Socioeconomic Determinants of Environmental Risk Perception, Susceptibility, and Management in Border Towns of Southwest Nigeria

Border towns occupy a unique position in national development discourse, combining intense cross-border activity, weak regulatory oversight, and rapid, poorly planned population growth. This study investigates how the socioeconomic characteristics of residents shape the perception, susceptibility, and management of environmental risk in three border towns of Southwest Nigeria: Saki (Oyo State), Idiroko (Ogun State), and Seme (Lagos State). Using a concurrent mixed-methods design, a structured survey was administered to 331 respondents (sample size determined using the Taro Yamane formula), complemented by nine focus group discussions with residents, security agents, and informal-sector operators. Descriptive statistics showed that respondents perceived waste management failure (M = 3.36, SD = 1.38 on a 0-5 vulnerability index) as the risk to which they were most acutely susceptible, ahead of deforestation, water scarcity, and water pollution. Chi-square tests of independence showed that locality significantly determined residents’ exposure to all nine environmental risk categories examined (including air pollution, χ² = 51.70, df = 4, p < .001; water scarcity, χ² = 51.96, df = 4, p < .001; waste management issues, χ² = 65.20, df = 4, p < .001; and natural disaster, χ² = 76.89, df = 4, p < .001, among others), leading to rejection of the null hypothesis that socioeconomic factors have no significant influence on environmental risk in the three towns. A complementary one-way ANOVA showed that perceived severity varied significantly by respondent group for only two of the nine risk categories: water scarcity (F = 8.42, p < .001) and water pollution (F = 3.46, p = .033). Focus group data identified four recurring socioeconomic pathways linking residents to environmental risk: proximity to the international boundary, population density, nature of economic activity, and migratory pressure. Awareness of formal risk-management mechanisms was generally low across the three towns, and no respondent reported benefiting from community-based disaster risk reduction mechanisms or business incentive programmes. The study concludes that environmental risk in these towns is systematically patterned by locality and recommends the establishment of a dedicated cross-border environmental management institution, spatially targeted environmental justice programmes, and infrastructure investment guided by locality-specific risk profiles.