https://github.com/akunna1/pipeline-right-of-way-encroachment-analysis

An Urban Data Analysis on Pipeline Right-of-Way Encroachment Analysis in Arepo, Nigeria
https://github.com/akunna1/pipeline-right-of-way-encroachment-analysis

gis nigeria research-paper urban-planning

Last synced: 29 days ago
JSON representation

An Urban Data Analysis on Pipeline Right-of-Way Encroachment Analysis in Arepo, Nigeria

• Host: GitHub
• URL: https://github.com/akunna1/pipeline-right-of-way-encroachment-analysis
• Owner: akunna1
• Created: 2025-09-08T00:11:51.000Z (29 days ago)
• Default Branch: main
• Last Pushed: 2025-09-08T00:16:49.000Z (29 days ago)
• Last Synced: 2025-09-08T02:27:43.848Z (29 days ago)
• Topics: gis, nigeria, research-paper, urban-planning
• Homepage: https://akunnatechstudio.com/geospatial
• Size: 587 KB
• Stars: 0
• Watchers: 0
• Forks: 0
• Open Issues: 0
• Metadata Files:
  • Readme: README.md

Awesome Lists containing this project

README

          
# Pipeline Right-of-Way Encroachment Analysis: A Critical Review

**Author:** Akunna Onyekachi  

**Subject:** Critical analysis of "Pipeline Right-of-Way Encroachment in Arepo, Nigeria"

## Overview

This repository contains my academic critique of a urban data analysis study examining pipeline right-of-way (PROW) encroachment in Arepo, Nigeria. The original study used GIS mapping and remote sensing techniques to assess community encroachment on petroleum pipeline infrastructure, but fell short of its stated objectives.

## Background Context

Nigeria's oil infrastructure is critical to understanding this analysis:

- Africa's largest oil producer (11th globally)

- Oil accounts for 75% of government revenue

- Over 5,000km of pipeline infrastructure

- Four major refineries connected by extensive pipeline networks

- Pipeline right-of-way: 15-meter safety buffer zone on each side of pipelines

## The Original Study

### Methodology

The study analyzed Arepo community in Ogun State using:

- GIS buffer analysis creating four vulnerability zones (15m, 30m, 60m, 90m)

- Satellite imagery and mapping

- Questionnaire surveys of 60% of buildings

- Population estimation within each buffer zone

### Key Findings

| Zone | Distance | Buildings | Est. Population | Vulnerability Level |

|------|----------|-----------|----------------|-------------------|

| A    | 15m      | 26        | 728            | Very High         |

| B    | 30m      | 78        | 2,184          | High              |

| C    | 60m      | 89        | 2,492          | Medium            |

| D    | 90m      | 147       | 4,116          | Low               |

## My Critical Analysis

### Major Shortcomings Identified

#### 1. **Inadequate Research Scope**

- Failed to address stated aim of assessing "socioeconomic implications"

- No analysis of actual social and economic impacts on residents

- Missing comparative quality of life assessments

#### 2. **Critical Data Gaps**

- No incident frequency data (spills, explosions, casualties)

- Missing health impact assessments

- Unclear population calculation methodology

- No environmental cost analysis for PROW residents

#### 3. **Poor Data Presentation**

- Overreliance on tables instead of visual graphs

- Difficult to interpret relationships between variables

- Buffer zones poorly distinguished in mapping (similar colors)

#### 4. **Limited Practical Application**

- Results cannot inform policy decisions

- Existing regulations already prohibit PROW construction

- Study only confirms obvious vulnerability patterns

### What Was Missing

The study should have examined:

- **Health outcomes**: Disease rates, respiratory issues, water contamination

- **Economic impacts**: Property values, livelihood disruption, compensation issues

- **Safety metrics**: Historical incident data, response times, evacuation procedures

- **Environmental costs**: Soil contamination, air quality, ecosystem damage

- **Comparative analysis**: PROW vs. non-PROW resident experiences

## Conclusions

This critique demonstrates the importance of comprehensive urban data analysis that goes beyond basic spatial mapping. Effective policy-relevant research requires:

1. **Clear methodology**: Transparent calculation methods and data sources

2. **Comprehensive data collection**: Beyond just location and demographics

3. **Meaningful analysis**: Addressing stated research objectives

4. **Practical applications**: Results that can inform decision-making

5. **Visual clarity**: Effective data presentation for stakeholder communication

## Repository Contents

- `Urban_Data_Analysis_Critique_Akunna.pdf` - Full academic critique

- Supporting figures and tables from original study

- Analysis of GIS mapping methodology

- Recommendations for improved urban planning research

## Academic Context

This critique was developed as part of urban planning and data analysis coursework, examining the intersection of:

- 🗺️ Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

- 🏙️ Urban planning policy

- ⚖️ Environmental justice

- 🏗️ Infrastructure safety

- 🏘️ Community vulnerability assessment

## 📧 Contact

For questions about this analysis or collaboration opportunities in urban data research, please reach out via email.

---

*This critique highlights the need for rigorous, policy-relevant urban data analysis that truly serves community interests and informs effective planning decisions.*