PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY BASED WOMEN ORGANIZATIONS IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN IMO AND RIVERS STATES, NIGERIA

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00009229

No of Pages: 196

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

₦10000

  • $

ABSTRACT

 

The study evaluated performance of community-based women organizations (CBWOs) in rural development projects in Imo and Rivers States. Specifically, the objectives were to: describe the socio-economic characteristics of CBWOs, determine the rural development roles expected and performed by CBWOs, assess the levels of perception of women on the performance of CBWOs in rural development projects, ascertain their levels of participation in rural development projects and determine the sustainability strategies adopted/levels of sustainability of rural development projects by CBWOs in Imo and Rivers States. The result of selected socio-economic characteristics shows that community-based women organizations had mean years of existence, 21.1 (Imo) and 28.9 (Rivers); CBWOs were all involved (100%) in infrastructural social services as against 66.6% (Imo) and 71.7% (Rivers) who were into non-infrastructural social services, while the majority (90.8% and 65%) were engaged in crop production in Imo and Rivers States respectively and 90.6% of the members identified various projects by themselves. The CBWOs played active roles (82%) in rural developmental projects. The respondents had favourable perception ( =3.1) and ( =3.4) of rural development projects in Imo and Rivers State respectively. Result also revealed that the CBWOs had high participation in rural development projects in Imo ( =2.4) and Rivers ( =2.2), with a sustainability index of 70%. The pooled regression results showed that coefficients of age (0.393***), membership size (-0.249***), membership of other organization (0.112*), access to credit (0.241***), Income (0.650***) and funds generated (0.102**) influenced role performance of CBWOs. Linear regression results also showed that coefficient of age (19161.1***), mode of project identification (28920.5***), access to credit (337774.2***), membership size (877.537*), benefits (573.902***) and types of social services (186618.5**), influenced participation of CBWOs in rural development projects at different levels of probability. The multiple regression result showed that coefficient of age (0.071*) membership size (0.016***), membership of other organization (8.878***), number of meetings (-0.088), internally sourced resource (-8.106***) and funds generated (-0.000), influenced sustainability of rural development projects in Imo and Rivers States. Z-test results revealed no significant difference on role performance of CBWOs in both states at 5% level; also there is significant difference in participation of CBWOs in rural development projects at 5% levels of probability in both states and no significance difference in the sustainability strategies of rural development projects executed by CBWOs in Imo and Rivers State at 5% levels of probability. In conclusion, CBWOs have made some remarkable success in the development of the study area, which has resulted to active participation of women, and on the overall, 82% of their active roles were on agricultural and development projects, indicating high performance when compared with their expected roles. The study recommends that CBWOs should embark on regular awareness campaign among their members on the importance of implementing viable rural development projects. They should also embark on people-oriented and sustainable activities that ensure utilization of locally sourced resources to improve the well-being of their members and the development of their communities.







TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page                                                                                            i

Declaration                                                                                         ii         

Certification                                                                                       iii

Dedication                                                                                          iv

Acknowledgements                                                                            v

Table of Contents                                                                               vii

List of Tables                                                                                      xii

List of Figures                                                                                     xiii

List of Appendix                                                                                 xiv

Abstract                                                                                              xv

 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION                                                 1

1.1      Background of Study                                                  1       

1.2      Problem Statement                                                      7

1.3      Objectives of Study                                                     11

1.4      Hypotheses                                                                 12

1.5      Justification of The Study                                            13

1.6      Scope of the Study                                                      14

1.7      Limitations of the Study                                              14

1.8      Definitions of Terms                                                              15

 

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW                            17

             2.1    Conceptual Review                                                     18

2.1.1   Socio-economic characteristics of community-based

            women organizations (CBWO’s) in Rural

Development Projects                                                 18

2.1.2    Concept of rurality and characteristics                         21

2.1.3    Concept of rural communities                                      26

2.1.4    Concept of development                                             28

2.1.5.   Processes of rural development                                   32

2.1.6    Concept of community development                            37

2.1.7    Government past efforts in community

            development in Nigeria                                               40

2.1.8    Government agricultural and rural

            Development interventions programmes in Nigeria      42

2.1.9    Agriculture and development                                       54

2.1.10  Challenges of agriculture and rural development

            in Nigeria                                                                   58

2.1.11  Organizations; types and funding                                 61

2.1.12  CBWO’s and physical development in Nigeria            62

2.1.13  Sustainable community development                           66

2.1.14  Women organizations and Involvement

            in community development                                         68

2.1.5    Factors hampering women involvement in rural

            development projects                                                  72

2.2       Review of empirical studies                                         74

2.3       Theoretical framework                                                76

2.3.1    Jack Rothman’s three model’s approach                      77

2.3.2    Maslow’s hierarchy of needs                                       79

2.3.3    Structural functional approach                                     82

2.3.4    The socialist theory                                           83

2.3.5    System theory                                                             84

2.3.6    Community action model                                            86

2.3.7    Evaluation model                                                        87

2.3.8    Infrastructural development model                               90

2.3.8.1 Benefits of the model                                                  91

2.3.8.2 The Problems of the model                                          92

2.4       Conceptual framework                                                93

 

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY                                                 

3.1       Study Area                                                                           96

3.2       Population of the Study                                                         98

3.3       Sample and Sampling Procedure                                           98

3.4       Data Collection                                                                     99

3.5       Validity of Instrument                                                           100    

3.6       Reliability of the instrument                                                  100

3.7       Data analysis                                                                        100

3.8       Measurement of variables                                                      101

3.8.1.   Independent variables                                                           102

3.8.2.   Dependent variables                                                              104

3.9       Model Specifications                                                             104

 

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                               108    

4.1       Socio-Economic Characteristics of (CBWOs)                        108

4.2       Rural Development Roles expected and performed

            By (CBWO’s)                                                                       115

4.3       Levels of perception of (CBWO’s) in Rural Development

            Projects in Imo and Rivers States                                           118

4.3.1.   Levels of perception of (CBWO’s) on performance of rural development projects in Imo State                                            118

4.3.2.   Levels of perception of (CBWO’s) on performance of rural development projects in Rivers State                                         118

4.4       Levels of Participation of (CBWO’s) in Rural Development

            Projects in Imo and Rivers States                                           122

 

4.4.1.   Levels of participation of (CBWO’s) in rural development

            Projects in Imo State                                                             122

4.4.2.   Levels of participation of (CBWO’s) in rural development

            projects in Rivers State                                                          124

4.5       Sustainability Strategies Adopted by (CBWO’s)

on Rural Development Projects                                             126

4.51.    Sustainability of rural development projects among

              community-based women organizations                                            129

4.6       Factors Influencing Role Performance of (CBWO’s)

            in Rural Development Projects in Imo and Rivers States          130

4.7.a.    Factors influencing levels of participation of (CBWO’s) 

            in rural development projects in Imo States                            135

4.7.b.   Factors influencing levels of participation of (CBWO’s)   

            in rural development projects in Rivers States                        137

4.7.c.    Results of pooled regression                                                  140

4.8       Factors Influencing Sustainability of Rural Development

            Projects in Imo and Rivers States                                           143

4.9      Analysis of the difference in Role Perception of Levels of Participation of Community-Based Women Organizations in Rural Development Projects                                                                          147

4.10:  Analysis of the difference in Levels of Participation of Community-

          Based Women Organizations in Rural Development Projects            148

4.11:   Analysis of the difference in Levels of Participation of Community-Based Women Organizations in Rural Development Projects         149

 

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1      Summary                                                                              150

5.2      Conclusion                                                                           155

5.3      Recommendations                                                                 155

          References                                                                           157

          Appendices                                                                           174

 

  

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

4.1a:    Socio-economic characteristics of community-based women                                               organizations                                                                                    109

4.1b:    Socio-economic characteristics of community-based women                                   organizations                                                                                        114

 

4.2:      Rural development roles performed by community based

            women organizations                                                                          117

 

4.5a:    Sustainability strategies adopted by community-based

            women organizations on rural development projects                                   128

 

4.5b:    Sustainability of rural development projects among

community – based women organizations (n = 240)                                129

 

4.6:     Factors influencing role performance of (CBWO’s) in rural

           development projects in the Imo and Rivers State                                          131

 

4.7:     Linear regression result of factors influencing

            participation of (CBWO’s) in rural development projects                        142

4.8:      Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Agricultural and Rural                                     Development Projects Executed by (CBWO’s) in Study Areas                146

4.9:    Difference in role performance of (CBWO’s) in rural

development projects in Imo and Rivers States                                      147

4.10:    Difference between the levels of participation of (CBWO’s)

          in rural development projects in Imo and Rivers States                                 148

4.11:    Z-Test difference in the sustainability strategies of

rural and agricultural development projects executed by (CBWO’s)

in Imo and Rivers States                                                                                 149






LIST OF FIGURES

1:      Perception of community-based women organization’s

         on performance of rural development projects in Imo State               119

2:      Perception of community-based women organization on the

         performance of rural development projects in Rivers State                121

3:      Participation of community-based women organizations

         in rural development projects in Imo State                                        124

4:      Participation of community-based women organizations

         in rural development projects in Rivers State                                    126

 

 


 

LIST OF APPENDIX

1: Research Questionnaire                                                      190

 

 


 


CHAPTER 1

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1.1        BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Rural communities have been commonly identified in many works as the most neglected areas in developing nations (Oko, 2010, Nwaobiala, 2015). Over the years, the quest for accelerated improvement of the rural areas and improvement in the quality of life of the rural dwellers has remained an issue of great concern to the government (Oko, 2010; Nwosu, 2013). The improvement of the worth of lifecycle of the rural dwellers brings change/transformation which metamorphoses to development.

 

 In the past, between the period of 1930 – 1960, development was seen as an economic phenomenon (increase in a Nation’s Gross National Product (GNP)).  According to Onwuka (2008), development is a complex and continuous process which manifests itself in improved quality of life, cultural regeneration, social homogeneity and cohesion, political awareness and the stabilization and consolidation of participatory political institutions.  Oko (2010) defined it as a social process that seeks to improve, or reflects improvement in the worth of lifecycle of a people.  Alternatively, rural development is seen as a practice of empowering the rural people by harnessing and mobilizing their human and physical wealth for the purpose of converting their environment for the better, and providing their socio-economic needs ranging from employment,  qualitative health-care, improved nutrition, adequate and comfortable accommodation, good quality education to adequate security (Nwaobiala, 2015).

According to Ekong (2003), Nigeria, like most developing countries, has periodic development plans or annual budget which spells out development programmes to be accomplished within a specific period where agricultural development features prominently. Nwosu (2011) described agricultural development as one dimension of the multi-faceted complex process of development that aims at enhancing the productive capacity of the agrarian area through the change of the rural economy from being a rustic, subsistence agricultural economy to a modern commercialized agricultural enterprise.  The author further stated that agricultural growth aims at sustaining a vibrant and dynamic rural economy, as well as guaranteeing local food sufficiency and other products for export.  Ekong (2003) also described agricultural development as a logical response to the challenging problems of the rapidly changing global environment, especially those of climatic change, growth of the populace and amassed poverty conditions.  Bill and Metinda (2011) observed that in the last several years, the global community has begun to refocus its attention on agriculture.  The reason is that rising food prices and anxieties about nurturing a growing population are stimulating more and more organizations and government to understand the earnestness of supporting agricultural growth.

 

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2003) estimates show that women in agriculture in most regions of the world play important roles in household food security as revenue recipients, nurturers and administrators of natural resources and biodiversity, although the rate at   which they are able to execute these roles is often mitigated by restricted access to land, labor, capital and technology. However, food, safety and domestic well-being are clear motives for protecting or enhancing women’s access and control over land and other productive resources. In addition, research has shown that wealth controlled by women is more likely to be used to enhance family food consumption and welfare, reduce child malnutrition, and increase overall well-being of the family. Adzongo (2008) reported that in the past, women farmers were wrongly referred to as “farm laborers” or just “housewives”. This signifies that their contributions were not adequately measured. But today, this perceived role is changing. Women are active in all facets of development, especially in food crop production.  Their contribution is best captured in this quotation; who farms Africa? Who feeds Africa? Who raises her sons and daughters? Who has the least access to the tools of development? (Adzongo, 2008)

 

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO, 2003), rural women are responsible for half of the world’s food production and have a conspicuous role in agriculture at all levels.  They produce between 60 and 80 percent of the food in the developing countries and are also the main producers of the world’s staple crops- rice, and wheat, maize – which provide up to 90 percent of the rural poor’s food intake.  In addition, they are essential for guaranteeing food security and household maintenance not only for their families, but also for their communities in general.

In support of the above assertion, Anikpo (2000) stated that women are known to be more committed in agricultural activities than men in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), Nigeria inclusive.  As much as 73% were involved in cash crops, arable and vegetable gardening, while post-harvest activities had 16% and agro-forestry, 15%.  Also, findings from a study financed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) revealed that women make-up 60 - 80% of agricultural labor force in Nigeria, depending on the region, and they produce two-thirds of food crops.  In spite of this, general notion that men, and not women, make the key farm management decisions has prevailed (World Bank, 2003). 

Ogunlela and Mukhtar (2009), have also identified a number of obstacles to women participation in agricultural activities. They noted that systematic gender biases may exist in the form of (a) customs, beliefs and outlooks that restrain women mostly to the home sphere; (b) women’s economic and home responsibilities that impose severe time burdens on them and (c) laws and customs that inhibit women’s access to credit, production inputs, employment, education or medical care. Moreover, a careful examination indicates that there is a definite need of sensitivity on the social and cultural barriers that may inhibit women’s participation in agricultural activities.  Kotze (2003) suggested that in an effort to reach and engage the women, we must recognize that some issues and constraints related to participation are gender -specific and points to the fact that men and women play different roles, have different needs and face different challenges on a number of issues and at different levels.  Therefore, we cannot assume that women will automatically benefit from efforts involving rural people in project design and implementation.  Overtime, it has been discovered that unless specific steps are taken to ensure that women participate and benefit, they usually do not.

 

FAO (2008) observed that women seem to have a wider social network because of their engagement in religious, cultural, agricultural and social activities which are community-based.  Similarly, Ogolo (1995) affirms that community participation in development programmes could be facilitated by the use of voluntary organizations such as women organizations.  These organizations have been reported by Odurukwe (2003) to be religious-based, service-based or socio-cultural based.  In addition, Okeibunor (1995) asserts that women organizations are more effective and play very significant roles in the actualization of the community felt needs.  The author further explained that women organizations are forums where women talk about their problems and concerns; communal work activities; organize for financial assistance and seek interventions in areas of need.  These organizations are avenues of empowerment when effectively explored and it extends development to women in the rural areas.  It also serves as enlightenment for education on issues that boost gender participation.

In IFAD – assisted projects, women earned higher status, respect and decision-making power as a result of their participation in groups or co-operatives.  Furthermore, women groups are often the most cohesive and best performing community-level organizations.  Participation in groups increases women’s participation in overall community development activities.  To promote long-term sustainability, an increasing number of projects place the promotion of women’s groups in a broader community development perspective.  The aim is not just to interact with groups as conducts for project resources, but to help them evolve into viable, self-sustaining community organizations (International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2015).

 

World Bank (2003) avers that mixed groups of men and women has been found to work in Kenya and Uganda.  In most situations, however, women – only groups are the best option.  Initially at least, they allow women to gain greater confidence and autonomy. Research has shown that women have less influence than men in mixed groups. However, confining women’s participation to women-only groups can prolong women’s marginalization.  Again, familiar and small homogenous groups have proved to effective channels for involving women.  Alternatively, reaching women through village leadership structures or existing community-based organizations has proved to be less-effective due to the unequal influence of men and women within those organizations.  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2013) reported that women are mobilized into grassroots associations for effective participation in key areas of the economy such as women in Mining, Women in Tourism trust, Women in Agriculture and various women groups.  Therefore, Community- Based Organizations (CBOs), according to Wikipedia, are all such organization, institutions or congregation of people, which have local area/village-based presence, maturity and structural arrangements.

 In the same vein, they are civil society, non-profits, often run on a voluntary basis and are self–funded. Some are formally incorporated, with a written constitution and a Board of Directors, while others are much smaller and informal.

 

Typical community-based organizations fall into the following categories: community service and action, health, educational, personal growth and improvement, social welfare and self-help for the disadvantage. In developed countries, community-based organizations are a fundamental part of government’s human service delivery system, where the government relies, contracts and partners with the CBO’s to provide a broad range of services to its citizenries. Amateur sports clubs, school groups, church groups, youth groups and community support groups are typical examples of community-based organizations in Canada. Similarly, in Sub-Saharan Africa, community-based organizations often focus on community support, including HIV/AIDS awareness, human rights, health clinics, orphan support, water and sanitation provision, and economic issues (Chesnutt, 2006).

In Nigeria, Ogunlela and Mukhtar (2009) observed that various women groups and organizations have emerged.  Such groups and organizations have contributed substantially to the gains women farmers have recorded and the voice that they now have in overall national policy on agricultural development.  Example of such group is the Women Farmers Advancement Network (WOFAN), a private imitative founded in the 1990s, whose headquarters is in Kano, Nigeria.  The main thrusts of WOFAN include: providing a forum through which members of rural Nigeria communities can express themselves, encouraging the formation of community groups to garner access to agricultural credit and insurance, facilities and introducing labor-saving technologies, including modern farm implements and the use of solar energy.  In addition, WOFAN initially helped women farmers in rural areas with issues of health and agricultural technology.  It has since inevitably expanded to address other needs.

Menefee, (2006), reported that caring for the poor in our local communities has been and will continue to be an issue all communities must face.  Philanthropic and non-profit organizations play major roles in providing services to destitute and poor individuals in the United States. 

 

1.2   PROBLEM STATEMENT

 

The bedrock of agriculture and agricultural development in developing countries of Sub Saharan Africa without which all efforts at agricultural development will be futile (Ogunlela and Mukhtar, 2009) is rural development. A large majority of the farmers operate at the subsistence, smallholder level, with intensive agriculture being uncommon.  A characteristic feature of the agricultural production system in such countries, Nigeria inclusive, is that a disproportionately large fraction of the agricultural output was in the hands of these smallholder farmers whose average holding is about 1-0-3.0 hectares (CTA, 2000). The diminishing capacity of agriculture to provide for household subsistence increased the workload shouldered by women as men withdrew their labor from agriculture.  Hence, the increased attention that is being given to the role of small holder subsistence agriculture in ensuring food security of the continent, since some 73% of the rural population consists of small-holder farmers (IFAD, 1993).  Evidently, development, food security and poverty alleviation will not be truly achieved without rapid agricultural growth.

 

Rahman (2008) avers that the rural women played a pivotal role that is crucial to the overall success of efforts directed at agricultural and rural development.  In addition, the position and capability of women meeting the challenges of agricultural and rural development cannot be overemphasized.  They shoulder the primary responsibility for food security in Africa, yet development agencies have devoted minimal resources to researching the impact of their agricultural policies and new techniques on the well-being of Africa’s women farmers. Franklin (2007) opined that gender inequality is one of the most pervasive forms of inequality, particularly because it cuts across other forms of inequality.  Different rules, norms and values govern the gender division of labor and the gender distribution of resources, responsibilities, agency and power.  These are critical elements for understanding the nature of gender inequality to different societies.  For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, gender segmentation in household arrangement is prevalent in the face of highly complex linage-based homesteads.

Similarly, much of Sub-Saharan Africa is matrilineal, with women’s access to land being (through usufruct rights) through their husband’s lineage group.  In other countries, despite legislative and tenure changes in favor of smallholders, women continued to be placed in a disadvantaged position in terms of access to land.  In a recent study, where nine countries were examined, Franklin (2007) found that while women are present in greater degrees in agricultural / rural organizations, they tend to comprise a low proportion of the membership and are often not represented in the higher level of leadership. Again, women’s membership is most often limited by their lack of formal land ownership, while many rural organizations do not sufficiently concern themselves with the needs of rural women. As observed by ASIADHRRA (2007), women from Asian countries have limited access to rural organizations.  Though, there may not be laws prohibiting women from becoming members, they are generally excluded because membership is based on land ownership or “head of household” criterion.  Irrespective of these challenges facing women organizations, there is a growing recognition of their indispensable roles both in international, national and local levels.  However, they are not able to unleash their full potentials due to various constraints.  There is therefore, need to investigate factors which influence their limited participation in agricultural and rural development in their communities.

 

It has been empirically established that multinational companies and local government contribute to grassroots development, but the contribution of Community Based Organizations (CBOs) seem not to have attracted much scholarly attention. This neglect if continued will make the communities lose contribution of CBO in grassroots development. In satisfying community needs, CBOs play prominent role in initiating programmes and project, mobilizing resources and educating the grassroot populace (Onyeozu, 2007). Traditionally, most donor organizations work only with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) with legal status and which are able to produce project proposals to plan properly, and to handle budget administration and produce financial and technical reports regularly. Unfortunately, most grassroots NGOs in developing countries do not comply with these requirements and therefore cannot benefits from donor funds. Moreover, inconsistency, first between vision and concrete development activities, with stakeholders; secondly, between the chosen activities, the organizational structure and the principles of participation and empowerment also affect the performance of NGO. Fowler, (2000) added that in most cases, NGO staff, supporters and the outside world get confused, actions do not combine and support each other in optimal ways, there is a loss of focus and energies become dissipated. Other problems include the issue of project replicability and their innovativeness with characteristic scaling up which often leads to loss of advantages of smallness and group cohesion (Riddle and Robinson, 2006). Given the above scenario the concern on the performance of NGO in rural development becomes pertinent.

 

Ekong (2003) observed that communities exist in rural as well as in urban areas, but the community spirit is more enduring and meaningful in rural areas.  In other words, community development entails community organization as the consciousness of a community which has to be established among a people before they can be organized for development.  Moreover, Fakoya et al., (2001) affirmed that ‘individual members’ participation in community development projects of CBOs is a type of development strategy that is more sustainable and more likely to respond to the felt needs of the people.  The level of sustainability of rural development projects of CBOs in the study area has not been ascertained by previous studies. These have affected effective implementation of self-help development projects in the communities where governmental aids are limited or not forthcoming.  Odurukwe, (2007); Franklin, (2007) conducted several studies, to ascertain women participation in rural development in their various communities, it seems however there is dearth of information on the levels of participation of CBWOs in rural development projects in the study area. Based on these issues raised, this study was conducted to evaluate the performance of community-based women organizations in rural development projects in Imo and Rivers State of Nigeria.

Thus, this research was guided by the following questions:

i.            What are the socio-economic characteristics of CBWOs?

ii.          What are the roles expected and performed by CBWOs in rural development projects?

iii.         What are the levels of perception of women on the performance of CBWOs in     rural development projects?

iv.        What are the levels of participation of CBWOs in rural development projects?

v.          What are the sustainability strategies of rural development projects by CBWOs?

 

1.3     OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The broad objective of the study was to evaluate the performance of community – based women organizations (CBWOs) in rural development projects in Imo and Rivers States. 

 

The specific objectives of this study were to:

i.            describe the socio-economic characteristics of CBWOs;

ii.          determine the rural development roles expected and performed by community-based women organizations;

iii.        assess the levels of perception of women on the performance of the      Community - Based Organizations in Rural Development             projects;

iv.         ascertain the levels of participation of CBWOs in rural development projects; and

v.          determine the sustainability strategies adopted/levels of sustainability of rural development projects by CBWOs

 

1.4        HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

The following hypotheses were tested:

Ho1: There is no significant relationship between selected socio-economic characteristics of respondents and their role performance in rural development projects in Imo and Rivers States.

Ho2: There is no significant relationship between selected socio-economic characteristics of respondents and their participation in rural development projects in Imo and Rivers States.

Ho3: There is no significant relationship between selected socio-economic characteristics of respondents and sustainability of rural development projects in Imo and Rivers States.

Ho4: There is no significant difference between role performance of CBWOs in rural development projects in Imo and Rivers States.

Ho5: There is no significant difference between participation of CBWOs in rural development projects in Imo and Rivers States.

Ho6: There is no significant difference in the sustainability strategies of rural and agricultural development projects executed by CBWOs in Imo and Rivers State.


1.5        JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

Across the developing world, studies show that women’s participation in community initiatives can have long-lasting benefits for women and children (World-Bank, 2003).  In addition, women who are empowered to take action, whether through programmes led by government, non-governmental organizations or those driven by the community, often have a positive influence on the lives of other women. Sinba (2011) observed that rural women all over are an integral and vital force in the development processes they are the key to socio-economic progress.  Hence, without their effective participation neither democracy nor development can be sustained.  Furthermore, where development projects fail to involve women, this increases their dependence on men and is a major deficiency in planning and implementation of projects. Klemens (2000) group the many roles women involved in rural organizations play into three, based on the basic functions they perform for their organizations.  These include the role of representation and liaison, of undertaking various activities and providing services to the organization.  Similarly, this study will encourage the formation of viable women organizations to undertake group activities and as well provide services geared towards agricultural and rural development of their communities.

 

Furthermore, the result of this study will facilitate women participation in development programmes and invariably aid the actualization of community felt needs where government assistance are limited or not forthcoming.  In addition, the study will  provide institutional means of integrating the smallholder sector, especially women, into the national economy, resulting to poverty alleviation, and total eradication of mal-nutrition.  It will definitely contribute to knowledge by expanding supportive literature on women organizations in agricultural and rural development in the rural communities.

The findings of this study will also add to the already existing knowledge on the contributions of women involved in community-based women organizations to rural and agricultural development.  The measurement of some variables in this study will help researchers and students intending to conduct related studies on possible ways of quantifying qualitative and quantitative variables.

 

1.6       SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study was conducted in Imo and Rivers States. The major emphasis of the study is on the evaluation of the performance of community – based women organizations (CBWOS) in rural development projects. While there are several community based organizations, the researcher concentrated on the women-based organizations, investigating their performance in rural development projects based on the stated objectives.


1.7       LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Some factors served as constraints to the study. There were so many registered community-based Women Organizations with the government in the study area but many were not practically in existence.

While in some communities, the existing organizations are either not involved or partially involved in rural development projects, and apparently they have little or no project on ground.

Again, there is scarcely useful information/records about the existing organizations with the government at all levels, that the researcher relied on the responses derivable from the interview and questionnaire.

 

1.8       DEFINITION OF TERMS

Performance: Is the accomplishment of a given task  measured against preset known as standards of accuracy, completeness, cost, and speed.

Evaluation: Is the periodic assessment and review of the extent to which medium and long term objectives of an activity or programme have been accomplished. It could also mean a critical assessment or the surveillance of the project to its appropriateness, acceptability and impact.

Community: A social group of any size whose members resides in a specific locality, share government and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.

Community – Based Organizations (CBO’S): CBWOs are all such organization, Institutions or congregation of people, which have local area/village-based presence, maturity and structural arrangements. These are owned and managed by members.

Rural Development: This involves the transformation of rural communities into a socially, educationally, economically, politically, orderly and materially desirable condition with the purpose of improving the quality of life of the rural population.

Sustainable Community Development: Sustainable community development is often referred to as “green development”, “green real estate development”, “green communities”, or “sustainable built environment”, “sustainable communities”, “sustainable real estate development” and  “healthy communities”. A sustainable community uses its resources to meet current needs while ensuring that adequate resources are available for future generations.

Development: This can be conceptualized as a process by which any group of people or society harness, mobilize and utilize all resources available to it, both human and materials  for the purpose of transforming their socio-physical environment, for the ultimate improvement in the quality of life of its members (Nwosu, 2009).

Sustainability: It focuses on meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It also implies the ability to maintain or support an activity or process over the long term.

Sustainability requires that human activity only uses nature’s resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally.

Project: Simply put a project is a series of tasks that need to be completed in order to reach a specific outcome. Projects can range from simple to complex and can be managed by one person or a hundred. And a project is unique in that it is not a routine operation, but a specific set of operations designed to accomplish a singular goal.

Women Organizations: is an association of women who have come together for their own interest and that of their community. The number keeps increasing by day as women identify new issues. Different women organizations play different active roles in their various community such as supporting women advocacy, which assists in improving respect for and the protection of women human rights and elimination of discrimination, which in turn is necessary to achieve full quality between men and women.


 

Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.

Review


To Comment