Introduction

Poverty is dynamic and portrays multi-dimensional character and description, and no single indicator has captured all the aspects of what constitute poverty (National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), 2005). The concept of poverty has been defined as an economic condition in which people lack sufficient income to obtain certain minimal levels of necessities of life such as food, clothing, housing, health and education services to attain better living condition (World Bank, 2011). Poverty can also be seen in economic terms as income poverty whereby a family's income fails to meet a federally established threshold that differs across countries as indicated in Nigeria (US$1.25 per day) (NBS, 2009). These definitions and measures of poverty establishes two dimensions of poverty comprising income poverty and lacking basic need poverty (NBS, 2009). The rapid increase in urban population and expansion of urban boundaries beyond its confines globally in recent times has also metaphor urban dynamics [1]. This has brought many urban challenges among urban populace and households lacking access to basic infrastructure and services and increasing unemployment rate. This has increased urban poverty and disparity among urban households [2]. Urban poverty has been given low priority by governments especially in the developing countries such as Nigeria but a newer interest in recent time has been attached to urban areas based on the increasing urban population and socio-economic challenges faced by urban households [3]. The occasioned rapid urbanisation has left symbolic negative marks on the landscape of urban areas include inadequate housing, increasing unemployment, inadequate supply of basic urban infrastructure and services which has led to increasing urban poverty level among urban households in the country thereby affecting the living standard and quality of life in all ramifications. According to NBS (2020) cit. Akwagyiram (2020), over 40% representing 82.9 million Nigerians lived below poverty line of N137, 430 (US$381.75) per year [4]. This has made Nigeria to be rated as the world capital of poverty [5]. Large percentage of this population now live in urban areas in Nigeria, which has increased urban poverty in percentage, and Yenagoa City share some percentage of urban population and poor households that live in urban Nigeria. Poor urban planning and management and governance issues accentuate this scenario, which has increased social disparity and inequality gap between the urban poor and well-to-do in the urban area. It is imperative to assess the intricacies of urban poverty among households in Yenagoa City, Nigeria to understand the nature, determinants and characteristics of urban poverty and recommend effective and efficient urban planning and management policies and framework towards improving socio-economic well-being and quality of life of the urban poor in the city.

Statement of the Problem

Globally, it is estimated poverty is declining, but the number of extremely poor population is increasing in Sub-Saharan Africa as other regions figures are declining progressively and Nigeria remains a country with high levels of urban poverty (World Bank, 2018). The above statistics paints an awry picture of Nigeria. Yenagoa City is facing same increasing urban poverty among its inhabitants. Observation in Yenagoa City exhibits high increase in urban poverty among households resulting to poor access to basic urban infrastructure and services. This condition may have been caused by high rate of unemployment and underemployment, corruption practices, poor urban governance, increasing illiteracy rate and political oppression from the political class. These conditions have further increased the inequality gap and social disparity among households in the study area. If these conditions persist will further cause political and socio-economic chaos in the study area. There is need to assess the intricacies of urban poverty among households in the study area and suggest efficient and effective urban planning and management approach that will reduce inequality and disparity to improve the socio-economic well-being and quality of life of the vulnerable and poor in the city. This will also add to the body of knowledge of urban poverty and urban planning and management.

Aim and Objectives of the Study

The aim of the study is to assess the intricacies urban poverty among households in Yenagoa City, Nigeria.

The specific objectives of the study are to:

• Identify and assess the socio-economic characteristics of the households in Yenagoa City;
• Determine the living condition and dimension of poverty of the households in the study area;
• Identify the coping strategies employed by households in the study area; and
• Recommend sustainable coping strategies to alleviate urban poverty in the study area.

Scope of the Study

The study geographical covers urban communities located in Yenagoa City LGA, Bayelsa State, Nigeria (see Figure 1).  The content scope includes identification and assessment of socio-economic characteristics of households in the study area; determination of living condition and dimension of poverty of households; coping strategies employed by households and recommendations to alleviate urban poverty in the study area.

Figure 1: Map of Bayelsa State Showing Yenagoa City LGA.

Source: Surveyor’s General Office Yenagoa City, Bayelsa State, 2020.

Urban Poverty: An Overview

In analysing urban poverty, researchers have come up with several theories of poverty, which are used to classify urban poverty based on their causes. This research depends on two kinds of theories that is used to explain urban poverty namely; culture and individual deficiency theories of poverty. Culture of poverty theory was developed by an anthropologist Oscar Lewis in 1960s [6]. The theory seeks to explain poverty as it creates a way of living that becomes a culture of its own. He argued that people within poverty cycle segregate themselves from the mainstream of the society and congregate in a particular segment of the settlement were they exhibit a special social behaviour that distinct them from other social class. The behaviour they exhibit restrict them from the use of certain facilities and services within the society they live in and little or low participation in governance of their society [6]. This culture transmits from one generation to another as children learn the culture of poverty (values and attitude) from their parents and people around them. The causes of cultural poverty include poor governance, impunity from high social class, systematic and institutional failure, high unemployment and income inequality, corruption of the political class [7]. These conditions encourage the manifestation of poor orientation, low standard of living, high rate of social ills, political unrest and abuse of religion, election thuggery, vote buying [8]. Individual deficiency theory of poverty focused on the individual as responsible for their poverty situation. Typically, politically conservative theoreticians blame individuals in poverty for creating their own problems and argue that with harder work and better choices the poor could have avoided poverty that they found themselves which has become societal problem. Some authors describe individual poverty to lack of certain genetic attributes, intelligence and even punishment from God for sins committed. The theory cast poverty as a moral hazard with claims that poverty persist because the poor are not doing enough or are engaged in activities which are counterproductive [9]. Dike (2009) assert that individual failure to acquire required skills deepen poverty amongst individuals in the society as they may not be able to compete effectively in the labour market. This condition is characterised by individuals’ choices of not educating themselves that trickle down to affect their households’ economic status and academic performance [10]. Poverty induced by individual deficiencies can be alleviated if all stakeholders including government and policy makers provide the needed support; opportunities and incentives that help people make right choices to evade poverty.

Characteristics and Dimensions of Urban Poverty

Urban poverty as a concept is a multi-dimensional and multi-faceted phenomenon. These characteristics provide the impetus that define and explain poverty as a concept. The concept of urban poverty connotes urban population that are faced with deprivation arising from economic, political, social, cultural and ecological factors that limit them from accessing basic urban facilities and services that will improve their quality of life and well-being [11]. All these factors are interconnected and interrelated to cause condition were a segment of the population will not able to afford basic material things of life. This was underscored in the World Bank (2009) statement showing that poverty is characterized by cumulative deprivations such that one dimension of poverty is often the cause of or contributor to another dimension. It deals with urban poor of complex aggregation of chronic and acute stressors including violence, overcrowding and noise and lacking urban services (Jensen, 2009). Urban poverty has four main dimensions, which can be used to measure poverty. These dimensions are situational, generational, absolute and relative poverty. Situational poverty is when sudden crisis or loss occurred which are temporal in nature such natural and environmental disasters (flood, earthquake, cyclone, tsunami, typhoon, fire), family crisis (divorce), health problem (sickness, disease, pandemic). Generational poverty is when at least two generations of a family are born into poverty, which has made the family not to be equipped to overcome poverty. Absolute poverty describes a situation in which people barely exist largely because their incomes fall below a level necessary to satisfy the necessities of life living by less than US$1.25 per day. Relative poverty is described as a situation in which individuals are not poor in absolute terms but have much less than others by way of income, property, and other resources living by less than US$2 per day Jensen.

There are characteristics that defines urban poverty in all ramification [12]. According to Nwodu (2007) and Soubbontina (2004), these characteristics include:

• Low earning or low per capita income.
• Lack of access to basic life need, infrastructures like health, educational, recreational, and sundry facilities.
• Living in poor housing condition such as squalors, slums, and unhygienic environments.
• Inability to recognize, appreciate and assert self-esteem.
• Lack of capacity to explore, articulate, interpret and exploit the opportunities that abound in man's social, cultural, economic and political environment.
• Low income and consumption.
• Limited food energy intake

Urban poverty a multi-faceted concept as indicated not just by the absence of material well-being but also by other sets of inter-locking factors including physical weakness, social isolation, vulnerability, and powerlessness Addae-Korankye. These factors work in an interface relationship such that one factor reinforces other factors with the result of impoverishing the people the more. It is imperative to have a clear understanding of underlying causal factors of poverty in urban areas before making policies and designing programmes that will effectively and progressively lead to its reduction in a given context.

Urban Poverty Coping Strategies

Urban poor in developing economies have developed several coping strategies to face the challenges accompanied urban poverty. [13]. in her study of Gweru Town, Zimbabwe, households have diversified productive and reproductive approaches from the formal employment to build resilience and vulnerability capacities. Some coping strategies adopted by many urban poor in Kathmandu, Nepal include change of residence close to working place, changing food habits, mutual cooperation and borrowing from other residents [14]. Coping strategies have been in diverse forms, in Nairobi, Kenya, study showed poor households have employed reduction in food consumption as these households eat fewer number of mails daily, purchasing household goods and foods on credit from vendors and accessing loan facility [15]. In Bangladesh, the central coping strategy poor urban households usually adopt is the process of facilitating and maintaining patron-client relationships (Banks, 2012). While in Accra, Ghana some coping strategies identified used by poor urban residents are petty trading, street hawking and truck pushing (Kayayee) and illegal and immoral activities such male prostitution [16]. All studies showed the coping strategies are similar and informal in nature and principle. They require better urban policy and institutional framework to harness and give legal backing by incorporating these activities in urban landuse planning and management for the poor households to stabilize and institutionalise informal activities that will improve taxes and provide affordable urban facilities and services in urban societies [17].

The study employed concurrent triangulation research design of Mixed Method Research (MMR) approach for collection and analysis of data. This research design was used, as the target population were residents of households of the communities and key informants (experts) on urban planning and environmental management. The sample techniques employed were stratified, simple random and purposive sampling techniques. To determine the sample size, 29 communities were identified in the study area and grouped into 6 strata according to their population size. Six (6) communities in each stratum were randomly selected consisting of Famgbe, Yenagoa, Ovom, Akaba, Swali and Agbura to represent the entire communities and population of the study area. The population of the communities were projected from 1991 Census result to 2020 the study year using 6.5% growth rate (National Population Commission (National Population Commission (NPC), 1991; NBS, 2016). Taro Yamane formula was employed to have a sample size of 395 respondents (households) which was proportionately distributed across the study communities (see Table 1). Key informant interview schedule of Bayelsa State Physical Planning Development Board (BSPPDB) and Bayelsa State Ministry of Environment (BSME), experts such as Town Planners and Public Health and Environmental Officers were interviewed. However, after questionnaire administration 388 questionnaires were valid for collection and analysis [18].

Table 1: Sampled Communities and Sample Size for the Study.

S/No.

Source: NPC, 1991; NBS, 2016; Researcher’s Fieldwork, 2020

Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents and Households

The results from the study in (Table 2) showed that 74.5% of the respondents were male while female counterparts account for 25.5% [19].

Table 2: Sex of Respondents.

S/No.

The data in table 3 further showed that 74% of the respondents are married while 26% are single. This has reflected in the size of households of respondents in table 4 as most households’ size are more than 1. The data showed that majority of the households in the study area have 5-6 persons representing 39.2% closely followed by 3-4 persons and 7+ persons representing 27.3% and 25.8% respectively. The least persons per household is between 1-2 persons indicating 7.7%. This scenario characterised the study area to be portraying large household size as many persons are living in an apartment (accommodation) or occupying limited habitable space (see Table 8). However, data from table 5 revealed, 36.6% of the respondents attended secondary school which is the highest closely followed by those that attended primary school representing 28.9%. Others attended post-secondary school and no formal education representing 27.8% and 6.7% respectively. This demonstrates over 93% of the respondents have one form of education and are not of same educational status. This condition presented the occupation of household heads in the study area. The occupation of the household heads in table 6 indicates 37.9% of the respondents are in civil/public service while 29.9% are into trading activities. Other occupation recorded are artisans, unskilled labour and others (agriculture and business) representing 19.1%, 9% and 4% respectively as they do not have same educational qualification. The occupation of respondents in the study area reflects the income of their households per month (Naira). In table 7, 36.1% of the household heads earn monthly between N36,001 – N54,000 which is the highest, closely followed by 26.3% and 21.4% of the respondents earning between N18,000 – N36,000 and N54,001 – N72,000 respectively. Other respondents earned between N72, 001 – N90,000, N90,001 -  N108,000 and N108,001 + representing 8.8%, 5.1% and 2.3%. This indicates that over 83% of the household heads are earning below N70, 000 per month. This amount is divided among household members per day of an average household size of 5 persons as revealed in the study area (see Table 3,4). This reflects amount available to a member of a household for the day to cover all daily expenses to include food, shelter, water, electricity, transportation, medical, education and other basic necessities of life [20].

Table 3: Marital Status of Respondents.

S/No.

Table 4: Household Size of Respondents.

S/No.

Living Condition and Dimension of Poverty of Households

The study further identified several living conditions and dimensions that characterised poverty experienced by households. Some of these conditions and dimensions include accommodation types occupied by households in the study area. Data presented in table 8 shows that 46.9% of the households live in rooming housing, closely followed by those occupying detached-bungalow accounting for 22.9% while the remaining households representing 18.1% and 12.1% are occupying block of flats and others (semi-detached, duplexes and storey buildings) (see Figure. 2).

Figure 2: Image Showing Housing Types and Condition in the Study Area.

Source: Researchers’ Fieldwork, 2020

The housing type being occupied by households is occasioned by the monthly income earned by household heads as revealed in the study showing about half of the households can only afford rooming housing in the study area. The study also identified several sources of water available to households in the study area in table 9. The prevalence sources of water are from water vendors, public and private boreholes representing 42.3%, 35.1% and 16.7% respectively while other sources recorded are from hand-dug wells, streams and rain (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Image showing Sources to Water Supply in the Study.

Source: Researchers’ Fieldwork, 2020

Over 64% of the households uses sources of water supply that is not provided by government, making affordability, availability and accessibility to households expensive, unsustainable, unhygienic and difficult to access potable water supply. Data in table 10 showed that PHED is the major source of electricity to households accounting for 62.9%, closely followed by the combination of PHED/generator and PHED/generator/solar sources representing 21.1% and 10.1%. The combination of various sources of electricity by majority of the households in the study area reflect inadequacy, affordability and availability concerns to many households as large amount of their income are used to source for the various available electricity sources. This demonstrates unsustainability and more financial burden on them as against other basic life necessities. The study also recorded in table 11 the toilet type used by households. As identified, water closet ranked highest with 77.6%, pit latrine is used by 13.1% while pour flush and none (open defecation in waterbodies and bush) representing 8.3% and 1% respectively are used by other households. This condition proves that there is improvement in sewage management in many communities as government and community efforts in enforcement of public health laws and standards to keep the environment clean [21].

The study identified most mode of transport used by households in table 12. The most used of transport by households in the study area are public transport (buses, taxis and tricycles) and public motor bike representing 60.1% and 18%. However, some households use private vehicles and trekking accounting for 12.9% and 4.1% respectively. Though, the mode of transport used by households depends on availability and affordability factors which also depend on income and taste of households. This also affects their social and economic situations as being within poverty segment of life. Most of the households as showed in table 13 access medical care from public hospitals accounting for 70% while some households access medical care from private hospital, traditional medication and self-medication representing 19%, 8% and 3% respectively. Also, 66% of the households attend public schools while 29.9% attend private schools and the remaining 4.1% do not attend any form of formal education. The data from tables 13 and 14 revealed that the two urban services are more affordable and accessible by most households in the study area because it is mostly provided by government at subsidised charges. This has reduced expenses of many households to cope economic realities found within the study area. The study discovered in table 14 more than 75% of the households feeding expenses per day are below N2,000 having an average household size of 5 persons. This is inadequate for a household as each person feeds with N400 (less than US$1) per day which less than World Bank definition of absolute poverty. Only about 25% of the households feed between N2, 001-N5, 000 per day (within US$2) in the study area. These conditions as portrayed from the living conditions and dimensions of poverty have further increases the gap between the urban poor and well-to-do in the city resulting to increasing socio-economic disparities among different social classes of households in the study area [22]. These living conditions and dimension of poverty can be attributed to poor urban planning and management that do not recognized good urban governance as a principle for growth and development of urban communities and residents living conditions. Proper landuse planning and management that is expected provide employment opportunities and encourage residents to participate in the policies and decisions that will affect their lives is non-existence. With low monthly income for households and many competing financial resources demands such as feeding, utilities and services bills and inadequate housing resulting from high rent. Poverty is becoming endemic in urban communities such as the study area. These conditions have made the nature of poverty in the study area to be complex and dynamic that required in-depth study to improve quality of life and well-being of residents. This has made the households to be vulnerable and difficult to absorb economic shocks from inflation and rising cost living, as they have to pay large percentage of their income for goods and services available with no savings for the future [23].

Coping Strategies for Urban Poverty Alleviation

There are several coping strategies identified in the study employed by households for building resilience capacity to absorb stress and survival in the study area [24]. These strategies employed as recorded in table 16 includes fishing/livestock rearing, petty trading and urban subsistent farming accounting for 26%, 21.4% and 19.3% respectively. Other identified strategies are street hawking 12.4%, commercialization of private means of transportation 10.8%, farming in rural area 7% and micro finance loan 3.1%. Most of these strategies are unsustainable such as micro finance loans, which requires collateral, and sureties before loans can be given to a person, which most households cannot afford. This has made the strategy not commonly adopted by many households in the study area. There are also urban managers frown on the illegal trading (petty trading and street hawking) which are informal activities that are carried out on unauthrised sites as government official always displace these traders affecting households’ income that depend on these activities. Hence, households resort to these coping strategies identified for livelihood because very few household heads are formally engaged in civil/public service and their monthly income cannot sustain their households daily needs adequately (see Tables 5,7).

Table 5: Educational Level of Households.

Table 6: Occupation of Household Heads.

Table 7: Income of Household Head per Month (Naira).

Households in the study area preferred using urban social facilities and services provided by government such as healthcare and educational facilities, services since their income cannot afford private owned facilities, and services (see Tables 13 and 14). The inadequate provision of public water and electricity supplies in the study area have made many households to used alternative sources thereby eating-up large percentage of their income affecting feeding and accommodate expenses and medical bills from sicknesses and diseases (see Tables 8, 9, 10 and 15; Figure. 2, 3) [25].

Table 8: Type of Accommodation of Households.

Table 9: Sources of Water of Households.

Table 10: Sources of Electricity of Households.

Table 11: Toilet Type of Households.

All these conditions are borne out of unsustainable urban planning and management experienced as asserted by key informants has increased the intricacies and dimensions of urban poverty in the study area. The improper use of urban lands has reduced urban economic activities that would have created employment opportunities and enhance socio-economic growth and development in the study area. The study found absolute and relative urban poverty exist in the study area as most households are living by less than US$1 per day, not able to afford basic necessities of life while some lived by US$2 per day and this negatively affects their quality of life and well-being. Although, various coping strategies identified employed by households have different degree of resilience to the households to face economic stress and social deprivation experience to make life worth a living in the study area [26].

Table 12: Modes of Transport of Households.

Table 13: Households Access to Medical Care.

Table 14: Households Access to Educational Facility.

Table 15: Households Feeding Expenses Per Day (Naira).

Table 16: Coping Strategies of Households.

The study has assessed the intricacies and dimensions of urban poverty among households in Yenagoa City, Nigeria [27]. The study has found household size to be an average of 5 persons occupying more of rooming housing. Also, most households’ income is between N18, 000–N72,000 engaged in informal sector activities feeding with about N400 (less than US$1) per day per person. There are inadequate supply of urban facilities and services such as water, electricity, medical care and educational making households to use alternative sources which are within their income and sometimes expensive eating-up their income. These have increased socio-economic disparity among households in the study area. The study found that households have employed several coping strategies such as trading activities, fishing and farming and micro finance loan to build resilience capacity to ameliorate poverty stress. Improper urban landuse planning and management has been identified to amplify poor living conditions and increasing the intricacies of urban poverty in the study area. The study has provided policy implications that requires government should consciously prepare and implement urban landuse policies and plans that will cater for aspects of the urban life that will take cognizance of the urban poor. Based on these findings and policy implication recommendations have are made to ameliorate the effects of urban poverty on households of urban communities in Yenagoa City, Nigeria.

• Proper urban landuse planning and management should be carried out by government and its agencies to attract investments and economic development to spur socio- economic growth and development in the study area;
• The government and private sector should partner to facilitate the development of low-cost housing to accommodate large quantity of households in the study area to reduce and improve housing conditions and expenses targeted at the urban poor;
• Adequate and affordable basic urban facilities and services such as medical, educational, water and electricity supply and mass transit should be provided to service households to reduce economic and social burdens in the study area;
• Local Economic Plan (LED) should be develop to stimulate economic activities that will provide employment opportunities for households who are not engaged by the public service and organised private sector;
• Vocational centres should be develop to train unemployed and unskilled working age people to increase employment opportunities and reduce social vices in the study area;
• National Minimum Wage (NMW) of Nigeria should be implemented to meet the current economic reality of the country;
• Special designated open spaces should be organised and provided for informal sector activities that will accommodate households that are involved in on-street trading and other informal activities as not to distort their livelihood systems in the study area; and
• Public and environmental health regulations and standards should be enforced by government agencies to improve sanitation and hygiene among households in communities of the study

1. Darshan KJ, Tripathi Quality of Life in Slums of Varanasi City: A Comparative Study. Transactions. 2014; 2: 171-182.
2. Eyenghe T, Ibama B, Wocha C. Assessment of the Location and Availability of Public Facilities and Services in Port Harcourt Metropolis in Rivers State, Nigeria. Int J of Sci and Technology Research IJSTR. 2015; 6: 126-135.
3. Ofem B, Akapn U, Umorem V. Analysis of Urban Poverty and Its Implications on Development in Uyo Urban, Akwa Ibom State. Global Journal of Social Sciences. 2010; 1: 7-19.
4. Akwagyiram A. Forty Percent of Nigerians Live in Poverty: Stats Retrieved 12^th August. 2020;
5. Magazine B. The Poverty Capital of World: Nigeria. Retrieved 19 2020.
6. Bourgois P. Culture of Poverty -An Overview. In: Int Encyclopedia of the so ci and Behavioral Sci 2^nd Retrieved 18^th July. 2015.
7. Aluko MAO. The Institutionalization of Corruption and its Impacts on Political Culture and Behaviour in Nigeria. Nordic Journal of African Studies. 2002; 3: 393-402.
8. Oshewolo Galloping Poverty in Nigeria: An Appraisal of Government Int Policies. J Sustainable Development in Africa. 2010; 2: 264-274.
9. Gwartney Caleb TSM. Have Antipoverty Program Increased Poverty? The Cato J. 1985; 1:1-16.
10. 
    Adejobi AO, Osonwa OK, Iyam MA, Udonwa RE, Osonwa RH. Child Maltreatment and Academic Performance of Senior Secondary School Students in Ibadan, Nigeria. J Educational and Soci Resea. 2013;
11. Nwodu LC, Nwosu IE, Ukozor FNT, Nwodu NT, Communication, Poverty Alleviation and Grassroots Mobilization for Sustainable Human Development. In Communication for Sustainable Human Development: A Multi-Perspectival Approach. Enugu, Nigeria: African Council for Communication Education. 2007.
12. Rakoli C. The Household Strategies of the Urban Poor: Coping with Poverty and Recession in Gweru, Zimbabwe. Habitat Int. 1995; 4: 447-471.
13. Dahal Livelihood and Coping Strategies among Urban Poor People in Post-Conflict Period: Case of the Kathmandu, Nepal. The Geographical J Nepal. 2017; 10: 73-88.
14. Amendah DD, Buigut S, Mohamed S. Coping Strategies among Urban Poor: Evidence from Nairobi, Kenya. PloS ONE. 2014; 1: 1-
15. Boateng Ko, Adams S, Ohemeng W. Coping Strategies of the Urban Poor: A Case Study from Poverty & Public Policy. 2020; 3.
16. Korankye Causes of Poverty in Africa: A Review of Literature. American Int J Soci Scie. 2014; 3: 147-153.
17. Banks N. Urban Poverty in Bangladesh: Causes, Consequences and Coping Strategies. Manchester, UK: The University of Manchester. Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 17812, GDI.
18. Bayelsa State Map of Yenagoa. Yenagoa, Bayelsa State: Surveyor General Office.2020.
19. Dike VE. Addressing Youth Unemployment and Poverty in Nigeria: A Call for Action, Not J Sustainable Development in Africa. 2009; 3: 129-151.
20. National Bureau of Statistics General Household Survey-Panel Wave 3 Post Planting Abuja, Nigeria: National Bureau of Statistics. 2016.
21. National Bureau of Statistics Harmonised Nigeria Living Standards Survey 2009, First Round. Abuja, Nigeria: National Bureau of Statistics. 2009.
22. National Bureau of Statistic Poverty Profile for Nigeria. Federal Republic of Lagos, Nigeria: Federal Government Press. 2005.
23. National Population Commission NPC. Population Census Report of Lagos, Nigeria: Federal Government Press. 1991.
24. National Bureau of Statistics General Housing Survey Report. Abuja, Nigeria: National Bureau of Statistics. 2009.
25. Boateng KO, Adams Ohemeng W. Coping Strategies of the Urban Poor: A Case Study from Ghana. Poverty & Public Policy. 2020; 3.
26. Soubbtina beyond Economic Growth: An Introduction to Sustainable Development. Washington DC, USA: World Bank. 2004.
27. World Bank. Poverty and Share Prosperity. Retrieved 14^th 2018.
28. World Nigeria at a Glance. Retrieved 18^th July. 2009.