GENDER PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION SOURCES UTILIZATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN DELTA STATE, NIGERIA

₦ 2,000.00
i h

ABSTRACT

This study analyzed gender participation in community development, in Delta State, Nigeria. It sought specifically to examine the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents, ascertain respondent source of information, examine level of participation, ascertain respondents attitude towards community development and examine the constraints faced by respondents in Delta State, Nigeria. Data was collected using a well structured questionnaire administered to 144 respondents from three senatorial zones. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequency count, percentages, means and standard deviation, and Pearson production moment correlation.

The study revealed that majority (81.9%) were married with moderate household size of mainly between 5 and 10 persons per household. The majority of the respondents were farmers (51.4%) with secondary education (66.7%). The result also showed that road(6.9%), farming(47.2%), market(16.7%), police station(9.7), electricity(26.4%), school rehabilitation(37.5%), Borehole, pipe borne water (23.6%) were some of the on going community development projects in the study area. This study revealed that frequently used information sources were home visits (Mean = 2.52 for male and 3.31 for the female), seminars (mean = 2.66 for male and 3.27 for the female), agricultural programme (Mean = 2.52 and 2.55 for both the males and the female, respectively), workshops (Mean = 3.09 for the males and 2.67 for the females), group discussion (mean = 3.35 for the males and 2.27 for the females) and posters (mean = 2.11 for the males and 3.66 for the females). It was observed that males roles were high in advisory (Mean = 3.17), training (Mean = 2.88), finance (Mean = 3.51), direct service/labour (Mean = 2,66), information given (Mean = 3.46), and leadership (Mean = 3.16) while female only performed high roles in finance (Mean 3.22), direct service (Mean = 2.59), information (Mean = 2.51),, production (Mean = 2.67) and care giving (Mean = 4.11) for the female. Multiple response occured as regards attitude towards community development. Inadequate funding (Mean = 3.42 and 3.53) for male and female respondents. Inadequate extension agent (Mean = 4.15 and 4.22) for male and female respondents, inadequate farm inputs (Mean = 3.55 and 3.43) for male and female respondents and inadequate access to skills acquisition services (Mean = 3.33) for only the male respondents were the serious constraints faced by respondents in community development activities in the study area. Marital status (wald = 2.736), education level (Wald = 3.538), leadership status (wald = 12.082), experience in community development activities (wald = 7.164) and monthly income (wald = 12.938) were the determinants of level of participation in community development activities in the study area. It was observed that age (wald = 10.83), marital status (wald =6.066), leadership experience (wald = 4.950), experience in community development (wald = 5.775), monthly income (wald = 15.832) and frequency of contact with extension agents (wald = 5.167) were the significant determinant of level of roles played in community development activities among respondents in the study area.

The study concludes that participants in community development activities in the study area were still active in term of age and most of them were married with high educational status. The household was moderate, though males had slightly higher household size than their female counterparts. Both male and female respondents engaged in community development activities and played roles such as financing, advisory only by the males, information sourcing, training only by the male and care given by the female. Selected socio-economic characteristics such as age, marital status, income and experience were found to determined the respondents participation and roles played in community development activities.

0.0 0
Write your own review Close
  • Only registered users can write reviews
*
*
  • Bad
  • Excellent
*
*
*
Only registered users can write reviews