization

Between groups Within groups

Community support Between groups Within groups Syndicate group

Between groups Within groups

Government policy Concealment

693.553 40.690 483.024 73.594

Mean square F-test

3 13.307 3 13.563 3 24.531 346 1.368

14.937

3 4.979

431.360

346 1.247

25.538

3 8.513

444.831

346 1.286

57.879

3 19.293 3 7.063

257.407

346 0.744

214.830

3 11.853

9.782

3 3.261

273.635

346 0.791

5.420

3 1.807

250.869

346 0.725 3 7.108

Within Groups

429.773

346 1.242

Between groups Within groups

3.994 0.008 6.621 0.000 19.519 0.000 9.494 0.000 19.090 0.000

346 0.621

21.324

Between groups

17.927 0.000

346 988

21.190 35.558

9.716 0.000

346 1.396

473.461

341.995

Sig.

6.639 0.000

346 2.004

Between groups

Within groups Poverty

39.922

10.368

3 3.456

433.429

346 1.253

12.936

3 4.312

501.361

346 1.449

4.123 0.007 2.492 0.060 5.723 0.001 2.759 0.042 2.976 0.032

Source Authors fieldwork, 2021

The third extracted component was JOB primarily because the variables that loaded highly on the component namely job and marginal plain are related to the ecological conditions of the areas. The component accounted for 10.71% of the variance. The fourth component extracted was captioned POLICY because the two highly loaded variables policy and poverty alleviation are related to government policy. This component actually accounted for 8.25% of the total variance. All the four components accounted for 64.43% of the variance. Hence, the whole 13 sand mining drivers-variables could be summarized by just 4 uncorrelated components which give greater clarity and understanding of the fundamental drivers of sand mining in the coastal regions of Lagos.

64

6 Drivers and Impacts of Sand Mining

Table 6.3 PCA of drivers of sand mining activities in Lagos Sand mining driver variable

Component Urban housing

Economic livelihood

Job suitability

Policy

Communality

Mean

Housing

0.790

0.363

−0.056

0.018

0.759

4.2029

Urbanization

0.775

0.361

−0.149

0.008

0.753

4.1657

Syndicate group

0.762

−0.003

0.182

0.127

0.630

4.2657

Community support

0.757

0.098

0.123

−0.230

0.651

4.4229

Concealment

0.643

0.105

−0.045

0.213

0.472

3.6029

Revenue and taxes

0.506

0.470

−0.133

−0.263

0.564

4.1086

Viability

0.101

0.800

0.087

0.095

0.667

3.7457

Economic gain

0.189

0.783

0.069

0.098

0.664

3.8971

Livelihood

0.196

0.678

0.229

−0.182

0.684

3.8314

Job

0.019

0.125

0.822

0.163

0.719

2.6514

Marginal plain

−0.008

0.102

0.816

−0.072

0.681

2.8296

Government policy

−0.111

−0.040

−0.050

0.812

0.677

2.2971

Poverty

0.363

0.083

0.214

0.608

0.554

3.8171

Eigen value

4.24

1.67

1.39

1.07

% Variance explained

32.60

12.87

10.71

8.25

% Total variance explained

32.60

45.47

56.18

64.43

Source Authors fieldwork, 2021

6.2 Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining Table 6.4 consists of results on the socio-environmental impacts of sand mining activities on the immediate communities. Accordingly, eighteen (18) variables were put to the residents to evaluate their opinions on the negative impacts of sand mining on the society and the environment. Results showed that in terms of negative impacts sand dredging was the major cause of noise, public health, road damage, erosion in the coastal communities of Lagos. From Table 6.4 it is very clear that these five variables with mean ranging from 4.2286 to 3.6029 summarized the worst effects of dredging in Lagos. Of course, the least effects of sand mining were on farm, vegetation, water and animals. The order of impacts among the communities is tenuous as in most of the communities impacts of sand mining activities on noise, public health, road damage and

6.2 Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining

65

Table 6.4 Descriptive statistics of environmental impacts of sand mining Impact variables

Min

Max

Total mean

Badagry mean

Ojo mean

Amuwo mean

Etiosa mean

Impact on noise

1.00

5.00

4.2286

3.8451

4.0753

4.3250

4.5472

Impact on dusts

1.00

5.00

3.9571

3.8732

3.5161

3.8250

4.5000

Impact on roads

1.00

5.00

3.9029

3.6761

3.7419

4.3500

3.8585

Impact on erosion

1.00

5.00

3.6257

3.4930

3.7849

3.4625

3.6981

Impact on flood

1.00

5.00

3.6029

3.4085

3.7742

3.5125

3.6509

Impact on terrain

1.00

5.00

3.2314

3.6479

3.3441

3.2625

2.8302

Impact on landslide

1.00

5.00

3.1200

3.4648

3.2258

2.9875

2.8962

Impact on fishing

1.00

5.00

3.0486

3.2535

3.4409

2.4625

3.0094

Impact on traffic

1.00

5.00

2.8600

2.8169

2.0000

2.7375

3.7358

Impact on land value

1.00

5.00

2.8457

3.0845

2.6237

2.7750

2.9340

Impact on geology

1.00

5.00

2.7371

3.4648

2.7204

2.3250

2.5755

Impact on housing

1.00

5.00

2.7257

2.8732

2.4194

2.6645

2.9434

Impact on crops

1.00

5.00

2.5029

3.2394

2.6882

1.7750

2.3962

Impact on farming

1.00

5.00

2.4743

3.2958

2.3763

1.9250

2.4245

Impact on deforestation

1.00

5.00

2.4714

3.0423

2.3978

2.0250

2.4906

Impact on vegetation

1.00

5.00

2.4486

3.2817

2.3548

1.9125

2.3774

Impact on water

1.00

5.00

2.4114

2.8592

2.5376

2.0625

2.2642

Impact on animals

1.00

5.00

2.3714

3.2394

2.4731

1.6875

2.2170

Source Authors fieldwork, 2021

66

6 Drivers and Impacts of Sand Mining

erosion had very high mean values compared to other environmental variables. A cursory look at Table 6.4 again shows that the mean values of the impact variables across communities varied although the first five variables of noise, dust, road, erosion and flood were quite high enough compared to other variables like crops, animals, water and vegetations with low mean values. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) in Table 6.5 however shows that the environmental impacts of sand mining varied across locations significantly. Apart from erosion, flood and residential land all other variables displayed significant variation across the four locations. This simply implies that the respondent perceptions of environmental impacts of sand mining are not the same. This inference confirms variations in the means of their perceptions of sand mining impacts as displayed in the earlier table. Ironically, while almost everybody was affected in one way or the other by the negative externalities of sand mining in Lagos, only few of them actually benefitted directly from the vocation. However, for the multiple variables or indicators of socio-environmental impacts of sand mining, we further analyzed the data using principal component analysis (PCA) and this helped to reduce and re-order the indicators into smaller but more Table 6.5 ANOVA of environmental impacts of sand mining Environmental impact variable Impact on fishing

Between groups

Impact on farming

Between groups

Impact on water

Between groups

Impact on vegetation

Between groups

Impact on terrain

Between groups

Impact on erosion

Between groups

Impact on flood

Between groups

Impact on landslide

Between groups

Impact on deforestation

Between groups

Impact on crops

Between groups

Within groups Within groups Within groups Within groups Within groups Within groups Within groups Within groups Within groups Within groups

Sum of squares

DF

Mean square

45.484

3

15.161

698.690

346

2.019

71.693

3

23.898

537.575

346

1.554

27.317

3

9.106

597.437

346

1.727

72.132

3

24.044

572.442

346

1.654

29.785

3

9.928

600.469

346

1.735

7.319

3

2.440

698.650

346

2.019

7.538

3

2.513

696.260

346

2.012

16.032

3

5.344

626.928

346

1.812

39.986

3

13.329

441.229

346

1.275

85.344

3

28.448

484.153

346

1.399

F-test

Sig.

7.508

0.000

15.381

0.000

5.274

0.001

14.533

0.000

5.721

0.001

1.208

0.307

1.249

0.292

2.949

0.033

10.452

0.000

20.330

0.000 (continued)

6.2 Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining

67

Table 6.5 (continued) Environmental impact variable Impact on animals

Between groups

Impact on geology

Between groups

Impact on noise

Between groups Within groups

Impact on traffic

Between groups Within groups

Impact on dusts

Between groups

Impact on housing

Between groups

Impact on land value

Between groups

Impact on roads

Between groups

Within groups Within groups

Within groups Within groups Within groups Within groups

Sum of squares

DF

Mean square

F-test

Sig.

31.039

25.656

0.000

13.037

0.000

6.460

0.000

24.355

0.000

9.537

0.000

3.511

0.016

2.030

0.109

3.895

0.009

93.116

3

418.598

346

1.210

52.387

3

17.462

463.431

346

1.339

25.128

3

8.376

448.586

346

1.296

152.407

3

50.802

721.733

346

2.086

50.740

3

16.913

613.618

346

1.773

15.941

3

5.314

523.727

346

1.514

9.093

3

3.031

516.575

346

1.493

22.561

3

7.520

668.136

346

1.931

Source Authors fieldwork, 2021

meaningful components. Table 6.6 shows the results from the PCA analysis of the factors. From this table it is glaring that the 18 indicators of sand mining impacts could be reduced to 4 major components. The first component LIVELIVEHOOD IMPACT was from eight primary variables of impacts of sand mining on crops, animals, farming, geology, deforestation and fishing. This first component accounted for 32.22% of the variance. The second extracted component was captioned ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IMPACT because four primary variables erosion, flood, landslide and terrain constituted environmental risks to the communities and the component accounted for 12.24% of the total variance. The third extracted component was PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT primarily because the variables that loaded highly on the component namely dusts, noise, road damage and traffic constitute public health issues. The component accounted for 10.66% of the variance. The fourth component extracted was captioned BUILT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT because the two highly loaded variables housing and residential land are related to the built environment. This fourth component actually accounted for 6.78% of the total variance. All the four components accounted for 61.90% of the variance which was over twothird of the total variance. With these four components the negative impacts of sand mining activities in the study area was better understood.

0.068 0.241

−0.041

Impact on noise

0.558

0.486

0.059

0.716

Impact on terrain

0.361

Impact on landslide

0.885

0.898

0.275

0.242

Impact on dusts

0.067

0.018

Impact on erosion

Impact on flood

0.492

Impact on fishing

0.044

0.620

0.505

Impact on deforestation

Impact on water

0.173

0.684

Impact on geology

0.144 0.121

0.766

0.755

Impact on vegetation

Impact on farming

0.000 0.019

0.846

0.830

C2-Env. quality

Impact on crops

C1-Live lihoods

Component

Impact on animals

Environmental impact variable

Table 6.6 PCA of environmental impacts of sand mining

0.699

0.716

0.125

0.086

0.217

0.607

0.583

−0.142 0.159

0.574

0.536

0.666

−0.129 0.127

0.842

0.865

0.355

0.424

0.475

0.579

0.642

0.106

0.121

0.193

−0.028 0.198

0.258 0.280

0.149

0.039

0.242

0.017

0.757 0.738

0.020

Communality

−0.004

C4-Built environt

−0.177

0.282

0.001

0.010

0.219

0.199

C3-Public healh

(continued)

4.2286

3.9571

3.2314

3.1200

3.6029

3.6257

3.0486

2.4114

2.4714

2.7371

2.4743

2.4486

2.3714

2.5029

Mean

68 6 Drivers and Impacts of Sand Mining

12.24

32.22

32.22

% Variance explained

% Total variance explained

Source Authors fieldwork, 2021

2.20

5.80

Eigen value

0.016

44.46

0.005

0.168

0.211

Impact on housing

Impact on land values

0.126 0.044

0.165

0.144

C2-Env. quality

Impact on road

C1-Live lihoods

Component

Impact on traffic

Environmental impact variable

Table 6.6 (continued)

55.12

10.66

1.92

0.199

0.224

0.548

0.648

C3-Public healh

61.90

6.78

1.22

0.875

0.882

0.045

0.053

C4-Built environt

0.850

0.857

0.325

0.467

Communality

2.8457

2.7257

2.8600

3.9029

Mean

6.2 Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining 69

70

6 Drivers and Impacts of Sand Mining

6.3 Summary The drivers and environmental impacts of sand mining are very numerous although they have been grouped into sizeable form using principal components analysis (PCA). While the sand mining drivers’ components are grouped into four components namely urban housing, livelihood, job and policy, the PCA results succinctly suggest that environmental effects of sand mining in Lagos can be seen in four components namely environmental quality, public health, built environment and housing.

Chapter 7

Implications for Sustainability and Conclusions

The concluding part of this book discusses the summary, discussion and implications of the findings from the study on coastal sand mining in Lagos. The chapter gives a recap of the several findings from the study, the general discussion of these findings in relation to existing studies, the implications of the findings for environmental sustainability and the built environment in Lagos and other parts of African coastal communities. The chapter also gives recommendations to the environmental and urban stakeholders on how to balance the difference between sand mining as an activity and environmental sustainability.

7.1 Summary of Findings The goal of this study was to give a socio-spatial analysis of sand mining activities and their social environmental impacts on the residents in the coastal areas of Lagos. The questions are—what are the operational patterns of sand mining activities in the coastal areas of Lagos? What are the potential economic benefits and drivers of coastal sand mining activities in Lagos? What are the socio-environmental impacts or risks of sand mining to the coastal communities in Lagos? The specific objectives were to describe the socio-economic attributes of sand mining coastal communities in Lagos, create operational maps of sand mining locations and activities in Lagos State, analyze the sand mining socio-environmental impacts using socio-economic and ecological parameters in the study area, determine the drivers of coastal sand mining in Lagos and assess the housing and environmental sustainability implications of sand mining activities in the study area. From the analyses performed in the study using descriptive—percentages, cross tabulation and maps—ANOVA and PCA techniques, it was clearly revealed that sand mining covered had formal registration with the NIWA and SIWA, operated in low profile, be in operation for a long year, had over 11 workers each, extracted over 21 tons of sand daily and engaged a high © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. R. Aliu et al., Sand Mining in African Coastal Regions, SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16522-1_7

71

72

7 Implications for Sustainability and Conclusions

number of trucks in their fleets. The residents of the four locations covered were actually of low socio-economic groups, benefitted from sand mining activities in their domains, and had access to cheaper sand ostensibly for housing construction purposes. The spatial distribution of these traits using ANOVA showed evidence of gross variation across locations in Lagos. Further analyses of impacts of sand on the adjoining communities showed that sand mining caused noise, dusts, erosion, road damage, and flood in the immediate environment and communities. In fact, the whole impacts could be understood better through the PCA results that identified four clear patterns of impacts namely the livelihood, environmental, public health and builtenvironment components of sand mining impacts in Lagos coastal communities. Intriguingly, in spite of the adverse consequences of sand mining activities in Lagos coastal communities we found that the vocation is thriving basically due to four important reasons which are the need to sand demand for housing development, economic livelihoods, job suitability, and the permissive government policy which due to the drive for more Internally Generated Revenue all forms of government Federal, state and Local governments give tacit support for the business in order to raise more revenues.

7.2 Implications of Sand Mining for Environmental Sustainability The intriguing facts about sand mining globally are its indispensability for urbanization and its risk to environmental sustainability (Gavriletea, 2017). This double-edge nature of sand mining creates a socio-environmental dilemma that requires cautious analysis. Interestingly, this study revealed that sand mining activity in Lagos was driven by urbanization forces such as urban housing, road and bridge construction, livelihood, job and government policy. However, sand mining in Lagos had several negative social and environmental impacts including noise, dusts, road destruction, deforestation, livelihood change, land degradation, flooding, erosion, threat to buildings and water pollution on the built environment in the coastal areas of Lagos. In addition sand mining negatively impacted fishing, farming and water quality in the study area. These negative socio-environmental externalities of sand mining in the coastal regions of Lagos are summarized into four namely livelihood, environmental quality, public health and real-property impacts. While sand mining is driven by urbanization factors the vocation undermines sustainability in the coastal region of Lagos. Of course, these findings relate with existing studies in Ghana, Malaysia, India and Tanzania (Mensah, 1997; Masalu, 2002; Akabzaa, 2009; Asabonga et al., 2017; Ashraf et al., 2011). In Ghana for instance, sand mining activity has led to reduction of farmlands and consequently livelihood security problems (Musah, 2009; Peprah, 2013). Reduced farmlands bring about economic hardships mostly because the

7.2 Implications of Sand Mining for Environmental Sustainability

73

affected people are usually given inadequate compensations (Abuodha & Hayombe, 2006). The activities of sand mining also lead to the destruction of public properties such as roads, electricity poles, telephone masts, underground pipes, and other social amenities which support people’s livelihoods (Collins & Dunne, 1990; Viswanathan, 2002; Saviour, 2012). Sand mining activity further weakens the livelihood foundation of people because it brings about land use conflicts due to its numerous negative externalities (Willis & Garrod, 1999; Rodriguez et al., 2006; Turner et al., 2007). While many studies have been conducted on the physical impacts of sand mining activities in Lagos, however, the present study has clearly extended the knowledge on the nature, drivers and socio-environmental impacts of mining from the perspectives of the residents living around the coastal areas. This is an important contribution to our understanding of the complex socio-environmental nature of sand mining as both a vocation and an environmental sustainability issue. The outcomes of this study have some policy and practical implications for housing and environmental sustainability. On the one hand, sand mining activity has supported implicitly the housing sector as the demand for sharp sand dredged mainly from the sea bed serves to advance the course of urbanization, real estate and the built environment development in Lagos megacity. The urban built environment and the housing industry depend on the sharp sands extracted from the Creeks and Ocean. Access to cheap sand lessens the cost of housing construction, provides opportunities for achieving affordable housing and precludes housing deprivation in the long run. For individual housing, public residential estates and developer property estates, sand is needed and extracted from the coastal areas of Lagos. The Lagos EKO ATLANTIC city was built on the reclamation by the sand drawn from the coast of Atlantic. Many other real estate projects, overhead bridges, road networks across the Lagos metropolitan area are supported by the coastal sand. The sand market generates great profits from urban constructions and property developments and cheaper source of sand to the local residents. On the other hand, sand mining compromises environmental sustainability as the high mass of sand being daily dredged in this region is a source of concern for environmentalists, environmental planners, local residents and other stakeholders in the built environment. Although the coastal sharp sand dredging has contributed enormously to real estate development for over 20 million Lagos residents and industrial constructions yet it has unfortunately hampered the livelihood of the local residents, eliminated traditional biodiversity and altered the shorelines. While the sand business generates great profits for urban constructions and property developers, it has brought despair on the residents resulting in polluted waters, collapsed buildings, depleted farm lands, unfettered erosion and flooding. Sand dredging in Lagos coastal areas is largely responsible for the loss of habitats for fishes and sea turtles, perennial flooding, coastal erosion, road damage, deforestation, water pollution, noise, dusts, land devaluation and loss of livelihoods. At policy level, there is lack of sincerity and openness in dealing with both illegal and poorly operated sand mining sites in Lagos. Either the NIWA or the SIWA the lack of firmness in implementing environmental regulations concerning the minimum requirements of sand mining in riparian regions has been seen as a direct support for uncontrolled sand mining activities in

74

7 Implications for Sustainability and Conclusions

even marginal environments. Although, majority of the operators claimed to have registered with the right agencies, there is no evidence that they properly carried out environmental impact assessment. The reality is that many operators involved in sand dredging activities in Lagos coastal zones are not licensed by the relevant agencies. In most cases that we investigated no one was able to show us the EIA report or certificate of operation. It is also probable that a few of these sand miners especially those small scale operators are actually colluding with the regulatory officials to scoop sand illegally.

7.3 Conclusions and Recommendations Given all the spatial locations of sand mining sites and the externalities of sand mining in Lagos coastal communities, drastic measures against the sand mining business in the areas are urgently required. The government, environmental planners and environmentalists will need to intervene quickly in ensuring control and mitigate the effects of sand mining activities on the immediate communities and the built environment particularly. Sand mining is a global legitimate vocation but needs standardization in Nigerian coastal vulnerable regions. There must be an increasing awareness on the preventive measures for ensuring proper operation of sand mining that can guarantee sustainability in the coastal area of Lagos. While many studies have been conducted on sand mining activities in Lagos, however, the present study has clearly extended the knowledge on the nature, operational modus, and socioenvironmental impacts of mining in the covered regions from the perspectives of the residents living around the coastal areas. This is an important contribution to our understanding of the complex socio-environmental nature of sand mining as both a vocation and an environmental sustainability issue. Based on the results from the study the following recommendations are therefore suggested for the stakeholders especially government and environmental planers • A proper and exhaustive monitoring of sand mining organizations and their activities should be regularly ensured to promote global best practices. • An automated sand mining information system (ASMIS) should developed for the sand mining activities and operators in order to effectively monitor and control activities relating to sand dredging in Lagos • The miners should be encouraged to engage in pre-operation environmental impact assessment (EIA) • Government should encourage alternative livelihoods for sand miners majority of whom are indigenes of the communities where sand mining take place • The residents must have some contributions in the determination of the suitability of the operational status of the miners • The miners must be compelled to embark on corporate responsibility projects for improving the conditions of the communities such as road maintenance, noise control and land reclamations

Appendix I: Questionnaire

75

• Immediate assessment of the sustainability of the existing sand mining sites should be embarked upon to ascertain the safety of the communities • The idea of using sand mining as sources of revenue by the government and community leaders should be halted forthwith. This will enable the agencies to control the operators firmly • Constant enlightenment is needed to keep the sand mining operators aware of the need to be sustainability alert every time • The non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should show more interest in the activities going on in the coastal areas of the state and make public any form of socio-ecological abuse of the riparian environment.

Appendix I: Questionnaire Sand Mining Survey Questionnaire We are a team of researchers from Lagos State University Ojo conducting a study on the socio-spatial dimensions of sand mining in the coastal region of Lagos. This survey seeks to draw data to support the study. The questionnaire is divided into four protocols namely section A which addresses the background information, Section B which deals with sand mining activities and their contributions, Section C which deals with the socio-environmental impacts of sand mining and Section D which addresses the drivers of sand mining in Lagos. All information is treated with utmost confidentiality and anonymity of respondents is highly guaranteed. Kindly tick the appropriate answers and where necessary write the required statements. Dr. I. R. Aliu (Lead Researcher) Room 309 Faculty of Social Sciences Lagos State University Ojo E-mail: [email protected] Tel:+2348027525933 Section A-Background Information This section addresses the demographic and socio-economic information of respondents in the coastal communities where sand mining activities are actively going on S/N

Question

Your Response

A01 Location/community

………………………………………………………………………………

A02 Age in years

………………………………………………………………………………

A03 Gender

(a) Male

A04 Marital Status

(a) Married (b) Single (c) Separated

A05 Place of origin

………………………………………………………………………………

A06 Length of stay in community

(a) Under 5 years (b) 5–10 years (c) 11 years and above

A07 Household size

(a) Under 3 persons (b) 3–5 persons (c) 6 persons and above

A08 Educational status

(a) No formal education (b) Primary education (c) Secondary education (d) Tertiary education

(b) Female

(continued)

76

7 Implications for Sustainability and Conclusions

(continued) Section A-Background Information This section addresses the demographic and socio-economic information of respondents in the coastal communities where sand mining activities are actively going on A09 Employment/livelihood (a) Fishing-farming (b) Private worker (c) Public worker (d) Unemployed A10 Monthly income in Naira

(a) N50,000.00 and less (b) N51,000.00–N100,000.00 (c) N101,000.00 and above

A11 Residential tenure

(a) Renter (b) Land lord

Section B-Sand Mining Activities and Contributions This section evaluates sand mining activities and their contributions to development of Lagos coastal communities B12

Are you aware of sand mining activities in this community?

(a) No (b) Yes

B13

Have you directly benefitted from sand mining activity?

(a) No (b) Yes

B14

If B13 is yes, please state how you have benefitted from sand mining. (Respondent can tick more than one option)

(a) As a sand mining worker (b) From purchase of sand at cheaper rate (c) From money given or paid by sand miners

Kindly indicate the benefits of sand mining to the community (5 = Strongly Agree…1 = Strongly disagree B15

Sand mining provides jobs for residents in this community

B16

Sand mining provides cheaper sand for building construction

B17

Sand mining provides cheaper sand for road construction

B18

Sand mining provides cash for all members of the community

B19

Sand mining increases the economic potential of the community

B20

Sand mining provides a source of revenue for government

B21

Sand mining protects the community from flooding

B22

Sand mining removes excess sand and improves the navigation of the water

1

2

3

B23

Sand mining brings social stability to the community

B24

Sand mining serves to lessen poverty and deprivation in the community

B25

Do you think sand mining activities can make sustainable contribution to development in this community?

(a) Yes (b) No

B26

Do you think there is alternative to sand mining activity as a means of livelihood?

(a) Yes (b) No

4

5

Appendix I: Questionnaire

77

Section C-Socio-Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining C27

Have you experienced any (a) Yes (b) No negative incidence of sand mining activities in the community?

C28

If C27 is yes, please state the negative incidence

………………………………………………

This section appraises the socio-environmental impacts of sand mining on the community residents. Kindly indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with these statements (Highly agree = −5 … Highly disagree = −1) S/N

Question

C29

Sand mining negatively impacts built environment (buildings, bridges, infrastructures)

C30

Sand mining causes sink holes in adjacent communities

C31

Sand mining negatively impacts on fishing activities in this community

C32

Sand mining negatively impacts on farming activities in this community

C33

Sand mining negatively impacts on water quality in this community

C34

Sand mining negatively impacts on vegetations in this community

C35

Sand mining negatively impacts on the physical terrain of this community

C36

Sand mining negatively impacts on erosion in this community

C37

Sand mining negatively impacts on flooding in this community

C38

Sand mining negatively impacts on landslide (subsidence) in this community

1

2

3

4

5

(continued)

78

7 Implications for Sustainability and Conclusions

(continued) SN

Question

C39

Sand mining negatively impacts on deforestation of this community

C40

Sand mining negatively impacts on plant loss and biodiversity in this community

C41

Sand mining negatively impacts on animal loss and biodiversity in this community

C42

Sand mining negatively impacts on geological formations in this community

C43

Sand mining negatively impacts on noise level in this community

C44

Sand mining negatively impacts on traffic in this community

C45

Sand mining negatively impacts on health (dust) in this community

C46

Sand mining negatively impacts on housing rent values in this community

C47

Sand mining negatively impacts on land values in this community

C48

Sand mining negatively impacts on road and transport in this community

C49

Sand mining negatively impacts on communal conflicts in this community

C50

Sand mining socio-environmental Risk (SAMSER) INDEX

Section D-Drivers of Sand Mining This part of the survey addresses the major drivers of sand mining activities in the coastal communities of Lagos. Kindly indicate the level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements (Highly agree = 5 … Highly disagree = 1) (continued)

Appendix I: Questionnaire

79

(continued) S/no

Question

D51

Sand mining thrives because of lack of other jobs

D52

Sand mining thrives because of abundant marginal flood plains that could not be developed

D53

Sand mining thrives because it is a legitimate means of indigenous livelihood

D54

Sand mining thrives because it is more economically beneficial

D55

Sand mining thrives because it is the only viable alternative means of livelihood to land sales

D56

Sand mining thrives because of government supports and taxes

D57

Sand mining thrives because of high demand for sand for housing construction

D58

Sand mining thrives because of increasing urbanization

D59

Sand mining thrives because of supports it receives from the community heads

D60

Sand mining thrives because of sand mining syndicate

D61

Sand mining thrives because of favorable environmental regulations or polices

D62

Sand mining thrives because of concealment of sand mining activities

D63

Sand mining thrives due to endemic poverty and deprivation

1

Thank you for your time and attention

2

3

4

5

80

7 Implications for Sustainability and Conclusions

Section X-Spatial and Operational Attributes of Sand Mining Sites This section addresses the spatial and operational attributes of sand mining sites in Lagos coastal communities X01

Name of Location

……………………………………………………………………………

X02

LGA

……………………………………………………………………………

X03

Coordinates of Location

X04

Type of sand mined

(a) Fine plastering sand (b) Coarse brick concrete sand (c) Coarse filling sand

X05

Sand miner’s operational status

(a) Formal (b) Informal

X06

Sand miner’s operational size

(a) Small scale (b) Medium scale (c) Large scale

X07

Machinery used

(a) Complex (b) Simple (c) Traditional

X08

Purpose of sand mining activity

(a) Communal (family) purpose (b) livelihood purpose

X09

Length of years in operation

(a) Under 5 years (b) 5–10 years (c) 11 years and more

X10

Area of operation

(a) On the coastline (b) In the sea/Lagoon (c) On the stream

X11

Distance to settlement/ community

(a) 0–500 m-very near (b) 501 m and more- far

X12

Distance to road/bridge

(a) 0–500 m-very near (b) 501 m and more- far

X13

Distance to river or sea

(a) 0 m (b) less than 500 m (c) 500 m and more-very far

X14

Safety measures in place? (More options)

(a) Head helmet (b) Hand gloves (c) Safety shoes (d) None

X15

Environmental (a) Oil spills (b) Vegetation removal (c) terrain alteration (d) stream flow alteration condition of site (more than one options)

X16

Number of workers

(a) 1–5 workers (b) 6–10 workers (c) 11 workers and more

X17

Mass of sand mined daily

(a) Less than 6 tons (b) 6–10 tons (c) 11–15 tons (d) 16 tons and more

X18

Amount paid for sand mining

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Northing-………………………………………………………… Easting-………………………………………………………… Elevations- …………………………………………………………

(continued)

Appendix II: Socio-Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining

81

(continued) X19

Mode of payment for sand

(a) Daily (b) Weekly (c) Monthly (d) Yearly

X20

Average ………………………………………………………………………………………… selling price of sand per ton @ site

X21

Which tier of (a) LGA (b) State (c) Federal government do you pay to?

X22

How much is paid monthly?

………………………………………………………………………………………

X23

Do the community leaders collect money from you?

(a) Yes (b) No

X24

If X23 is yes, how much is paid to community leaders monthly?

………………………………………………………………………………………

X25

Who else collects fee from this activity?

(a) Omonile (land owners) (b) Association of sand miners

X26

Do you have association?

(a) Yes (b) No

X27

If X26 is yes, (a) Official protection (b) Cooperative (c) Protection from touts what benefit do you derive? (more options)

Appendix II: Socio-Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining

Environmental impact variables

Communities

C31-Sand impact fishing

SD

16

9

27

DA

11

19

18

NAD

Badagry

Ojo

Amuwo

Total

Mean

23

75

3.0486

14

62

Etiosa

5

13

15

28

61

AG

20

23

11

21

75

SA

20

28

9

20

77 (continued)

82

7 Implications for Sustainability and Conclusions

(continued) Environmental impact variables C32-Sand impact farm

C35-Sand impact terrain

C36-Sand impact erosion

C37-Sand impact flood

Amuwo

Total

Mean 2.4743

Etiosa

9

26

38

34

107

19

26

20

21

86

5

26

15

33

79

AG

21

7

4

8

40

SA

18

7

3

10

38

SD

18

26

32

35

111

DA

16

27

27

37

107

9

15

9

12

45

AG

17

11

8

15

51

SA

12

13

4

7

36

SD

7

27

37

35

106

DA

18

35

24

34

111

NAD

15

8

10

13

46

AG

13

14

7

10

44

SA

19

8

2

14

43

SD

3

8

10

25

46

DA

11

17

14

25

67

NAD

18

23

19

16

76

AG

18

22

19

23

82

SA

22

22

18

17

79

SD

11

11

16

8

46

DA

9

13

8

16

46

NAD

7

1

8

13

29

AG

25

25

19

32

101

SA

20

42

29

37

128

SD

12

9

14

9

44

DA

12

16

8

15

51

4

1

11

16

32

AG

24

25

17

30

96

SA

20

41

30

36

127

SD

6

10

16

21

53

DA

12

19

14

17

62 107

NAD

C38-Sand impact land slide

Ojo

SD

NAD

C34-Sand impact vegetation

Badagry

DA NAD

C33-Sand impact water

Communities

NAD

16

30

21

40

AG

19

6

13

8

46

SA

19

27

16

20

82

2.4114

2.4486

3.2314

3.6257

3.6029

3.1200

(continued)

Appendix II: Socio-Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining

83

(continued) Environmental impact variables C39-Sand impact deforestation

C40-Sand impact crops

C41-Sand impact animals

Communities Badagry

Ojo

Amuwo

Total

Mean 2.4714

Etiosa

SD

9

19

32

32

92

DA

14

25

23

21

83

NAD

27

42

18

29

116

AG

9

5

5

17

36

SA

13

1

2

7

23

SD

6

18

34

29

87 117

DA

17

30

36

34

NAD

20

13

7

26

66

AG

12

25

0

6

43

SA

17

6

3

11

37

SD

8

18

38

32

96

DA

16

34

33

36

119

NAD

17

23

6

26

72

AG

14

12

2

7

35

SA

17

5

1

5

28

C42sand SD impact geology DA

3

13

25

26

67

10

22

22

24

78 122

C43-Sand impact noise

C44-Sand impact traffic

C45-Sand impact dust

NAD

27

42

20

33

AG

16

7

8

15

46

SA

16

8

5

8

37

SD

10

7

3

2

22

DA

5

11

3

2

21

NAD

4

1

3

3

11

AG

22

20

27

28

97

SA

31

53

44

71

199

SD

20

34

22

19

95

DA

17

42

22

10

91

NAD

10

3

7

1

21

AG

6

9

13

26

54

SA

19

4

16

50

89

SD

8

15

8

4

35

DA

7

19

11

2

39

6

1

4

2

13

AG

NAD

17

17

21

27

82

SA

34

40

36

71

181

2.5029

2.3714

2.7371

4.2286

2.8600

3.9271

(continued)

84

7 Implications for Sustainability and Conclusions

(continued) Environmental impact variables SD C46-Sand impact housing DA NAD

C47-Sand impact land

C48-Sand impact road

Communities Badagry

Ojo

Amuwo

Total

Mean 2.7257

Etiosa

12

18

17

19

66

19

37

25

12

93

21

22

17

42

102

AG

6

11

10

22

49

SA

14

4

11

11

40

SD

7

17

16

18

58

DA

13

28

24

13

78

NAD

32

25

17

42

116

AG

8

16

8

24

56

SA

12

6

15

9

42

SD

9

12

2

16

39

DA

11

16

7

6

40

3

0

1

6

10

AG

NAD

22

18

21

27

88

SA

27

46

49

51

173

2.8457

3.9029

3.582

0.645

9

4.411

0.389

0.070

18

0.956

0.831

0.172

0.149

1.421

16

0.256

15

1.804

1.656

17

0.325

0.298

13

14

0.476

12

2.644

3.338

2.761

0.601

0.497

10

11

3.896

0.794

0.701

7

4.932

8

0.888

6

5.476

6.784

1.221

0.986

4

10.656

1.918

3

5

32.222

12.242

5.800

2.204

1 32.222

100.000

99.611

98.781

97.824

96.404

94.748

92.944

90.299

87.538

84.199

80.618

76.722

72.311

67.379

61.903

55.119

44.463

5.800

1.221

1.918

2.204 6.784

10.656

12.242

32.222

% of Variance

61.903

55.119

44.463

32.222

Cumulative %

Extraction sums of squared loadings Total

Cumulative %

Total

% of Variance

Initial eigenvalues

2

Component

Total variance explained

1.896

2.143

2.696

4.408

Total

10.532

11.904

14.977

24.489

% of Variance

(continued)

61.903

51.371

39.467

24.489

Cumulative %

Rotation sums of squared loadings

Appendix III: PCA of Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining Showing Extracted Components and Communalities

Appendix III: PCA Of Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining … 85

0.355

0.475 0.757 0.738 0.579 0.574 0.325 0.536

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

C32-Sand impact farm

C33-Sand impact water

C34-Sand imapct vegetation

C35-Sand imapct terrain

C36-Sand impact erosion

C37-Sand impact flood

C38-Sand impact land slide

C39-Sand impact deforestation

C40-Sand impact crops

C41-Sand impact animals

C42-sand impact geology

C43-Sand impact noise

C44-Sand impact traffic

C45-Sand impact dust

C46-Sand impact housing

C47-Sand impact land

C48-Sand impact road

0.467

0.850

0.857

0.666

0.842

0.865

0.583

0.607

0.424

0.642

Extraction

Initial

C31-Sand impact fishing

Communalities

Total variance explained

(continued)

86 7 Implications for Sustainability and Conclusions

Appendix IV: Drivers of Sand Mining Activities in Lagos

87

Appendix IV: Drivers of Sand Mining Activities in Lagos

Communities

Drivers of sand mining C51-Job

C52-Marginal plain

C53-Livelihood

C55-Viability

C56-Revenue & taxes

C57-Housing

Mean 2.6514

Badagry

Ojo

Amuwo

SA

24

18

10

12

64

AG

16

13

5

13

47

Etiosa

NAD

4

4

2

20

30

DA

9

38

41

33

121

SD

19

19

22

28

88

SA

11

7

4

13

35

AG

13

21

10

25

69 110

NAD

30

32

12

36

DA

10

17

28

18

73

SD

8

15

26

14

63

SA

14

35

30

50

129

AG

19

43

27

35

124

6

7

8

14

35

NAD

C54-Economic gain

Total

DA

18

4

5

6

33

SD

15

3

10

1

29

SA

16

32

29

38

115 155

AG

28

41

40

46

NAD

11

6

1

12

30

DA

10

7

3

9

29

SD

7

6

7

1

21

SA

15

20

18

38

91

AG

24

49

43

46

162

NAD

11

9

7

15

42

DA

12

6

3

6

27

SD

10

8

9

1

28

SA

13

47

41

65

166

AG

16

21

24

35

96

NAD

32

20

7

4

63

DA

7

1

1

1

10

SD

4

3

7

1

15

SA

22

34

30

59

145

AG

30

43

44

41

158

NAD

10

12

3

5

30

3

2

1

1

7

DA

2.8296

3.8314

3.8971

3.7457

4.1086

4.2029

(continued)

88

7 Implications for Sustainability and Conclusions

(continued) Communities

Drivers of sand mining

Badagry SD C58-Urbanization

C59-Community support

C60-Syndicate group

C61-Government policy

C62-Concealment

C63-Poverty

Source Fieldwork, 2021

7

Ojo 1

Total Amuwo 2

Mean

Etiosa 0

10

SA

15

32

29

57

133

AG

25

45

44

48

162

NAD

25

13

3

0

41

DA

3

1

3

1

8

SD

4

1

1

0

6

SA

36

62

44

66

208

AG

24

24

27

35

110

NAD

5

3

3

4

15

DA

1

1

3

1

6

SD

6

2

3

0

11

SA

39

45

32

45

161

AG

17

41

32

51

141

NAD

8

6

11

9

34

DA

4

0

3

1

8

SD

4

0

2

0

6

SA

8

12

2

3

25

AG

9

1

3

8

21

NAD

21

21

15

23

80

DA

21

35

32

43

131

SD

13

23

28

29

93

SA

17

23

22

36

98

AG

19

15

24

27

85

NAD

18

40

17

34

109

DA

13

11

13

9

46

SD

5

3

4

0

12

SA

38

39

24

28

129

AG

107

20

31

34

22

NAD

1

9

10

38

58

DA

3

5

10

15

33

SD

10

8

2

3

23

4.1657

4.4229

4.2657

2.2971

3.6029

3.8171

1.106

0.144

32.602

4.238

32.602

32.602

3.277

1.000 1.000

C53-Sand thrive livelihood

C54-Sand thrive economic

0.664

0.584

0.681

0.719

1.000

1.297

1.548

2.252

1.000

64.422

56.177

45.470

C52-Sand thrivemarginal plain

8.245

10.707

12.868

C51-Sand thrive job

1.072

1.392

1.673 9.978

11.910

17.326

25.208

% of Variance

(continued)

64.422

54.444

42.534

25.208

Cumulative %

Rotation sums of squared loadings Total

Extraction

100.000

98.894

96.168

93.133

89.453

85.402

81.125

76.491

71.014

64.422

56.177

45.470

Cumulative %

Initial

Communalities

13

2.726

0.354

12

3.680

3.035

0.478

0.395

10

11

4.051

0.527

9

4.634

4.276

0.602

0.556

5.477

6.592

8.245

10.707

7

0.712

6

32.602

12.868

8

1.072

0.857

4

1.392

3

5

4.238

1.673

1

% of Variance

Extraction sums of squared loadings Total

Cumulative %

Total

% of Variance

Initial eigenvalues

2

Component

Total variance explained

Appendix V: PCA of Drivers of Sand Mining Showing Extracted Components and Communalities

Appendix V: PCA of Drivers of Sand Mining … 89

0.564 0.759

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

C56-Sand thrive taxes

C57-Sand thrive housing

C58-Sand thrive urbanization

C59-Sand thrive community

C60-Sand thrive syndicate

C61-Sand thrive policy

C62-Sand thrive concealment

C63-Sand thrive poverty 0.554

0.472

0.677

0.630

0.651

0.753

0.667

1.000

C55-Sand thrive viability

Total variance explained

(continued)

90 7 Implications for Sustainability and Conclusions

References

91

References Akabzaa, T. M. (2009). Mining in Ghana: Implications for national economic development and poverty reduction. International Development and Research Centre (IDRC), Canada. Asabonga, M., Betek, C., Musampa, C. M., & Nakin, M. D. V. (2017). The physical and environmental impacts of sand mining. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 72(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/0035919X.2016.120970. Ashraf, M. A., Maah, M. J., Yusoff, I., Wajid, A., & Mahmood, K. (2011). Sand mining effects, causes, and concerns: A case study of Bestari Jaya, Selangor Peninsular Malaysia. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(6): 1216- 1231 Abuodha, J. O. Z., & Hayombe, P. O. (2006). Protracted environmental issues on a proposed Titanium mineral development in Kenya’s South Coast. Marine Geo-Resources and Geo-Technology, 24(2), 63–75. Collins, B., & Dunne, T. (1990). Fluvial geomorphology and river-gravel mining: A guide for planners. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Gavriletea, M. D. (2017). Environmental impacts of sand exploitation: Analysis of sand market. Sustainability, 9, 1118(26 pages). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071118. Mensah, J. V. (1997). Causes and effects of coastal sand mining in Ghana. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 18(1), 69–88. Masalu, D. C. P. (2002). Coastal erosion and its social and environmental aspects in Tanzania: A case study of illegal sand mining. Coastal Management, 30(4), 347–359. Musah, J. A. (2009). Assessment of sociological and ecological impacts of sand and gravel mining: A case study of East Gonja District (Ghana) and Gunnarsholt (Iceland). Final Report, Land Restoration Training Programme, Keldnaholt, Iceland. Peprah, K. (2013). Sand mining and land degradation: Perspective of indigenous sand winners of Wa, Ghana. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 3(14), 185–194. Rodríguez, J. P., T. D. Beard, Jr., E. M. Bennett, G. S. Cumming, S. Cork, J. Agard, A. P. Dobson, and G. D. Peterson. 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 11(1): 28. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art28/ Saviour, N. M. (2012). Environmental impacts of soil and sand mining: A review. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, 1(3), 125–134. Turner, B. L., & Lambin, E. F. (2007). The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(52), 20666–20671. Viswanathan, S. (2002). Mining dangers. Frontline, 19, 10. http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1910/ 19100440. Willis, K. G., & Garrod, D. (1999). Externalities from extraction of aggregates regulation by tax or land-use controls. Resources Policy, 25, 77–153.

Bibliography Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis. Harper & Row.