Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280239358

IntegratingcommunityperceptionsandculturaldiversityinsocialimpactassessmentinNigeria

ARTICLEinENVIRONMENTALIMPACTASSESSMENTREVIEW·JULY2015

ImpactFactor:2.6

READS

36

6AUTHORS,INCLUDING:

ChidiNzeadibe

UniversityofNigeria

33PUBLICATIONS106CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

ChukwuedozieAjaero

UniversityofNigeria

34PUBLICATIONS25CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

EmekaOkonkwo

UniversityofNigeria

11PUBLICATIONS0CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

TheclaAkukwe

UniversityofNigeria

6PUBLICATIONS5CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:EmekaOkonkwo

Retrievedon:16October2015

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 74–83

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /e ia r

Integrating community perceptions and cultural diversity in socialimpact assessment in Nigeria

Thaddeus Chidi Nzeadibe a,⁎, Chukwuedozie Kelechukwu Ajaero b, Emeka Emmanuel Okonkwo c,Patrick Uche Okpoko c, Thecla Iheoma Akukwe a, Roseline Feechi Njoku-Tony d

a Department of Geography, University of Nigeria, 410001 Nsukka, Nigeriab Demography and Population Studies Programme, The University of Witwatersrand Johannesburg, South Africac Department of Archaeology and Tourism, University of Nigeria, 410001 Nsukka, Nigeriad Department of Environmental Technology, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: chidi.nzeadibe@unn.edu.ng (T.C. Nzea

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.07.0050195-9255/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 3 June 2015Received in revised form 10 July 2015Accepted 17 July 2015Available online xxxx

Keywords:Social impact assessmentNiger DeltaCommunity perceptionsCultural diversitySustainable development

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act of 1992 aimed to make the environment a central theme in de-velopment in Nigeria. Nevertheless, the extent of engagement with local cultures in the Nigerian EIA process isnot statutorily guaranteed. While most EIAs in Nigeria have been for oil and gas projects in the Niger Delta,and have focused strongly on the biophysical environment, socio-economic and cultural aspects have remainedmarginal. The palpable neglect of community perceptions and cultural diversity in social impact assessment (SIA)in this region prone to conflict has tended to alienate the people in the decision-making process. Thus, despiteclaims to compliance with regulatory requirements for EIAs, and numerous purported sustainable developmentinitiatives by international oil companies (IOCs), the region continues to face multiple sustainability challenges.This paper situates local perceptions and cultural diversity in participatory development and canvasses the inte-gration of community perceptions and cultural diversity into SIA in the Niger Delta region. It is argued that doingthis would be critical to ensuring acceptance and success of development actions within the context of local cul-ture while also contributing to sustainable development policy in the region.

© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Following the discovery and exploitation of petroleum in the NigerDelta since the 1950s, the regionwitnessed the development of numer-ous oil and gas-industry related projects ostensibly with little regard totheir consequences on the local environment, culture and socio-economy (Obi and Rustad, 2011). However, in apparent recognition ofthe place of the environment in development, resulting from the in-creasing global drive towards sustainability in the 1980s and beyond(World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), somemajor oil companies in Nigeria initiated Environmental Impact Assess-ment (EIA), the absence then of statutory requirements for EIA notwith-standing (Olokesusi, 1998). The Environmental Impact Assessment ActNo. 86 was auspiciously decreed into being in 1992 by themilitary gov-ernment of Nigeria (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1992). This Act was,therefore, a landmark legislation thatmade itmandatory for certain cat-egories of public and private projects to undergo the EIA process(Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1992; FEPA, 1995; Echefu and Akpofure,2003; Ogunba, 2004; Ameyan, 2008).

dibe).

The Act alsomade provision for public involvement in the process ofenvironmental decision-making (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1992;Federal Environmental Protection Agency, 1995; Adomokai and Sheate,2004). In spite of this bold stepwhich aimed tomake the environment acentral theme in development, early EIAs unfortunately paid scant at-tention to socioeconomic and cultural consequences of development ac-tion while social management strategies of likely consequences ofdevelopment action seemed to have taken the back seat in the schemeof things (Olokesusi, 1998; Nwafor, 2006). Social impact assessment(SIA), though a relatively recent development in the impact assessmentprocess in Nigeria, has continued to evolve rapidly as a sphere of activity(Akpofure and Ojile, 2003; Nwafor, 2006; Nzeadibe and Ajaero, 2010).Yet, the extent of engagement with the local communities in SIA inNigeria remains debatable while the process itself seems to have paidlittle regard to the views and participation of communities likely to beaffected by development interventions (Echefu and Akpofure, 2003).Such engagement when it occurs, ‘can assist in developing open, mean-ingful dialogue, and can influence decisionmaking, build trust, legitima-cy, capacities, address community concerns, manage expectations, taplocal knowledge and negotiate mutually beneficial futures that aremore sustainable and locally relevant’ (Franks (2012, p.10).

In theNiger Delta, recent anecdotal evidence suggests that the abovesituation may be changing, apparently forced largely by the diverse

75T.C. Nzeadibe et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 74–83

political economic ramifications of the region’s petro-economy and im-plications of instability therein (see, for example, Watts, 2007; Obi,2010; Zalik, 2004), and also the unprecedented desire of InternationalOil Companies (IOCs) in theNiger Delta, who under increasing pressure,litigations and scrutiny from the public, rights activists, NonGovern-mental Organizations (NGOs) and the global media want to be seen asenvironmentally and socially responsible corporate citizens(Greenwood, 2007). Hence, the Niger Delta has undoubtedly becomethe region in which the greatest number of EIAs for development pro-jects has been undertaken in Nigeria (see, for example, Silas, 2013;Shell Petroleum Development Company, 2014).

Regrettably, assessments of impacts of development projects in theoil and gas industry of Nigeria's Niger Delta region have tended to bepredominantly oriented toward the biophysical environment whilesocio-economic and cultural aspects appear to occupy a subaltern posi-tion.While examination of the biophysical parameters tends to be ame-nable to more precise instrumental measurement, modelling andprediction, SIA remains a far cry even though issues of local perceptionand acceptance aswell as cultural sensitivity are critical to success of de-velopment projects (Meredith, 1992). In this context, Shepherd andBowler (1997, p.729) have argued that “even when the scientific char-acterization of risk is thorough, complexities persist becausewhat is ‘ac-ceptable’ depends on more than scientific criteria; acceptabilitydepends on public perception”. Accordingly, projects being undertakenin areas prone to conflicts and violence such as the Niger Delta wouldrequire more meticulous and painstaking attention to issues of publicreceptiveness as shown in positive local perception and cultural sensi-tivity (Akpofure and Ojile, 2003; Nwafor, 2006; Nzeadibe et al., 2015).In other words, a people centred approach to development interven-tion, that is, development where people matter, needs to be taken onboard in project execution. Unfortunately, this approach has been lack-ing in most EIA studies in the Niger Delta region. In the light of theabove, the present study posits the need for incorporating the percep-tions of communities and cultural sensitivity in SIA for developmentprojects. This is anchored on one of the fundamental principles of devel-opment that ‘the existence of diversity between cultures, within cul-tures, and the diversity of stakeholder interests need to be recognizedand valued’ and that ‘local knowledge and experience are valuableand can be used to enhance planned interventions’ (Vanclay, 2003, p.9).

While previous studies on the Nigerian petro-economyhave alludedto the importance of community perceptions (Idemudia, 2007;Nzeadibe and Ajaero, 2010); it has not been central to any earlier stud-ies. Reinforcing this observation, Idemudia (2011, p.178) has noted that,‘the failure to pay attention to the “psychological contract” and to inte-grate community perceptions into the design and implementation ofcorporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives has meant that oil mul-tinational companies (MNCs) are often unable to secure communitysupport’. The present study attempts to build in both community per-ceptions and cultural sensitivity into the SIA process in Nigeria, arguingthat the approach offers scope for local acceptance and successful pro-ject implementation outcomes. We now zero in on a conceptual clarifi-cation of the nexus between community perception, cultural diversityand participatory development using Nigeria's Niger Delta region as acase study.

2. Community perception, cultural diversity and participatory devel-opment in Nigeria

Public participation is arguably the touchstone of effective social im-pact assessment (SIA) as it enhances the democratic content of develop-ment actions (Bond et al., 1999; Appiah-Opoku, 2001; UNECA, 2005;O'Faircheallaigh, 2010; Vanclay and Esteves, 2011). Indeed, Rega andBaldizzone (2015, p.160) acknowledged the role of public participationin reducing the likelihood of conflict by ensuring representation of dif-ferent interests and values, and by promoting transparency in any inter-vention or project development undertaking. The Nigerian EIA process

rightly provides for public consultation with a range of stakeholders asa statutory process and EIAwill not be approvedwithout going throughit. Unfortunately, the extent of engagement with local cultures is notstatutorily guaranteed (see Nwafor, 2006; Lawal et al., 2013; Silas,2013). Since assessments of the social impacts of development activitiesare meant to be participatory (Akpofure and Ojile, 2003), seeking theviews and active involvement of stakeholder communitieswould be ap-posite since ‘EIA is not EIA without consultation and participation’(Wood, 2002, p.277). To reinforce the need for public participation,Esteves et al. (2012) assert that SIA is now conceived as being the pro-cess of managing the social issues of development. According to theseauthors, “good SIA practice is participatory; it supports affected peoples,proponents and regulatory agencies; it increases understanding ofchange and capacities to respond to change; it seeks to avoid and miti-gate negative impacts and to enhance positive benefits across the lifecycle of developments; and it emphasizes enhancing the lives of vulner-able and disadvantaged people” (Esteves et al., 2012: 34).

The Niger Delta region, the hub of the oil and gas industry in Nigeria,is inhabited by diverse vulnerable and disadvantaged populations. Inspite of the sheer diversity of peoples and nationalities in the region, itis confounding to observe that cultural differences among communitiesare not adequately factored into development strategies and practices(Idemudia, 2014, p.161). Although Idemudia (2007, p.371) approvinglystated that there is widespread acknowledgment that community per-ceptions, expectations, and the sociocultural mores that inform theseperceptions are central to the dynamics of conflict in the Niger Delta re-gion, nonincorporation of such local values in project implementation inthe region has tended to alienate local populations in the decision mak-ing process. Unfortunately, studies on community perceptions and ex-pectations have been undertaken mainly in the context of socialinvestments and corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices in oiland gas producing Niger Delta (Idemudia, 2014; Ojo, 2012); but, rarelyas an important ingredient in participatory development, which couldconsiderably facilitate project implementation. Thus, Appiah-Opoku(2001, p.70) observed that “the involvement of local people may alsohelp the assessment team to understand local resource-use and nu-ances, and use local value sets to interpret, evaluate, and monitor pro-ject impacts on local communities”. Therefore, views and support ofstakeholder communities are important if development projects are tobe sustainable.

Taking a nuanced understanding of the basic issues in EIA, some au-thors such as Echefu andAkpofure (2003, p.72) have argued that “publicparticipation in the Nigerian EIA process is not statutorily protected yetcurrent realities have encouraged public involvement as the communi-ties have become aware of the need to protect the environment…”.These authors nevertheless posit that ‘knowledge of the locality can en-hance the EIA process’. Given the above scenario, the remarkable diver-gence of opinion concerning the extent of community involvement andnature of local perceptions in the EIA process in Nigeria's Niger Delta isnoteworthy. For example, Dadiowei (2009) argues that communities inthe Niger Delta have never been involved in the EIA process and as a re-sult seem to have a poor perception of EIA, while Adomokai and Sheate(2004) believe that community participation has increased and im-proved over the last two decades due to increased awareness, develop-ment of the EIA Act, better education and information sharing among allstakeholders (especially communities). In spite of these diametricallyopposing viewpoints, the present study contends that assessments ofsocioeconomic and cultural consequences of development action onlocal communities, for good reason, deserve the highest level of priorityjust as has been applied to some health problems in Africa (CDI StudyGroup, 2010) and should therefore take on board the views and expec-tations of locals in decision-making if a successful outcome is to be ex-pected. In this regard, the recent observation of Glucker et al. (2013)appears timely and apposite. These authors posit that ‘if no attentionis being paid to the different views and expectations of participants,people's willingness to participate may decrease which, in turn, may

1 This view was expressed by James C. Nwafor, Professor of Geography and ExecutiveDirector of Environment & Development Policy Centre for Africa (EDPCA), Enugu,Nigeria, in an interview held at Agura Hotels Abuja during panel review of EIA of Centena-ry City Project, Abuja (24–27August 2014). Nwafor is also author of the book Environmen-tal Impact Assessment for Sustainable Development: the Nigerian Perspective.

76 T.C. Nzeadibe et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 74–83

negatively impact on the effectiveness of the overall assessmentprocedure’ (p.106).

But what perceptions do Niger Delta communities have aboutdevelopment projects and their local environmental resourceslikely to be impacted by oil-related development projects andhow could such perceptions influence sustainable developmentpolicy in the Niger Delta? These questions are pertinent to the ex-tent that while it may be argued that local perceptions often mirrorreality, spatial behaviour of communities may rightly or wronglybe framed around those perceptions (Getis et al., 2008; Nzeadibeand Ajaero, 2010). Accordingly, perceptions would seem to be in-variably linked to the cultural environment in which individualsand groups of people are born, develop or operate (Meredith,1992). Indeed, community perceptions have often formed thebasis for corporate–community engagement in the Niger Deltapetro-economy (Idemudia, 2007, 2011; Nzeadibe et al., 2015). AsChindo (2015, p.5) has recently argued, ‘studying communities’perceptions and beliefs are not an end in themselves; rather theyare a means to developing resources and the communities' poten-tial contribution to decision making. Given Nigeria's reputationwith the oil curse, integrating communities' perceptions of risksat the planning stage of project would improve social and environ-mental outcomes’. The need, therefore, to integrate communityperceptions in participatory development cannot be over-emphasized.

Similarly, improving social wellbeing of indigenous communitiesis often related to the quantum of efforts put into protecting and pre-serving their culture, the very essence of their existence, which suchcommunities perceive as their heritage and wealth, for which eco-nomic valuation is almost impossible. Hence, the value of a people'sculture to their lives and development is incalculable while any at-tempt at defilement of the culture in the process of development orperception thereof often elicits a backlash resulting in projects sty-mied by community problems, violence or litigations. On the otherhand, many Nigerian communities are known to be emotionallyand spiritually connected and committed to their cultures andwould feel threatened or abused when their hallowed cultural prac-tices are desecrated or when their cultural institutions are not givendue respect (Nzeadibe and Ajaero, 2010). According to UNESCO(2011, P.3), “there are things that we regard as important to preservefor future generations. They may be significant due to their presentor possible economic value, but also because they create a certainemotionwithin us, or because theymake us feel as thoughwe belongto something— a country, a tradition, a way of life”. These are knownas cultural heritage. Such things “might be objects that can be heldand buildings that can be explored, or songs that can be sung andstories that can be told. Whatever shape they take, these thingsform part of a heritage, and this heritage requires active effort onour part in order to safeguard it” (UNESCO, 2011, P.3).

Unfortunately, however, the present study observes that issues ofcultural sensitivity and diversity have eluded previous socioeconomicimpact studies of new investments in Nigeria's Niger Delta. These previ-ous studies do not seem to have adequately integrated practices recog-nizing and sensitive to local culture and priorities in the project area.Hence, despite the conduct of purportedly robust and sophisticated im-pact assessments, local perceptions and cultural practices and sensitivi-ties are often ill considered in such assessments (See, Echefu andAkpofure, 2003; Nwafor, 2006).

Taking cognizance of the multiple sociopolitical and develop-ment problems associated with oil and gas activities in the region,the case is being made for integrating community perceptions andcultural diversity in SIA of qualifying development projects if suchinterventions aim to be sustainable. It is based on the premise thatwith the current emphasis on sustainability of development, socialimpacts need to be treated as priority as the nonattainment of thesocial pillar of sustainability can in many ways affect the

achievement of the economic and environmental pillars1. More im-portantly, with the recognition of cultural diversity as the fourthpillar of sustainability (UNESCO, 2001), integrating cultural diver-sity into SIA would not only be appropriate but also go a long wayin ensuring local acceptance of development actions, within thecontext of culture, which itself is regarded as the set of distinctivespiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of societyor a social group, and encompasses, in addition to art and litera-ture, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditionsand beliefs (UNESCO, 2001).

The nexus between cultural diversity and participatory develop-ment has been clearly articulated by UNESCO (2001, p.4) which arguesthat cultural diversity is a factor in development and that cultural diversityis as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. It, therefore, be-comes one of the roots of development understood not simply in terms ofeconomic growth, but also, as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intel-lectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence. Accordingly, Meredith(1992, p.126) opines that, “local values and aspirationsmust be embod-ied in any vision of development’ and that ‘sustainability is impossiblewhere indigenous populations are dispossessed, forcibly dislocated, ordisenfranchised”. In this vision, cultural diversity is the fourth policyarm of sustainable development. Arguably, integrating cultural sensitiv-ity in development projects offers scope for protection of cultural heri-tage of local communities, which will go a long way in reducingconflict with a consequent trickledown effect on the three other pillarsof sustainability.

This study examines this presupposition using thirty (30) agrariancommunities in Niger Delta of Nigeria facing imminent oil and gas de-velopment activities, which promise to be revolutionary to their socio-cultural environment.

3. The study area

3.1. Scope

The area covers the two (2) states of Imo and Rivers. Between thesetwo states, a total of five (5) Local Government Areas and thirty (30)communitiesmakeup theProject area. This comprises eleven (11) com-munities in Ohaji/Egbema LGA and one (1) community in Owerri WestLGA of Imo State. In Rivers State, the Project area encompasses ten (10)communities inOgba/Egbema/Ndoni (ONELGA)LGA, seven (7) commu-nities in Emohua (EMOLGA) LGA, and one (1) community in AhoadaEast LGA. The communities are within the Assa North–Ohaji South GasDevelopment Project. This project is a $3.5 billion gas plant aimed atboosting power generation in Nigeria. The project comprises Imo stateaxis (Primary Treatment Facility (PTF)/Field Logistic Base (FLB)) andRivers state axis (Pipeline communities). Fig. 1 is a map showing theNiger Delta as a geopolitical region in Nigeria according to the NigerDelta Regional Development Master Plan (Federal Republic of Nigeria,2004).

3.2. Method

Prior to the field data collection, contacts were established and dis-cussions initiated with the communities through their Community Liai-son Officers/Speakers of Community Government Councils (CGCs). Incarrying out this social impact assessment (SIA), participatory method-ologies were extensively utilized. The mixed but complimentarymethods of data collection employed in the study include Consultationvisits to Key Stakeholders, Key Informant Interviews, Community Fora,

Fig. 1. The Niger Delta geopolitical region of Nigeria.

Plate 1. Stakeholder engagement at a community forum in Obile.

77T.C. Nzeadibe et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 74–83

in the communities and Household Questionnaire Survey using Strate-gic Random Sampling. Obvious advantages are derived from mixingmethods in a participatory research (Dunning et al., 2008; Mason,2006; Creswell et al., 2006; De Lisle, 2011).

Painstaking effortsweremade to identify and consult relevant stake-holders. Primary Stakeholders comprise Local Councils, traditionalrulers, cabinet chiefs, Community Development Committees (CDCs),community elders, men, women and youths. Secondary stakeholdersare made up of Imo and Rivers State Governments respectively, repre-sentatives of Federal and State Ministries of Environment, representa-tive of Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR), project proponents,EIA consultants and experts. Consultations for the Assa North‐OhajiSouth EIA project involved key stakeholdersmeeting and GroupDiscus-sions in the host communities. Consultation processes in these commu-nities involved sensitization of Imo and Rivers state governments on theproposed project through letters to the office of the Executive Gover-nors, sensitization of the affected Local Government Councils throughletters to the office of the Honourable Chairmen, involvement of theImo and Rivers States liaisons and the Federal Ministry of Environmentin thefieldwork, and consultation and participation of identified projectcommunities in field data gathering process. Plate 1 and Plate 2 showevidence of stakeholder consultation and engagement in the NigerDelta communities. Consultations in these communities were held atmeetings with all stakeholders being present. A representative of theproject proponent gave the key note address and intimated the peopleof the proposed project and the EIA processes. During these fora, oppor-tunity was given for questions and concerns to be raised by communi-ties. All questions and concerns were properly addressed by theproject representative and consent was given for the communities tobe assessed.

During the conduct of the study, representatives of communities andother interest groups participated in scoping exercise for setting the

research agenda and approach. In addition, CGC/CDC representativesand community youths were incorporated into the research team fordata collection. During community fora and Group Discussions, differ-ent groups in the community such asWomen, Traditional Ruling Coun-cil (TRC) and Youths robustly engaged and interfacedwith the SIA team.This gave communities opportunity to raise their concerns about theproject, while some of their fears regarding the likely consequences ofthe project were allayed in the process.

Data collection was in two phases dictated by accessibility of com-munities due to the flooding experienced in some of them during the2012 flood disaster in Nigeria. The first phase of the data gathering

Plate 2. Community members interacting with secondary stakeholders at a communityforum in Assa.

78 T.C. Nzeadibe et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 74–83

exercise was from October 2012. In the first phase, twenty five (25)communities in Imo and Rivers states were accessedwhile five commu-nities namely Obrikom, Okpurukpu-Ali, Okansu, Ogbogu andObor com-munities in Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni LGA (ONELGA) could not be accessedas a result of the flooding. Eventually, these communities were accessedduring the 2nd phase of data gathering in November 2012 when thefloods had receded. Appendix 1 shows the communities visited duringthe SIA study, while Appendix 2 summarizes the socio-demographiccharacteristics of LGAs in the study area.

Appendix 2 shows the similarities in some key social indicatorsamong the study communities. It is argued that since the communitieshave similar socio-demographic and environmental characteristics,they are also likely to have similar development status and needs,while also likely to experience similar impacts on their socioculturallife following the implementation of development activity of this mag-nitude (Nzeadibe, et al. 2015).

Participants at the Group Discussions included Traditional rulers(Ezes), Community Development Committee (CDC), Opinion leaders,men, women, and youth representatives. The various interest groupswere presented with the details of the socio-economic study and withtheir consent the participants' names, contacts, occupations, and posi-tions in the community were documented. During the Group Discus-sions, relevant issues and questions on socio-economic variables wereraised and answers solicited from the participants according to their rel-ative positions in the community and levels of knowledge. Essentially,socio-economic issues raised included their way of life (socio-cultural),economy (main occupations and sources of income), and available so-cial infrastructures amongother issues. Traditional governance and con-flict resolution mechanisms as well as the role of women in communitydevelopment also cameunder focus. During these visits, the researcherswere notified of cultural sensitivities and taboos of local communities.The researchers participated in the project both as independent practi-tioners in the SIA and as scholars in evaluating the process and outcome.The research team comprised geographers who specialized in environ-mental/community management and population studies, and also ar-chaeologists trained in SIA, cultural tourism, and cultural resourcemanagement. Their knowledge of corporate‐community engagementand issues of stakeholder relations in the Niger Delta came in handy infacilitating the successful execution of the project.

During the data collection stages of the project, community partici-pants had the opportunity to ask questions bothering them in respectof the proposed gas development project and associated activities. Atthe end of each session ground-truthing was undertaken to verifysome of the claims made by the community representatives/

participants especially on the available social amenities, status and ca-pacity and where necessary, these were photographed. Thereafter, theconsent of community members for the SIA study and commitment toco-operatewith the study team in the successful conduct of the exercisewere sought and obtained.

Community forum or group interview involved men, women andyouths. Information bordering on the history of the community, tradi-tional beliefs, customs, norms and ceremonies, deities, socio-economicactivities and infrastructures, welfare, and opinions concerning the pro-posed project, were gathered. Communities were analysed as a homo-geneous unit because of similarity of socio-cultural institutions,practices and festivals, worldview, strong kinship ties among them,their spatial contiguity and intense interaction (Nzeadibe et al., 2015).Thus, potential social impacts are expected to be similar among thecommunities.

4. Results

4.1. Indigenous perceptions of socio-cultural and natural resources

Communities in the area are made up of predominantly Christians(96%) who belong to various orthodox and Pentecostal denominations.A significant number of persons, however, practised African TraditionalReligion (ATR). Autochthonous cultures are especially vulnerable to un-welcome sociocultural modification occasioned by ill-conceived devel-opment activity. Additionally, burial grounds, rivers and forests areheld sacred by the natives. Non-natives living or working in the areamay not be conversant with traditional religious practices and ruleson shrines and so may inadvertently break traditional religious rulesby engaging in culturally unacceptable behaviour. Thus, the need forstrangers working in local communities to be familiar with and respectcultural sensitivities and perceptions of communities is imperative forsocial acceptance of development projects.

Land is a resource on which most development activities take place.The practice of acquisition of land across the study area is predominant-ly by inheritance from family land. Inheritance of land is patrilineal.Mengenerally own property but it was noted that women (wives) wereallowed to own property such as farmlands, livestock, houses and carsprovided they had the permission of their husbands to do so. In all theLGAs, at least 55% of the respondents got their land through inheritance.Apart from inherited land, the next most common means of landacquistion in the LGAs is by buying the land. It should be noted that tra-ditionally, right of ownership of a parcel of land is accorded to the buyernot only when the value of the land in money is paid to the assignor ordonor; but also, when the assignee fulfils all cultural rites associatedwith land transfer of ownership. Except for Ahoada LGA, at least 20%of respondents from each of the other LGAs indicated that they boughtsome of the parcels of land they presently own. Fig. 2 shows the patternof land acquisition in study LGAs.

4.2. Natural resources and uses

A number of plant species encountered during the fieldwork areknown to have significant economic importance. Such plants produceedible fruits, food crops, palm oil, palmwine, medicine and herbal rem-edies andmaterials for roofing of houses. Some root and tree crops pro-duce various substances which serve as inputs in the production ofconsumer and industrial goods demanded locally and internationally.They include plantain (Musa sapientum), yam of different species(Dioscorea spp.), cocoyam (Colocasia esculenta), mango (Mangiferaindica), maize (Zea mays), pineapple (Ananas comosus), oil palm(Elaeis guineensis), rubber (Havea brasiliensis), cashew (Anacardiumoccidentale), orange (Citrus sinensis) and coconut (Cocos nucifera). In ad-dition, these crops serve as sources of food and nutrition for the inhab-itants. This study also notes the numerous species of mammals such asmonkeys, rabbits, grass cutters, antelopes andbushpig on land, and fish,

Fig. 2. Land Acquisition Pattern in the LGAs.Source: Fieldwork (2012). Fig. 4. Perception of importance of resources across the LGAs.

79T.C. Nzeadibe et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 74–83

shell fish, periwinkles and crabs in the streams and rivers in the studyarea. These resources provide sources of food and revenue for the peo-ple in the area. Despite the fact that nature reserve is abundant in thearea, poaching and indiscriminate felling of trees for cooking, buildingand fuel purposes have depleted the forest and the fresh water bodiesin some of the communities. Evidence of lumbering activities, huntingand sacrifice by adherents of ATR was seen at a number of places suchas the banks of the Nwagbakobi River.

4.3. Perception of importance of resources at state levels

It has been argued that awareness and perceptions of environmentalresources often shape action or inaction on the resource (Nzeadibe andAjaero, 2010). Perception of importance of resources is a reflection ofhow the communitieswould view tamperingwith such resources espe-cially with regard to locally unacceptable practices likely to be associat-ed with the proposed oil and gas development activities. Consequently,it is desirable that any developmental activity would manage such re-sources cautiously and meticulously in cooperation with the communi-ties to avoid resentment and violence from affected communities.

Findings of the study show that in both states, about 45% of respon-dents view forest resources as the most important environmental re-source. Fig. 3 shows perception of importance of cultural resources inthe study area, while Fig. 4 gives details of community perceptions ofthe relative importance of environmental resources in Imo and RiversStates.

Fig. 3. Perception of importance of cultural resources.

5. Discussion

The perception of the importance of environmental resources acrossthe LGAs follow the same pattern as that of the State-level perception ofthese resources. From Fig. 3, it can be seen that forest resources are themore valued across the study area, while animals and ancestral sites areless valued. This is probably because the communities are agrarian,where heavy reliance is placed on land resources for sustenance bycommunity members. On the other hand, ancestral sites are more of re-sources or investments for the state in the areas of tourism and culturalheritagemanagement and are perceived to provide little directmaterialbenefits to individuals in the communities. From Figs. 3 and 4, it is ap-parent that communities place value on the environmental and culturalresources and may be hard pressed to give up such resources since thelivelihood of a significant number of people in the study area dependson these resources. Thus, development activities perceived as intrusiveor invasive that have the potential to damage or significantly degradeor reduce the value of these resources would usually not be welcome.This is the context inwhich project proponents need to appreciate com-munity perception of their sociocultural and environmental resourcesand take steps to protect and enhance them. Local knowledge is essen-tial to maintaining a balance between preservation of cultural valuesand development. A commitment to sincerity, environmentally respon-sible, culturally sensitive and socially responsive project executionwill go a long way in avoiding and/or reducing the tensions usually as-sociated with the execution of projects of this nature in the Niger Deltaregion.

5.1. Community perceptions of socio-environmental problems and qualityof life (QoL) expectations

The need to integrate community perceptions and QoL expectationsin social impact assessment projects in the oil and gas sector in Nigeriahas been canvassed (Nzeadibe and Ajaero, 2010). As Kitchen andMuhajarine (2008) pointed out, there has been growing interest in ap-plied quality of life research and involving the community in the re-search process with the ultimate goal of improving the social andeconomic circumstances of people.With this in mind, views of commu-nity members were sought regarding the proposed development pro-ject. Commonly perceived environmental problems in the area includesoil erosion, rainstorm, gas flaring, acid rain leading to corrosion of roof-ing sheets, excessive heat due to gas flaring, soil infertility, water and airpollution, oil spillage and indiscriminate dumping of waste, loss of bio-logical resources, includingwildlife aswell as impact on the domesticat-ed livestock in the area.

Plate 3. A historic building at the palace of Nye Nwe Ali in Egbeda/Ubimini community.

80 T.C. Nzeadibe et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 74–83

On the other hand, numerous social problems exist across mostcommunities in the project area. Common social problems, whichwere reported during the fieldwork ranges from youth restivenessand unemployment, stealing, poverty, juvenile delinquency, land dis-pute, inter-family feud to chieftaincy disputes, inter-communal clashesand prostitution.

Similarly, issues were raised regarding possible social problems thatthe project may generate in the area with their attendant negative con-sequences. Some of the issues related to the perception that Memoran-dumof Understanding (MoU) between company and communitiesmaynot be honoured by the company and that the company may introduce“divide and rule” system so as to polarize the communities. Unequaltreatment of communities in provision of amenities, pollution of land,air and water as well as soil infertility with consequent decline in cropyields/harvest was also identified community concerns.

Also, youth restiveness (if MoU is not adequately implemented), gasblow-out leading to fire outbreak and threat to life and property, corro-sion of roofing sheets from gas flaring, desecration of sacred sites andgroves across communities, and permanent loss of family land and live-lihoods arising from land take, violation of traditional values and cultureespecially their festivals and other forbidden activities and places incommunities by expatriates and non-indigenes on the staff of projectproponent as well as proliferation of social vices and negative foreigncultures are similarly perceived as likely socio-environmental problemsin the study communities. Again, increased pressure on social and eco-nomic systems that would exceed their carrying capacities, increasedincidents of road accidents arising from increase in traffic and convey-ance of heavy duty equipment, inadequate compensation for loss ofland, economic trees and other resources were also believed by localsas likely consequences of the proposed development action.

5.2. Quality of Life (QoL) expectations of communities

Despite these perceptions of environmental and social problems bycommunities concerning the proposed gas development project, opti-mism was, however, expressed regarding the benefits of the proposedproject to the communities. QoL expectations of project communitiesas expressed by members of the communities during group discussionscentredmostly on the followingmajor themes: provision of gainful em-ployment for the teeming unemployed population in the area; stimula-tion of socio-economic development with provision of infrastructuresand ancillary services, availability of micro-credits and seed capital tofarmers and entrepreneurs, human development programmes in theform of youth training on skills acquisition and educational opportuni-ties/scholarships for more employment of youths in the oil and gasindustry.

5.3. Cultural heritage/property of the study communities

Cultural heritage is an expression of the ways of living developed bya community and passed on from generation to generation, includingcustoms, practices, places, objects, artistic expressions and values. Cul-tural heritage is often expressed as either intangible or tangible culturalheritage (ICOMOS, 2002). Cultural heritage can also be viewed as thelegacy of physical artefacts and intangible attributes of a group or com-munity that are inherited from past generations, maintained in thepresent and bestowed for the benefit of future generations. Culturalproperty, on the other hand, deals onlywith the physical or tangible cul-tural heritage of a society. Cultural heritage distinguishes between tan-gible cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage. Tangible culturalheritage includes historic buildings/towns, monuments, landscape,works of arts, artefacts, etc. Intangible cultural heritage consists of folk-lore, language, knowledge, traditional performing arts (theatre, music,dance), traditional handicrafts, traditional food, oral traditions andother aspects of human activity.

This study found that communities in the study area are rich in in-tangible cultural heritage (ICH) and values. Inmost of the communities,different festivals are celebrated and quite a number of items are con-sidered sacred or tabooed. Various shrines and sacred groves alsoexist. A word about the cultural import of sacred groves is importantat this point. According to Ormsby (2012, p.1), “sacred groves are forest-ed sites that have cultural or spiritual significance. They exist around theworld and represent a long-held tradition of community managementof forests. While most sacred sites are not tourist destinations, tourismmay represent a method to provide additional protection for sacredsites, including revenue to help with management and conservation.Tourism can celebrate the cultural aspects of the site, in the case of cul-tural heritage tourism, or ignore them as is often the case with masstourism”. Taboos also perform social control functions in the communi-ties and helps in maintenance of orderly community life.

The significance of cultural resources lies in their quality of life con-tributions to the region: they are seen as places of quietude, safety andcommuning with ancestral spirits and by default, such places are wild-life sanctuaries and conservation areas because some human activitiessuch as agriculture, construction and urbanization are prohibited inthe areas. Although individuals may visit such places, they are oftennot allowed to hunt animals or harvest crops found in the groves. Inother words, the groves act as protected areas based on culturalnorms and mores.

Historical buildings and artefacts are also included in the category ofcultural property. Plate 3 shows a historic building requiring rehabilita-tion at the palace of Nye Nwe Ali in Egbeda/Ubimini community. Thisbuilding has been inhabited by many generations of traditional rulersand is a repository of cultural artefacts, which have been preservedover several generations and as such may qualify to be declared a mon-ument by the Nigerian National Commission for Museums and Monu-ments (NCMM). In addition, several cultural festivals are celebrated inthe area. These festivals help to strengthen social cohesion and values,providing opportunities for social interactions in the process(Nzeadibe and Ajaero, 2010). These include traditional wrestling festi-vals and football competitions, which are entrenched cultural activitiesand are held annually. Appendix 3 presents the ICH and cultural re-sources of the study communities and their socio-cultural significancein the Niger Delta.

A look at the presentation in Appendix 3 shows that similar festivalsare celebrated across communities further accentuating the strong kin-ship and social ties among them. This indicates that these localitiesshare great affinity in terms of ethnic and genealogical connections. An-other observation that should be pointed out here is that both Christiansand non-Christians celebrate these festivals. Such festivities engender a

Plate 4. The oldest man in Obile community blessing kolanuts at community square.

81T.C. Nzeadibe et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 74–83

strong sense of social cohesion and community which is highly valuedin the study area.

5.4. Significance of the community square as cultural heritage

Many of the communities visited have a place of congregation of thecommunity members. A word on the import of community square instudy communities is pertinent at this point. Community square issometimes a place of religious worship, refuge, recreation, reflectionand general appreciation of nature away from the sweltering tropicalweather conditions. The square is often adorned with a canopy oftrees which are frequently old and have some history behind themthat serve as shed away from the sun. It is a sort of ‘community com-mons’, which any member of the community or even strangers arefree to use and enjoy. It often serves as a mini market where petty trad-ing activities could take place. As a place to commune with the ances-tors, community members often frown at acts that desecrate thecommunity square such as open defaecation or waste disposal. Assuch, community members take turns to periodically sweep and cleanthe square and its sorroundings. Community square is also a place forconvergence of AnnualWomen's August gatherings2 and also ameetingplace during community fora otherwise known as Aladimma in someNiger Delta communities. Aladimma refers to the community forumwhich sees that there is order in the land. Aladimma is for this reasonthe highest political and social forum for Igbo-speaking communitiesof theNiger Delta, where important decisions regarding the governanceand welfare of the community are taken. It comprises all adult malesand sometimes females of the native community and is led by the eldersdrawn from the heads of the family units, who act as official representa-tives of their family groups. For a more detail examination of the role ofthe Aladimma Institution in conflict resolution and traditional gover-nance and justice dispensation in communities of Niger Delta seeNjoku (2008). In other words, the community square serves to improvethe quality of life outlook of communities. Plate 4 shows the oldest manin Obile community blessing kolanuts presented to SIA team as part ofcultural heritage and sign of traditional hospitality at the communitysquare.

6. Conclusions

This study has argued about the relevance of community percep-tions and diversity of cultures in the assessment of socioeconomic im-pact of development activities as distinct from CSR in the oil and gasindustry in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. The study argues that inte-grating community perceptions and cultural diversity in SIA will notonly enable IOCs to secure their social licence to operate (SLO), i.e., theongoing acceptance and approval of a mining development by localcommunity members and other stakeholders that can affect its profit-ability (see, for example, Thomson and Boutilier, 2011; Prno, 2013;Prno and Slocombe, 2012; Moffat and Zhang, 2014; Owen and Kemp,2012), and will also build positive corporate–community relationswith trickle down effects on conflict prevention and sustainability of de-velopment (Idemudia, 2014).

Given Bice andMoffat's acknowledgement of the substance of SLO toinclude cultural sensitivity, the present study notes also the role of SLOinmanaging community relations and perceptions as shown in researchunravelling a critical link between SLO and SIA (Bice and Moffat, 2014).Hence, this research is an effort to integrate the concepts of communityperceptions and cultural diversitywithin an overarching sustainable de-velopment paradigm (Bice, 2014) in a region characterized by poor so-cioeconomic and infrastructural development, violence and conflict

2 For more discussion on the sociological and cultural relevance of Women's Augustmeetings in Nigerian communities, see, for example, Odoemene (2011).

arising from perceived inequities in the governance of petro-resources, and unmitigated environmental degradation (Nzeadibeet al., 2015). Thus, in order to ensure that the fourth pillar of sustainabledevelopment is attained in the region, the study is of the view that reg-ular and sincere communication with communities can be an effectiveway to counter negative perceptions. Issues of disclosure and opennessby companies are important in building sustainable partnerships andmutual trust and these should be taken on board in dealing with com-munities. This will facilitate the prevention of conflicts with host com-munities while also benefitting its corporate image. Again, socialsustainability influences the drive towards economic and environmen-tal and companies want to be seen as socially responsible and respon-sive to the needs of projects communities with the communitiesreceiving the proposed project on a positive note and looking forwardto a mutually beneficial relationship with the proponent on the project.

It would appear that most of the communities were receptive of theproject and showed great enthusiasm to partner with the proponent torealize the project. However, they were cautiously optimistic about theproponent given some of their recent experiences with the company.We posit that it would help in a tremendous way the company's corpo-rate image recovery drive if they engage in frank and open discussionswith stakeholder communities and if they steadfastly implement anyagreements they freely enter into. Again, the proponent should endeav-our to sustain the communication line with communities and ensurethat community concerns are given priority attention in the implemen-tation of the project. This could build more confidence between thecommunities and the company and would ultimately benefit both forsustainable development.

Cultural heritage of communities are the very essence of their exis-tence; they must, therefore, be thoughtfully managed if it is to survivein an increasingly globalizing region where impacts of instability inthe region on the global political economy of oil can be significant. Toachieve this, the researchers advocate for a true partnership betweencommunities and company; and this can only occur if all sides developa genuine appreciation for each other's aspirations and values. Assuch, company needs to acquire an awareness of cultural heritage man-agement concepts, ideals and practices; and must endeavour to com-prehend the complex phenomenon of cultural property and its modusoperandi. Therefore, through mutual understanding, both can build ontheir shared interest with a view to achieving sustainable development.

Lastly, it willmake corporate–community relations sense for compa-nies to invest in programmes to evaluate from time to time communityperceptions in the Niger Delta. As has recently been argued, communityperceptions are not constant; therefore their measurement needs to be

82 T.C. Nzeadibe et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 74–83

undertaken on a regular basis and seen as an ongoing corporate activity(Idemudia, 2014, p. 161). This study has canvassed incorporating localperceptions as strategy to tackle the social impacts engendered by oiland gas activities. It is further noted that “development processeswhich are not founded upon local knowledge and ‘ways of being’ coun-teract sustainability by relying on external models and methods thatmay be inappropriate to the local cultural landscape” (UNESCO, 2001,p.54). In conclusion, this study avers that integrating local knowledge,cultures and perceptions in SIA will ensure local acceptance of theplanned developments while also contributing to the formulation ofsustainable development policy in the Niger Delta region.

Acknowledgements

The authors thankfully acknowledge helpful comments of the twoanonymous reviewers which significantly improved this paper. The au-thors are also grateful to Ambah Projects International for the opportu-nity to conduct the fieldwork on which this article is based. Uchenna F.Ochege of University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria provided cartographic as-sistance for this article.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.07.005.

References

Adomokai, R., Sheate, W.R., 2004. Community participation and environmental decision-making in the Niger Delta. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 24, 495–518.

Akpofure, E.A., Ojile, M.O., 2003. Social impact assessment: an interactive and participato-ry approach. UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual. Case Studies from DevelopingCountries, pp. 211–222 (Retrieved January 26, 2010 from http://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/29)%20211%20to%20222.pdf).

Ameyan, O., 2008. Environmental impact assessment: insight into the environmental im-pact regulatory process and implementation for qualifying projects. Paper presentedat a one day seminar: Preparing Business in Nigeria for Environmental Challenges andOpportunities organised by the Manufacturing Association of Nigeria, (MAN), MANHouse, Ikeja, Lagos (4th November, 2008).

Appiah-Opoku, S., 2001. Environmental impact assessment in developing countries: thecase of Ghana. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 21 (1), 59–71.

Bice, S., 2014. What gives you a social licence? An exploration of the social licence to op-erate in the Australian mining industry. Resources 3, 62–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/resources3010062.

Bice, S., Moffat, K., 2014. Social licence to operate and impact assessment. Impact Assess-ment and Project Appraisal 32 (4), 257–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.950122.

Bond, A.J., Sene, A., Scullion, J., Matty, F., 1999. Identifying an appropriate methodologicalapproach for considering social, economic and environmental problems caused bydevelopment in Sénégal. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 17 (2), 157–163.http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154699781767855.

CDI Study Group, 2010. Community-directed interventions for priority health problems inAfrica: results of a multicountry study. Bulletin of the World Health Organization(BLT) 88, 509–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.09.069203.

Chindo, M., 2015. Environmental risks associated with developing oil sands in southwest-ern Nigeria. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 36, 3–22.

Creswell, J. W., Shope, R., Plano Clark, V.L., & Green, D. (2006). How interpretive qualita-tive research extends mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 1–11.

Dadiowei, T., 2009. Environmental Impact Assessment and Sustainable Development inthe Niger Delta: The Gbarain Oil Field Experience. Working Paper No. 24. Instituteof International Studies, University of California, Berkely (Retrieved on 01:10:13from http://oldweb.geog.berkeley.edu/ProjectsResources/ND%20Website/NigerDelta/WP/Dadiowei_24.pdf).

De Lisle, J., 2011. The benefits and challenges of mixing methods and methodologies: les-sons learnt from implementing qualitatively led mixed methods research designs inTrinidad and Tobago. Caribbean Curriculum 18, 87–120.

Dunning, H., Williams, A., Abonyi, S., Crooks, V., 2008. A mixed method approach to qual-ity of life research: a case study approach. Soc. Indic. Res. 85, 145–158.

Echefu, N., Akpofure, E., 2003. Environmental impact assessment in Nigeria: regulatorybackground and procedural framework. UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (Re-trieved on 19:10:14 from http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/EIA/CaseStudies/EIANigeria.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).

Esteves, A.M., Franks, D., Vanclay, F., 2012. Social impact assessment: the state of the art.Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30 (1), 34–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.660356.

Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1992. Environmental Impact Assessment Decree No. 86. Offi-cial Gazette No 73 79. Government Printer, Lagos (10th December 1992).

Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004. Niger Delta Regional Development Master Plan. NDDC,Abuja.

Federal Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Procedural Guidelines for EnvironmentalImpact Assessment in Nigeria. FEPA, Abuja.

Franks, D., 2012. Social impact assessment of resource projects. International Mining forDevelopment Centre, Perth (http://www.ceccu-ug.org/ResourceCenter/Social%20impact%20assessment%20of%20resource%20projects.pdf).

Getis, A., Getis, J., Fellman, J.D., 2008. Introduction to Geography. 11th edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Glucker, A.N., Driessen, P.P.J., Kolhoff, A., Runhaar, H.A.C., 2013. Public participation in en-vironmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.43, 104–111.

Greenwood, M., 2007. Stakeholder engagement: beyond the myth of corporate responsi-bility. J. Bus. Ethics 74 (4), 315–327.

ICOMOS, 2002. International Cultural Tourism Charter: Principles and Guidelines forMan-aging Tourism at Places of Cultural and Heritage Significance. ICOMOS InternationalCultural Tourism Committee.

Idemudia, U., 2007. Community perceptions and expectations: reinventing the wheels ofcorporate social responsibility practices in the Nigerian oil industry. Bus. Soc. Rev. 112(3), 369–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2007.00301.x.

Idemudia, U. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and the Niger Delta conflict: issuesand prospects. In: Obi, C. and Rustad, S.A. (Eds) (2011). Oil and Insurgency in theNiger Delta: Managing the Complex Politics of Petro-violence. 167–183. London &New York: Zed Books.

Idemudia, U., 2014. Corporate-community engagement strategies in the Niger Delta:some critical reflections. The Extractive Industries and Society 1 (2), 154–162.

Kitchen, P., Muhajarine, N., 2008. Quality of life research: new challenges and new oppor-tunities. Soc. Indic. Res. 85, 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9130-6.

Lawal, A.M., Bouzarovski, S., Clark, J., 2013. Public participation in EIA: the case of WestAfrican Gas Pipeline and Tank Farm projects in Nigeria. Impact Assessment and Pro-ject Appraisal 31 (3), 226–231 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.802419).

Mason, J., 2006. Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qual. Res. 6 (1), 9–25.Meredith, T.C., 1992. Environmental impact assessment, cultural diversity, and sustain-

able rural development. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 12 (1), 125–138.Moffat, K., Zhang, A., 2014. The paths to social licence to operate: an integrative model

explaining community acceptance of mining. Res. Policy 39, 61–70.Njoku, C.U., 2008. Aladinma Institution: a legal social power in Igbo philosophy: an

Amumara perspective. Journal of Nigerian Languages and Culture 10 (1) (Retrievedon 16:05:15 from http://apnilacnigeria.org/vol10-01-2008a.htm).

Nwafor, J.C., 2006. Environmental impact assessment for sustainable development: theNigerian perspective. Environment & Development Policy Centre for Africa, Enugu.

Nzeadibe, T.C., Ajaero, C.K., 2010. Assessment of socio-economic characteristics and qual-ity of life expectations in rural communities of Enugu State, Nigeria. Applied Researchin Quality of Life 5 (4), 353–371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11482-010-9096-4.

Nzeadibe, T.C., Ajaero, C.K., Nwoke, M.B., 2015. Rethinking corporate-community en-gagement in the petro-economy of the Niger Delta. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 36 (3)(forthcoming).

Obi, C.I., 2010. Oil extraction, dispossession, resistance, and conflict in Nigeria's Oil-RichNiger Delta. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 30 (1–2), 219–236.

Obi, C., Rustad, S.A., 2011. Oil and Insurgency in the Niger Delta: Managing the ComplexPolitics of Petro-violence. Zed Books, London & New York.

Odoemene, A., 2011. (Re)venturing into the public sphere: historical sociology of ‘Augustmeeting’ among Igbo women in Nigeria. Afr. Dev. XXXVI (2), 219–247.

O'Faircheallaigh, C., 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment:purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environ. Impact Assess.Rev. 30 (1), 19–27.

Ogunba, O.O., 2004. EIA systems in Nigeria: evolution, current practice and shortcomings.Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 24, 643–660.

Ojo, G.U., 2012. Community perception and oil companies corporate social responsibilityinitiative in the Niger Delta. Studies in Sociology of Science 3 (4), 11–21.

Olokesusi, F., 1998. Legal and institutional framework of environmental impact assess-ment in Nigeria: an initial assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 18, 159–174.

Ormsby, A., 2012. Perceptions of tourism at sacred groves in Ghana and India. Recreationand Society in Africa, Asia and Latin America (RASAALA) 3 (1), 1–18.

Owen, J.R., Kemp, D., 2012. Social licence andmining: a critical perspective. Res. Policy 38,29–35.

Prno, J., 2013. An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a social licence to op-erate in the mining industry. Res. Policy 38, 577–590.

Prno, J., Slocombe, D.S., 2012. Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the-mining sector: perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Res. Policy37, 346–357.

Rega, C., Baldizzone, G., 2015. Public participation in strategic environmental assessment:a practitioners' perspective. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 50, 105–115.

Shell Petroleum Development Company, 2014. Environmental Impact Assessment Reports.http://www.shell.com.ng/environment-society/environment-impact-assessments.html.

Shepherd, A., Bowler, C., 1997. Beyond the requirements: improving public participationin EIA. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 40 (6), 725–738.

Silas, A., 2013. Public participation in environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports: theNigerian experience. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) 2013Conference Proceedings (Retrieved on 31:05:15 from: http://www.iaia.org/conferences/iaia13/proceedings/Final%20papers%20review%20process%2013/PUBLIC%20PARTICIPATION%20IN%20ENVIRONMENAL%20IMPACT%20ASSESSMENT%20(EIA)%20REPORTS.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).

Thomson, I., Boutilier, R., 2011. The social license to operate. In: Darling, P. (Ed.), SMEMining Engineering Handbook. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Lit-tleton, Colorado, pp. 673–690.

T.C. Nzeadibe et al. / Environmental Impact

UNECA, 2005. Review of the Application of Environmental Impact Assessment in SelectedAfrican Countries. UNECA, Addis Ababa.

United Nations Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2001. Universal Declara-tion on Cultural Diversity. UNESCO, Paris (Retrieved on 30:09:14 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127162e.pdf).

UNESCO, 2011.What is Intangible Cultural Heritage? (Retrieved on 08:10:14 from http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/01851-EN.pdf)

Vanclay, F., 2003. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessmentand Project Appraisal 21 (1), 5–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766491.

Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M. (Eds.), 2011. New Directions in Social Impact Assessment:Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.

Watts, M., 2007. Petro-insurgency or criminal syndicate? Conflict &violence in the NigerDelta. Rev. Afr. Polit. Econ. 34 (114), 637–660.

Wood, C.M., 2002. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. 2nd ed.Prentice Hall, Harlow.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Ox-ford University Press, Oxford.

Zalik, A., 2004. The Niger Delta: ‘Petro Violence’ and ‘Partnership Development’. Rev. Afr.Polit. Econ. 31 (101), 401–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03056240420005512.

Thaddeus Chidi Nzeadibe is a Senior Lecturer and Coor-dinator of Postgraduate Programmes in the Departmentof Geography, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. He holds aPhD in Environmental Management and has publishedpeer-reviewed articles on Social Impact Assessment(SIA) and Corporate-Community Engagement inNigeria's petro-economy in Applied Research in Quality ofLife and Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography. He is anSIA practitioner and serves on EIA Review Panels of theFederal Ministry of Environment of Nigeria. Email:chidi.nzeadibe@unn.edu.ng.

Chukwuedozie Kelechukwu Ajaero holds a PhD in Pop-ulation Geography from University of Nigeria, Nsukka.He is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geographyin the same university and presently a Postdoctoral Re-search Fellow in the Demography and Population StudiesProgramme, the University of Witwatersrand Johannes-burg, South Africa. His areas of research interest includemigration, environment and livelihoods, population–en-vironment linkages, health and quality of life studies. Dr.Ajaero is also a Social Impact Assessment consultant andhas some refereed publications to his credit. Email:chukwuedozie.ajaero@wits.ac.za.

Emeka Emmanuel Okonkwo is a Senior Lecturer in the De-partment of Archaeology and Tourism, University of Nigeria,Nsukka. He holds a PhD, specializing in tourism planning anddevelopment, and cultural resource management. EmekaOkonkwo has published several archaeology and tourism-oriented articles in learned journals and books. Email:emeka.okonkwo@unn.edu.ng.

83Assessment Review 55 (2015) 74–83

Thecla Iheoma Akukwe is a Lecturer in the Department ofGeography, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and currently aPhD student in University of Nairobi, Kenya under theTRECCAfrica programme. Her research interests include En-vironmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Disaster Risk Man-agement, Climate Change Adaptation, LivelihoodsSustainability, Natural resources and sustainable develop-ment. Email: thecla.akukwe@unn.edu.ng.

Roseline Feechi Njoku-Tony is a Lecturer in theDepartmentof Environmental Technology, Federal University of Technol-ogy, Owerri, Nigeria. She is primarily aMedical parasitologistwhere she obtained a PhD. She also has research interestsand peer-reviewedarticles on impact assessment andqualityof life assessment in Nigeria. Email: tonyrosefeechi@yahoo.com.

Patrick UcheOkpoko is a Professor of Cultural Tourism in theDepartment of Archaeologyand Tourism, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. He specializes in cultural tourism and socialimpact assessment. His other research interests are corporate reputation and stakeholderrelations. He has published widely in his chosen areas of academic endeavour. Email:patrick.okpoko@unn.edu.ng.