A media framing analysis of urban flooding in Nigeria: current narratives and implications for policy

Nigeria: flooding, urbanisation and urban infrastructure in Nigeria

Since the end of the Nigerian civil war and accompanying oil boom of the 1970s (Orubuloye 1995), the country has become increasingly an urban society and the proportion of people living in urban areas has gradually increased from 16% in 1970 to more than 20% in 1980 (Metz 1991) and is currently over 46% (The World Bank 2016). According to The World Bank (2016), urban population stands at 83 million with over 15% of the country’s population living in urban agglomerations of more than one million people. Nigeria’s urban population is expected to continue to grow relatively fast in the coming decades (Jiang and O’Neill 2017).

Historically, Nigeria’s urban centres have experienced occasional major floods, for example, there is oral history record of water flooding some major cities (Tremearne 1910). Although studies have documented flooding incidents that occurred more recently (Bashir et al. 2012; Ugonna 2016), for example, the 2011 flood that mostly affected the south western cities of Lagos and Ibadan, they did not gain much national attention. Thus, the entire country was unprepared for the 2012 flood, which ravaged the majority of cities in the north and south of the country. This flood is regarded as the most catastrophic the country has witnessed in modern history (Mmom and Aifesehi 2013). The 2012 flood impacted 33 of 36 states in the country, including 14 that were considered severely affected (Federal Government of Nigeria 2013). A total of 37 million people were impacted and the disaster displaced 2.1 million, killed 363, left over 18,200 injured and destroyed or damaged more than 618,000 houses (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2013; United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2012).

Flooding is clearly partly driven by climate-related factors, and projections are that urban flooding will worsen as Nigeria’s climate is likely to see growing shifts in temperature, rainfall, storms and sea levels throughout the twenty-first century (Abiodun et al. 2011). Urban floods are not only accompanied by loss of lives and properties but also damage to crucial infrastructure, which leads to the disruption of socio-economic activities and, in some cases, temporary or permanent displacement of people. Thus, the need to sustainably manage floods in Nigerian urban centres is even more pressing considering the challenging problems of inadequacy and deterioration of urban infrastructure (Ogu 2009) and poverty facing urban residents (Babanyara et al. 2010). This is even more worrying when the resultant effects of flooding have a strong impact on lives, affect the cost of doing business in a city and lead to a less egalitarian society (Adeyemi et al. 2015). The majority of urban infrastructure (such as roads, railways, etc.) in many Nigerian cities (except for new cities like Abuja) was laid during the pre-independence era and was not designed to meet the day-to-day challenges of modern urban populations let alone stand any major flooding due mainly to the fact that infrastructures are under-designed. Moreover, much of the infrastructure has reached the end of its design life and is deteriorating without being replaced.

Thus, the poor state of infrastructure in cities is now a major source of worry whenever it rains. The situation is such that residents have not entirely recovered from preceding flooding before another incident occurs. In many instances, socio-economic efforts designed to ameliorate impacts can take years to be realised. For instance, in 2015, victims of the 2012 flood were yet to receive housing promised to them (Wantu and Akubo 2015) and it is doubtful if they ever will (Gwaza 2014).

Cause(s) of flooding

Contemporary discussions around flooding are often characterised by considerable debate and, sometimes, conflict (Hutter et al. 2014). Fundamental to these debates or discursive ‘battles’ are questions over whether anthropogenic or climate-related factors are the root cause of flooding (Texier 2008; Thompson and Warburton 1985) and illustrate the potentially complex interactions between human and the environment. Often underlying such argument is a lack of distinction between causative factors, driving forces and impacts. In hydrological terms, flooding is a natural phenomenon (Fleming 2002), mostly a result of extreme weather and climate events. However, to other actors in the public who may struggle with the nuance between something causing flooding and the presence of something, which exacerbates the impacts of flooding, focus may extend to underlying human activities and behaviour. As such, flooding is not always only caused by climatic conditions but its interactions with socio-political factors, e.g. infrastructure and management. Thus, actors may perceive that if some human factors were not present, flooding would not occur, irrespective of the quantity of rainfall. Whilst our intention is not to discuss the veracity of these claims, we do believe that the way an actor perceives the root cause of flooding will have an impact on the way it is framed and the strategies advanced as solutions (van Eeten 1997). It has been suggested that the way we frame an issue is a reflection of our perception (Kahneman and Tversky 1984); as such, our frames are hardly ‘innocent’ but a reflection of our values (Steinberg 2007). In other words, our perception plays a role in the way we interpret and frame an issue. Maddison (2007) went further by suggesting that perception and adaptation strategies are the two key components of the adaptation process. As such, any misleading perceptions can cause inappropriate adjustment measures (Taylor et al. 1988) since the way an entity perceives a problem is likely to determine the policies and programmes that they support to address it (Niles et al. 2013). This line of thought, underlying many scientific models, such as ‘drivers–pressure–state–impact–response’ (DPSIR) (Smeets and Weterings 1999) and source–pathway–receptor (SPR) (Narayan et al. 2012) that focus on identifying causes, is central to developing strategies that tackle environmental problems. Thus, for most actors, their understanding of cause will influence the approach selected. Giving this implication, understanding how stakeholders perceive causes of flooding either as human or climate related (or both) and understanding the different policy strategies is important. Not only is there a weak evidence base on causes of recent flooding in Nigeria, there is little critical enquiry into what perceived causes of flooding mean for the strategies and practices championed by various actors involved in urban flood management.

Adaptation strategies towards flood hazard

Adapting to climate hazards, such as flooding, has become a key subject of global discussions in the past few years (Wiering et al. 2017; Wilby and Keenan 2012). Adaptation in the context of flood management is viewed as a means of strengthening the resilience of people and places by decreasing their vulnerability to flooding (Wilby and Keenan 2012). Flood adaptation strategies recognise that whilst flood situations cannot be entirely prevented, steps can be taken to prevent or minimise injury and loss and speed the recovery process. As such, adaptation strategies are those that promote anticipatory actions to reduce the expected damage from imminent flooding. This will include practices such as the ‘living with water’ or ‘accommodating water’ approach (Fleming 2002; Wiering and Arts 2006), which rather than fighting flood water and keeping it away or building big infrastructure to stop the water, suggests embracing as opposed to battling the water. Carmin et al. (2015) categorised adaptation options that may need to be considered into structural, institutional and societal measures (institutional and societal measures are non-structural). Structural measures rely on engineered, technological and ecosystem-based investments to reduce vulnerability. Institutional measures draw on laws, regulations, government policies, programmes and services, and economic incentives and mechanisms to encourage or mandate adaptation. Societal strategies use education, awareness, networks and human-capital building to promote changes to individual or community behaviour that enhance resilience. Flood adaptation strategies have become a particularly important and viable option for developing countries as recent flooding have caused widespread destruction and human tragedy (Nyong et al. 2007; Surminski and Oramas-Dorta 2014).

Framing and content analysis

There are broadly four approaches to content analysis of news media articles, namely semiotic, discourse, narrative and frame analysis (Devereux 2013). In its broadest sense, semiotic analysis is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign (Eco 1976), which is most relevant to media in the audiovisual form, which is outside the scope of this study that focuses on texts. Discourse analysis, which holds that interests and institutional constraints are the key determinants of policy formulation and implementation, is based on the premise that language is not neutral and should be recognised as a medium through which actors do not simply describe but also create the world (Hajer 1993). As such, the focus of discourse analysis extends beyond differences of opinion expressed in language and includes extra-discursive practices (Müller 2008), such as context and structure of language, from which social constructs emerge. Newspaper articles would not yield this full breadth of data needed; therefore, discourse analysis was not undertaken in this study. Narrative analysis on the other hand focuses on the way individuals present their accounts of themselves, and views self-narrations both as constructions and claims of identity (Linde 1993). The power of narratives in shaping public policy is supported in a variety of academic literature, and the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) (Jones and McBeth 2010) provides an approach to studying them in a systematic, empirical manner. There is a suggestion by McBeth et al. (2014) that in any policy environment, narratives are as important to policy success as the actions that are taken. Narratives are also the medium through which actors try to impose their view of reality on others, suggest certain social positions and practices, and criticise alternative social arrangements (Jones and McBeth 2010). The crux of the argument is that construction of a particular narrative is an expression of how actors define problems and solutions, and the adoption of a particular narrative could be a means to facilitate mutual learning, build compromises or even undermine policy implications of competing narratives.

In the broader literature, the terms ‘narrative’ and ‘discourse’ are often vague and used interchangeably. Thus, similar to discourse analysis, conducting narrative analysis requires a full account of what transpired and not partial statements. Frame analysis is principally concerned with explaining how an issue is defined (why an issue matters) and problematised (who or what might be responsible for a problem), and the effect (what should be done) that this has on the broader discussion of the issue (Hope 2010; Nisbet 2009). According to Entman (1993, p. 52), “to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described”. In this manner, frames offer both a diagnosis and a prescription to a complex problem or event (Nisbet 2009). Frames highlight bits of information that are embedded within and make themselves manifest in a text—such as a news report (Entman 1993) and as such does not require the extra-discursive practices needed for a discourse analysis or detailed account needed for a narrative analysis. Thus, frame analysis offers an opportunity to analyse part of an account and as such is most relevant to this study. According to Chong and Druckman (2007, p. 100), “frame reveals what the speaker sees as relevant to the topic at hand”. By framing issues in specific ways, an entity can declare the underlying causes and likely consequences of a problem and establish criteria for evaluating potential remedies for the problem (Nelson et al. 1997). As a platform for a study that does not include full transcripts/narratives of actors, frame analysis becomes helpful in identifying and specifying actors’ frames around an issue through which their narrative can be constructed.

It is suggested that frames simplify the discursive space and are the medium through which an actor construct their narratives. According to Müller (2017, p. 55), “frames form narratives”. The crux of the argument is that actors’ narratives often hinge on the construction of their frames. In this study, frame analysis was conducted as a perspective from which we examine how actors represent their perception of flooding in the news media and can give a preliminary insight in narratives of actors. Therefore, this paper adopts the principle that frames illuminate narratives (Crow and Lawlor 2016). Although full narrative analysis or applying the NPF was not possible in this study, we are able to make inferences of actors’ narratives on the basis of their frames.

In this paper, we focus both on actors’ texts of the causal factors of flooding and on their suggested solutions as expressed within newspaper reports. Firstly, we identified relevant news articles within the Nigerian news media in which actors reveal their perceptions around key flood debates. Secondly, we examined and categorised these texts into pre-determined frames. The causal frames—‘human causes’ and ‘climate-related causes’—are based on the idea that flood can be caused by anthropogenic and natural factors. The adaptation strategy frames are based on the categorising by Carmin et al. (2015)—structural, institutional and societal frames. Finally, since the role perceived causation of floods and other extremes of climate plays in policy strategies has yet to be thoroughly scrutinised (Bohensky and Leitch 2014), we explored if there is any link between how actors frame causes and response or strategies around which actors frame their narratives.

Data collection

This paper focuses on the frames of state (government) and four non-state actors (corporate, local communities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and multilateral organisations). Broadly speaking, there are three main types of news media. These include print media (newspapers, news magazines), broadcast news (radio and television) and, more recently, the Internet (online newspapers, news blogs, etc.). The findings are based on analyses of articles published in local and national Nigerian newspapers (online versions) between January 2012 and September 2016. January 2012 was selected as a starting date because it reflects the start of greater interest in flooding subsequent to the 2012 major flood event. These sources were collected through comprehensive and extensive searching using databases such as ProQuest and Internet-based search engines (i.e. Google) and searching the websites of major national newspapers (mainly Thisday, The Nation, Vanguard, Guardian and Punch). A structured search employing Boolean searches was conducted using a wide range of terms related to urban flooding in Nigeria. These related to the geography of interest (e.g. urban centres, including specific state names and their capitals/urban centre by name) and infrastructural components of interest (roads, bridges, schools, etc.). An example of string and terms searched include flood* and (urban* or city or state*) and (infrastructure* or resident* or home*) and YR (2012–2016). Most of the newspapers do not have online archives dating back to 2012, so these were supplemented by direct search using the Google search engine.

Identified articles were then subjected to quick review to assess them for duplicates and relevance to the research questions (e.g. geographic coverage, reporting narratives of actors rather than journalist opinion, etc). As our interest is on the framing by main direct policy actors, we have excluded articles such as editorials that report framing by the media outlets. To ensure that we do not dwell on articles whereby news organisation reframes the narratives of key actors, we focus mainly on where direct quotes have been reported as a way to differentiate between media framing and the framing of the actors we have analysed. Whilst duplicates were included in the number of articles for each newspaper, only one was included in the final analysis to avoid double counting. For instance, if two newspapers provide similar report on an incident, then the report from only one of these sources is counted towards the final analysis.

Data analysis

A quantitative content analysis was applied to code frames deductively (Matthes 2009). Sources were investigated and information collated with particular reference to narratives, activities and actions of stakeholders during the reported flood incidents. The narratives are structured according to the following questions. First, how are the causes of flooding explained by the actor(s) within the news article? Second, what solutions are being promoted by the actor(s) within the news article? The strategies were categorised according to Carmin et al. (2015), who designated pathways for adapting to climate change impacts into structural (such as engineered, technological and ecosystem-based), institutional (such as laws and regulations, government policies, programmes and services) and societal (such as educational, informational, behavioural and social services). Where possible, the strategies were further interrogated as to whether they are reactive/passive or proactive/anticipatory. Each article was analysed based on this understanding, and following quantitative content analysis, the number of instances of each frame being identified within an article was counted. We then used the overall number of instances where each actor group used a particular framing to arrive at what we conclude as the dominant frame for each actor group. It is therefore possible to extract more than one frame per article (discourse unit) (Matthes 2009). For instance, the unit was the article but several frames could be coded and for more than one actor in each unit. Frames are counted per article and not number of actors within each article. Therefore, for example, there could be two officials in a news article emphasising the same frame and this would count only as one.

Analysis was extended beyond this main focus of the paper to also compile comprehensive data on incidence and impacts of flooding in Nigerian cities, since this could easily be collated from the news articles sourced in the study. Although Bashir et al. (2012) provide a list of flood incidents and associated impacts in selected cities covering up till 2010, on the basis of this work, Appendix 1 extends this to September 2016.

Government

It is noteworthy that both dominant strategies (structural, institutional) such as enforcing laws and building dams can be anticipatory, but also can reflect a flood control mindset that does not emphasise preparedness for inevitable events and does require significant investment. The majority of the government frames and actions are post flood and largely reactive to a flood incident. For example, the Executive Secretary of Plateau State Emergency Management Agency, PSEMA, stated: “Government heard of the reported cases of flooding in these council areas and we are here to assess the level of damage with a view to mitigating the sufferings of the people”. Although he indicated that “the agency had sent out warning signals” (Premium Times 2015), it was obvious that the agency itself was not prepared for the impending flooding. Their lack of preparedness may be related to lack of funding and the greater readiness of government and agencies to provide post-disaster funding over resources for pre-disaster preparedness. This is evident in the fact that monies released after flooding usually far outweigh any allocation to flood adaptation prior to flooding. For instance, during a more recent flooding incident in 2017, the Federal Government released N1.6 billion (USD 5.5 million) to affected states (Ogunmade 2017). The Secretary to the Abia Government said,

The challenge may not only be that most of the actions are post-disaster tending towards reactive but are also often shrouded in corruption and conflict (Akioye 2013).

In most of the more recent accounts, especially in 2016, there are indications within the government frames suggesting that the idea of preparing for flooding is gaining ground. For example, in 2016, the government of Anambra proactively set up 28 internally displaced people (IDP) camps in readiness for flooding (Agency Reporter 2016). Likewise, the General Manager of LASEMA, said: “NIMET has informed us that there will be heavier rainfall in Lagos State this year but we are well prepared. We have changed the way we are now doing our roads” (Vanguard 2013). However, whilst governments seem to be coming to terms with the inevitability of flooding in cities, the notion of ‘community resilience’ beyond being prepared with immediate post-disaster relief is entirely absent.

Local community narratives

The local communities’ narrative mirrors that of governmental actors. Like the government frame, the dominant frame among local actors on the perceived cause of flooding is disregard for laws and regulations (Table 1). This is followed by unexplained rainfall (excessive, unexpected and more than normal), opening of dams and poorly constructed infrastructure. Thus, the framing of causal factors of urban flooding among local community actors is dominantly around anthropocentric factors. Whilst a high proportion of causal frames (21%) referred to high or unexplained rainfall, which is an indication of climate-related causes, on only two frames do actors directly link causal factors to climate change.

The local narratives exhibited a somewhat even spread on strategies and solutions: structural (43 frames), institutional (47 frames) and societal (41 frames). The dominance of engineered and law and regulation was evident within the local communities’ narratives, although in this case engineered was more dominant than laws and regulations. Frames championing the adoption of post-flood social service as a strategy were high among local communities. However, frames suggesting the adoption of behavioural measures are low among local actors. This is a similar trend to the perception of governmental actors.

Corporate actors’ narratives

The articles available to analyse corporate actors’ frames were considerably less than those for other actor groups. However, our analysis did show that the narratives of business actors focus on disregard for laws and regulations and poor and inadequate infrastructure as the major causes of flooding in Nigerian cities. There was also one frame referring to heavy rainfall (climate-related factor) as a cause of flooding (Table 1). Like government and local community actors, there was a high reference to institutional approaches as the solution to the problem. However, unlike the preceding two actor groups that emphasised the need for laws and regulations, corporate actors’ narratives are around the need to promote government policies and economic measures such as provision of insurance.

Multilateral actors’ narratives

There was departure from the foregoing narratives and introduction of a new frame under the multilateral organisation actors. The introduction of ‘urbanisation’ as a major causal factor of urban flooding was identified within two frames. Overall, the multilateral actors’ narrative on causal factors was more evenly balanced between human factors and climate-related factors. This evenly balanced outlook was also reflected in multilateral actors’ framing of solutions: structural (11), institutional (12) and societal (11). Even when analysed individually, there was a fair balance between all the different pathways, although with need for government policies being the main frame followed by technological and informational pathways, each with five frames.

Non-governmental organisation narrative

The narrative of NGOs on causal factors of urban flooding in Nigeria, like that of multilateral organisations, was evenly balanced, suggesting a combination of both climate-related and human factors. There were 10 frames referring to human causes and 11 frames referring to climate-related causes. This narrative directly suggests that climate change is a major reason for the recent upsurge in flooding in Nigerian cities. However, this narrative is more balanced than those of government and local communities due to also including aspects of human causes. It is only within the NGO framing that we find all the causal factor frames (disregard for laws, deliberate opening of dams, poor design, unexplained rainfall, unexplained rise in water levels, urbanisation and climate change). Societal pathway (27 frames) was the main approach suggested as solution, followed by institutional and structural approaches with 17 and 13 frames, respectively. Government policies and educational and social services were the dominant suggested solutions. These are strategies that align most and give the strongest indication of preparedness for flooding.

Overall, among all actor groups, there were 146 frames referring to human causes and 54 frames referring to climate-related causes of flooding (Table 1). Overwhelmingly, the disregard for laws and regulations is the dominant narrative (93 frames, 46%) around which causes of urban flood management in Nigeria are framed. On the other hand, narratives around strategies and solutions are more even with 32% of overall frames suggesting structural pathways, 38% suggesting institutional pathways and 30% suggesting societal pathways (Table 2). However, when analysed based on individual approaches, the overwhelming focus on flood prevention becomes apparent with the majority of frames being on the need for engineered solutions (112 frames, 22%) and enforcement of laws and regulations (114 frames, 21%).

When taken collectively to build the narratives of actors around the causes and solution to urban flood in Nigeria, there are four major strands of narratives. The first which is championed by governmental and corporate actors emphasises the human causes of flooding and then seeks institutional adaptation measures as solutions. The second which is held by the local actors also emphasises the human causes of flooding; however, the solutions championed cut across all three adaptation strategies. Third is the narrative of non-governmental organisations which emphasises both human and natural causes of flooding, but is strong on adopting societal adaptation measures as solution. The final narrative held by multilateral actors is most balanced as it emphasises both the human and natural causes of flooding as well as all three adaptation strategies.