







































Global Sustainability Research                                                  ISSN: 2833-986X 
https://doi.org/10.56556/gssr.v4i2.1278 

                                                                  

 
 

 Global Scientific Research   1 
 

RESEARCH ARTICLE  

Leveraging ICT for Effective Disaster Management in Abuja, Nigeria: The 

Role of E-Governance Tools 
                                     

Paul Chima1*, Jumai Ahmadu1, Agbaje1, Ismaila1  
 

1Department of Public Administration, University of Abuja, Nigeria 
 
Corresponding Author: Chima Paul. Email: chimapaul2006@yahoo.com 

Received: 25 May, 2025, Accepted: 24 June, 2025, Published: 03 July, 2025 

Abstract 

The increasing frequency of disasters in Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has exposed limitations in 

traditional disaster management strategies. The integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) 

offers opportunities to improve preparedness and responsiveness. This study examined the impact of Information 

and Communication Technology (ICT) on disaster management in the Federal Capital Territory Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), using the disaster management cycle, mitigation, preparedness, response, and 

recovery, as the analytical framework. A survey design was employed, and 310 questionnaires were purposively 

distributed to 122 FEMA personnel and 188 community members in disaster-affected areas. Data were analyzed 

using the independent samples t-test, and the study was anchored on Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory. 

Findings revealed moderate mitigation efforts hindered by limited adoption of e-governance tools and outdated 

infrastructure. Preparedness was weakened by conventional training methods, and disaster response 

was constrained by poor ICT facilities and a lack of skilled personnel. The study recommends the adoption of 

emerging technologies such as drones, rescue robots, Doppler radar, and Incident Management Systems (IMS), 

along with continuous ICT-based training and community education. Strengthening web-based disaster platforms 

and enforcing safety regulations are also essential to enhance resilience in the FCT. 

Keywords: ICT; Disaster Management; Abuja; E-Governance; Nigeria 

Introduction

In recent decades, the frequency and severity of disasters, both natural and man-made, have significantly 

increased, posing threats to lives, infrastructure, and economies across the globe. These events, which include 

earthquakes, floods, fires, and explosions, transcend national boundaries and affect both developed and 

developing nations alike. Disasters such as the earthquakes in the Middle East, floods in Europe, and recurrent 

environmental crises in countries like Nigeria, Cameroon, and Chad underscore the urgent need for proactive and 

technology-driven disaster management strategies (Enenkel, Guha-Sapir & Zaitchik, 2024; Reuters Reports, 

2024). Studies specific to Nigeria show that flood-prone urban centres suffer severe impacts due to inadequate 

infrastructure, poor planning, and insufficient integration of ICT-based mitigation tools. This is exemplified in 

the work of Onugba, Onugba, and Bamigboye (2022), who reviewed resilient infrastructure options for flood risk 

management in Nigeria. The World Health Organization (2007) defines a disaster as an event that disrupts the 

normal living conditions of a population and exceeds the capacity of the affected community to cope. While the 

unpredictable nature of disasters renders their complete prevention difficult, the strategic application of 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   2 
 

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) offers promising tools for reducing their impact. ICT 

facilitates key functions such as mitigation, early warning, preparedness, response, and recovery. Across the 

world, governments are increasingly turning to e-governance technologies—including Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS), thermal imaging, mobile apps, and satellite communications—to improve the effectiveness of 

their disaster management operations (Djoumessi & Mbongo, 2022). For example, evidence from ICT-based 

disaster education in Indonesia illustrates how mobile and web-based technologies significantly enhance 

community preparedness and responsiveness (Uchida et al., 2021). 

E-governance, in the context of disaster management, refers to the use of digital tools to enhance the delivery of 

public services and foster efficient coordination between government agencies and the public (Abasilim, 

Gberevbie & Ifaloye, 2017). When properly integrated, e-governance systems enable real-time access to data, 

facilitate early warning communication, and allow for coordinated and transparent stakeholder engagement. 

These tools are particularly relevant in rapidly urbanizing regions like Abuja, Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory 

(FCT), which has witnessed a variety of disaster incidents in recent years, including floods, building collapses, 

and market fires. According to Aghav, Solanki, and Palwe (2022), GIS-based e-governance systems can support 

location-specific emergency services and coordination in dense urban areas, making them highly suitable for 

Abuja's context. The Federal Capital Territory Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), established in 2013 

under the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) Act of 1999, is the agency responsible for 

coordinating disaster risk reduction and emergency management in Abuja. FEMA’s mandate spans the four 

critical phases of disaster management: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (FEMA Handbook, 

2022). In fulfilling this mandate, FEMA has implemented several e-governance initiatives, such as GIS mapping, 

dedicated emergency websites, satellite monitoring, and social media alert systems. These initiatives are designed 

to modernize disaster management and reduce the vulnerability of residents to both environmental and human-

induced hazards. However, as noted by Rane et al. (2024), the success of such systems often hinges on adequate 

local capacity, sustained ICT funding, and institutional alignment, factors that are frequently lacking in 

developing regions. Despite these efforts, the Federal Capital Territory continues to experience significant and 

recurrent disasters, raising questions about the effectiveness of FEMA’s e-governance strategies. Notable 

incidents—such as the 2014 Nyanya bombing, frequent floods in Lokogoma and Trade-more Estate, and repeated 

fire outbreaks in areas like Kubwa—have exposed several systemic weaknesses. Public complaints about delayed 

emergency responses, inaccessibility of hotlines, limited early warning systems, and inadequate recovery support 

suggest that digital tools are not yet optimally deployed or utilized. A comparative review by Syukron et al. (2024) 

emphasizes that disaster response systems combining mobile apps, geospatial mapping, and real-time alerts 

perform significantly better in urban crisis environments. Given this context, this study critically examines the 

role and performance of e-governance initiatives within FEMA’s disaster management framework in the FCT. 

Specifically, it explores whether these digital tools have improved FEMA’s capacity to mitigate disaster risks 

during the pre-disaster phase. It also investigates the extent to which e-governance has enhanced preparedness 

efforts, enabling FEMA to anticipate and reduce the impact of potential hazards. Furthermore, the study assesses 

whether these initiatives support timely and effective response operations in the post-disaster phase, as well as 

their ability to facilitate recovery and rehabilitation processes following disasters. By exploring these dimensions, 

the study contributes to a deeper understanding of how ICT-driven governance mechanisms influence disaster 

risk management in urban Nigeria. It aims to provide practical insights that can inform policy and improve the 

resilience of public emergency systems, especially in rapidly growing cities like Abuja. 

 

 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   3 
 

Literature Review 

E-Governance and Its Relevance to Disaster Management 

 
Globalization, technological advancements, demographic shifts, and evolving political demands are transforming 

the functions of governments and public sector organizations. In response, governments are adopting more 

innovative, efficient, and citizen-centered approaches. One such strategy is e-governance, which offers a viable 

solution for improving public administration, enhancing service delivery, and promoting inclusive governance. 

E-governance refers to the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to support and improve 

governmental processes and citizen engagement. The OECD (2003) defines it as the application of ICTs to ensure 

transparency, accessibility, and responsiveness in government operations. Similarly, the World Bank (2012) 

emphasizes its role in transforming relationships between governments, citizens, businesses, and other 

institutions. Scholars like Oseni & Dimgley (2014) and Palvia & Sharma (2007) highlight their administrative 

value and potential to enhance interactions between public servants and society, while Bannister & Walsh (2002) 

extend the concept to include civic participation and democratic governance. Extending this scholarship, Chima 

& Victor (2023) demonstrate how demand-side factors—such as digital literacy and broadband costs, directly 

condition effective e-governance uptake in Nigerian localities, showcasing the real-world constraints underlying 

theoretical frameworks. 

In practical terms, e-governance encompasses a range of digital functions, including e-registration, e-taxation, 

e-service delivery, e-education, e-participation, and e-policing (Danfulani, 2013). These digital interventions are 

central to promoting the principles of good governance, such as transparency, accountability, equity, and citizen 

engagement (Adeyemo, 2013). A particularly transformative domain of e-governance is disaster management, 

where ICT systems—such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), mobile messaging platforms, and web-

based portals—enhance governments’ ability to issue timely warnings, identify high-risk zones, and coordinate 

emergency responses. As Cleverley (2001) and Backus (2001) observe, such tools facilitate real-time 

communication between authorities and the public, thereby increasing institutional responsiveness and public 

trust during crises. Nonetheless, the application of these technologies in developing contexts like Nigeria remains 

uneven. The effectiveness of e-governance in disaster management hinges on institutional readiness and 

infrastructural resilience. For instance, Chima and Ojochegbe (2022) report that systemic obstacles—including 

limited ICT skills among public officials, inadequate funding, and low public digital awareness—can significantly 

undermine the success of e-governance initiatives aimed at emergency coordination and public safety. These 

findings are reinforced by Chima and Victor (2023), who emphasize the persistence of digital divides, such as 

high broadband costs and limited connectivity, which constrain citizen participation in digital public services like 

disaster alerts and emergency reporting systems (DOI: 10.56556/jtie.v2i4.656). Collectively, these challenges 

reflect broader structural issues prevalent across sub-Saharan Africa, where infrastructural deficits and 

technological inequalities compromise governance performance, especially under crisis conditions. 

However, the trajectory is not entirely discouraging. Evidence from Chima and Oluwaseun (2020) presents a 

more optimistic outlook, illustrating how the successful deployment of ICT tools in Nigeria’s Integrated Payroll 

and Personnel Information System (IPPIS) has strengthened accountability and reduced corruption within the 

public sector. This case underscores the broader potential of transparent, ICT-enabled systems—not only in 

financial management but also in enhancing the credibility, efficiency, and traceability of disaster-related logistics 

and emergency interventions. 

E-governance is often conceptualized within the Government-to-Citizen (G2C) model, which allows citizens to 

access public services and information conveniently and equitably (Miller & Walling, 2013). This model also 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   4 
 

supports participatory governance by enabling citizens to monitor projects, evaluate service delivery, and hold 

institutions accountable (Palvia & Sharma, 2007). In Nigeria, e-governance has gained strategic attention. The 

National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) was established to drive ICT development and 

digital governance (Adeyemo, 2013). Initiatives include online portals, mobile apps, and digital platforms 

supporting poverty reduction, gender equality, environmental protection, and disaster response (Olufemi, 2012; 

Adeyemo, 2013). However, implementation remains constrained by several challenges: limited digital literacy, 

high internet costs, slow connectivity, and weak inter-agency integration (Olufemi, 2012). Corroborating these 

challenges, Paul Chima’s study on e-governance adoption at the University of Abuja identifies inadequate 

funding, low awareness, resistance to change, and staff training gaps as significant inhibitors (Chima & 

Ojochegbe, 2022), highlighting systemic constraints shared across public institutions. Addressing these issues is 

essential to realizing the full potential of e-governance in Nigeria and other developing countries. Especially in 

disaster management contexts, a robust G2C platform must overcome infrastructural, institutional, and capacity 

barriers to deliver real-time risk communication, facilitate coordination, and support recovery. Integrating 

academic insights from Paul Chima and other peers anchors our understanding in Nigeria’s policy reality and 

emphasizes the importance of context-sensitive approaches going forward. 

 

Disaster Management 

 

The concept of disaster has been widely explored in both academic and policy literature. Its origin can be traced 

to the French word “desastre,” which translates to “bad star,” connoting misfortune or ill fate. A disaster is defined 

as a serious disruption of societal functioning that surpasses the coping capacity of the affected community 

(United Nations, 2014). At the heart of disaster discourse lies an interconnected triad: hazards, vulnerability, and 

capacity. Hazards may be natural, such as floods, earthquakes, or pandemics, or man-made, including 

technological accidents or environmental degradation. Vulnerability relates to how exposed a population is to 

such hazards, shaped by factors like urban density, poverty, infrastructure quality, and access to basic services. 

Capacity encompasses the physical, social, and economic resources communities have to anticipate, cope with, 

and recover from disasters. A recent systematic review by Banda, Mwale, and Tembo (2024) highlights the 

importance of coupling community-based vulnerability reduction with technology-enhanced capacity building, 

particularly in Southern Africa.  Disaster management is a multi-stage process that includes mitigation, 

preparedness, response, and recovery (Lindsay, 2012). Mitigation involves long-term strategies—such as urban 

planning, building codes, flood mapping, and zoning laws—to reduce disaster impact. Khaspuria, Das, and 

Pandey (2024) argue that this phase is most effective when supported by integrated data systems and early-

warning models that proactively build urban resilience. 

Preparedness focuses on readying individuals, institutions, and systems to manage emergencies through planning, 

training, resource stockpiling, and public education (IFRC, 2000). According to FEMA’s 2022–2026 Strategic 

Plan, equitable preparedness is critical, as the agency states that “underserved communities often suffer 

disproportionately from disasters,” and that building a more resilient nation requires “proactively prioritizing 

actions that advance equity for communities and identifying groups that have historically been underserved” 

(FEMA, 2021). Response encompasses immediate actions taken to protect lives and property during and after a 

disaster (Gupta et al., 2011). Although global attention increasingly emphasizes prevention, a swift and organised 

response remains crucial for reducing losses and suffering. Recovery involves restoring services, infrastructure, 

and social systems. In IT contexts, it includes backups, disaster recovery-as-a-service (DRaaS), snapshots, and 

virtual recovery platforms (Google Cloud, 2024). Raj, Sharma, and Taneja (2025) note that emerging AI and big-

data tools, such as predictive flood maps and resource optimization algorithms, are transforming recovery 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   5 
 

planning and logistics. The integration of ICT and e-governance has significantly enhanced disaster management. 

Technologies like drones, GIS, satellite communication, thermal imaging, and mobile alerts are now vital for 

early warning, damage assessment, and inter-agency coordination (ITU, cited in Ostinsvig, 2006). Raj et al. 

(2025) further confirm that AI/ML and simulation platforms are becoming core tools across all disaster phases. 

Conclusively, disaster management is an inherently complex, multi-phase process that depends on coordinated 

planning, technological innovation, real-time communication, and human capacity. The effective synergy of 

mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, with inclusive governance and sustained investment, remains 

essential to managing both natural and human-induced disasters effectively. 

 

Theoretical Framework 

 

This study is anchored on the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory, originally developed by sociologist Everett 

Rogers in 1962. The theory provides a foundational lens for understanding how new ideas, technologies, or 

practices spread within a society or organization. It explains not only how and why innovations are adopted, but 

also the rate at which they disseminate across different social systems over time. A central feature of the theory is 

the emphasis placed on the role of communication in the adoption process, as outlined by Rogers in his updated 

work in 2003. According to Rogers, the diffusion of any innovation typically follows a five-stage process: 

awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and finally, adoption or rejection. Within this process, three critical elements 

interact to influence the outcome. The first is the innovation itself defined as any idea, practice, or object perceived 

as new by a person or group. The second is the communication channel, which refers to the means, whether formal 

or informal through which information about innovation is shared. The third is the social system, comprising the 

network of individuals, organizations, or communities through which the innovation is introduced and spread. 

The theory also identifies five specific attributes of an innovation that affect how quickly and widely it is adopted. 

These are relative advantage (the extent to which the innovation is perceived as better than what it 

replaces), compatibility (how well the innovation fits with the existing values, needs, and experiences of the target 

group), complexity (how difficult it is to understand or use), trialability (the ability to test the innovation on a 

small scale before full adoption), and observability (the degree to which the results of the innovation are visible 

and measurable to others). These attributes collectively shape the perceptions and behaviors of potential adopters 

within any given social system. 

 

Application of the theory to this study 

 

The DOI theory is particularly relevant to this study, which explores the adoption of e-governance innovations in 

disaster management in Abuja, Nigeria. In this context, tools such as online platforms, mobile applications, 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and digital communication channels are considered new and 

transformative innovations within the disaster management cycle, which includes mitigation, preparedness, 

response, and recovery. E-governance offers a clear relative advantage by enhancing the efficiency, transparency, 

and coordination of disaster management efforts among stakeholders such as government agencies, emergency 

responders, and local communities. For instance, GIS technology allows authorities to identify and map high risk 

zones prone to flooding or structural collapse. Mobile applications enable real-time alerts and support community-

based reporting of hazards. Similarly, online portals streamline the distribution of aid and improve coordination 

during emergencies. These innovations directly address the shortcomings of Abuja’s traditional disaster response 

systems, which have often been overwhelmed by challenges such as urban flooding and inadequate infrastructure 

(Basahuwa, 2017). 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   6 
 

The communication strategies employed to disseminate these innovations are crucial to their success. 

Government-led campaigns using television, radio, social media, and grassroots community workshops serve to 

educate stakeholders and build trust in new technologies. These platforms not only raise awareness but also foster 

interest and engagement, which are key steps in the innovation adoption process (Heeks, 2006). Patterns of 

adoption in Abuja mirror the adopter categories described by Rogers. Innovators and early adopters, such as the 

Federal Capital Territory Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) often lead the way by experimenting with 

and championing new technologies. They are followed by the early majority, which includes local government 

units and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that become involved after the benefits of innovation are 

demonstrated. However, the late majority and laggards, who may be less digitally literate or more skeptical of 

government-led technologies, tend to adopt only after prolonged engagement and proof of effectiveness. 

In applying the five innovation attributes to the context of Abuja, it becomes evident that each one plays a role in 

shaping outcomes. Compatibility is vital; the new systems must align with existing local infrastructure and 

practices to be accepted. Innovations perceived as overly complex or technical can hinder adoption, especially in 

low-literacy environments, making it essential to design user-friendly platforms that offer local language 

support. Trialability is also important; pilot testing in disaster-prone communities allows for the demonstration of 

real-world benefits before full-scale implementation. Finally, observability reinforces the adoption process, as 

visible improvements in response times and resource use increase confidence and encourage broader acceptance 

(AlAwadhi & Morris, 2009; Rogers, 2003). The role of the social system in this process cannot be overstated. 

The collective participation of government agencies, civil society organizations, community leaders, and the 

private sector creates the enabling environment for successful diffusion. Through visible government leadership, 

consistent stakeholder engagement, and collaborative efforts, trust and legitimacy are built, which are essential 

for the long-term sustainability of e-governance tools in disaster management (Heeks, 2006). The Diffusion of 

Innovation theory offers a robust framework for analyzing how and why e-governance tools are adopted within 

Abuja’s disaster management landscape. It not only explains variations in the pace of adoption but also highlights 

the importance of aligning technological innovations with local realities and effective communication strategies. 

 

Methodology of the Study 

 

This study adopted a combination of survey research design and documentary sources to gather data. The survey 

research design, as described by Obasi (1999), involves collecting data from a defined population through 

questionnaires or interviews and analyzing the results statistically to conclude. This approach was considered 

suitable due to its empirical nature, allowing the researcher to examine the relationships between variables under 

investigation. By using this method, the study effectively explored people's experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and 

behaviors regarding the use of e-governance in disaster management in Abuja. The research was conducted within 

the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which lies between latitudes 8°25' and 9°20' North and longitudes 6°45' and 

7°39' East, covering approximately 8,000 square kilometers. Established by Decree No. 6 in 1976, the FCT was 

carved out from Niger, Plateau, and Kogi States. Initially divided into nine development areas, it was later 

reorganized into six Area Councils: Abaji, Gwagwalada, Kuje, Kwali, Bwari, and Abuja Municipal. The FCT 

experiences three major weather conditions: a humid rainy season, an extremely hot dry season, and a short 

harmattan period. Vegetation includes various savannah types and patches of rainforest, especially in the 

Gwagwalada plains. 

The study population consisted of 528 individuals, including all 175 staff of the FCT Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) across departments such as Administration, Forecasting, Response and Mitigation (FRM), 

Relief and Rehabilitation, Monitoring and Special Duties, Information and Technology, and Account and Audit. 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   7 
 

The second category comprised 353 households affected by disasters across the six Area Councils of the FCT. 

To select a representative sample, both probability and non-probability sampling techniques were employed. 

Stratified random sampling helped divide the population into strata, while purposive sampling was used to select 

individuals with the most relevant experiences to answer the research questions. Using Taro Yamane’s (1964) 

formula at a 5% margin of error, a sample size of 310 was determined, comprising 122 FEMA staff and 188 

disaster-affected community members. Proportional allocation based on strata size was used to determine the 

number of respondents from each department and community. 

Data collection relied on a structured questionnaire and relevant publications. The questionnaire, based on a five-

point Likert scale (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree), was designed to gather both demographic information 

and insights into the application of e-governance in disaster management. A total of 310 questionnaires were 

administered to respondents. To ensure validity and reliability, the instrument underwent expert review for 

content validation, aligning the items with the research objectives. Reliability was tested using Cronbach’s Alpha, 

yielding a coefficient of 0.84, indicating high internal consistency. The findings were further supported by existing 

literature. 

Both primary and secondary sources of data were used. Primary data came from the questionnaire, while 

secondary data were sourced from books, journals, newspapers, official FEMA reports, and relevant publications 

on ICT and disaster management. This dual approach ensured comprehensive data collection. For data analysis, 

both descriptive and inferential methods were used. Responses were tabulated and simple averages computed. 

Additionally, tables and diagrams were used for clarity. An Independent Two Sample T-test was employed to test 

the hypotheses and identify any significant differences in responses across the sample groups. 

Data Analysis 

Test of Hypotheses 

 

In this section, four statistical hypotheses were tested using the Independent Samples t-test. This statistical 

technique was employed to determine whether there were significant differences in the mean responses between 

two independent groups, FEMA staff and members of disaster-affected communities in the FCT regarding the use 

of e-governance tools in disaster management. Specifically, the analysis examined variations in perceptions across 

the four key components of the disaster management cycle: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. 

Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 25), ensuring accuracy and robustness in 

hypothesis testing. 

 

Hypothesis one 

  

H0 There is no significant difference in the mean rating of FCT Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) staff 

and the affected communities’ opinions regarding the application of e-governance initiatives and Mitigation 

measures in the pre-activity phase of FEMA in FCT; 

 

 

 

 

 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   8 
 

Table 1: T- test Result of FEMA Staff and Community Members’ Opinion on E-governance and Mitigation of 

Disasters in FCT 

Group Total Mean Std. dev. T- test Result tcritical D.F. P – Value 

FEMA Staff 122 3.38 .3926      3.681 1.96 310 0.00 

Community 188 2.97 1.088     

SOURCE:Author computation from SPSS (Version 25) 

 

Interpretation of Results 

 

An Independent Samples t-test was conducted to assess whether there was a statistically significant difference in 

the mean responses of FEMA staff and members of affected communities regarding the effectiveness of FEMA’s 

e-governance tools in enhancing disaster mitigation efforts within the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The results 

revealed a statistically significant difference in the opinions of the two groups. The mean rating of FEMA staff 

(M = 3.38, SD = 0.39) was notably higher than that of the affected community members (M = 2.97, SD = 1.09), 

resulting in a mean difference of 0.41. This suggests that FEMA staff generally agreed that e-governance tools 

have improved disaster mitigation efforts, whereas affected community members expressed less agreement. The 

t-test yielded a calculated t-value (t₃₁₀) = 3.681, which exceeds the critical t-value of 1.96 at the 0.05 level of 

significance. Additionally, the p-value = 0.000, which is less than the significance threshold of 0.05, further 

confirms the statistical significance of the result. Given these findings, the null hypothesis (H₀), which stated that 

there is no significant difference in the mean responses of FEMA staff and affected communities is rejected. 

Consequently, the alternative hypothesis (H₁) is accepted. This result implies that there is a significant divergence 

in perception between FEMA staff and disaster affected community members regarding the role of e-governance 

initiatives in disaster mitigation within the FCT. While FEMA personnel view these digital tools as effective in 

reducing disaster risks, the community members appear less convinced of their impact or effectiveness. 

 

Hypothesis two 

  

H0 There is no significant difference in the mean rating of FCT Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) staff 

and the affected communities’ opinions regarding the application of e-governance initiatives and Preparedness 

measures in the pre-activity phase of FEMA in FCT 

 

Table 2: T- test Result of FEMA Staff and Community Members’ Opinion on E-governance and 

Preparedness activities in FCT  

Group Total Mean Std. dev. T- test Result tcritical D.F. P – Value 

FEMA Staff 122 3.10 .7218 9.84 1.96 310 0.00 

Community 188 2.10 .9148     

SOURCE: Author computation from SPSS (Version 25) 

 

Interpretation of Results 

 

An Independent Samples t-test was conducted to examine whether a significant difference exists between the 

mean responses of FEMA staff and members of affected communities regarding the influence of e-governance on 

disaster preparedness in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The analysis revealed a statistically significant 

difference in the perceptions of the two groups. The FEMA staff reported a higher mean score (M = 3.10, SD = 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   9 
 

0.72) compared to the affected community members (M = 2.10, SD = 0.91), resulting in a mean difference of 1.00. 

This suggests that FEMA personnel strongly believe that e-governance initiatives have enhanced disaster 

preparedness in the FCT, whereas the affected community members expressed considerable skepticism. The test 

produced a calculated t-value (t₃₁₀) = 9.84, which is well above the critical t-value of 1.96 at the 0.05 level of 

significance. Additionally, the p-value = 0.000, which is significantly less than 0.05, confirms the result's 

statistical significance. Based on these findings, the null hypothesis (H₀) which posited no significant difference 

between the two groups' responses is rejected, while the alternative hypothesis (H₁) is accepted. This result 

indicates a significant divergence in opinion between FEMA staff and disaster-affected communities regarding 

the effectiveness of e-governance tools in promoting disaster preparedness. While FEMA staff affirm the positive 

impact of such digital governance mechanisms, affected community members appear to hold contrasting views, 

potentially highlighting a gap in awareness, trust, or inclusiveness in preparedness strategies. 

 

Hypothesis three  

 

H0: There is no significant difference in the mean rating of FCT Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

staff and the affected communities’ opinions regarding the application of  

e-governance initiatives and Response measures in the post-activity phase of FEMA in FCT. 

 

Table 3: T- test Result of FEMA Staff and Community Members’ View on E-governance and Response 

activities in FCT  

Group Total Mean Std. dev. T- test Result tcritical D.F. P – Value 

FEMA Staff 122 3.67 .6873 14.86 1.96 310 0.00 

Community 188 2.36 .8763     

SOURCE: Author computation from SPSS (Version 25) 

 

Interpretation of Results 

 

An Independent Samples t-test was conducted to evaluate whether there is a significant difference in the mean 

responses of FEMA staff and members of affected communities regarding the influence of e-governance on 

disaster response in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The analysis revealed a statistically significant 

difference between the two groups. FEMA staff reported a significantly higher mean score (M = 3.67, SD = 0.69) 

compared to the affected community members (M = 2.36, SD = 0.88), yielding a mean difference of 1.31. This 

indicates that FEMA personnel believe that e-governance initiatives facilitate timely and effective disaster 

response, while the affected communities do not share this perception. The calculated t-value (t₃₁₀) = 

14.86 exceeded the critical t-value of 1.96 at the 0.05 level of significance, and the associated p-value = 0.000 was 

well below 0.05. These results confirm that the observed difference is statistically significant. As such, the null 

hypothesis (H₀) which stated that there is no significant difference between the perceptions of FEMA staff and 

affected community members is rejected. The alternative hypothesis (H₁) is therefore accepted. This finding 

implies a considerable perceptual gap between the implementing agency (FEMA) and the disaster-affected 

population regarding the responsiveness of FEMA’s e-governance mechanisms. While FEMA staff affirm that 

digital tools have improved the agency’s capacity to respond promptly to disasters, the affected communities 

appear to perceive a lack of adequate or timely intervention. 

 

 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   10 
 

Hypothesis four 

  

H0: There is no significant difference in the mean rating of FCT Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) staff 

and the affected communities’ opinions regarding the application of  

e-governance initiatives and Recovery measures in the post-activity phase of FEMA in FCT. 

 

Table 4. T- test Result of FEMA Staff and Community Members’ Opinion on E-governance and Recovery 

activities in FCT  

Group Total Mean Std. dev. T- test Result tcritical D.F. P – Value 

FEMA Staff 122 2.83 1.173 9.64 1.96 310 0.00 

Community 188 1.70 .9769     

SOURCE: Author computation from SPSS (Version 25) 

 

Interpretation of results 

 

An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine whether there is a significant difference between the 

mean responses of FEMA staff and affected community members regarding the influence of e-governance on 

disaster recovery activities in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The results indicated a statistically significant 

difference between the two groups. FEMA staff reported a higher mean response (M = 2.83, SD = 1.17) compared 

to the affected community (M = 1.70, SD = 0.98), with a mean difference of 1.04. Notably, both groups expressed 

disagreement with the notion that FEMA’s e-governance tools effectively facilitate disaster recovery activities in 

the FCT, although FEMA staff's responses were relatively more positive. This difference in perceptions was 

statistically significant, as the calculated t-value (t₃₁₀ = 9.64) exceeded the critical value of 1.96 at the 0.05 

significance level, and the p-value (p = 0.000) was less than 0.05. Consequently, the null hypothesis (H₀), which 

posited no significant difference between FEMA staff and affected communities’ views on e-governance and 

recovery activities, was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis (H₁) accepted. This outcome suggests that while 

both FEMA staff and affected community members perceive limitations in the effectiveness of e-governance for 

disaster recovery, there remains a significant divergence in the extent of their views. The findings underscore the 

need for further investigation and potential enhancement of e-governance strategies to improve recovery efforts 

and align perceptions between the agency and the community. 

 

Discussion of Findings 

 

This section critically analyses the findings derived from the research questions, organized around four key 

dimensions of disaster management: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, with a focus on the role of 

E-governance initiatives by FEMA in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The discussion synthesizes the 

perspectives of both FEMA staff and the affected community, revealing critical disparities and areas for 

enhancement in the deployment and effectiveness of digital governance tools in disaster management. 

E-governance Initiatives and Mitigation Activities (Pre-activity Phase): The comparative analysis using an 

independent two-sample t-test reveals a statistically significant difference in perception between FEMA staff 

(mean = 3.38) and affected community members (mean = 2.97) regarding the effectiveness of FEMA’s E-

governance tools in disaster mitigation. FEMA staff generally hold a more favorable view, indicating institutional 

confidence in the existing systems, whereas the affected community remains comparatively skeptical. This 

disparity highlights a critical disconnect between governmental perceptions and grassroots realities. While 63% 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   11 
 

of participants acknowledge the adequacy of government policies and their dissemination through electronic 

media, the community’s relatively lower ratings suggest gaps in trust, accessibility, and meaningful engagement. 

This aligns with Oruonye et al. (2021), who observe that the presence of ICT policy frameworks alone does not 

guarantee their effectiveness unless accompanied by practical, ground-level engagement strategies. Notably, 

FEMA's reported 74% competence in identifying disaster-prone areas reflects a positive application of geospatial 

and risk assessment technologies. This is consistent with findings by Gancarczyk et al. (2023), who emphasize 

the role of Web-GIS and Decision Support Systems in mapping hazard-prone zones. However, they caution that 

the absence of localized implementation strategies and insufficient community involvement often undermines the 

full potential of such technologies. Further compounding the issue is the widespread dissatisfaction (85% 

disagreement) among both staff and community members regarding compliance with ICT-related safety protocols 

and the ineffectiveness of meteorological monitoring. These challenges likely stem from low ICT literacy, weak 

infrastructural support, and a lack of community-centered approaches—factors that Wolff (2021) identifies as 

central to the underutilization of participatory GIS and citizen science in disaster governance. Similarly, Chauhan 

et al. (2020) highlight that effective geospatial vulnerability mapping must be accompanied by deliberate 

stakeholder inclusion and infrastructural readiness to yield practical results. In this regard, FEMA’s efforts, while 

technologically sound, remain constrained by implementation gaps that limit adoption, trust, and impact at the 

community level. To enhance disaster mitigation outcomes, FEMA must pivot toward a more inclusive, 

community-centric approach. This includes improving digital outreach, fostering ICT literacy, and reinforcing 

early warning systems. Without bridging the implementation and trust gap, even the most advanced e-governance 

tools will fall short of their intended impact. 

E-governance Initiatives and Preparedness Efforts (Pre-activity Phase): The t-test shows a highly significant 

difference between FEMA staff (mean = 3.10) and community members (mean = 2.10) regarding the perceived 

role of E-governance in disaster preparedness, with a large mean difference of 1.00. FEMA personnel express 

strong confidence in ICT tools and capacity-building efforts, while the affected community expresses notable 

dissatisfaction. A striking finding is the unanimous (100%) dissatisfaction from both groups concerning the 

adequacy of FEMA’s risk assessment and hazard analysis tools, and a similar unanimous concern about the early 

warning systems. This dual agreement on inadequacy signals systemic weaknesses that transcend perception gaps 

and point to real infrastructural and operational deficits. These findings are aligned with Ogundele et al. (2013), 

who documented similar deficiencies in emergency agencies at the state level. Moreover, the split perceptions on 

disaster monitoring (45% FEMA agreement vs. 73% community disagreement) further highlight insufficient 

disaster preparedness efforts at local and state levelsThis disparity underscores the need for inclusive planning 

and robust integration of community feedback into preparedness strategies, reflecting broader challenges 

observed in regions like Nigeria’s South-South market areas. For instance, recent interventions by the Edo State 

Emergency Management Agency (EdoSEMA) illustrate how people-centred governance, through engagement 

with market associations, traditional leaders, and grassroots institutions, has enhanced disaster preparedness and 

risk communication in vulnerable local government areas (The Nigerian Observer, 2025). Such participatory 

models not only validate the call for localized feedback mechanisms but also demonstrate their viability in 

addressing systemic deficits in emergency response and ICT trust-building. Recent empirical studies reinforce 

these concerns. For example, the Inform@Risk project in Medellín, Colombia (UNDRR, 2024), revealed that 

community trust and the effectiveness of early warning systems improve significantly when ICT tools are co-

developed with local residents. This directly parallels the perception gap seen in FEMA’s preparedness systems. 

Similarly, Coulibaly et al. (2020) documented how an impact-based flood early warning system along Niger’s 

Sirba River successfully combined top-down hydrological models with bottom-up community thresholds, 

enhancing adoption and understanding. Further evidence from Nigussie et al. (2025) in Ethiopia shows that 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   12 
 

involving communities in disaster data collection through citizen science substantially increases preparedness, 

system ownership, and local relevance. These studies validate the view that ICT tools and risk frameworks are 

only as effective as their social adoption, contextual fit, and perceived reliability among end-users. FEMA should 

intensify investments in modern ICT tools for hazard mapping, risk communication, and early warning systems. 

However, these tools must not be developed in isolation. The studies above affirm that capacity-building efforts 

must be complemented with inclusive, community-tailored training and participatory technology adoption 

programs. Incorporating citizen voices into both the design and implementation stages of digital preparedness 

systems is crucial to building resilient and trusted E-governance frameworks. 

E-governance Initiatives and Response Activities (Post-activity Phase): Findings indicate a significant difference 

in perceptions of FEMA’s e-governance response capabilities (mean difference = 1.31), with FEMA staff rating 

their digital response mechanisms higher than community members. While a majority (64%) agree on the 

effectiveness of FEMA’s website for data storage and dissemination, concerns remain regarding the emergency 

hotline’s effectiveness and the promptness of online contact agents, with both groups expressing 64% 

disagreement about responsiveness. This divergence reveals critical weaknesses in real-time communication and 

emergency contact facilitation. This aligns with findings by Kasim and Oyerinde (2021), who observed that 

although Nigeria’s National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) actively posted on Facebook during 

disasters, it lacked proactive use of social media before emergencies, largely due to insufficient training and 

institutional policy gaps—mirroring the current findings on hotline inefficacy and slow agent response. 

Additionally, the consensus on the inadequate presence of ICT-equipped local response units in some area 

councils suggests institutional bottlenecks limiting decentralized disaster response effectiveness. This is 

consistent with Tolessa et al. (2024), who found that while decentralization of disaster risk management in 

Ethiopia’s Oromia region enhanced local accountability, it remained hindered by coordination issues and limited 

capacity at the district level. Despite progress in digital infrastructure, such accessibility and operational delays 

hamper rapid response, a vital phase where speed is essential. Evidence from Lagos during the COVID-19 

pandemic further supports this, as Oni and Peter (2022) show that social media platforms like Twitter and 

WhatsApp significantly enhanced real-time public engagement and trust when used actively by government 

agencies and influencers. This underscores the potential for FEMA to boost responsiveness and community 

engagement by adopting similar mobile and social strategies. 

E-governance Initiatives and Recovery Efforts (Post-activity Phase): The significant mean difference of 1.04 

between FEMA staff (mean = 2.83) and the community (mean = 1.70) highlights starkly contrasting views on the 

effectiveness of E-governance in recovery. Both groups share dissatisfaction with the adequacy of ICT personnel 

and field officers supporting recovery operations (49% FEMA disagreement, 59% community disagreement), 

signaling a critical shortage of skilled human resources. This concern aligns with Sun et al. (2021), who argue 

that the effectiveness of disaster recovery is highly dependent on the proactive mobilization of trained human 

resources, including ICT specialists. There is unanimous (100%) rejection of FEMA’s preference for manual 

search and rescue methods over technology-driven approaches, which runs counter to global trends promoting 

ICT integration in recovery (Lama & Pradhan, 2018). This position is further supported by Habibi, Ivaki, and 

Barata (2025), who demonstrate that drone-assisted emergency services and other automated technologies 

significantly outperform manual search and rescue efforts in speed, safety, and coverage, underscoring the 

urgency for FEMA to modernize. Further, the division over the effectiveness of digital humanitarian and relief 

efforts, with 66% FEMA staff expressing agreement contrasted by 71% community skepticism, indicates serious 

concerns over transparency, equity, and trust. These concerns resonate with Musa, Magaji, and Ibukuoluwa 

(2025), whose research in the Nigerian context highlights the importance of integrating financial inclusion and 

digital tracking systems into humanitarian relief to ensure transparency and equitable distribution. These findings 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   13 
 

also reinforce Oruonye et al. (2021), who emphasize that FEMA’s relief allocation is often reactive and tied to the 

magnitude of loss. The community’s distrust is compounded by differing opinions on digital transparency 

regarding donor and beneficiary disclosures, echoing Ogundele et al.’s (2013) critique of opaque practices in 

state-level agencies. 

Conclusion 

The study reveals a consistent and significant disparity between the perceptions of FEMA staff and the affected 

community regarding the effectiveness of FEMA’s e-governance initiatives across all phases of disaster 

management—mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery—in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). While 

FEMA personnel generally maintain a favorable view of the agency’s ICT tools and strategies, the affected 

communities tend to express skepticism and dissatisfaction, particularly regarding the accessibility, timeliness, 

and adequacy of digital disaster management resources. During the mitigation phase, although FEMA staff 

believe that government policies and communication through e-governance platforms are sufficient and 

effectively disseminated, challenges remain in fostering citizen compliance with ICT-based safety regulations. 

Additionally, the agency’s capacity for real-time disaster forecasting and meteorological monitoring is still 

inadequate. To bridge this gap, FEMA should enhance community compliance and ICT usage by initiating 

targeted education programs and participatory engagement strategies. Such initiatives would improve 

understanding and adherence to mitigation policies, thereby increasing overall disaster resilience. 

In the preparedness phase, a striking divergence of views was observed. FEMA personnel expressed confidence 

in existing ICT tools and staff training, whereas the affected communities unanimously viewed FEMA’s early 

warning systems and risk assessment mechanisms as ineffective. This gap underscores systemic weaknesses in 

both capacity and infrastructure. To address this, FEMA must prioritize upgrading its ICT tools and early warning 

systems by adopting advanced risk analysis technologies, improving early warning communication channels, and 

conducting continuous training for personnel. These improvements will help align internal confidence with public 

trust and expectations. Regarding the response phase, FEMA’s digital infrastructure, particularly in data storage 

and dissemination through websites, has shown encouraging progress. Nevertheless, concerns persist about the 

responsiveness of emergency hotlines, online contact systems, and the adequacy of local response units. These 

weaknesses point to limitations in the coordination and accessibility of response efforts. Improving digital 

infrastructure accessibility and establishing well-equipped, ICT-enabled response units across all area councils 

will significantly enhance timely disaster response and reduce the disconnect between institutional performance 

and community perception. 

In the recovery phase, both FEMA staff and community members voiced concerns about inadequate ICT 

personnel and continued reliance on manual methods for search and rescue operations. Moreover, a lack of trust 

in FEMA’s digital humanitarian efforts and perceived transparency deficits hinder effective post-disaster 

recovery. Addressing these challenges requires the integration of transparent digital monitoring and reporting 

systems for relief distribution. Furthermore, adopting technology-driven recovery methods in place of manual 

processes will improve efficiency, accountability, and community confidence in FEMA’s recovery operations. In 

summary, the findings highlight the urgent need to improve the integration of ICT across FEMA’s disaster 

management framework. This should be supported by increased investment in digital infrastructure, inclusive 

stakeholder engagement, enhanced training programs, and a commitment to transparency. Doing so will not only 

close the perception gap between FEMA personnel and the communities they serve but also strengthen 

institutional credibility and public resilience in the face of recurring disasters. 

 



Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   14 
 

Declaration 

 

Acknowledgment: N/A 

 

Funding: N/A 

 

Conflict of interest: N/A 

 

Ethics approval/declaration: N/A 

 

Consent to participate: N/A 

 

Consent for publication: N/A 

 

Data availability: N/A 

 

Authors contribution: N/A 
 
References 

 

Abasilim, U. D., Gberevbie, D. E., & Ifaloye, O. R. (2017). Attaining a better public service delivery through 

e-governance adoption in Nigeria. 4th Covenant University Conference on E-governance in Nigeria 

(CUCEN 2017), Ota, Nigeria. https://core.ac.uk/works/30786871. 

Adeyemo, A. B. (2013). E-government implementation in Nigeria: An assessment of Nigeria’s global 

e-government ranking. Journal of Internet and Information System, 2(1), 11–

19. https://academicjournals.org/article/article1379945077_Ademola.pdf 

Aghav, S., Solanki, P., & Palwe, S. (2023). GIS for disaster management: A system to aid users with relevant 

information. In D. Goyal, A. Kumar, V. Piuri, & M. Paprzycki (Eds.), Algorithms for Intelligent Systems: 

Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Management and Machine 

Intelligence. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2065-3_19 

AlAwadhi, S., & Morris, A. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of e-government services. Journal of 

Software, 4(6), 584–

590. http://34.30.143.41:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/1737/PLACE%20OF%20INFORMA

TION%20IN%20DIASATER%20MANAGEMENT.pdf 

Backus, M. (2001). E-governance and developing countries: Introduction and examples. International Institute 

for Communication and Development. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=E-

Governance+and+Developing+Countries,... 

Bannister, B., & Walsh, A. (2002). Emergency planning and preparedness. Chemical Hazards and Poisons 

Report, 11, 25. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/.../2008_CHPR_issue_11.pdf#page=25 

BASAHUWA, C. B. (2017). Place of information in disaster management: A case of Federal Capital Territory 

(FCT) Abuja. http://34.30.143.41:8080/... 

Chauhan, A., Singh, A., & Ghosh, S. (2020). Geospatial approach for assessment of vulnerability to flood in local 

self-governments. Geoenvironmental Disasters, 7, 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40677-020-00170-5 

https://core.ac.uk/works/30786871
https://academicjournals.org/article/article1379945077_Ademola.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2065-3_19
http://34.30.143.41:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/1737/PLACE%20OF%20INFORMATION%20IN%20DIASATER%20MANAGEMENT.pdf
http://34.30.143.41:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/1737/PLACE%20OF%20INFORMATION%20IN%20DIASATER%20MANAGEMENT.pdf
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=E-Governance+and+Developing+Countries
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=E-Governance+and+Developing+Countries
http://34.30.143.41:8080/
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40677-020-00170-5


Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   15 
 

Chima, P., & Oluwaseun, F. G. (2020). Electronic governance and corruption in Nigeria: Combining insights 

from Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS) implementation. International Journal 

of Intellectual Discourse, 3(1), 1–14. ISSN 2636-4832. 

Cleverley, M. (2001). E-government symposium a great success. NYSFIRM. 

Coulibaly, Y., Di Baldassarre, G., Mariotti, G., & Ayanlade, A. (2020). Community and impact-based early 

warning system for flood preparedness along the Sirba River in Niger. Sustainability, 12(5), 

1802. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051802 

Danfulani, J. (2013, August 10). E-governance: A weapon for the fight against corruption in Nigeria. Sahara 

Reporters. http://saharareporters.com/... 

Djoumessi, Y. F., & Mbongo, L. D. (2022). An analysis of information communication technology for natural 

disaster management in Africa. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 68, 

102722. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022IJDRR..68.102722 

Ejem, A. A., Okeke, S. V., Ojeka-John, R. O., & Adekeye, E. T. (2025). Social media and climate-related disaster 

management in Africa: A force-field analysis. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 17(1), 

a1753. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v17i1.1753 

Enenkel, M., Guha Sapir, D., & Zaitchik, B. (2024). Human losses due to climate-related disasters: An urgent call 

for quality control. Environmental Research Letters, 19(7), 071001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-

9326/ad58fb 

Ezenyilimba, E., Maduagwu, N. E., & Eze, J. O. (2018). Disaster management in a volatile ECOWAS region: 

Nigeria perspective. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management 

Sciences, 7(3), 30–46. https://www.researchgate.net/... 

FCT Emergency Management Agency. (2022). Federal Capital Territory Emergency Management Agency 

operational handbook. https://fema.gov.ng/ 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2021). FEMA 2022–2026 strategic plan. U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security. https://www.fema.gov/.../fema_2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf 

Ferrelli, F. (2023). Remote sensing applications for effective fire disaster management plans: A 

review. Information System and Smart City, 3(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.59400/issc.v3i1.133 

Gancarczyk, W., Szafrańska, B., & Gorczyca, A. (2023). Comprehensive analysis of the use of Web-GIS for 

natural hazard management: A systematic review. Sustainability, 16(10), 

4238. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104238 

Google Cloud. (2024). What is disaster recovery? Google Cloud. https://cloud.google.com/learn/what-is-disaster-

recovery?hl=en 

Gupta, A. K., Tyagi, P., & Sehgal, V. K. (2011). Drought disaster challenges and mitigation in India: Strategic 

appraisal. Current Science, 1795–

1806. https://www.nidm.gov.in/PDF/TrgReports/2011/September/temp/reading3.pdf 

Heeks, R. (2006). Theorizing ICT4D research. Information Technologies & International Development, 3(3), 1–

4. https://itidjournal.org/index.php/itid/article/download/227/227-563-2-PB.pdf 

Howlader, A. H. (2013). Remote sensing applications in early warning and disaster management in 

Bangladesh. http://aprsaf.org/data/… 

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2000). Disaster policy and preparedness 2000 

report. https://www.ifrc.org/docs/.../finalhivlatvia.pdf 

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2016). World disaster report 2016: 

Resilience—Saving lives today, investing for tomorrow. IFRC. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051802
http://saharareporters.com/
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022IJDRR..68.102722
https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v17i1.1753
https://www.researchgate.net/
https://fema.gov.ng/
https://doi.org/10.59400/issc.v3i1.133
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104238
https://cloud.google.com/learn/what-is-disaster-recovery?hl=en
https://cloud.google.com/learn/what-is-disaster-recovery?hl=en
https://www.nidm.gov.in/PDF/TrgReports/2011/September/temp/reading3.pdf


Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   16 
 

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2000). Introduction to disaster preparedness. 

Geneva: IFRC. 

Kasim, O. F., & Oyerinde, I. A. (2024). Social media and disaster management by the National Emergency 

Management in Nigeria: What it is and what it should be. Journal of Emergency Management, 22(6), 

597–610. https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0839 

Khaspuria, G., Ranjan, A., Sahil, P., Soni, P., & Dadhich, K. (2024). Natural disaster mitigation strategies: A 

comprehensive review. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 30(8), 20–34. 

Lama, S., & Pradhan, S. (2018). ICT usage for the post-disaster recovery in tourism: The 2015 Nepal Earthquake. 

In Information Systems for Crisis Response and 

Management. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/.../ISCRAM2018_ICT%20Usage… 

Lindsay, B. R. (2012). Federal emergency management: A brief introduction. Congressional Research 

Service. https://training.fema.gov/.../federal%20em-a%20brief%20introduction… 

Miller, M., & Walling, J. (2013). Government in the 21st century: New avenues of study—Taking sides. McGraw 

Hill. 

Nigussie, Z., Geremew, B., & Haileselassie, A. (2025). Does a citizen science approach enhance flood early 

warning systems? Evidence from Ethiopia. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 10(1), Article 

12. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.587 

Obasi, I. N. (1999). Research methodology in political science. Academic Publishing Company. 

Odunola, O. O., & Balogun, F. A. (2015). Analyzing household preparedness on flood management in Riverside: 

A focus on Apete Community in Ibadan, Nigeria. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 20(9), 7–

32. https://www.researchgate.net/... 

OECD. (2003). The e-government imperative: Main findings. OECD Observer. 

Ogundele, J. A., Arohunsoro, S. J., Jegede, A. O., & Oni, B. B. (2013). Evaluating the operations of emergencies 

and disaster management agencies in Ekiti State, Nigeria. Journal of Natural Sciences Research, 3(15), 

132–138. 

Okwuonu, I. E., Umeuduji, J. E., & Okeah, G. O. (2021). Fire disaster emergency preparedness of selected 

markets in South-south Nigeria. Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports, 15(11), 1–

9. https://www.academia.edu/... 

Olufemi, F. J. (2012). Electronic governance: Myth or opportunity for Nigerian public 

administration. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(9), 58–

66. 

Oni, T., & Peter, C. (2022, May 17). Social media can be a force for good in a crisis: Lessons from Lagos. MRC 

Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge. https://www.mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk/blog/2022/05/17/social-

media-lessons-from-lagos/ 

Onugba, M. A., Onugba, A., & Bamigboye, M. E. (2022). Resilient infrastructure as a tool for flood risk 

management in Nigeria: A review. Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, 

37–46. https://doi.org/10.9734/jgeesi/2022/v26i11644 

Oruonye, E. D., Dimas, A., & Ahmed, Y. M. (2021). Challenges of emergency management in Nigeria: A case 

study of Federal Capital Territory (FCT) FEMA. International Journal of World Policy and Development 

Studies, 7(3), 35–44. 

Oseni, K. O., & Dingley, K. (2015). Barriers facing e-service technology in developing countries: A structured 

literature review with Nigeria as a case study. In 2015 International Conference on Information Society 

(i-Society) (pp. 97–103). IEEE. https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/… 

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0839
https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.587
https://www.researchgate.net/
https://www.academia.edu/
https://www.mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk/blog/2022/05/17/social-media-lessons-from-lagos/
https://www.mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk/blog/2022/05/17/social-media-lessons-from-lagos/
https://doi.org/10.9734/jgeesi/2022/v26i11644


Global Sustainability Research 

 Global Scientific Research   17 
 

Ostinsvig, I. (2006). Interagency cooperation in disaster management: Partnership, information and 

communications technology and committed individuals in Jamaica [Master’s thesis, Norwegian 

University of Life Sciences]. 

Palvia, S. C. J., & Sharma, S. S. (2007). E-government and e-governance: Definitions/framework and status 

around the world. Computer Society of India. 

Paul, C., & Ojochegbe, A. E. (2022). Inhibitors to e-governance adoption and implementation and the impact on 

the performance of University of Abuja, Nigeria: An empirical investigation. Journal of Social Sciences 

and Management Studies, 1(3), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.56556/jssms.v1i3.179 

Paul, C., & Victor, E. V. (2023). Digital divide and uptake of public e-service in Nigeria: A narrative 

review. Journal of Technology Innovations and Energy, 2(4), 27–

41. https://doi.org/10.56556/jtie.v2i4.656 

Reuters. (2024, October 15). Monsoon havoc exposes West, Central Africa’s rising flood risks. Reuters. 

Shaba, H. A. (2009). National disaster management in 

Nigeria. http://www.emergencymanagementnetwork.ning.com/ 

Syukron, M., Madugalla, A., Shahin, M., & Grundy, J. (2024). A comprehensive study of disaster support mobile 

apps (Version 1). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.08145 

The Nigerian Observer. (2025, June 1). EdoSEMA highlights disaster interventions, strategic gains under 

Okpebholo’s people-centred governance. The Nigerian 

Observer. https://nigerianobservernews.com/.../edosema-... 

Tolessa, T., Fana, C., Gadissa, D., et al. (2024). Effectiveness of decentralization of disaster risk management in 

Borana and South-West Shawa zones, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. International Journal of Disaster Risk 

Science, 15, 892–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-024-00599-x 

UN APCICT. (2010). ICT for disaster risk reduction. Asian and Pacific Training Centre for ICT for Development 

Report, 28–40. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12870/1562 

UNDRR. (2024). Developing a participatory landslide early warning system: The INFORM@RISK project in 

Medellín, Colombia. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. https://www.undrr.org/... 

United Nations. (2014). E-government for the future we want (ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/188). United Nations 

Department of Economic and Social Affairs. http://unpan3.un.org/... 

Wolff, E. (2021). The promise of a “people-centred” approach to floods: Types of participation in the global 

literature… Progress in Disaster Science, 10, 100171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2021.100171 

World Bank. (2012). Information and communications for development 2012: Maximizing mobile. World Bank 

Publications. 

World Health Organization. (2007). The world health report 2007: A safer future—Global public health security 

in the 21st century. WHO. 

Yanda, M., & Dalhatu, M. (2021). An assessment on the environmental effects of flood on communities in Sokoto 

eastern zone of Nigeria. Journal of Sospoly JE EE, 1–15. http://journal.uaspolysok.edu.ng/... 

 

https://doi.org/10.56556/jssms.v1i3.179
https://doi.org/10.56556/jtie.v2i4.656
http://www.emergencymanagementnetwork.ning.com/
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.08145
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-024-00599-x
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12870/1562
https://www.undrr.org/
http://unpan3.un.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2021.100171
http://journal.uaspolysok.edu.ng/

