




































American International Journal of Social Science Research; Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

ISSN 2576-103X  E-ISSN 2576-1048 

Published by Centre for Research on Islamic Banking & Finance and Business 

 

 

39 

 

Space-Base Disaster Management and Poverty Reduction in Nigeria 

 
Emmanuel Okokondem Okon

1 

 
1
Department of Economics,  Kogi State University, Anyigba, Kogi State, Nigeria 

Correspondence: Department of Economics, Kogi State University, Anyigba, Kogi State, Nigeria, E-mail: 

tonydom57@yahoo.com. Tel: +2348023275716  

 

Received:  January 12, 2018                        Accepted: January 12, 2018               Online Published: January 20, 2018   

 

Abstract 

Poverty level in Nigeria is at variance with the country’s immense wealth and natural disasters are on the increase 

and claiming lives as well as properties. This paper looks at the use of space base technology in disaster 

management and how disaster management can be integrated into poverty reduction to help reduce the vulnerability 

of poor and protect their livelihoods and development gains. It starts by conceptualizing poverty and vulnerability 

and proceeds to examine Nigeria’s economy, poverty and natural disaster. Thereafter, the paper looks at the 

introduction of space technology in disaster mitigation and management in Nigeria and the challenges associated 

with it. Suggestions are made for effective use of space technology for disaster management and poverty reduction 

in Nigeria. 

 

Keywords: Natural Disaster, Space Technology, Disaster Management, Poverty Reduction. 

 

1. Introduction 

Nigeria is endowed with enormous human and natural resources which if efficiently harnessed and managed will 

ensure that Nigeria's immense potentials are realized. Current events in Nigeria affirm the description of the country 

as a paradox by the World Bank in 1996.  The paradox is that the poverty level in Nigeria is at variance with the 

country’s immense wealth. It is a general belief that if there is an increase in per capita income, simultaneously with 

a more even distribution of income, such would lead to poverty reduction.  Reduction in the level of unemployment 

is also perceived as a necessary condition for the realization of increased income per capita. Development is not just 

a matter of growth in income per capita, as it is possible  to record high growth rate in income per capita, while the 

people continue to live in abject poverty; lacking the basic necessities of life.  This is a situation peculiar to Nigeria 

today. The momentum of growth derivable from a sector has a little direct impact on bulk of the population. 

Generally, the priorities and strategies enunciated in virtually all the development plans show that agricultural 

production is always accorded the highest priority (FRN, 1990; FRN, 1981; FRN, 1970 as cited in Obadan, n.d.).  

Even in the Structural Adjustment Programme document, agriculture was considered one of the critical sectors, 

whose rehabilitation was crucial to the success of the programme (FRN, 1986 as cited in Obadan, n.d.). An 

appendage of agricultural development is rural development. Against the background that the poor are located in 

rural areas, and are mainly engaged in agriculture. Unfortunately, in 2012 Nigeria suffered its worst flood disaster in 

40 years. More than 2 million people were displaced, homes and farmlands were destroyed (EU,2013), and the risk 

of a similar large-scale disaster is high. 

Natural incidence like earthquakes, rainstorms, hurricanes, cyclones, flooding, drought and erosion can induce 

poverty too and poverty can lead to diseases, high mortality among infants, increase in school drop outs, high 

juvenile delinquency rates, higher levels of teenage pregnancy, and economic dependency on others, prostitution, 

homicides and other forms of violence (Tiena, 2010). Poverty greatly reduces populations. 

Much wider recognition is needed of the fact that natural disasters, particularly storms and floods, are becoming 

endemic and that their increasing frequency and severity can slash economic growth and development in Nigeria. In 

light of this, the paper examines Nigeria’s use of space technology in its disaster management efforts with the view 

of reducing poverty. Disasters triggered by natural events often raise poverty rates in the affected regions and 

destroy achieved development progress. Furthermore, poorly-planned development and inappropriate poverty 

reduction measures can increase vulnerability to external natural shocks. “If development efforts are not appropriate 

to existing environmental factors, and their impacts on the environment have not been assessed properly, they can 

http://questionmarkmag.com/author/adeiza-atureta/


www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

 
 

40 

 

increase vulnerability to disasters”(Özerdem, 2003). Consequently, vulnerability is strongly linked to poverty, as is 

disaster risk management to poverty reduction (Eschborn, 2005). The second section of this paper attempts to 

conceptually show this relationship. The third second presents some stylized facts on Nigeria. The fourth section 

examines some disaster risk management and application of space technology to disaster management. Section five 

looks at Nigeria’s space programme, challenges and way forward while section six concludes.  

2. Conceptual Illustration 

A disaster is a swift, catastrophic event that seriously disrupts the functioning of a community or society and causes 

human, material, and economic or environmental losses that exceed the community’s or society’s ability to cope 

using its own resources (IFRC, 2012). The combination of hazards, vulnerability and the inability to reduce the 

potential negative consequences of risk results in disaster. As a result, disasters influence the mental, socio-

economic, political as well as the cultural state of the affected area. Hence, disasters are considered as the 

consequence of inappropriately managed risk (Quarantelli, 1998). These risks are the product of a combination of 

both hazard/s and vulnerability. Therefore, hazards that strike in areas with low vulnerability are less likely to 

become disasters, as is the case in uninhabited regions (James et al., 2013). 

Disasters are generally grouped into two types, namely anthropogenic or human-made and natural. Anthropogenic 

or human-made disasters are associated with human action or inaction. Examples of such disasters include: 

technological failures, industrial accidents, oil spills, transportation accidents and nuclear explosions/radiation. 

A natural hazard is a geophysical, atmospheric, or hydrological event that has potential for causing harm or loss 

(Benson and Clay, 2004). Usually, these events are both uncommon and extreme, in the perspective of the range of 

natural phenomena such as rainfall, tropical storms, flooding, and seismic tremor or earthquake. Hence, there is a 

need to determine risk. This is understood to be “a combination of the probability, or frequency, of occurrence of a 

defined hazard and the magnitude of the consequences of the occurrence” (Royal Society, 1992). A natural disaster 

is the occurrence of an abnormal or infrequent hazard that affects vulnerable communities or geographic areas, 

causing substantial damage, disruption, and perhaps casualties and leaving the affected communities unable to 

function normally (Benson and Clay, 2004).  

 From an economic perspective, a disaster implies some combination of losses, in human, physical, and financial 

capital, and a reduction in economic activity such as income generation, investment, consumption, production, and 

employment in the “real” economy. There may also be severe effects on financial flows such as the revenue and 

expenditure of public and private bodies (Benson and Clay, 1998). Vulnerability is the potential to suffer harm or 

loss, expressed in terms of sensitivity and resilience or of the magnitude of the consequences of the potential event 

(Benson and Clay, 2004). The sensitivity of economic behavior to a disaster shock is reflected at a macroeconomic 

or sectoral level in the deviation of economic aggregates from the trends that were expected without taking the 

effects of the event into account. 

Although this paper focuses on natural disaster, generally, disasters can have potentially significant implications for 

public finance, increasing expenditure and simultaneously reducing domestic revenue, in turn resulting in increased 

domestic or external borrowing, substantial alterations to existing investment, and recurrent expenditure plans or 

monetary expansion(Benson and Clay, 2004). Figure 1below is a schematic evolution of disasters. 

              Hazard                                         Vulnerability 

 

                                    Disaster risk 

 

                                      Disaster 

Source: Adapted from (Eschborn, 2005) 

Figure 1: schematic evolution of disasters 

The relationship between the level of development of an economy and the impact of a disaster is particularly 

complex. Influences include the physical infrastructure, the degree of sectoral and geographical integration, 

economic specialization, the coverage and robustness of the financial sector, government revenue raising capabilities 

and the openness of the economy. This complexity in part reflects the fact that development itself is a non-linear 

process and that there are many different paths of development (ODI, 2005). Least-developed economies are widely 

perceived as most vulnerable, experiencing the greatest direct losses relative to a country’s wealth. 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

 
 

41 

 

At higher levels of development, the financial costs of capital losses are massive (as illustrated by Kobe and 

Hurricane Katrina), but the economic impacts of disasters are proportionately less. This partly reflects increased 

investment in mitigation and preparedness measures, improved environmental management, greater access to 

financial resources and lower associated opportunity costs and a reduction in the scale of absolute poverty and thus 

of household vulnerability(ODI, 2005). A greater share of privatesector economic assets is also likely to be 

adequately insured against disaster and the burden diffused by global reinsurance. The combined effects of changes 

in sensitivity (direct and indirect impacts) and the time to recover (resilience) suggest, as illustrated in Figure 2, a 

Kuznets’ Curve or inverted U relationship between economic development and disaster vulnerability. 

 

 

% of GDP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                       ' 

Less developed                      Intermediate                                  More developed 

Source: (ODI, 2005)
 

Figure 2: a Kuznets’ Curve or inverted U relationship between economic development and disaster vulnerability 
 

According to Okuyama (n.d.), with the increasing complexity of society and interdependency within and across 

countries, recent studies found that this negative relationship between development level and disaster losses appears 

not so straightforward: total impact over GDP per capita has an inverted “U”curve relationship. Least developed 

countries tend to have simple economic structures, such as agriculture, so that the impact may not spread to the 

entire system; higher-income level countries have sufficient financial and technological resources to better manage 

disaster risks through the implementation of countermeasures and to better manage the adverse impacts of disaster; 

and middle-income level countries with some diversifications seem more secure, but the higher order effects can be 

much greater and thus the total impacts from a disaster can be larger than in a simple agro-economy’s (see Figure 3 

below) 

Impact on 

GDP 

(%) 

 

 

               Low      Middle                  High 

     Income   Income         Income 

    Countries   Countries         Countries 

 

GDP per capita 

   Source:  (Okuyama, n.d.) 

                                Figure 3: Inverted U Curve Relationship 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

 
 

42 

 

Vulnerability is not only a key concept in the discussion about disaster risk management, but it also is a central issue 

in the debate on poverty. Here, attempt is made to look at the connection between poverty reduction and disaster risk 

management because their inter-linkage is seen as essential for sustainable development.  It proceeds from a 

complex notion of poverty that is not confined to the economic component, but also encompasses participation, 

education and health.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

Source: Adapted from OECD (2001) 

Figure 4 – Dimensions of poverty 

As depicted in Figure 4 above, each box represents an important dimension of poverty, which affects – and is 

affected by – all the others. Household members may consume little and be vulnerable partly because they lack 

assets, often because of inadequate income, poor health and education, or because they lose their few productive 

assets as a result of shocks. Lack of human rights and political freedom indicates a risk of violent conflict shocks. 

Vulnerability and social exclusion hamper human and political capabilities, reducing incomes and assets, and so on. 

The fact that different dimensions of poverty are tightly interrelated, while still distinct and imperfectly correlated, is 

a major reason for a multidimensional concept” (OECD 2001). 

Natural hazards disrupt poor people‘s livelihoods, and poor people are often more vulnerable to natural hazards. The 

negative and positive aspects of the relationship between vulnerability/disaster and poverty can be divided in four 

realms as show below in Figure 5. 
 Poverty reduction realm 

 

Short-sighted poverty                          Poverty reduction can reduce 
reduction measures can increase            vulnerability 

vulnerability 

Negative realm Positve realm 

Disasters can set back                           Disasters can provide 

poverty reduction efforts                          poverty reduction opportunities 

Disaster realm 

Source: Adapted from: UNDP (1994) 

Figure 5: The relationship between poverty and vulnerability to disasters 
 

3. Nigeria: Economy, Poverty and Natural Disaster 

Nigeria is a West African economy with a long coastline along the Atlantic Ocean. The country shares international 

borders with Benin, Chad, Cameroon and Niger. Nigeria ranks 32 in the world in terms of total area (see Figure 6 in 

Protective 

security 

vulnerability 

 

 

Political 
Rights 

Influence 

Freedom 

Economic 

Consumption 

Income  

Assets 

Human  

Health 

Education 

Nutrition 

Socio-cultural 
status 

Dignity 

 

Gender 

 
 

Environmen

t 

 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

 
 

43 

 

Appendix). The terrain of the country consists of southern lowlands and plateaus in the central region. The south 

east region has a mountainous surface, while the north consists of plains. According to the 2009 estimates, the 

country has a total population in excess of 154 million, of which almost 70% live below the international poverty 

line (Economic Watch, 2010). Nigeria’s economy is overly dependent on the petroleum sector. The economy is one 

of the most developed economies in Africa. According to the UN classification, Nigeria is a middle-income nation 

with developed financial, communication and transport sectors. It has the second largest stock exchange in the 

continent. The petroleum industry is central to the Nigerian economic profile. It is the 12
th

 largest producer of 

petroleum products in the world (Economic Watch, 2010). The industry accounts for almost 80% of the GDP share 

and above 90% of the total exports (Economic Watch, 2010). Outside the petroleum sector, the Nigerian economy is 

highly amorphous and lacks basic infrastructure. Several failed efforts have been made after 1990 to develop other 

industrial sectors. 

Owing to the surge in international oil prices during 2007-08, Nigeria managed an annual GDP of US$352.3 billion. 

The nation ranks 33 in the world in terms of GDP. The GDP per capita is US $2,400(Economic Watch, 2010). See 

Table 1 below for some indicators of economic growth in Nigeria. 
 Table 1: Selected Macro-Economic Indicators of Growth (Percent) 

Economic 

Variables  

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Real GDP Growth 
Rate  

4.7  3.0  2.3  1.3  2.2  3.3  3.8  204 2.8  3.8  3.9  3.5  10.2 

Manufacturing 

capacity utilization  

37.4 41.8 37.2 30.4 29.3 32.5 33.0 32.4 34.6 35.4 42.7 44.3 46.2 

Inflation Rate  13.0  44.6 57.2 57.0 72.8 29.3 8.5  10  6.6  6.9  18.9 12.9 14.0 

Credit to Private 

Sector  

23.7 34.7 16.6 28.3 51.8 18.4 39.3 27.4 29.2 30.9 43.5 11.8 27.1 

Credit to 

Government  

82.5  109.6 120.7 27.7 27.6 -16.6 -32.5 144.9 32  -170.1 79.7 6320.

6 

47.9 

Domestic Credit  46.3  73.0  75.9  29.2 36.0 12.0  16.9  46.8  30 -23.1  74.8 56.6  32.7 

National 
Unemployment Rate  

3.8 3.4 2.7 2.0 1.8 3.2 3.4 3.9 3.3 4.8  3.8 3.7 2.3 

Overall Balance of 

Payment as a % of 
GDP  

-4.9  -18.3 -5.1 -4.7 -3.1 -5.6 -0.8 -8.4 -9.8 6.3 0.4 -10.3 -2.2 

Source: Oyeranti and Olayiwola (2005) 
 

Widespread poverty and lack of industrial resources are the biggest challenges for Nigeria. As indicated in Table 2, 

the incidence of poverty in Nigeria increased from 28.1 percent in 1980 to 88.0 percent in the year 2002. This 

percentage rate represent in absolute term 86 million people out of an estimated population of about 116.4 million 

people(Ijaiya, Ijaiya, Bello, and Ajayi, 2011). The poverty situation in Nigeria also depicts regional variation. For 

example, within these periods the poverty rate was higher in the northern agro-climatic zone at 40 percent compared 

with the middle and southern zones at 38 percent and 24 percent respectively (Francis et. al., 1996; FOS various 

issues). Similarly, Nigeria’s rank in the Human Development Index in the year 2008 remained low (0.470), being 

the 158th among 182 countries (ADB, 2010). The use of socio-economic indicators like per capita income, life 

expectancy at birth (years), access to health care services, access to safe water, access to education, access to 

sanitation facilities, and electricity also depicts the extent of poverty in Nigeria. As indicated in Table 3, the rate of 

poverty in Nigeria has not shown any remarkable reduction when viewed from these indicators and when compared 

with some countries in Africa. For instance, apart from the early 1980s when the nation’s per capita income 

witnessed an increase the situations in the 1990s and early 2000 were pathetic(Ijaiya et al., 2011). The life 

expectancy at birth (years) does not provide a better level of well-being in the country (47 years in 2007), more so 

when compared with those of countries like Mauritius and Tunisia that had 73 and 74 years respectively in 2007 

(ADB, 2010).  

The 1980s to the 2000s had witness the introduction of new strategies/approaches to poverty reduction. Key among 

them are the basic needs and capabilities/entitlements approaches, participatory development, social capital, 

community self help, good governance and human right approaches to poverty reduction ( Boeniniger 1991; 

Picciotto 1992; Woolcock and Narayan 2000; United Nations, 2002; United Nations 2004). In Nigeria, various 

efforts were made by the government, non-governmental organizations and individuals to reduce poverty in the 

country. According to Ogwumike (2001) poverty reduction measures implemented so far in Nigeria focuses more 

attention on economic growth, basic needs and rural development strategies. The economic growth approach focuses 

attention on rapid economic growth as measured by the rate of growth in real per capita GDP or per capita national 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

 
 

44 

 

income, price stability and declining unemployment among others, which are attained through proper harmonization 

of monetary and fiscal policies (Ijaiya et al.,2011). The basic need approach focuses attention on the basic 

necessities of life such as food, health care, education, shelter, clothing, transport, water and sanitation, which could 

enable the poor live a decent life. The rural development approach focuses attention on the total emancipation and 

empowerment of the rural sector. Ogwumike (2001) grouped the strategies for poverty reduction in Nigeria into 

three eras – the pre–SAP era, the SAP era and the democratic era. 

In the pre-SAP era, the measures that were predominant were the Operation Feed the Nation, the River Basin 

Development Authorities, the Agricultural Development Programmes, the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme, 

the Rural Electrification Scheme and the Green Revolution. In the SAP era the following poverty reduction 

measures were introduced; the Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructures, the National Directorate of 

Employment, the Better Life Programme, the Peoples’ Bank, the Community Banks, the Family Support 

Programme and the Family Economic Advancement Programme. The democratic era witnessed the introduction of 

the Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) designed to provide employment to 200,000 people all over the 

country(Ijaiya et al., 2011). It was also aimed at inculcating and improving better attitudes towards a maintenance 

culture in highways, urban and rural roads and public buildings. By 2001 PAP was phased out and fused into the 

newly created National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) which was an integral part of the National 

Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS). 

Globally, disasters have continued to cause severe catastrophic consequences in the loss of human lives as well as 

economic losses. For example, the magnitude 9.2 earthquake that occurred in the Indian Ocean on December 26, 

2004, caused a large tsunami that flooded more than ten coastal countries and culminated in about 300,000 deaths 

with severe economic and environmental impacts(James et al., 2013). Similarly, between August 23, and August 30, 

2005, Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico led to 1,400 deaths with severe economic losses(James et al., 2013). 

Nevertheless, Nigeria is not located in high-prone natural disaster (e.g. earthquake, hurricane) zones, but the country 

has experienced cases of floods, coastal erosion, sand storms, landslides, oil-spillage, and desertification disasters. 

These disasters have resulted in the loss of lives as well as properties. For example, the first flood hit Ibadan, the 

headquarters of old western region, Nigeria (now the capital of Oyo State) was in 1948. Subsequently, serious flood 

disasters have occurred in Ibadan in 1963, 1978, April 30, 1980, 1985, 1987, and 1990 destroying many valuable 

things (Adedeji et al, 2012). About 100 people died in Ibadan due to flood in 2011 while 5,000 people were 

displaced with severe economic impacts (James et al., 2013).  
Figure 7: Images of Flood Disaster in Nigeria 

 
                 Source: Onuah (2012)                                        Source: Kanu (2012) 

Lagos metropolis recorded the first flood in early 1970s and till date, floods (both river and coastal floods) have 

become perennial event in the state. Most recently about 700 inhabitants of settlements along the River Ogun in 

Lagos state were evacuated to refugee/relief camp after a devastating flood that plagued the area around October 12, 

2010 by the Lagos State Emergence Management Agency(Adedeji et al, 2012). The devastating flood disaster that 

occurred on the 26th of August 2011 caused a lot of woes to people around the Eleyele wetlands in Ibadan,south-

west, Nigeria destroying lives and properties around Apete, Idi-Ishin, Apata, Odo-OnaElewe, Oke-Ayo, Ologuneru 

and University of Ibadan where the university library and Zoological Garden were badly affected.  

About 300,000 animals representing 13 per cent of the livestock population of north-eastern Nigeriawere estimated 

to have died (Disaster management, n.d.)during the drought of 1972-1973, agricultural yields dropped to between 12 

per cent and 40 per cent of the annual averages (Disaster management, n.d.). In the drought of year 1987, crop yields 

ranged between 56 per cent and 75 per cent of the 1986 totals (Disaster management, n.d.). The consequences of 

environmental breakdown as a result of a prolonged drought led to massive economic losses, destruction of 

ecological resources food shortages and starvation for millions of people (Disaster management, n.d.). 

In the early 80’s, Nigerians were petrified when a mild tremor rocked Ibadan, Ijebu-Ode and Shagamu, three cities 

in the country’s South West. No casualties were recorded in the incident, neither were any buildings felled. But till 

date, the memory lingers (Igomu, 2010). In 2009, Researchers at the National Space Research and Development 

Agency (NARSDA) officially warned about the possibility of an earthquake disaster in Nigeria’s South Western 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

 
 

45 

 

region. They made reference to a tremor that rocked the region in September 11, 2009, stressing that Nigeria is no 

longer immune from earthquakes (Igomu, 2010).See Tables 4 and 5 below for an overview of natural disasters in 

Nigeria for the period 1980 to 2010 and the average per year.   
       Table 4: Overview: Natural Disasters in Nigeria from 1980-2010                      Table 5: Average Disaster per Year 

No of Events 94 

No of people killed 21,002 

Average killed per year 677 

No of people affected 6,306,441 

Average affected per year 203,434 

Economic Damage (US$ X 1,000) 188,025 

Economic Damage per year (US$ 

X 1,000) 

6,065 

                                Source: Prevention Web (2013                                                         

                                                                                                                                             Source: Prevention Web (2013)  

The vulnerability of a population is a determinant of a disaster, as this essentially decides whether ra hazard remains 

a hazard, or whether through contact with a vulnerable population this hazard turns into a disaster (Prowse 2003). 

This implies on the one hand, that the poverty situation in which a person lives shapes his/her vulnerability and the 

degree of impact the disaster has on him/her. On the other hand, the impact of the disaster affects people's future 

vulnerability and thus influences their poverty situation. Nigeria is vulnerable to many hazards, including, but not 

limited to, fires, flooding, transportation and industrial accidents, and political conflicts (Ibem, 2011). Nigeria is 

vulnerable to these and other hazards and disaster impacts because of high population densities in urban areas (50% 

of Nigerians live in urban areas) (Nwaka, 2005) (scarcity of land has led to inordinate construction of structures in 

hazardous areas), an inability to integrate risk reduction measures into national development plans and programs 

(Abang, 2005), and poverty (NDMF, 2010).  

4. International Disaster Management Initiatives 

Although natural disasters cannot be avoided, studies have shown that adequate disaster management plan can 

reduce its impacts on lives and properties. Moreover, disasters often do not respect national or international 

boundaries. As a result, governments and international organizations are cooperating to promote global and regional 

initiatives to address the full/partial disaster management cycle consisting of mitigation, preparedness, response and 

recovery (James et al., 2012). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                 R 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

Figure 8: Full Disaster Management Cycle 
Source:  Adapted from Twigg (2004) 

Drought 0.03 

Earthquake ... 

Epidemic 1.58 

Extreme temp 0.06 

Flood 0.06 

Mass mov. dry ... 

Mass mov. wet 0.10 

Volcano ... 

Storm 0.06 

Wildfire ... 

Recovery Mitigation 

 

 

 

 

        Response                             Preparedness 

Disaster 
Risk 

reduction 

 

 

Disaster 

     Impact 

 

 I

S 

After 

Disaster 

Before 

Disaster 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

 
 

46 

 

 

Some of these initiatives are: The International Charter “Space and Major Disasters” (ICSMD), Disaster Monitoring 

Constellation (DMC), The United Nations Platform for Space Based Information for Disaster Management and 

Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER), and The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 

(UNISDR) (James et al., 2013). 

4.1 Introduction of Space Technology in Disaster Mitigation and Management in Nigeria 

Recognizing the significant role of space technology in the attainment of rapid sustainable socio-economic 

development, the Federal Government of Nigeria took a bold step by putting in place a space policy and space 

science and technology programme. Subsequently, in 1999, an institutional framework, the National Space Research 

and Development Agency (NASRDA), was established. The first Nigerian earth observation satellite – NigeriaSat-1 

was successfully launched into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) from Plesetsk, Moscow, on 27 September 2003 on a Kosmos 

Rocket along with two other Disaster Monitoring Constellation (DMC) micro-satellites – UK DMC, and BILSAT 

(Turkey satellite).The choice of a micro-satellite using current technology was influenced by its low cost, 

affordability, and the advantage of performance comparable with the expensive large satellites and the possibility of 

supporting capacity building(Boroffice, 2008). 

NigeriaSat-1 is a micro-satellite deployed in to a polar sun-synchronous orbit at an altitude of 686km. It is a 100kg 

spacecraft with Push-broom scanning technology, and designed for a 5-year minimum lifespan. It has a swath width 

of 600km and the imaging payload is 3-band multi-spectral imager in the green, red and near-infrared bands 0.52–

0.62 (Green), 0.63–0.69 (Red), 0.76–0.9 (NIR) and has a Ground Sampling Distance (GSD)/spatial resolution of 

32m(Boroffice, 2008).The spacecraft has on-board data storage capacity of 2 × 0.5 Gbyte SSDR to support imaging 

activities, with a store and forward communications system. It has a space-bourne GPS for orbit determination, two 

on-board computers for data processing, and a butane propulsion system for orbit maintenance/station 

keeping(Boroffice, 2008).NigeriaSat-1 is one of the five satellites of the Disaster Monitoring Constellation (DMC) 

built to address the need for daily revisit and global coverage to monitor natural disasters and other dynamic 

phenomena. 

Taking into account the reality of direct access to affordable, real-time and reliable space-derived data, the 

NigeriaSat-1 data has been used in many projects some of which are: Flood hazards/risk mapping in the Shiroro 

Dam area; Mapping of settlements and major roads and water bodies; gully erosion mapping in the south eastern 

part of Nigeria; monitoring deforestation and implications for bio-diversity in Nigeria; predictive model for 

desertification early warning; patio-temporal assessment of climate and human- induced impact on ecosystem 

degradation and water resources management; and land use/land cover. 

To ensure continuity, NigeriaSat-2 was introduced. It carries the 32-m multi-spectral payload in NigeriaSat-1.It 

provides valuable geographically referenced high-resolution satellite imaging for applications in mapping, water 

resources management, agricultural land use, population estimation, health hazard monitoring and disaster 

mitigation and management. 

In summary, satellites monitoring Earth’s resources and natural disasters have different repeat pass frequency and 

spatial resolution (unless it belongs to the same series of satellites for the purpose of continuation of data flow with 

same specifications). Similarly, different satellites have different types of sensors on-board, such as, panchromatic, 

multispectral, infrared and thermal. All these sensors have applications in disaster mitigation, though depending on 

the electromagnetic characteristics of the objects on Earth and the nature of disaster itself (Nirupama and Simonovic, 

2002). 

Prior to the use of space technology in Nigeria, it was a major challenge to identify communities devastated by 

disasters (particularly natural disasters in the rural areas) using terrestrial approaches. This is particularly true since 

access to such remote areas is often made impossible by the disaster. However, access to earth observation satellite 

imagery provides a solution by enabling synoptic view of areas affected by disasters as well as the optimum access 

to such areas. The results from the use of  space technology have enhanced the ability of NEMA to respond to 

disasters swiftly and efficiently in Nigeria between 2010 and 2012 for floods in Sokoto (Charter Call 324 and 326), 

Ibadan (Charter Call 370), and Adamawa (Charter Call 407), Kogi (Charter Call 415), Bayelsa (Charter Call 416), 

respectively (James et al., 2013).  See Appendix for satellite images ofRivers stateand Bayelsa State flood disaster. 

5. Obstacles in Disaster Risk Reduction in Nigeria 

Nigeria like any other African country has some major gaps in the practice of disaster risk reduction as pointed out 

in a baseline study undertaking inthe first phase of the development of the Africa Regional Strategy on Disaster Risk 

Reduction. Disaster risk reduction is yet to be effectively institutionalized in Nigeria. Although the National 

Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) has been established to oversee a more holistic approach to the 

management of disasters in all phases and all associated consequences, however, sub-regional disaster management 

programmes in the country are yet to be developed. Technical institutions like the  



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

 
 

47 

 

Nigerian Meteorological Agency are few and their services are limited due to resource, capacity and other 

constraints.  

Government has a key responsibility to create the facilitating environment in which people can be empowered to 

prevent or reduce natural disaster risks. However, because of the failure or absence of development that can arise 

partly from an unfavorable environment, people are highly vulnerable to disaster risks in Nigeria. For example, key 

sectoral policies, such as on food and agriculture, rural and urban development and enterprise development, do not 

sufficiently consider how they impact people’s vulnerability to hazards. Furthermore, there is no tax or financial 

incentives to promote greater use of engineered and disaster-resistant construction. Also, for so long most disaster 

management structures focus on one or two key natural hazards, mainly flood and drought. Policy frameworks 

rarely cover small localized disasters. The practice of risk identification is limited in Nigeria. Early warning systems 

are only now being developed. 

The ability of people to take informed actions to secure their safety during disasters also depends on availability of 

timely and targeted information on disaster risk reduction. A major gap in disaster risk reduction in Nigeria is weak 

knowledge management. There is inadequate attention to information management and communications, and 

training and research. Consequently, there are gaps in knowledge about disaster risks. 

Nigeria’s space exploration still requires more infrastructure. The cost of space infrastructure — launchers, in-space 

systems and supporting ground operations, human activity in space, and the knowledge and technology base that 

supports the infrastructure is so exorbitant. 

In practice, national disaster risk reduction structures in Nigeria generally suffer from inadequate financial support. 

Inadequate financing for disaster risk reduction is the result of many factors including the low priority accorded to 

disaster reduction in national budgeting; lack of dedicated disaster funding mechanisms, etc. 

5.1 Way Forward 

Prospective assessment of the risk of disasters to development and the effect of development interventions on 

disasters, effective early warning of impending risks, and systematic assessment of disaster losses are particularly 

important in helping communities and the country to determine and understand the actions which they may take in 

order to reduce the impact of potential and existing risks. 

To help enhance access to information and to expand information dissemination, there is the need to strengthen 

disaster risk reduction information services and public communications mechanisms, including space technology 

and geographical information systems. It is necessary to encourage and facilitate public-private partnerships that 

increase the availability of and accessibility to these means of disaster risk information and communications. 

For disaster risk reduction communications systems to empower communities threatened by impending disasters, 

risk reduction information must be provided in good time, precise, prompt, reliable and actionable. Effective disaster 

risk reduction communications requires that the target population not only receives advance information on hazards 

and vulnerability changes but also that they understand the content of the message, accept it, believe it and know 

how to use it to guide their response actions. Public education and awareness-strengthening processes about 

potential risks and the role of risk information in disaster risk reduction needs to be continuous to promote this 

process. Public awareness needs to be undertaken through all means of communications interaction between disaster 

risk reduction authorities and the public and at all levels. 

Facilitating participatory design and implementation of disaster risk reduction interventions can increase people’s 

participation in them. Institutionalizing risk reduction at the local level involves modern management approaches 

that emphasize decentralized and coordinated partnerships between disaster management agencies and the people, 

based on the principle of self-consent. It is therefore important to encourage governments to accelerate the 

decentralization of disaster risk reduction mechanisms, particularly local-level risk management interventions. 

Given the explicit cause-and-effect links between disasters and development interventions, development policy 

should aim at reducing basic societal risks while attaining sustainable development objectives. Balancing these two 

goals requires incorporating disaster risk reduction in development policies, strategies and programmes at local and 

national. 

6. Conclusion 

Orbiting in space, satellites can cover vast and remote areas of the Earth over many years spanning national 

boundaries and detecting global patterns of environmental change not easily observed from the ground. Data from 

satellites, collected digitally, can be processed with specialized computer software yielding accurate, timely and 

useful information products which inform decision- and policy-making. At global and regional scales, thanks to 

space technology, knowledge of the various components of the Earth system is improving. 

Investment towards making use of the space technology is worth because improvement in instrumentation and real 

time prediction will bring about reduction in disaster damages; better prediction; accurate and timely damage 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

 
 

48 

 

estimation; and improved decision making in planning stages. Nigeria, therefore, needs to embrace and effectively 

incorporate the use of satellite technology based solutions in its effort at disaster management and poverty reduction. 

References 

Abang, B.  E. (2005).“Threats to the built environment in Nigeria by possible disaster event at Lake Nyos and the 

CumbreVieja volcano.” Pp. 17-28 in Alabi, A.S. and Sam-Epelle, A.O. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st 

National Built Environment Summit Organized by the Nigerian Institute of Architects and the Nigeria 

Institute of International Affairs, Victoria Island,Lagos, 8-10 February 2005, Nigerian Institute of 

Architects: Lagos. 

Adedeji,O. H.,Odufuwa, B.O., and  Adebayo, O. H. (2012).Building capabilities for flood disaster and hazard 

preparedness and risk reduction in Nigeria:  Need for spatial planning and land management.Journal of 

Sustainable Development in Africa, 14(1), 45-58. 

African Development Bank (2010). Gender, Poverty and Environmental Indicators on African Countries 2010 

Abidjan: ADB 

Benson, C., and Clay,E.J. (1998).The Impact of Drought on Sub-Saharan African Economies: A Preliminary 

Examination. World Bank Technical Paper 401. Washington, D.C. 

Benson, C., and Clay, E. J. (2004).Understanding the economic and financial impacts of natural disasters.Disaster 

Risk Management Series 4.World Bank.Washington, D.C.http://www-

wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/04/20/000012009_20040420 

Boeninger, E. (1991). Governance and Development: Issues and Constraints. Proceeding of the World Bank Annual 

Conference in Development Economics. 1991. Washington. D.C: The World Bank. 

Boroffice, R.A. (2008).The Nigerian space programme: An update. National Space Research & Development 

Agency (NASRDA), Abuja, Nigeria.http://www.saao.ac.za/~wgssa/archive/as12/boroffice.pdf 

Disaster Management (n.d).Disaster management and data needs in Nigeria. Retrieved 

fromhttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iQKqvpEkrzQJ:www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/

sap/2002/ethiopia/presentations/3speaker03_1.pdf+overview+of+natural+disaster+in+nigeria&hl=en&gl=u

k 

Economic Watch (2010).Nigeria Economy.http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/nigeria 

Eschborn (2005).Linking poverty reductionand disaster risk 

management.http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/3293 

EU (2013).EU experts help Nigeria prepare for floods.http://ec.europa.eu/echo/news/2013/20130813_en.htm. 

Fabiyi, O. (n.d.).Real time space remote sensing data and GIS for oil spill disaster management in Nigerian Niger 

Delta: A call for paradigm 

change.http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/sap/2002/ethiopia/presentations/11speaker11.pdf 

Federal Office of Statistics (FOS) (various issues). Annual Abstract of Statistics. Lagos: FOS. 

Francis, P., Akinwumi, J.A., Ngwu, P., Nkom, S.A., Odili, J., Olamajeye, J.A., Okunmadewa, F., and Shehu, D.J. 

(1996).State, Community and Local Development in Nigeria.World Bank Technical Paper No. 1440. 

GTZ (2002).Disaster risk management.Working Concept.Eschborn: German Technical Co-operation (GTZ). 

Ibem, E. O. (2011). “Challenges of disastervulnerability reduction in Lagos megacity rea, Nigeria.”Disaster 

Prevention and Management. 20 (1), 27-40. 

IFRC (2012). What is a disaster? URL: http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/about-

disasters/what-is-a-disaster/. Accessed: 15th October 2012 

Igomu, T. (2010). How Nigeria can combat natural disasters.http://www.nigerianbestforum.com/blog/how-nigeria-

can-combat-natural-disasters/ 

Ijaiya, G.T., Ijaiya, M. A. A., Bello, R. A., and Ajayi, M. A. (2011).Economic growth and poverty reduction in 

Nigeria.International Journal of Business and Social Science,2(15), 147-154. 

James, G.,  Shaba, H., Zubair,O., Teslim, A., Yusuf,G. Nuhu, A. (2013).Space-based disaster management in 

Nigeria: The role of the international charter “space and major disasters”. FIG Working Week 2013, 

Environment for Sustainability ,Abuja, Nigeria, 6 – 10 

May.http://www.fig.net/pub/fig2013/papers/ts01c/TS01C_james_halilu_et_al_6539.pdf 

Kanu, A. (2012).End Of The Road? A Special Report On The Nigeria Flood 

Disaster.http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/ahaoma-kanu/end-of-the-road-a-special-report-on-the-

nigeria-flood-disaster.html 

National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) (2010). “National disaster management framework 

(NDMF).”Accessed January 14, 2012 , 

Ngex.com(n.d.).An Overview of Nigeria.http://www.ngex.com/nigeria/overview.htm 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

 
 

49 

 

Nirupama and Simonovic, S. P. (2002).Role of remote sensing in disaster 

management.http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1002%26context%3Dwrrr 

Nwaka, G. I. (2005). “The urban informal sector in Nigeria: Towards economic development, environmental health 

and social harmony.”Global Urban Development Magazine. 1 (1), 1-11. 

Obadan, M. I. (n.d.). Poverty reduction in Nigeria: The Way 

forward.http://www.cenbank.org/OUT/PUBLICATIONS/EFR/RD/2002/EFRVOL39-4-3.PDF 

OECD (2001).The DAC Guidelines Poverty Reduction.Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operationand 

Development (OECD). 

ODI (2005). Aftershocks: Natural disaster risk and economic development policy. ODI Briefing 

Paper.http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/2596.pd 

Ogwumike, F.O (2001). Appraisal of poverty and poverty reduction strategies in Nigeria.CBN Economic and 

Financial Review. 39(4),45-71. 

Okuyama,Y. (n.d.).Economic impacts of natural disasters: Development issues and applications. Research supported 

by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), the World Bank.http://nexus-

idrim.net/idrim09/Kyoto/Okuyama.pdf. 

Onuah, F. (2012).Nigeria flood disaster ‘worst since 1948’ – More than 600,000 people displaced, 589 square miles 

of farmland destroyed – Crocodiles and hippos washed into homes. 

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2012/10/nigeria-flood-disaster-worst-since-1948.html. 

Oyeranti,O., and Olayiwola, K. (2005).Policies and programmes for poverty reduction in rural Nigeria.An Interim 

Research Report Submitted to the African Economic Research Consortium (AERC), Nairobi for the 

Second Phase Collaborative Poverty Research 

Project.http://www.sarpn.org/documents/d0002274/Poverty_reduction_Nigeria_Oct2005.pdf. 

Özerdem, A. (2003). Disaster as manifestation of unresolved development changes: The Maramara earthquake, 

Turkey. In: Pelling, M. (Ed.): Natural disasters and development in a globalizing world. London:Routledge, 

p. 199-213. 

PreventionWeb (2013). Nigeria - Disaster Statistics 

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/countries/statistics/?cid=126 

Picciotto, R (1992). Participatory Development: Myths and Dilemmas. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 

No.930 

Prowse, M. (2003).Towards a clear understanding of ‘vulnerability’ in relation to chronic poverty.Manchester: 

Graduate School of Social Science and Law, University of Manchester. 

Quarantelli, E.L. (Ed)(1998). What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question. London: Routledge. 

Royal Society(1992).Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management. London. 

Tiena(2010).Poverty and Nigeria’s booming population.http://questionmarkmag.com/2010/09/poverty-and-nigerias-

booming-population 

Twig J. (2004). Disaster risk reduction: Mitigation and preparedness in development and  

emergency programming. Good Practice Review.Number 9, March. 

UNDP (1994).Disasters and Development.Disaster Management Training Program.Modulepreparedby Stephenson 

R. S.. New York: United Nation Development Program (UNDP). (Available 

at:http://undmtp.org/english/disaster_development/disaster_development.pdf). 

United Nations (UN) (2002).Human Rights and Extreme Poverty. New York: UN.  

United Nations (2004).Guidelines for a Human Rights Approach to Poverty Reduction Strategies. High 

Commissioner for Human Rights.New York: United Nations. 

Woolcock, M., and Narayan, D. (2000 ). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research and policy. 

World Bank Research Observer, 15(2),225- 250. 

Appendix 
Table 2: Estimated Total Population and Rate of Poverty in Nigeria (1980-2002)  

Year  

 

Estimated Total  

Population (in 

million)  

 

Absolute No.  

of Poor People (in 

million)   

 

Percentage 

(%)  

that are Poor  

 

1980  64.6  18.1  28.1 

1981  66.7  21.3 32.0 

1982  68.4  24.2  35.5 

1983  70.6  27.5  39.0 

1984  73.0  31.4  43.0 

1985  75.4  34.9  46.3 

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2012/10/nigeria-flood-disaster-worst-since-1948.html
http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2012/10/nigeria-flood-disaster-worst-since-1948.html
http://questionmarkmag.com/author/adeiza-atureta/


www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

 
 

50 

 

1986  77.9  35.8  46.0 

1987  80.4  36.5  45.4 

1988  83.1  37.4  45.0 

1989 84.9  37.7  44.5 

1990  86.6  38.0  44.0 

1991  88.5  38.5  43.5 

1992  91.3  39.0  42.7 

1993  93.5  45.8  49.0 

1994  96.2  52.6  54.7 

1995  98.9  59.3  60.0 

1996  102.3  67.1  65.6 

1997  104.0  67.6  65.5 

1998  106.3  68.0  69.5 

1999  109.3  72.3  72.0 

2000  111.3  77.0  74.0 

2001  114.0  81.2  83.1 

2002  116.4  86.0  88.0 

Source: (Ijaiya et al., 2011) 

Table 3: Socio-economic Indicators in Nigeria- 1970-2001 

Year  Access 

to 

Health 

Care 

(%)  

Access 

to 

Water 

Care 

(%)  

Adult 

Illiterac

y (%)  

Access 

to 

Sanitat

ion 

(%)  

Life 

Expectanc

y at Birth 

 ( Years)  

Per 

Capita 

Income 

($)  

Infant 

Mortalit

y (Per 

1000)  

Daily 

Calorie 

Intake  

( Per 

Capital)  

1970- 74  -  -  89.7  -  43.2  350.0  -  -  

1975-79  -  -  84.9  -  45.3  660.0  122.0  1962  

1980-84  40.0  -  67.1  -  47.4  410.0  112.0  1903  

1985-89  40.0  15.9  59.2  62.1  49.2  270.0  102.0  2291  

1990-95  67.0  40.0  51.4  63.3  50.4  220.0  93.4  2656  

1995  -  49.9  43.6  57.3  51.1  210.0  91.6  2802  

1996  -  -  42.1  -  51.2  250.0  89.8  2772  

1997  -  -  40.6  -  51.3  270.0  88.0  2779  

1998  -  -  39.1  -  51.5  260.0  86.2  2828  

1999  -  -  37.6  63.0  51.6  250.0  84.4  2833  

2000  -  -  36.1  63.0  51.8  260.0  82.6  -  

2001  
2005  

2006  

2007  
2008  

- 
 -  

- 

 -  
-  

-  
-  

47.0 

 - 
 -  

34.7  
29.2 

 28.1 

 26.9 
 -  

- 
 -  

30.0  

-  
-  

51.9  
46.8 

 46.8  

49.9 
 -  

290.0 
 620.0 

830.0  

970.0 
1160.0  

75.1  
111.9  

110.7  

109.5 
 -  

-  
2654.7 

 -  

-  
-  

Source: (Ijaiya et al., 2011). 

 

Figure 6: Map of Nigeria 
Source:Ngex.com(n.d. 

 

 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr                 American International Journal of Social Science Research               Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

 
 

51 

 

Satellite Images of Rivers State and Bayelsa State Flood Disaster 

                   
  Figure 9: Flooded Areas in Parts of Rivers State.    Figure 10: Flooded Areas in Yenagoa and Environs 
 

The map products generated from the image analysis of 2012 flooding in Rivers and Bayelsa states are presented in Figures 9 and10.The 

incidence of floods in Rivers state was notso severe, affecting only Idia, Omoku, Obikwe and Biseni communities, among others. On the other 
hand, it was very severe in Bayelsa state. The total area impacted by the floods was 334 sq., affecting virtually all communities south of Yenagoa 

(Figure 8).  

Source: James et al. (2013) 
 

 

 
 

 

Copyrights 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.  

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 


