Project description

  • PROJECT TITLE: PERCEPTION AND WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT PUBLIC RANCHING
  • PRICE: ₦ 3000.00 » CHAPTERS: 5 » PAGES: 44 » FORMAT: Microsoft Word » » PROJECT DELIVERY: Instant Download »

Get complete project »

Need Urgent help on this project?

ABSTRACT

This research is on the perception and willingness to accept public ranching in Kuje Area of FCT, Abuja, Nigeria. The population for the study consists of 40 people which were randomly selected, Data were gathered using a self -constructed questionnaire and the result gotten was analyzed using the simple percentage method.  The validity and reliability of instrument were ascertained. Data analyzed from the research shows that the fear of headmen terrorism on other part of Nigeria, most especially farmers, has led to the unwillingness to accept public ranching in Kuju area of FCT, Abuja as many believe that the herdsmen will kill them, burn their houses and render them useless, make them orphans and homeless. The study therefore recommends that government should ensure that those involved in the allocation of land for farming should imbibe responsibility and not allocate along cattle route or over grazing lands to avoid encroachment by nomadic herdsmen.

TABLE OF CONTENT     

CHAPTER ONE

1.0   INTRODUCTION

1.1   BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY      

1.2   STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

1.3   OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 

1.4   RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1.5   SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY      

1.6   RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

1.7   SCOPE OF THE STUDY

1.8   LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

1.9   DEFINITION OF TERMS  

CHAPTER TWO

2.0   LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER THREE

3.0   RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

        3.1   INTRODUCTINTRODUCTION

        3.2   RESESEARCH DESIGN

        3.3   STUDY POPULATION

        3.4   SAMPLE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

3.5   DATA FOR THE STUDY: INSTRUMENTATION

        3.6   METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0   DATA PRESENTPRESENTATATION AND ANALYSIS

        4.1   INTRODUCTION

        4.2   DATA ANALYSIS

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0   SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

        5.1   SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

        5.2   CONCLUSION

        5.3   RECOMMENDATION

REFRENCE

APPENDIX

                          CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1      BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Ranching is a very significant change of the pastoralist system strategy. It changes the mobility nature of pastoralism where traditionally there are no limits of grazing of the available pastures, into controlled grazing (Abbass, 2012). It also changes the common property character of the pastoralist land where all land is open for pastures without any individual ownership. Ranching is now the dominant system of ruminant livestock production in North America, Australia and parts of South America (Adekunle  & Adisa, 2010). This is because the advantages of cattle ranching and it importance cannot be over emphasize Some European systems could also be described as ranching, though enclosures are often small and animals are frequently given supplements in the field (Folami, 2009). In countries like United States, (Fsona & Omojola, 2005), communal grazing pastoralism was prevalent in the 19th century, but now the grazing systems are fully enclosed (Houdret, Kramer & Carius, 2010). From 1990 to 2003, the cattle herd in the Northern part of the country grew by 140% from 26.6 million to 64 million heads. Increasing demand and the sector’s advantages in the region suggest that ranching will continue to grow in the region (Adisa, 2012). Nevertheless, the growth of extensive ranching in the region is worrying especially because of increased deforestation. Scientific and modern economic intervention into pastoralism has generally targeted the mobility and communal grazing characteristics of the system which results into sedentarized and most likely the enclosed, ranching system (Ahima, 2014). This intervention has implication that the pastoralist ecosystem is a limited and valuable resource. The traditional pastoralist perception is contrary to this implication, and considers and wishes to consider that pastoral land is essentially vast wilderness with no instituted limitation of use (no use limits except the availability of pastures). This obviously contradicts most intervention outlook. Even with most prominent advocates for promotion and improvement of pastoralist resource exploitation strategy, the baseline seems somewhere to be based on sedentarization or predictable location prior to other proposed measures like nutritional and veterinary assistance for livestock, services such as education (schools) and health; and setting up emergency grazing areas (Aji, 2014). There has been extensive scholarly analysis of the livelihood and sustainability of pastoralism as a way of life of a significant proportion of the human population. Much criticism exists arguing that mobility of large herds of livestock is stressful to the environment as it would cause extensive removal of vegetation (Barnett, 2008). Repeated uncontrolled grazing often ends up into bare land where vegetation is completely removed. Due to livestock trampling topsoil of an area usually becomes much pulverized while the immediate subsoil beneath becomes severely compacted. Pulverized soil is prone to extensive loss of soil through wind erosion while when it rains sheet erosion sweeps away very easily most of the pulverized soil. The surface run-off becomes much enhanced by the compacted soil condition (Biermann, & Klaus, 2004) Therefore, while rainfall would be stimulant for vegetation re-growth, because of extensive vegetation removal and compaction the rainfall instead becomes an enhancer of bareness of the soil after washing away all the soil that would support vegetation re-growth. In the Sahel in Africa, it has been reported that vegetation removal by livestock in the area is believed to have increased soil surface albedo to the extent of causing reduction of rainfall and rapid desertification (Blench, 2010). The worst thing about the unlimited mobility is that it can extend its impact beyond limits. Another criticism on pastoralism is centered on the system’s tendency against limited use rights of pastureland In this context all pastureland is communal and open to limitless grazing. Since communal use of pasturelands prevents any sense of ownership of the land, no individual pastoralist can think of expansion of his activities within the locality in which he is existing at any particular time (Durojaiye, 2014). At the same time the pastoralist cannot intuit any idea of intensification because under communal ownership there is no ground on which this intensification can be exercised. Under the communal setup, for example, a pastoralist cannot think of possibility of substituting some of the livestock for more pasture land. This is the dilemma of the communal land tenure system of traditional pastoralism. In his much referred “Tragedy of the commons”, criticizes very categorically the communal grazing characteristic of pastoralism and insists privatization as a way to correct imbalances of the pastoralist practice. In his article he described how common property resources shared by pastoralists eventually become over-used and ruined. He argued that the pastoralist land use strategy is unstable and a cause of environmental degradation (Ebonugwo, 2016). Earlier more than a century ago, also criticized pastoralism and argued observing that as far as common grazing land is concerned there is everything against it. He asserted that where there is communal grazing, every peasant in the village would tend to maximize the opportunity within the same limited area, with the result that grazing lands become always overstocked, never given rest, and usually become little more than exercise grounds for cattle (Flavel, 2010). Facts about this are difficult to totally refute even though some more recent literature elaborate contrary opinion and argue for a more interdisciplinary apprehension.

1.2      STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

When ranching was introduced, the economic contribution of the livestock was the major consideration. This consideration relegated the multiple functions and non-economic uses of livestock, which might be more important to the Fulani. Ranching capitalized on enhanced production output, but overlooked the potential use of animals as self-reproducing wealth, symbol of prestige, medium of social exchange, and insurance policy (Cisse 1980; and Schneider 1981). A major policy mistake was that of failing to understand that traditional pastoralism was an important source of food and employment on a continuous basis to most of the household members (Sandford 1982; and Cossins 1983). It is against this backdrop that the researcher intends to investigate the perception and willingness to accept public ranching in Kuju, FCT, Abuja.

1.3   RESEARCH QUESTION     


Get complete project »


'

Quick Project Topic Search