Examining liveability in the informal community of Kabawa, Nigeria

This article examines the nature and causes of liveability challenges faced by the residents of Kabawa, an informal community south-east of Lokoja, the capital of Kogi State, North-Central Nigeria, and points out solutions to the identified problems. Liveability concepts were adopted, while both primary and secondary data were used. The research instruments used included a structured questionnaire, an observation checklist, and a housing facility survey. A total of 180 household heads/ respondents were randomly selected for the study. The study establishes that the community exhibited slum characteristics, including poor housing conditions, filthy environment, poor sanitation, indiscriminate waste disposal, and acute lack of basic infrastructure. Illiteracy, poverty, poor maintenance of the available facilities, and lack of participation in governance are common challenges reported by residents. The study recommends improved planning and partnership between government and other community development stakeholders towards achieving improved liveability through participatory, community-centred development and a financial framework.


INTRODUCTION
The rapid rate of urbanisation experienced after the industrial revolution has caused a tremendous change in the world (United Nations Human Settlements [UN-Habitat], 2011; Gollin, Jedwab & Vollrath, 2016).As the urban population increases, the land area occupied by cities has increased at an even higher rate ( UN-Habitat, 2016).In the World Cities Report of 2022, the UN-Habitat (2022: xv) reports that the world will continue to urbanise over the next three decades -from 56% in 2021 to 68% in 2050.This translates into an increase of 2.2 billion urban residents, living mostly in Africa and Asia (UN-Habitat, 2022: xv).
Human beings have made efforts to achieve a higher quality of life in diverse ways, consequently affecting the environment negatively on both the local and global scales (Soltani & Sharifi, 2012;UN-Habitat, 2017).The urban environment is a living organism; people interact with it and, in turn, it interacts with people.It is the mirror with which we reflect our being (Owoeye & Obayomi, 2015: 17-18).Expressing the mirroring of informality, Alabi, Babalola and Popoola (2021) emphasise the increasing informality in incremental housing apparent in the corridors of the city of Ibadan, Nigeria.Visagie and Turok (2020) report that the spontaneity in growth and emergence and negative traction characterise informal settlement and informality in Africa.Samper, Shelby and Behary (2020: 1) point out that a third of the global urban form comprises informal settlements.Following the global environmental crisis (that is, liveability challenges, poverty, slum development, urban decay), increasing global attention is paid to the need to address the emergence and growth of slums or informal settlements across the world's cities (Ziblim, 2013: 4).
By 2030, 5 billion people will have migrated to cities, placing unprecedented pressure on infrastructure and resources, particularly those related to liveability (Aliyu & Amadu, 2017: 149;UN-Habitat, 2017;United Nations, 2017a;2017b).By 2050 (UN-Habitat, 2017: 2), 70% of the 7 billion projected world population will be urbanised.India, China, and Nigeria together are expected to account for 37% of the projected growth of the world's urban population between 2014 and 2050.India will add 404 million urban dwellers, China 292 million, and Nigeria 212 million (Newton, 2015: 138;Rajashekariah, 2017: 1).This growth rate will result from the large influx of people to urban centres in search of means of improving their living standards.However, it is essential to stress that the working-age population in Africa is expected to grow by close to 70%, or by approximately 450 million people, between 2015 and 2035, because of population growth (World Economic Forum, 2017: xiv).If the current trends continue, only roughly 100 million people can expect to find stable employment opportunities (World Economic Forum, 2017: xiii), because Africa's macroeconomic policies, investment climate, and quality of human and physical capital remain a limitation to accelerated job creation.
According to Visage and Turok (2020: 351-352), crowded informal settlements in African cities are attributed to unplanned and uncoordinated urban densification.They mention that many cities in Africa are struggling to cope with large-scale urbanisation and the associated negative externalities of congestion, contagion, and pollution, all of which are common features of informal settlements in cities.
Iterating this city informality, Tilaki et al. (2011: 160) mention that urbanisation in developing countries, resulting in informality, can be attributed to uncontrolled population influx in many growth poles (many of which are cities) and that migration can be attributed to the formation of informal settlements on the outskirts of major cities.The emergence and spread of informal settlements are now a widespread phenomenon in African cities (Ono & Kidokoro, 2020: 384), including the Nigeria urbanising trends, where empirical evidence reports on the continuing emergence and expansion of informal settlements in Nigeria (Aliyu & Amadu, 2017;Samper et al., 2020;Olatunde et al., 2021).Using a case study of some selected informal settlements in Nigeria, John-Nsa (2021: 41) reports that the spatial footprint and density of these settlements have continued to increase, due to numerous liveability factors (Aliyu & Amadu, 2017: 149).
For instance, over the past few decades, the city of Lokoja (administrative capital of Kogi State at the confluence of the Niger and Benue rivers) has experienced high and rapid rates of urbanisation, characterised by unplanned city expansion along with the suburbs and periphery (Alabi, 2009;Ukoje, 2016).Studies on the urbanisation and expansion feature of the city report that Lokoja is currently facing significant challenges in its quality of life and the range of opportunities it can offer its residents (Fatiregun, Mofolorunsho & Osagbemi, 2009;Adetunji & Isah, 2015).Overcrowding, slum development, flooding, noise pollution, poor air quality, traffic congestion, poor waste-management systems, and industrial emissions are the current liveability challenges associated with Lokoja.These have raised the prospect of a crowded, violent, and unhealthy Lokoja city, strengthened by the escalation of intolerable environmental degradation and the collapse of the few provided essential infrastructure services.However, there is a lack of research on the liveability experience in informal spaces such as Kabawa community of Lokoja, because informal spaces, as sub-city fragments of urban space, remain excluded in scientific investigations (Samper et al., 2020: 1;Maemeko, Mukwambo & Nkengbeza, 2021: 39).Kabawa is one of the informal districts in Lokoja which exhibits a high degree of slum characteristics, including overcrowding, poor and inadequate sanitation facilities, flooding, noise pollution, poor air quality, and unhealthy waste-management systems (Fatiregun et al., 2009;Adetunji & Isah, 2015;Ukoje, 2016).
In an attempt to understand and proffer solutions to these liveability challenges (economic, social, and environmental), this article aims to examine the nature and causes of residents' liveability challenges; to assess the physical and environmental factors of liveability, and to suggest solutions to improving liveability in Kabawa.
Urbanisation in Nigeria mirrors the urbanisation challenges within the larger developing countries of Africa (Sulyman & Medayese, 2016: 1;Abdrazack et al., 2021: 42).Nigeria's urbanisation is a function of population increase, both natural (birth rate) and migration inclined (rural-urban).The population has increased rapidly over the past 50 years and will likely double within the next 30 years (Braimoh & Onishi, 2007: 502;Peri & Sasahara, 2019: 1-2; Gu, Andreev & Dupre, 2021: 606).Bloch et al. (2015: 1) as well as Fox, Bloch and Monroy (2018: 948) argue that the growth of Nigeria's urban population, in both absolute and relative terms, has been accompanied by the expansion of existing built-up areas and the emergence of new and identifiably 'urban' settlements.This rapidly urbanising environment has accounted for a substantial part of the urban system in the country and cascades down to all Nigerian cities (both large and medium sized), leading to the continuous demand for space for basic urban infrastructure such as water, energy, transportation, and housing, among others.Urbanisation in Nigeria is thus driven by unregulated birth rates and rapid movement from rural to urban areas in search of a better livelihood.
In 2013, 32% of the world's urban population, nearly 1 billion people, were housed in slums, with the vast majority of the people living in less economically developed countries (LEDC) (Elledge & McClatchey, 2013:1).This remains the contributory factor to the over 2.5 billion people who do not have access to improved sanitation and 1.5 million children who die from diarrhoea worldwide, as of 2013 (Elledge & McClatchey, 2013:1;WHO, 2017: 1).Virtually all large cities in medium, economically developing countries (MEDC) contain slum districts such as Khayelitsha in Cape Town, South Africa; Vietnam in Muruku and Kario-Bangi district of Nairobi, Kenya; Arat Kilo, Taliyan Sefer, and Tora Bora in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Ajegunle, in Lagos; Foko in Ibadan; Oke-Bale in Osogbo, and Kabawa, Karaworo, Ganaja village and Adankolo in Lokoja, Nigeria.This creates challenges for the residents' liveability in these areas.Alluding to the crossroad of spatial planning and urban governance within the new urban agenda, the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) (2008) emphasises the need for informal spaces regeneration towards achieving sustainable communities.This is emphasised in Lutta, Schoonjans and Lupala (2021: 445, 460), who advocate collaborative planning and management in informal areas.Aligning to the legality that will support planning of informal areas, Onyemenam et al. (2016: 8-9) suggest the need for the physical improvement, integration, formalisation, and tenure regularisation of informal settlements towards achieving sustainable communities.The reason for this is that improving living conditions in informal spaces is key to sustainable communities (Tucker & Anantharaman, 2020: 290, 296;Kasim, Wahab & Olayide, 2020: 10).

Urbanisation and informality
Informal spaces emerge due to land scarcity, resulting in uncoordinated and unplanned sprawling developments on the peripheries of mostly large cities (Lasisi et al., 2017: 152;Adeleye et al., 2018: 26, 31;Popoola et al., 2020: 124).Owusu (2008: 117) mentions that changes, stress, and shocks associated with land rights and access are due to pressure from the population in city areas.The emergence of informality such as informal land market and peri-urban sprawling remains a challenge in developing countries (Owusu, 2008: 77).Focusing on the spatial economy in the Global South, Van Noorloos, Klaufus and Steel (2019: 855) argue that land is a critical factor in informality and urban sprawling and that land grabbing characterises the city land economy that continues to limit land access to 'all'.Alluding to the effect of urbanisation on land ownership, access and tenure, as well as tenure-related conflicts, Dadashpoor and Ahani (2019: 227) observe that urban expansion towards city peripheral corridors and its associated land-use emergence are due to weak development control and planning, as well as space and land-related informality.
Reporting about the anomalies associated with urbanisation, Onyemenam et al. (2016: 88) state that extreme deprivation remains a significant concern, with 1 billion people living in urban fringes, informal spaces, and slums.Despite this, Dovey et al. (2020: 1) report that informal settlements serve as an absorption point of entry and access for housing and infrastructure for rural-urban migrants.Their role is further emphasised in informal spaces' collective formality of Global South metropolitan areas (Dovey & Kamalipour, 2017: 223).With this view, in a collective, inclusive, and sustainable urban space, Dovey et al. (2020: 13) state the need for informal spaces to be integrated into the urban formal fabric.They write that the housing, de facto tenure, infrastructure, and locational advantage embodied in informal settlements are significant assets of the urban poor that cannot be demolished and replaced without damaging livelihoods (Dovey et al., 2020: 13).In Lagos, Nigeria, Popoola et al. (2020: 124) note that those informal spaces are characterised by makeshift livelihood and liveability experiences and that the 'usual and expected' forced eviction and demolition cannot be the only options to managing such spaces.Housing modernisation for the wealthy and high-income earners (as a posteviction and demolition of informal spaces) at the detriment of the urban poor (Olatunde et al., 2021: 47) needs to be correctly managed.

Liveability and quality of life
According to Kaal (2011: 533), the concept of liveability originated in the 1950s in Dutch rural geography.Although much of the focus of the definitions of 'liveability' was on people's individual well-being, a collective, universal definition of the concept 'liveability' remains difficult.Scholars report that 'liveability' is vague and multi-dimensional (Balsas, 2004;Yeun & Ooi, 2009;Wahab, 2017).However, Holden and Scerri (2013: 444) describe liveability as to capture the human living environment.It is the totality of the factors that add up to a community's quality of life, including the built and natural environments, economic prosperity, social stability and equity, educational opportunity, as well as cultural, entertainment, and recreation possibilities (Kasim et al., 2020: 3).This also implies that the quality of a human living environment is pleasant, safe, affordable, and supportive of the human community (Wheeler, 2001: 11).This quality of human life, measured with different variables and indicators such as social, economic, environmental, and cultural factors, is important for sustainable liveability (Liu et al., 2017: 99).Liveability is concerned with enhancing both the functioning and the integrity of human life (Khalil, 2012: 80).It covers a wide range of human needs, including food, fundamental security, beauty, cultural expression, and a sense of belonging to a community or a place (Momtaz & Elsemary, 2015: 77).It refers to the environment from the individual's perspective and includes a subjective evaluation and measurement of the quality of the housing conditions (Heylen, 2006: 4).
This article views urban liveability as integrated with the development of factors and resources that help transform the city into a pleasant, economically attractive, convenient, and healthy place for residents and visitors -the characteristics of sustainable liveability in the city.According to the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987: 16), sustainability means a development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.For human settlements (in this case, urban centres), urban sustainability improves the quality of life in a city, including ecological, cultural, political, institutional, social, and economic components, without leaving a burden on future generations (URBAN21, 2000; Mella & Gazzola, 2015: 542).
Urban sustainable cities provide citizens with access to educational opportunities, healthcare, affordable housing, public spaces, livelihood opportunities, and basic services, which improve the environment with efficient infrastructure for energy, security, transportation, and municipal waste.Liveable cities offer green public areas that are safe, secure, and clean; they enhance individual well-being through social inclusiveness, social justice, ecological sustainability, cultural vibrancy, economic vitality, long-term-oriented policies, and integrated governance processes (Marwa, 2012: 3).

Liveability and informality
The liveability function of ensuring integrity and security of human life, improved access, and collective sense of belonging within a particular space thus questions the liveability of urban spaces (in the face of informality) globally.In cities of developing countries, urbanisation has become virtually synonymous with urban informal settlements and slum formation.Studies on slums reveal that unhygienic conditions and high population density (people and buildings) are inherent problems with all slum settlements (Husock, 2009: 1; UN-Habitat, 2017).Overcrowding in slum and informal neighbourhoods has an impact on various facilities such as public transport, water, and sanitation provided in urban areas, consequently leading to unprecedented pressure on the amenities in the city (Dhingra et al., 2008: 49;United Nations, 2015;2017b).Overcrowding also has other liveability challenges such as inadequate affordable housing, inadequate essential services, as well as job scarcity, particularly, for the urban poor who live in informal settlements worldwide.
The need for liveability is emphasised in the management, formalisation, as well as inclusive growth and development of informal settlements.Despite the various institutional attempts, thematic keywords such as poverty, dilapidated housing, institutional neglect, survival struggle, unplanned spaces, infrastructure shortage, overcrowding, and poor quality of life, used to describe slums and informal settlements, pose a threat to their sustainable liveability.For instance, Wahab (2017: 6) avers that slums are often informal settlements because they exhibit similar characteristics, especially lack of planning and development permits.Roy (2009: 82) describes slums as the most deprived and excluded informal settlements, characterised by poverty and large agglomerations of dilapidated housing built along unstable sites.UN-Habitat (2003) defines slums as contiguous settlements, characterised by insecure residential status, poor structural quality of housing, and overcrowding, inadequate access to potable water, as well as lack or inadequate sanitation infrastructure or services.Maru (2012: 1-5) also argues that, in many instances, people living in slums are not recognised as residents of the city.This often leads to their neglect of governance.
Due to densification, spatial delineation of slums through strategic improvement programmes remains limited and sometimes unsuccessful.If the growth of slums is not controlled, it will be very difficult to implement and execute any proposed development in and around slums.Slum development has considerable impacts on stability, quality of life, development, and sustainability of urban areas at both micro and macro levels (Wahab, 2017: 1-2).Therefore, it requires concerted and sustained policies and actions to alleviate the negative impacts.
Studies suggest the need for a planning framework and sustainable co-partnership interventions for informal settlements in Africa, because the threat to liveability due to informality cannot be underplayed (Abbott, 2002: 317;Smit, 2017: 26).
With respect to the informal spaces as permanent components of the city fabric, Chigwenya and Simbanegavi (2021: 1) suggest the need to include it in the delivery systems of the city for sustainable urbanity.Informal settlements play a crucial role in the provision of housing to low-income urban dwellers.Therefore, Swapan, Zaman and Lehmann (2020: 196) state that informal settlement space emergence and transformation is critical to sustainable urbanisation and planning.Roy (2005: 147) suggests the need for inclusive planning as a framework for distributive justice for informal spaces.This is embedded in Recio's view (2015: 18) that planning plays a critical role, as part of governance processes, in shaping socio-spatial relations and managing multiple arrangements, including informal economic activities, in shared urban spaces.It lies within latitude 7 0 50′N and 7 0 51′N and longitude 6 0 43′E and 6 0 44′E (Figure 1).A reconnaissance survey revealed that the community is serviced by one healthcare centre, and two government-owned primary and secondary schools, respectively.Based on the researchers' physical enumeration of the residential buildings in the Kabawa community, as undertaken in June 2018, it amounts to 336 buildings made up of 329 bungalows, 32 singlestorey, and five 2-storey buildings.2), and a yet-to-be commissioned 6-water closet toilet facility provided by the Federal Government of Nigeria (Figure 3).The community has four public water-supply facilities, two of which were provided by the government.

Rationale for selecting the study area
The Kabawa community was selected as a case study area, as it is characterised by primary activities such as farming and informal trading (Oyesanmi, 2017: 51), indicative of liveability struggles due to water and livelihood insecurities (Danjibo, Adeoye & Ojo, 2019;Obihan et al., 2019; Society for Family Health, 2021).Geographical exclusion continues to limit these residents' liveability.

Research design
This study adopted a mixed methods research strategy (with an exploratory research design) where qualitative and quantitative data are collected in parallel, analysed separately, and then merged (Creswell, 2014).It also allows for descriptive statistical analysis (Siedlecki, 2020).In this study, a structured questionnaire survey (quantitative) assessed people's views on the housing conditions and sanitation facilities in the Kabawa community (see 4.3).
The observations and interviews (qualitative) explored environmental conditions and waste management practices and water provision that contribute to the liveability challenges faced by Kabawa's residents.The reason for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data is to elaborate on specific findings from the questionnaire survey, such as similar housing and sanitation challenges suggested from respondents and the interviewee (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2017).

Population, sample, and response rate
The unit of analysis in this study is households.The National Population Commission (2010: 17) identifies that, in 2006 (the latest verifiable Nigerian census information available at the time of the study), there were a total of 38 612 households in Lokoja LGA.However, the census data did not provide a breakdown and analysis of households in each community across the various LGAs.There was no baseline data on housing stock and household population.Therefore, to arrive at the sample population in Kabawa community, the total number of buildings (366 units), as obtained from the building enumeration survey undertaken, was chosen systematically from every second building (50% of the buildings); a sample of 183 household heads were randomly selected as the respondents for questionnaire administration.Out of the 183 copies of the questionnaire administered, only 180 were considered reliable and all the necessary questions were captured.This represents a response rate of 98.36%.Maxfield and Babbie (2015) state that a response rate of over 60% of the targeted sample size is sufficient to represent the expected sample population.
Interviews were conducted to complement the descriptive variables captured in the study.Three of the interviewees were residents (youth leader, and two community elders) in the sample community, while one interviewee was a public officer The interviewees were purposively selected based on their knowledge of the community (resident of over five years), community representative as youth leader and elder, respectively.

Data collection
From 19 to 27 July 2018, the researcher and the research assistants distributed the structured questionnaire by hand to the 183 selected household heads.They were present between 7.30 am and 6 pm each day to assist respondents in answering the questions.
The questionnaire was divided into three parts.Part one, on the socio-economic characteristics of respondents, obtained information on age, gender, marital status, education, household size, annual income, and occupation.Part two contained eight tick-box questions with 3-5 options on the physical condition of the houses (construction material, roof, walls) and sanitation facilities (bathroom, toilet).Part three covered 4 tick-box questions with 3-5 options on the access to waste and water infrastructure in both the community and the buildings in which the respondents live.
Respondents were requested to mark the options that best fit the conditions of their houses and community.
The researcher also made use of field observations to determine the water and sanitation conditions.Observations helped determine external conditions and practices such as open drains and solid waste disposal in unauthorised places.The observations were recorded in the questionnaire spaces that had been left unfilled by the respondents.
The interview schedule questions obtained information on environmental conditions and waste-management practices in the area, their liveability challenges, and residents' willingness to support urban regeneration and liveability-enhancement projects.
Questions were translated into both pidgin English and the native language of those respondents who could not speak English.
Ethical issues were given due consideration; the purpose of the study and the content of the research instrument were explained to the participants; confidentiality of the data and respondents' right to privacy were ensured, and the informed consent and willingness of the respondents to participate in the survey were obtained.

Data analysis and interpretation of findings
In this study, the Statistical Package for Social Science, Version 22, was used to analyse the data captured descriptively.Both frequency and percentage were calculated to explain the socio-economic profile of respondents, the housing conditions and sanitation facilities in the sampled buildings, as well as access to waste and water infrastructure in both the community and the buildings sampled in the study area.Following the frequency data evidence, pictures and interview extracts were used to support the statistical findings (Bazeley, 2009;Wisdom & Creswell, 2013).The interview results were transcribed to English from both pidgin English and the local language, respectively.Thematic content analysis of the interview results provided context to and understanding of issues related to liveability in the study area.These issues are presented in direct quotes in section 6 below.

Characteristics of respondents
Based on frequency of occurrence, Table 1 shows that most of the respondents were males (62.8%), aged between 18-35 years (42.2%).
In 62.2% of the houses, between 6 to 15 persons were living in one household.This can be due to family configuration as 53.9% of the respondents were married and, generally, 79.4% of the sampled residents were aged between 18-60 years.This implies a youthful and vibrant population.Most of the respondents (30.6%) were farmers and another 47.8% engaged in This indicates a high level of informal economic activities in the area.
Roughly one-fifth of the respondents earned less than N200,000 annually, and 36.7% earned between N200,000 and N300,000 annually (at the time of the survey, N358 = 1USD).Although 30.6% of the respondents had primary school education, over one-third (37.2%) had no formal education.This implies the likelihood that over one-third of the residents were uninformed of the gravity and effect of the precarious conditions in which they lived.This assumption is based on the view that a limited level of education (which includes environmental knowledge and training) will restrict their knowledge of the magnitude of the environmental problem in their setting.

Housing conditions and sanitation facilities
A survey on housing conditions and sanitation facilities revealed that 62.2% of the respondents used cement blocks for their buildings and that 36.7% of them used mud and stone materials.In comparison, 1.1% of the respondents used timber materials (Table 2).The material used in building the sampled houses indicates that age influences it.Of the buildings, 76.4% were older than 10 years.This indicates a community characterised by old building structures that likely pose liveability challenges to the residents.
In terms of structural soundness, as observed in the external condition of the houses' foundation and through personal comments, the study revealed that 41.1% were rated not sound.The conditions of 52.8% of the sampled building walls were either rated deteriorating or deteriorated (Figures 5 and 6).This implies that most of the buildings to improve the living standards of millions of urban citizens.

Housing and sanitation facilities
The general evaluation of the sanitation condition of the community remains an underlying limitation to environmental sustainability as well as to household and communal liveability.The study emphasises the role of formal education in environmental ignorance.Popoola et al. (2015: 70) report that there exists a relationship between household literacy, and public awareness and education about the effect of housing and human health conditions in slum and squatter settlements.The poor environmental awareness accounted for observed (during household surveys) the indiscriminate discharge of faeces subjected to communal and male family head control.The gendered limitation in access to land can be further attributed to the respondents' limited income.For instance, Mazzotta and Ng'weno (2020: 1), as well as Popoola, Magidimisha-Chipungu and Chipungu (2022: 285) mention that Nigerian women remain financially limited compared to men.
This is further emphasised in the peculiar informal activity as the main source of livelihood among residents in the Kabawa community.However, the analysis shows the interlink of livelihood, income, and liveability, as noted in Kasim et al. (2020: 2), who posit that, compared to rural settlements, African cities are playing an increasingly important role in economic development, and in promoting opportunities

Waste and sanitation management practices and household water access
The study investigated the environmental condition of the area in terms of the management of solid and liquid waste.Table 3  Only 18.3% of the respondents adopted the soak-away method to dispose of their liquid waste.
Table 3 reveals that the most negligible proportion (7.8%) of the respondents sourced their water from the government pipe-borne water supply; 12.2% of the respondents sourced water from water vendors; 13.9% from boreholes (accessed from overhead tanks); 16.7% relied on rainwater, while 24.4% sourced raw (untreated) water from the River Niger (open river), and 25% from hand-dug wells.Although drains were available, most of the respondents (82.2%) claimed that their drainage system is very poor (47.2%), or poor (35.0%).

Social conditions
Despite the limited investigation into male or female home ownership in Kabawa, empirical studies suggest that the disparity may be attributed to Nigeria's patriarchal society.In support of this, Oriye, Owoeye and Weje (2012: 443) state that women's experiences in access to, and ownership of land and housing are  (open defecation -into unclosed waste-water drains and streets) or on bare grounds (Figure 5).The open drain also serves as waste-water collection from houses with external bathing area.Such bathing spaces were enclosed with used corrugated zinc roofing sheets (Figure 4), from which wastewater was either channelled into public drains or allowed to flow freely in situations where gutters were not available.
This situation points to urban development's challenges to include poor waste disposal, poor sanitation, burgeoning slum, and squalor and environmental degradation.These challenges render the Kabawa environment vulnerable to health and environmental disasters.Likened to the experience in the Kabawa community, Popoola et al. (2015) report that income and financial assets of households could influence the environment and household health of both informal settlement residents and their communities.
The informal settlers lack the knowledge to accept that housing is a combination of the building and the complementary facilities such as toilets, drainage, and bathroom.All of which contributes to the environmental sustainability of the environment.However, economic power often determines the choice, access, and availability of such a complementary facility.
Examining the environmental condition in the study area shows that most of the respondents are involved in unhygienic disposal of waste.A large group of residents discharged waste directly onto the bare ground and into open drains (Figure 5).
The observation revealed the poor and precarious condition of the drainage infrastructure in Kabawa (Figure 6).The bulk of the drains were open, while only a few were covered.However, it is clear from the research findings that the residents understand the implication of living in proximity to the poor and unhealthy environment but noted that they have no other option but to remain in such an environment, due to the cost of living in areas with better living conditions.This finding aligns with studies (World Bank, 2009;Wahab, 2018;World Economic Forum, 2017) noting that exceptionally rapid urban population growth has outpaced economic growth, and this continues to impact on the type of environment in which urban residents live.
Coupled with a laissez-faire approach to urban management, this has seen the proliferation of unplanned, under-serviced settlements, where diseases associated with poor water and sanitation are rife.Access to adequate health and education facilities is often limited; insecurity prevails; organised policing is ad hoc at best, and employment is mostly informal, insecure, and poorly paid.
In the study area, the only pedestrian walkway is a covered drainage that performs the function of waste-water collection and for limited community circulation and mobility.Other drainage channels were opened, which made them easily blocked with debris mainly from contents spilling from the highways and indiscriminate refuse dumps in the community.This explains the sources of the degradation and stench that filled the environment during the survey.This degradation can be attributed to lack of the facility, pressure on the available facility, or poor maintenance culture by both the government and the community.Based on open-ended responses, the authors conclude that the identified challenges that limit household liveability and communal sustainability are poverty; dirty environment and poor sanitation; inadequate and poor circulation network; overcrowding, and air pollution.Furthermore, some of the sampled households identified illiteracy as their problem, while claiming that governance exclusion was a challenge, as both local and state governments never involved them in any development decisionmaking or considered them in the provision of basic facilities.Iterating this, Interviewee B (a community leader) had this to say on government neglect and community exclusion: Our community had suffered exclusion from the government decision-making process, which led to resentments among the residents in the past.Only a few influential people in the community enjoy the dividend of governance at the detriment of most of the residents.
Popoola and Magidimisha (2020) recognise the role of community in ensuring improved liveability and enhancing livelihood options.
Concerning the respondents' preference and willingness to support liveability-enhancement projects, captured open response reveals that the majority of them opted for the electricity project as their major priority for the area.Others include willing to support social housing project, construction of roads, sanitation facilities, drainages, markets, and new schools, youth empowerment programmes, sound security infrastructure, and the support agricultural development projects.The findings indicate that the interests of the residents differed.They were all willing to attributed to easy access to spare parts and to a sense of communal ownership of the facility (see Popoola & Magidimisha, 2019;2020).
As a result, many residents could not access the water, while unquantifiable cubic litres of treated water were continuously wasted.
The research findings also show several broken infrastructures such as damaged tap water outlets in the community.These taps were not closed, leading to water leakage and spillage.This experience results in the inability of the water facility to meet the communal demand.
Residents now depend on water from unhygienic sources to complement their household needs.Narrating his household experience, a Yoruba male respondent (Interviewee A) spoke on why the respondents relied on other sources of water besides the potable (pipe-borne) water: The facility, which supplies water to the community 2-4 times a week, was being managed by the community and found to be in good working condition at the time of this research (Figure 7B).The Federal Government of Nigeria provided this (Figure 7A/B) in 2017 as a constituency project of a democratically elected House of Representative member of Lokoja/Kogi/Koton-Karfe Federal Constituency.In an interview, a youth leader disclosed that the solar-powered facility supplied water free of charge to residents of the community; it was routinely maintained by the community leaders and remained in excellent working condition.It was observed that, due to poor maintenance (Figure 8) of water infrastructure and the on-off supply from the Kogi State Water Board, these two water points remain the potable water source for the community.The maintenance of the solar-powered facility can be support one type of liveabilityenhancement project or the other in their community, with their counterpart contributions in the form of project management, security watch, labour, land, and finance.
The foregoing shows that the Kabawa community experience liveability challenges as reflected in the inadequacy of physical, social, environmental, and healthcare facilities.Government's neglect in allocating resources and liveabilityenhancement projects remains a hindrance to sustainable liveability.These situations are not far from the conceptualisation of informal settlements because it is often difficult to know in a typical African city setting when formality merges with informality.If, as Wahab and Agbola (2017) observe, urban informality refers to the ambiguity of instant stability and constant change, then the African city of today is informal.Unless the informal settlements are regarded as 'work in progress' with viable family ties and cultural identity, and as a collection of latent energy to be channelled constructively, informal settlements will continue to be regarded as unsuitable, unedifying areas to be removed and redeveloped according to modern town-planning principles that often do not benefit urban Africans.The planning official interview reports that space and people restriction of planning activities remain contributory factors to the poor liveability condition experienced in the area.Dovey (2012) mentions that physical planning principles are strangers on the local landscape and offensive to the sense and sensibilities of indigenous or local inhabitants.In this regard, liveability indicators should embrace, especially for African cities, new models of city growth and development that are inclusive and that view all sectors as equally contributing to the sustenance of the city.According to Wahab and Ola (2016: 80), "this new approach must include a new system to informality in cities and its potential contribution to sustainable lifestyles".

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study findings revealed that the liveability challenges of the residents of the Kabawa informal community were multidimensional to include physical, economic, environmental, and social aspects.
The study established that the Kabawa informal community exhibited slum characteristics in poor housing conditions, filthy environment, poor sanitation, indiscriminate waste disposal, and acute lack of basic infrastructure.Illiteracy, poverty, and non-inclusion in governance (as evident in poor infrastructure) were inherent among the residents and were the principal factors for the liveability challenges experienced in the community.
There is an urgent need for both government and the community to collaborate on policies and actions that will enhance the area's liveability.This may be through organised, participatory, and communitycentred urban regeneration and liveability-enhancement programmes, especially basic urban services.The rejuvenation of neglected parts of the area is required through an organised process and framework that involves retaining some of the good structures, rehabilitating old buildings and facilities, and upgrading existing roads.There is also a need for the construction of more roads to open the blighted and inaccessible areas.Economic revitalisation through the creation of employment opportunities is equally recommended.This will also serve as the potential for capital formation among the residents that will, in turn, strengthen their ability to provide basic household facilities and proper maintenance of buildings.
Lokoja, the capital of Kogi State, is situated in the north-central geopolitical zone of Nigeria, on the western bank of the River Niger (Figure1).Lokoja is approximately 162 kilometres from Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) of Nigeria.Lokoja town, with a population of 196 643 in 2006 and 741 000 in 2021, is located within Lokoja Local Government Area (LGA) (United Nations, 2022).The Kabawa community is an informal settlement situated along Chief Olusegun Obasanjo Road in Lokoja and bounded by the River Niger on the right-hand side towards the Lokoja-Abuja Expressway.The community is located at the foot of mountain Patti, behind the International Market in Felele, Lokoja.

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: Kabawa study community in the context of Lokoja Metropolis Source: Adapted from Olarewaju (2015: 22) and rendered by authors

Figure 4 :
Figure 4: A bare ground covered with roofing sheets used as a bathroom with waste water channelled into the open drains in Kabawa community Source: Authors' field observation, 2018 The researchers directly observed that the government water-supply facilities in the area are in a state of disrepair.Residents report the poor perception of potable water provision, although the poor facility provision does not depict the government's 'complete' neglect of the community.Direct observation and interviews revealed government's physical development interventions through motorised solar-powered pipe-borne water-facility provision through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Project in 2016 (Figure7A).

Figure 8 :
Figure 8: Poor conditions of the water-supply facilities by the Kogi State Water Board Source: Authors' field observation, 2018

Table 1 :
Characteristics of respondents

Table 3 :
Waste-management practices by the respondents