Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Research article Special Issues

Examining the causes and impacts of pipeline disasters in Nigeria

  • Received: 02 July 2022 Revised: 21 August 2022 Accepted: 13 September 2022 Published: 27 September 2022
  • The effect of pipeline vandalism among other pipeline disasters has been drastic on the Nigerian economy. The research aims to examine the level of awareness of stakeholders on the immediate and remote causes of pipeline disasters in Nigeria. This involved comprehensive review of literature along with semi-structured and open-ended interviews (as a pilot study) to enrich and strengthen the literature in Nigerian context and subsequently follow-up with semi-structured questionnaire survey; analyzed through content analysis using both descriptive and inferential statistics. In the methodology, three levels were adopted: confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), measurement model and structural model in the carrying out of structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis. The CFA analyzes the relationship between the dominant's variables and their related indicators. Based on the analysis carried out, activities of vandals has the highest influence on pipeline disasters. Human impacts resulting from pipeline disasters are very significant in Nigeria. Also, ecological impacts resulting from pipeline disasters have been extremely significant in Nigeria. There is high level of awareness of pipeline disasters among the different stakeholders interviewed.

    Citation: Francis I. Johnson, Richard Laing, Bassam Bjeirmi, Marianthi Leon. Examining the causes and impacts of pipeline disasters in Nigeria[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2022, 9(5): 636-657. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2022037

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yanlin Li, A. A. Abdel-Salam, M. Khalifa Saad . Primitivoids of curves in Minkowski plane. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 2386-2406. doi: 10.3934/math.2023123
    [2] Jiafan Zhang, Xingxing Lv . On the primitive roots and the generalized Golomb's conjecture. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 5654-5663. doi: 10.3934/math.2020361
    [3] Lilan Dai, Yunnan Li . Primitive decompositions of idempotents of the group algebras of dihedral groups and generalized quaternion groups. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 28150-28169. doi: 10.3934/math.20241365
    [4] Anthony Overmars, Lorenzo Ntogramatzidis, Sitalakshmi Venkatraman . A new approach to generate all Pythagorean triples. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(2): 242-253. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.2.242
    [5] Jiafan Zhang, Xingxing Lv . Correction: On the primitive roots and the generalized Golomb's conjecture. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 8607-8608. doi: 10.3934/math.2022480
    [6] Wenpeng Zhang, Tingting Wang . The primitive roots and a problem related to the Golomb conjecture. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 3899-3905. doi: 10.3934/math.2020252
    [7] Yaguo Guo, Shilin Yang . Projective class rings of a kind of category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10997-11014. doi: 10.3934/math.2023557
    [8] Guoqing Wang . A generalization of Kruyswijk-Olson theorem on Davenport constant in commutative semigroups. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 2992-3001. doi: 10.3934/math.2020193
    [9] Shahida Bashir, Ahmad N. Al-Kenani, Maria Arif, Rabia Mazhar . A new method to evaluate regular ternary semigroups in multi-polar fuzzy environment. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 12241-12263. doi: 10.3934/math.2022680
    [10] Ze Gu, Xiang-Yun Xie, Jian Tang . On C-ideals and the basis of an ordered semigroup. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 3783-3790. doi: 10.3934/math.2020245
  • The effect of pipeline vandalism among other pipeline disasters has been drastic on the Nigerian economy. The research aims to examine the level of awareness of stakeholders on the immediate and remote causes of pipeline disasters in Nigeria. This involved comprehensive review of literature along with semi-structured and open-ended interviews (as a pilot study) to enrich and strengthen the literature in Nigerian context and subsequently follow-up with semi-structured questionnaire survey; analyzed through content analysis using both descriptive and inferential statistics. In the methodology, three levels were adopted: confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), measurement model and structural model in the carrying out of structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis. The CFA analyzes the relationship between the dominant's variables and their related indicators. Based on the analysis carried out, activities of vandals has the highest influence on pipeline disasters. Human impacts resulting from pipeline disasters are very significant in Nigeria. Also, ecological impacts resulting from pipeline disasters have been extremely significant in Nigeria. There is high level of awareness of pipeline disasters among the different stakeholders interviewed.



    Primitive semigroups have been an important topic of semigroup researches since the 1950s. In fact, as early as 1954, Preston who is one of the founders of the algebraic theory of semigroups studied primitive inverse semigroups in [16], and then he gave the characterization of primitive regular semigroups and applied it to the study of matrix representations of inverse semigroups in [17]. In particular, he pointed out that a regular semigroup (resp. an inverse semigroup) with zero is primitive if and only if it is the $ 0 $-direct union of a family of completely $ 0 $-simple semigroups (resp. Brandt semigroups) (See also the monographs [5,12,18]). In addition, from the view of category Lawson [12] showed that an inverse semigroup with zero is primitive if and only if it is isomorphic to a groupoid with zero adjoined. On the other hand, Theorem Ⅲ.3.5 and Corollary Ⅲ.3.6 in [5] together give that a regular semigroup (resp. an inverse semigroup) without zero is primitive if and only if it is a completely simple semigroup (resp. a group). Furthermore, primitive orthodox semigroups were also concerned in Venkatesan [21].

    As generalizations of regular semigroups, abundant semigroups were introduced and investigated in 1982 by Fountain in [2] where the class of primitive abundant semigroups and its several subclasses, such as primitive abundant semigroups with regularity condition, primitive quasi-adequate semigroups and primitive adequate semigroups etc., were also characterized. We observe that the roles of quasi-adequate semigroups and adequate semigroups in the range of abundant semigroups are similar to those of orthodox semigroups and inverse semigroups in the range of regular semigroups, respectively.

    In 1991, Lawson [13] went a further step to generalize abundant semigroups to $ U $-semiabundant semigroups where $ U $ is a nonempty subset of the set of idempotents and correspondingly generalize quasi-adequate semigroups and adequate semigroups to weakly $ U $-orthodox semigroups and Ehresmann semigroups, respectively. The class of Ehresmann semigroups and its special subclasses (for example, the class of restriction semigroups) now form a hot research topic, and a lot of achievements in this line have been obtained by many semigroup experts, for example, see [3,4,6,8,10,11,13,20] and the references therein. In particular, Gould [3,4] gave the equivalent definition of Ehresmann semigroups from the view of variety, and Jones explicitly introduced the notion of primitive Ehresmann semigroups in [8] and by using small categories obtained a construction of primitive Ehresmann semigroups with zero in [10] which is analogous to that of primitive inverse semigroups with zero given in Lawson [12] by using groupoids. We also observe that Lawson [14] investigated a class of primitive $ U $-semiabundant semigroups named Rees semigroups and Wang [22] characterized primitive weakly $ U $-orthodox semigroups, which generalize the corresponding results of primitive abundant semigroups provided in [2].

    On the other hand, Jones [7] generalized Ehresmann semigroups to $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups from a varietal perspective and provided a common framework for Ehresmann semigroups and regular *-semigroups. Regular *-semigroups first appeared in Nordahl and Scheiblich [15] and a generalization of this class of semigroups was investigated in the author [23]. For more details for regular $ ^\ast $-semigroups, the reader may consult the texts[1,7,15,19,23] and their references. At present, some valuable results have been obtained on $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups. For instance, the constructions of $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups have been considered by "fundamental approach" in [7] and [25,26] by "categorical approach", respectively. Variety properties, semigroup algebras and completions of $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups have been explored in Jones [8], Wang [24] and Yan and Wang [27], respectively.

    From the above discussions, the following problem is natural: How to introduce and characterize primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups? The aim of this paper is to solve the above problem. We have introduced the notion of projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups and established the structures of projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups. In particular, we show that projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups are always $ P $-restriction. Our work may be regarded as extending primitive Ehresmann semigroups introduced and investigated by Jones in [8] and [10], respectively.

    In this section, after recalling some necessary notions and results on $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups, we shall introduce projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups and explore their basic properties.

    For a semigroup $ S $, we always denote the set of idempotents in $ S $ by $ E(S) $. From Lemma 2.2 and its dual in Gould [3], a bi-unary semigroup $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ is called an Ehresmann semigroup if the following identities hold:

    $ x^+ x = x, (xy)^+ = (xy^+)^+, (x^+y^+)^+ = x^+ y^+, x^+y^+ = y^+x^+, (x^+)^\ast = x^+ $
    $ xx^\ast = x, (xy)^\ast = (x^\ast y)^\ast, (x^\ast y^\ast)^\ast = x^\ast y^\ast, x^\ast y^\ast = y^\ast x^\ast, (x^\ast)^+ = x^\ast. $

    To extend Ehresmann semigroups, $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups were introduced in Jones [7] from the view of variety. A bi-unary semigroup $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ is called a P-Ehresmann semigroup if the following identities hold:

    A $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ is called $ P $-restriction if

    $(xy)^+x = xy^+{x}^\ast \mbox{ and } x(yx)^\ast = x^+y^\ast x \mbox{ for all } x,y\in S$.

    In a $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $, the set of projections is $ P_{S} = \{a^+\mid a\in S\} $ which is equal to $ \{a^\ast\mid a\in S\} $ by (ⅴ) and (ⅴ)$ ' $. The following lemmas collect some basic properties of $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups first given in Jones [7].

    Lemma 2.1 ([7]). A bi-unary semigroup $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ is Ehresmann (resp. restriction) if and only if $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ is $ P $-Ehresmann (resp. $ P $-restriction) and $ P_{S} $ is a subsemilattice of $ {S} $.

    Lemma 2.2 ([7]). Let $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup and $ x, y \in S, \; e, f\in P_{S} $.

    (1) $ (x^+y)^+ = x^+y^+x^+, \; x^{++} = x^+, \; x^+(xy)^+x^+ = (xy)^+ $.

    (2) $ (xy^\ast)^\ast = y^\ast x^\ast y^\ast, \; x^{\ast\ast} = x^\ast, \; y^\ast(xy)^\ast y^\ast = (xy)^\ast $.

    (3) $ (ef)^2 = ef, \; e^+ = e = e^\ast, \; (ef)^+ = efe = (fe)^\ast \in P_{S} $.

    (4) $ ef\in P_{S} $ if and only if $ ef = fe $.

    Let $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup. Define a relation on $ P_S $ by the rule

    $ e\leq f \;{\rm{ if \;and \;only \;if }}\; e = ef = fe\; {\rm{ for \;all }}\;e,f\in P_S. $

    Then it is easy to see that $ \leq $ is a partial order on $ P_S $. By Lemma 2.2, the following corollary is obvious.

    Corollary 2.3. Let $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup and $ x, y \in S, e, f\in P_{S} $. Then $ (xy)^+\leq x^+, \; (xy)^\ast\leq y^\ast $ and $ efe\leq e $.

    Similar to the case of restriction semigroups appeared in Jones [8], we call a $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ without zero or with zero $ 0 $ satisfying $ 0\not\in P_S $ projection-primitive if

    $ (\forall e,f\in P_S)\; \; e\leq f\Longrightarrow e = f, $

    while call a $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ with zero $ 0 $ satisfying $ 0\in P_S $ projection-primitive if

    $ (\forall e,f\in P_S)\; \; e\leq f\Longrightarrow e = 0 \;{\rm{ or }}\; e = f. $

    Observe that a primitive Ehresmann semigroup without zero is just a momoid in which the identity is the only projection by Lemma 2.1. We first characterize projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups without zero.

    Proposition 2.4. Let $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup without zero. Then the following statements are equivalent:

    (1) $ S $ is projection-primitive.

    (2) $ (xy)^+ = x^+ $ for all $ x, y\in S $.

    (3) $ (xy)^\ast = y^\ast $ for all $ x, y\in S $.

    Proof. We only show that (1) is equivalent to (2), and one can prove that (1) is equivalent to (3) by similar arguments. If $ S $ is projection-primitive and $ x, y\in S $, then $ (xy)^+\leq x^+ $ by Corollary 2.3. This implies that $ (xy)^+ = x^+ $. Conversely, let $ e, f\in P_S $ and $ e\leq f $. Then $ ef = fe = e $. By the given condition and Lemma 2.2, we have $ f = f^+ = (fe)^+ = e^+ = e $. This gives the projection-primitivity of $ S $.

    From Jones [9], a $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ is called reduced if $ P_S $ contains exactly one element. By the identities (ⅰ) and (ⅰ)$ ' $, in this case $ S $ is a monoid with the only projection as its identity. Obviously, reduced $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups are always projection-primitive. In fact, we have the following result.

    Proposition 2.5. Let $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup with zero $ 0 $ and $ 0\not\in P_S $. Then the following statements are equivalent:

    (1) $ S $ is projection-primitive.

    (2) $ x^+ = 0^+ $ for all $ x\in S $.

    (3) $ x^\ast = 0^\ast $ for all $ x\in S $.

    In this case, $ S $ is a reduced $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup with the identity $ 0^+ $ and so is an Ehresmann semigroup.

    Proof. We only show that (1) is equivalent to (2), and one can prove that (1) is equivalent to (3) by similar arguments. Let $ S $ be projection-primitive and $ x\in S $. Then $ 0^+ = (x0)^+\leq x^+ $ by Corollary 2.3, and so $ 0^+ = x^+ $. Conversely, the given condition (2) implies that $ P_S = \{x^+\mid x\in S\} = \{0^+\} $. This gives that $ S $ is reduced and has identity $ 0^+ $, and so is projection-primitive certainly.

    Remark 2.6. By Proposition 2.5, a projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann (or Ehresmann) semigroup $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ with zero $ 0 $ and $ 0\not\in P_S $ is reduced and is exactly a monoid with zero containing at least two elements.

    Now we consider projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups with zero $ 0 $ as a projection.

    Proposition 2.7. Let $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup with zero $ 0 $ and $ 0\in P_S $.

    (1) For all $ x\in S $, $ x^+ = 0 \Longleftrightarrow x = 0 \Longleftrightarrow x^\ast = 0. $

    (2) For all $ x, y\in S\setminus \{0\} $, $ xy\not = 0 \Longleftrightarrow x^\ast y^+x^\ast = x^\ast\Longleftrightarrow y^+x^\ast y^+ = y^+ $.

    Proof. (1) Let $ x\in S $. We only prove that $ x^+ = 0 $ if and only if $ x = 0 $. The other equivalence can be showed by symmetry. In fact, if $ x^+ = 0 $, then $ x = x^+ x = 0x = 0 $ by (ⅰ). To show the converse, we first observe that $ 0^+ = (a0)^+\leq a^+ $ for all $ a\in S $ by Corollary 2.3. This implies that $ 0^+ $ is the minimum element in $ P_S $. Since $ 0\in P_S $, it follows that $ 0^+ = 0^+ 0 = 0 $.

    (2) Let $ x, y\in S\setminus \{0\} $. We only prove that $ xy\not = 0 $ if and only if $ x^\ast y^+x^\ast = x^\ast $. The other equivalence can be showed by symmetry. If $ xy\not = 0 $, then $ xx^\ast y^+ y = xy\not = 0 $ by the identities (ⅰ) and (ⅰ)$ ' $. This implies that $ x^\ast\not = 0 $ and $ x^\ast y^+\not = 0 $. By item (1) we have $ x^{\ast+}\not = 0 $ and $ (x^\ast y^+)^+\not = 0 $. But Corollary 2.3 gives that $ (x^\ast y^+)^+\leq x^{\ast+} $, and so $ (x^\ast y^+)^+ = x^{\ast+} $ by the projection-primitivity of $ S $. Moreover, Lemma 2.2 provides that $ x^\ast y^+ x^\ast = (x^\ast y^+)^+ = x^{\ast+} = x^\ast $. Conversely, if $ x^\ast y^+x^\ast = x^\ast $, then by using (ⅱ), (ⅰ)$ ' $, (ⅱ), Lemma 2.2 (3), (ⅰ)$ ' $ and item (1) of the present lemma in order, we have

    $ \begin{equation} (xy)^+ = (xy^+)^+ = (xx^\ast y^+)^+ = (x(x^\ast y^+)^+)^+ = (xx^\ast y^+ x^\ast)^+ = (xx^\ast)^+ = x^+\not = 0, \end{equation} $ (2.1)

    which implies that $ xy\not = 0 $ by item (1) of the present lemma again. To end this section, we observe the following interesting result.

    Theorem 2.8. A projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup is always $ P $-restriction.

    Proof. Let $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup and $ x, y\in S $. Firstly, if $ S $ contains no zero, then $ (xy)^+x = x^+x = x $ by Proposition 2.4. By Corollary 2.3, we have $ x^\ast y^+ x^\ast\leq x^\ast $, and so $ x^\ast y^+ x^\ast = x^\ast $ by the projection-primitivity of $ S $. This implies that $ xy^+x^\ast = xx^\ast y^+ x^\ast = xx^\ast = x $ by (ⅰ)$ ' $. Thus $ (xy)^+x = xy^+x^\ast $. Dually, we have $ x(yx)^\ast = x^+y^\ast x $. Secondly, if $ S $ contains a zero $ 0 $ and $ 0\not\in P_S $, then it is obvious that $ (xy)^+x = xy^+ x^\ast $ and $ x(yx)^\ast = x^+y^\ast x $ by Proposition 2.5. Finally, assume that $ S $ contains a zero $ 0 $ and $ 0 \in P_S $. If $ xy = 0 $, then by Proposition 2.7 (1) and (ⅱ) we have $ 0 = (xy)^+ = (xy^+)^+ $ and $ xy^+ = 0 $. This implies that $ (xy)^+x = 0 = xy^+ x^\ast $. If $ xy\not = 0 $, then $ (xy)^+\not = 0 $ and $ x^\ast = x^\ast y^+ x^\ast $ by Proposition 2.7. Since $ (xy)^+\leq x^+ $ by Corollary 2.3, the projection-primitivity of $ S $ gives that $ (xy)^+ = x^+ $. This implies that

    $ xy^+x^\ast = xx^\ast y^+x^\ast = xx^\ast = x = x^+x = (xy)^+x $

    by (ⅰ) and (ⅰ)$ ' $. Therefore, $ (xy)^+x = xy^+ x^\ast $. Dually, we have $ x(yx)^\ast = x^+y^\ast x $. Thus, $ S $ is $ P $-restriction in all cases.

    In the remainder of this paper, we shall establish the structures of projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups. The present section is devoted to projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups without zero or with zero which is not a projection. The following theorem characterize these semigroups completely.

    Theorem 3.1. Let $ I $ and $ \Lambda $ be two sets and $ \phi:I\rightarrow \Lambda, i\mapsto i\phi $ be a bijection. Assume that $ M $ is a monoid, $ |I\times M\times \Lambda|\not = 1 $ and $ P = (p_{\lambda i})_{\Lambda\times I} $ is a $ \Lambda\times I $-matrix over $ M $ satisfying $ p_{i\phi, i} = e = p_{i\phi, j}p_{j\phi, i} $ for all $ i, j\in I $, where $ e $ is the identity of $ M $. Define a binary and two unary operations on the set

    $ S = {\cal M}(I, \Lambda, M,P) = \{(i,x,\lambda)\mid i\in I,x\in M, \lambda\in \Lambda\} $

    as follows:

    $ (i,x,\lambda)(j,y,\mu) = (i,xp_{\lambda j}y,\mu), (i,x,\lambda)^+ = (i,e,i\phi), (i,x,\lambda)^\ast = (\lambda\phi^{-1},e,\lambda). $

    Then $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ is a projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup without zero or with zero which is not a projection. Conversely, every such semigroup can be obtained in this way.

    Proof. Direct part. By hypothesis, $ S^0 $ can be regarded as a Rees matrix semigroup over the monoid $ M^0 $. Denote $ P(S^0) = \{(i, p^{-1}_{\lambda i}, \lambda)\mid i\in I, \lambda\in \Lambda\}\cup \{0\} $ and $ U = \{(i, e, i\phi)\mid i\in I\} $. Then by Proposition 1.5 in Lawson [14], we can easily show that for all $ (i, x, \lambda), (j, y, \mu)\in S $,

    $ (i,x,\lambda)\, \widetilde{\cal R}^{P(S^0)}\, (j, y,\mu) \Longleftrightarrow (i,x,\lambda)\, \widetilde{\cal R}^{U}\, (j, y,\mu)\Longleftrightarrow i = j, $
    $ (i,x,\lambda)\, \widetilde{\cal L}^{P(S^0)}\, (j, y,\mu) \Longleftrightarrow (i,x,\lambda)\, \widetilde{\cal L}^{U}\, (j, y,\mu)\Longleftrightarrow \lambda = \mu. $

    Moreover, $ \widetilde{\cal R}^{U} $ (resp. $ \widetilde{\cal L}^{U} $) is a left congruence (resp. a right congruence) on $ S $ by Lemma 1.9 in Lawson [14]. By the given condition on the matrix $ P $, it is easy to see that $ U $ is both a right projection-set and a left projection-set of $ S $ in the sense of Jones [7] (see page 629). According to Theorem 6.1 of Jones [7] and its dual, $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ is a $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup and $ P_S = U $. Moreover, in view of Proposition 1.7 of Lawson [14], no two different elements in $ P_S $ can be compatible. Thus $ S $ is projection-primitive. If $ (i, z, \lambda) $ is the zero element of $ S $, then for all $ (j, y, \mu)\in S $, we have $ (i, z, \lambda)(j, y, \mu) = (i, z, \lambda) = (j, y, \mu)(i, z, \lambda) $. This implies that $ i = j $ and $ \lambda = \mu $. In this case, $ |I| = |\Lambda| = 1 $ and so $ P_S $ contains only one element. By hypothesis, $ S $ has at least two elements and so the zero is not a projection.

    Converse part. Let $ (M, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup with zero which is not a projection. Then by Proposition 2.5 and Remark 2.6, $ M $ has at least two elements and is a monoid with the only projection $ e $ as its identity. In this case, $ M $ has the form in the theorem certainly.

    Now let $ (T, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup without zero. Then it is easy to see that $ T^0 $ is a Rees semigroup with respect to $ U = P_T^0 $ in the sense of Lawson [14], and $ \widetilde{\cal L}^U = \{(a, b)\in T^0\times T^0\mid a^\ast = b^\ast\}\cup \{(0, 0)\} $ and $ \widetilde{\cal R}^U = \{(a, b)\in T^0\times T^0\mid a^+ = b^+\}\cup \{(0, 0)\} $ (see page 28 in [14]). Fix an element $ e\in P_T $ and denote $ I = \{xe\mid x\in P_T\}, \; \Lambda = \{ex\mid x\in P_T\} $. Define $ \phi: I\rightarrow \Lambda, \; xe\mapsto ex $ for all $ x\in P_T $. Then $ \phi $ is a bijection. In fact, if $ x, y\in P_T $ and $ xe = ye $, then $ x = x^+ = (xe)^+ = (ye)^+ = y^+ = y $ by Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.4, and so $ ex = ey $. This fact and its dual give that $ \phi $ is bijection. We assert that $ p_{i\phi, i} = e = p_{i\phi, j}p_{j\phi, i} $ for all $ i, j\in I $. In fact, take $ i = xe, j = ye\in I $ where $ x, y\in P_T $. Then $ i\phi = ex $ and $ j\phi = ey $. This implies by Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.4 that $ p_{i\phi, i} = (i\phi) i = (ex)(xe) = exe = (ex)^+ = e^+ = e $ and

    $ p_{i\phi,j}p_{j\phi,i} = ((i\phi)j)((j\phi)i) = exyeey xe = exyeyxe = (e(xyeyx))^+ = e^+ = e. $

    On the other hand, for every $ t\in T $, we have $ (t^+e)^+ = t^+ $ and $ (et^\ast)^\ast = t^\ast $ by Proposition 2.4. In view of Lemma 2.2 (4), $ I $ and $ \Lambda $ can index the non-zero $ \widetilde{\cal R}^U $-classes and $ \widetilde{\cal L}^U $-classes of $ T^0 $, respectively. Denote $ M = \{a\in T\mid a^+ = a^\ast = e\}\cup \{0\} $. For $ i\in I $ and $ \lambda\in \Lambda $, let $ r_i = i $ and $ q_\lambda = \lambda $ and denote $ p_{\lambda i} = q_\lambda r_i = \lambda i $. Since $ (t^+e)^+ = t^+ $, $ (et^\ast)^\ast = t^\ast $, $ (ete)^+ = (ete)^\ast = e $ and $ t = (t^+ e)ete(et^\ast) $ by Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.4, in view of the proof of Theorem 3.6 in Lawson [14],

    $ \theta: T^0\rightarrow S = {\cal M}^0(I, \Lambda, M, P), \,\, t\mapsto (t^+e, ete, et^\ast),\,\, 0\mapsto 0 $

    is a semigroup isomorphism. Moreover, if we define

    $ (i,a,\lambda)^+ = (i,e,i\phi),\, (i,a,\lambda)^\ast = (\lambda\phi^{-1},e,\lambda),\, 0^+ = 0^\ast = 0 $

    on $ S $, then we can see that $ \theta $ also preserves $ ^+ $ and $ ^\ast $ by Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.4. By the construction of $ P = (p_{\lambda i}) $, $ \theta|_{T} $ is a $ (2, 1, 1) $-isomorphism from $ T $ onto $ {\cal M}(I, \Lambda, M, P) $.

    In Theorem 3.1, if we identify $ i $ with $ i\phi $ for all $ i\in I $, we can assume that $ I = \Lambda $. So we have the following corollary.

    Corollary 3.2. Let $ I $ be a set and $ M $ a monoid with $ |I\times M|\not = 1 $. Assume that $ P = (p_{\lambda i})_{I\times I} $ is an $ I\times I $-matrix over $ M $ satisfying $ p_{ii} = e = p_{ij}p_{j, i} $ for all $ i, j\in I $, where $ e $ is the identity of $ M $. Define a binary and two unary operations on the set

    $ S = {\cal M}(I, M,P) = \{(i,x,j)\mid i,j\in I,x\in M\} $

    as follows:

    $ (i,x,j)(k,y,l) = (i,xp_{jk}y,l), (i,x,j)^+ = (i,e,i), (i,x,j)^\ast = (j,e,j). $

    Then $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ is a projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup without zero or with zero which is not a projection. Conversely, every such semigroup can be obtained in this way.

    In this section, we consider the structures of projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups with zero as a projection. To this aim, we need to recall some necessary notions and results. From Jones [7], a left projection algebra consists of a nonempty set $ P $ and a binary operation $ "\times" $ satisfying the following axioms:

    (P1) $ e\times e = e $.

    (P2) $ e\times(e\times f) = (e\times f)\times e = e\times f $.

    (P3) $ (e\times f)\times g = e\times (f\times(e\times g)) $.

    (P4) $ e\times(f\times g) = (e\times f)\times (e\times (f\times g)) $.

    For simplicity, we use the words "projection algebra" to replace "left projection algebra" in the sequel. Let $ (P, \times) $ be a projection algebra. Define a relation $ "\leq_P" $ on $ P $ by the rule that for all $ e, f\in P $, $ e\leq_P f \;{\rm{ if \;and\; only\; if }}\;e = f\times e. $ Then $ \leq_P $ is a partial order on $ P $ by (P1)–(P4). Moreover, by (P2) it is easy to see that

    $ \begin{equation} e\times f\leq_P e \end{equation} $ (4.1)

    for all $ e, f\in P $. A projection algebra $ (P, \times) $ with the least element $ 0 $ with respect to $ \leq_P $ is called primitive if no two different elements in $ P\setminus\{0\} $ can be compatible. On primitive projection algebras, we have the following simple results.

    Proposition 4.1. A primitive projection algebra $ (P, \times) $ is just a (2, 0)-type algebra $ (P, \times, 0) $ satisfying the following conditions: For all $ e, f\in P $,

    (Pr1) $ e\times e = e $.

    (Pr2) $ 0\times e = 0 = e\times 0 $.

    (Pr3) $ e\times f = 0 \;\mathit{{or}}\; e\times f = e $.

    (Pr4) $ e\times f = 0 \;\mathit{{if \;and \;only\; if}} \;f\times e = 0 $.

    In particular, if $ e\times f = f\times e $ for all $ e, f\in P $, then $ e\times f\not = 0 $ if and only if $ e = f\not = 0 $.

    Proof. Let $ (P, \times) $ be a primitive projection algebra with the least element $ 0 $. We only need to show that (Pr2)–(Pr4) hold. Let $ e, f\in P $. Since $ 0\leq_P e $, we have $ e\times 0 = 0 $, and so $ 0\times e = (e\times 0)\times e = e\times 0 = 0 $ by (P2). This proves (Pr2). In view of (4.1), (Pr3) is true. Finally, if $ e\times f = 0 $ and $ f\times e\not = 0 $, then $ f\times e = f\not = 0 $ by (Pr3). However,

    $ f\times e = (f\times e)\times e = f\times (e\times (f\times e)) = f\times (e\times f) = f\times 0 = 0 $

    by (P3) and (Pr2). This is a contradiction. So (Pr4) holds.

    Conversely, let $ (P, \times, 0) $ be a (2, 0)-type algebra satisfying the given conditions. We only need to show that (P2)–(P4) hold. Let $ e, f, g\in P $. By (Pr3), $ e\times f = 0 $ or $ e\times f = e $. In the former case, all items in (P2) are equal to $ 0 $ by (Pr2). In the latter case, all items in (P2) are equal to $ e $ by (Pr1). This shows (P2). Moreover, we also have $ e\times g = 0 $ or $ e\times g = e $. Then the following four cases may occur:

    $ (1)\, e\times f = e, e\times g = e;\,\, (2)\, e\times f = e, e\times g = 0;\,\, (3)\, e\times f = 0, e\times g = e;\,\,(4)\, e\times f = 0, e\times g = 0. $

    In case (1), $ (e\times f)\times g = e\times g = e $ and $ e\times(f\times (e\times g)) = e\times(f\times e) $. By (Pr3) and (Pr4), $ f\times e = f $ in the case. So $ e\times(f\times e) = e\times f = e $. This proves (P3) for case (1). The other cases can be showed similarly. Finally, we consider (P4). By (Pr3), $ f\times g = f $ or $ f\times g = 0 $. In the former case, the left side of (P4) is $ e\times f $, the right side of (P4) is $ (e\times f)\times (e\times f) = e\times f $ by (Pr1), and so they are equal. In the latter case, the two sides of (P4) are both $ 0 $ by (Pr2). The final result of the proposition follows from (Pr1), (Pr3) and (Pr4).

    By the dual of Proposition 2.4 in [7], and Propositions 2.7 and 4.1, we have the following result easily.

    Lemma 4.2. Let $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup with zero $ 0 $ and $ 0\in P_S $. Define a binary operation $ "\times_{S}" $ on $ P_{S} $ as follows: For all $ e, f\in P_{S} $, $ e\times_{S} f = (ef)^+ = efe $. Then $ (P_{S}, \times_{S}, 0) $ forms a primitive projection algebra. In particular, if $ S $ is Ehresmann, then $ e\times_S f = f\times_S e $ for all $ e, f\in P_S $ by Lemma 2.1.

    Let $ C $ be a nonempty set with a partial binary operation $ \cdot $ and $ (P, \times, 0) $ a primitive projection algebra with $ (P\setminus\{0\})\subseteq C $. Assume that $ {\bf d}: C\rightarrow P, x\mapsto {\bf d}(x), \ \ {\bf r}: C\rightarrow P, x\mapsto {\bf r}(x) $ are maps such that $ {\bf d}(C)\cup {\bf r}(C)\subseteq (P\setminus\{0\}) $ and

    $ \begin{equation} {\bf d}(e) = e = {\bf r}(e) \end{equation} $ (4.2)

    for all $ e\in (P\setminus\{0\}) $. According to Wang [26], $ {\bf C} = (C, \cdot, {\bf d}, {\bf r}, P) $ is called a generalized category over $ (P, \times, 0) $ if the following conditions hold:

    (G1) For all $ x, y\in C $, $ x\cdot y $ is defined if and only if $ {\bf r}(x)\times {\bf d}(y)\not = 0 $ and then $ {\bf d}(x\cdot y) = {\bf d}(x) $ and $ {\bf r}(x\cdot y) = {\bf r}(y) $.

    (G2) If $ x, y, z\in C $ such that both $ x\cdot y $ and $ y\cdot z $ are defined, then $ (x\cdot y)\cdot z = x\cdot(y\cdot z) $.

    (G3) For all $ x\in C $, $ {\bf d}(x)\cdot x $ and $ x\cdot {\bf r}(x) $ are defined and $ {\bf d}(x)\cdot x = x = x\cdot {\bf r}(x) $.

    (G4) If $ e, f\in P $ and $ e\times f\not = 0 $, then $ (e\cdot f)\cdot e = e $.

    If $ e\times f = f\times e $ for all $ e, f\in P $, then $ e\times f\not = 0 $ if and only if $ e = f $, and so (G4) is always satisfied by (4.2), (G3) and Proposition 4.1. In this case, $ {\bf C} = (C, \cdot, {\bf d}, {\bf r}, P) $ is a category in usual sense.

    Proposition 4.3. Let $ {\bf C} = (C, \cdot, {\bf d}, {\bf r}, P) $ be a generalized category over the primitive projection algebra $ (P, \times, 0) $. Put $ C^0 = C\cup \{0\} $. Define a binary operation on $ C^0 $ as follows: If $ x, y\in C $ and $ x\cdot y $ is defined in $ C $, then $ xy = x\cdot y $; all other products in $ C^0 $ are $ 0 $. Moreover, define two unary operations on $ C^0 $ as follows: $ 0^\clubsuit = 0^\spadesuit = 0 $ and $ x^\clubsuit = {\bf d}(x), x^\spadesuit = {\bf r}(x) $ for all $ x\in C $. With these operations $ C^0 $ is a projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup with $ 0 $ as a projection. In the sequel, we call $ (C^0, \cdot, \clubsuit, \spadesuit) $ a generalized category with zero adjoined.

    Proof. Let $ x, y, z\in C^0 $. It is routine to check that $ (xy)z = 0 $ precisely when $ x(yz) = 0 $. Thus $ C^0 $ is a semigroup by (G2). We shall show that the identities (ⅰ)–(ⅴ) and (ⅰ)$ ' $–(ⅴ)$ ' $ are satisfied. Let $ x, y\in C^0 $. If $ 0\in \{x, y\} $, the identities (ⅰ)–(ⅴ) and (ⅰ)$ ' $–(ⅴ)$ ' $ are satisfied obviously. So we assume that $ x, y\in C $. Firstly, since $ {\bf d}(x)\cdot x = x $ by (G3), we have $ x^\clubsuit x = x $. This gives (ⅰ). Dully, we have (ⅰ)$ ' $. Secondly, since $ {\bf d}(y^\clubsuit) = {\bf d}({\bf d}(y)) = {\bf d}(y) $ by (4.2), it follows that $ xy^\clubsuit\not = 0 $ if and only if $ xy\not = 0 $ by (G1). If this is the case, we have

    $ (xy^\clubsuit)^\clubsuit = {\bf d}(xy^\clubsuit) = {\bf d}(x) = {\bf d}(xy) = (xy)^\clubsuit $

    by (G1) again. This is exactly the identity (ⅱ). Dually, (ⅱ)$ ' $ is also true. Thirdly, by (4.2), (G1) and (Pr4), we can see that

    $ x^\clubsuit y^\clubsuit \not = 0\Longleftrightarrow {\bf d}(x)\times {\bf d}(y)\not = 0\Longleftrightarrow x^\clubsuit y^\clubsuit x^\clubsuit \not = 0. $

    In this case, we have

    $ (x^\clubsuit y^\clubsuit)^\clubsuit = {\bf d}( {\bf d}(x) {\bf d}(y)) = {\bf d}( {\bf d}(x)) = {\bf d}(x) $

    by (G1) and $ x^\clubsuit y^\clubsuit x^\clubsuit = {\bf d}(x) {\bf d}(y) {\bf d}(x) = {\bf d}(x) $ by (G4). This implies that the identity (ⅲ) is true. Dually, (ⅲ)$ ' $ is valid. Moreover, by (4.2), (G1) and (G3) we have

    $ x^\clubsuit x^\clubsuit = {\bf d}(x) {\bf d}(x) = {\bf d}( {\bf d}(x)) {\bf d}(x) = {\bf d}(x). $

    This gives (ⅳ). Similarly, we have (ⅳ)$ ' $. The identities (ⅴ) and (ⅴ)$ ' $ follow from the fact $ (x^\clubsuit)^\spadesuit = {\bf r}({\bf d}(x)) = {\bf d}(x) = x^\clubsuit $ by (4.2) and its dual. We have shown that $ (C^0, \cdot, \clubsuit, \spadesuit) $ is a $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup with the set of projections

    $ P_{C^0} = \{x^\clubsuit\mid x\in C^0\} = P = \{ {\bf d}(x)\mid x\in C\}\cup\{0\} = \{ {\bf r}(x)\mid x\in C\}\cup\{0\}. $

    Finally, let $ e, f\in P_{C^0} $ and $ e\leq f $. Then $ e = ef = fe $. If $ e\not = 0 $, then $ f\cdot e $ is defined and so $ e = {\bf d}(e) = {\bf d}(fe) = {\bf d}(f) = f $ by (4.2) and (G1). Thus, $ (C^0, \cdot, ^\clubsuit, ^\spadesuit) $ is projection-primitive.

    Remark 4.4. Let $ {\bf C} = (C, \cdot, {\bf d}, {\bf r}, P) $ be a generalized category over the primitive projection algebra $ (P, \times, 0) $. If $ P $ contains at least three elements and $ e\times f\not = 0 $ for all $ e, f\in P\setminus\{0\} $, then $ x\cdot y $ is defined for all $ x, y\in C $. By Propositions 4.3 and 2.5, $ (C, \cdot, ^\clubsuit, ^\spadesuit) $ is a projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup without zero. On the other hand, if $ P $ contains two elements, say, $ P = \{0, 1\} $, then $ (C, \cdot, ^\clubsuit, ^\spadesuit) $ is a reduced $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup. In fact, $ (C, \cdot) $ is a monoid with $ 1 $ as identity, and $ (C^0, \cdot) $ is a monoid with zero adjoined. Thus we can think that generalized categories with zero adjoined covers the semigroups considered in the last section.

    Now we can give the main result of this section, which is a generalization of a result on restriction semigroups obtained by Jones in Section 4 of [10].

    Theorem 4.5. Let $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup with zero as a projection and $ |S| > 1 $. Then $ S $ is projection-primitive if and only if $ S $ is (2, 1, 1)-isomorphic to a generalized category with zero adjoined.

    Proof. We have proved in Proposition 4.3 that every generalized category with zero adjoined is a projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup with zero as a projection. To prove the converse, let $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup with zero $ 0 $ and $ 0\in P_S $. By Lemma 4.2, $ (P_{S}, \times_{S}, 0) $ forms a primitive projection algebra. Denote $ C = S\setminus\{0\} $. Define a partial binary operation $ "\cdot" $ as follows:

    $ \begin{equation} x\cdot y = \left\{\begin{array}{cc} xy & {\rm if }\ xy\not = 0,\\ {\rm undefined} & {\rm if }\ xy = 0, \end{array} \right. \end{equation} $ (4.3)

    where $ xy $ denotes the multiplication of $ x $ and $ y $ in the semigroup $ S $. Define maps

    $ \begin{equation} {\bf d}: C\rightarrow P_S, x\mapsto x^+,\ \ {\bf r}: C\rightarrow P_S, x\mapsto x^\ast. \end{equation} $ (4.4)

    Then we have $ {\bf d}(C)\cup {\bf r}(C)\subseteq (P_S\setminus \{0\}) $ by Proposition 2.7 (1), and $ {\bf d}(e) = e = {\bf r}(e) $ for all $ e\in P_S\setminus \{0\} $ by Lemma 2.2, respectively.

    We assert that $ (C, \cdot, {\bf d}, {\bf r}, P_S) $ is a generalized category over the primitive projection algebra $ (P_S, \times_S, 0) $. First, let $ x, y\in C $. By Proposition 2.7 (2) and (Pr3), (Pr4),

    $ x\cdot y \;{\rm{ is \;defined }}\;\Longleftrightarrow x^\ast y^+ x^\ast = x^\ast $
    $ \Longleftrightarrow y^+x^\ast y^+ = y^+\Longleftrightarrow {\bf r}(x)\times_S {\bf d}(y)\not = 0\Longleftrightarrow {\bf d}(y)\times_S {\bf r}(x)\not = 0. $

    In this case, by the identities defining $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups and Lemma 2.2 we have

    $ {\bf d}(x\cdot y) = {\bf d}(xy) = (xy)^+ = (xy^+)^+ = (xx^\ast y^+)^+ $
    $ = (x(x^\ast y^+)^+)^+ = (xx^\ast y^+ x^\ast)^+ = (xx^\ast)^+ = x^+ = {\bf d}(x). $

    Dually, we have $ {\bf r}(x\cdot y) = {\bf r}(y) $. Thus (G1) holds. Next, let $ x, y, z\in C $, and $ x\cdot y $ and $ y\cdot z $ be defined. Since $ {\bf r}(x\cdot y) = {\bf r}(y) $ and $ {\bf d}(y\cdot z) = {\bf d}(y) $, $ (x\cdot y) \cdot z $ and $ x\cdot (y \cdot z) $ are defined, and so $ (x\cdot y)\cdot z = (xy)z = x(yz) = x\cdot(y\cdot z) $. This gives (G2). Moreover, for $ x\in C $, since $ x^+x = x\not = 0 $, it follows that $ x^+\cdot x $ is defined and $ {\bf d}(x)\cdot x = x $. Dually, $ x\cdot x^\ast $ is defined and $ x\cdot {\bf r}(x) = x $. Thus (G3) is true. Finally, let $ e, f\in P_S $ and $ e\times_S f\not = 0 $. Then $ f\times_S e\not = 0 $ by (Pr4) and $ e = e\times_S f = efe $ by (Pr3). In view of (G2), $ (e\cdot f)\cdot e $ is defined and $ (e\cdot f)\cdot e = (ef)e = efe = e $. Thus (G4) is valid.

    By Proposition 4.3, we have a generalized category with zero adjoined $ (C^0, \cdot, ^\clubsuit, ^\spadesuit) $. We shall show that $ S $ is (2, 1, 1)-isomorphic to $ C^0 $. Define a map $ \psi: S\rightarrow C^0 $ by assigning $ 0\psi = 0 $ and $ x\psi = x $ for all $ x\in C = S\setminus\{0\} $. Obviously, $ \psi $ is a bijection. Let $ x, y\in S $. If $ x = 0 $ or $ y = 0 $, then $ x\psi = 0 $ or $ y\psi = 0 $, whence $ (xy)\psi = 0\psi = 0 = (x\psi)(y\psi) $. Assume that $ x, y\in C = S\setminus\{0\} $. Then $ xy = 0 $ in $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ if and only if $ x\cdot y $ is not defined in the generalized category $ (C, \cdot, {\bf d}, {\bf r}, P_S) $, if and only if $ xy = 0 $ in $ (C^0, \cdot, ^\clubsuit, ^\spadesuit) $ by (4.3) and Proposition 4.3. This implies that $ (xy)\psi = (x\psi)(y\psi) $ for all $ x, y\in C $. Thus $ \psi $ is a semigroup homomorphism. Furthermore, observe that $ 0^+ = 0 $ by Proposition 2.7 (1) and $ 0^\clubsuit = 0 $ by Proposition 4.3, it follows that $ (0\psi)^\clubsuit = 0^\clubsuit = 0 = 0\psi = 0^+\psi $. Dually, we have $ (0\psi)^\spadesuit = 0^\ast\psi $. If $ x\in C = S\setminus\{0\} $, then $ x^+\in C $ by Proposition 2.7 (1), this implies that $ (x\psi)^\clubsuit = x^\clubsuit = {\bf d}(x) = x^+ = x^+\psi $ by Propositions 4.3 and (4.4). Dually, we have $ (x\psi)^\spadesuit = x^\ast\psi $ for all $ x\in C $. We have shown that $ \psi $ is a (2, 1, 1)-isomorphism. By Lemma 4.2 and the statements before Proposition 4.3, we have the following result appeared in Jones [10].

    Corollary 4.6 ([10]). Let $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be an Ehresmann semigroup with zero as a projection and $ |S| > 1 $. Then $ S $ is projection-primitive if and only if $ S $ is (2, 1, 1)-isomorphic to a category with zero adjoined.

    Remark 4.7. Let $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ be a primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup without zero or with zero 0 but $ 0\not\in P_S $. Let $ \diamond\not\in S $ and define additionally $ x\diamond = \diamond x = \diamond = \diamond\diamond $ and $ \diamond^+ = \diamond^\ast = \diamond $. Then $ (S^\diamond, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ forms a primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroup with zero $ \diamond $ and $ \diamond\in P_{S^\diamond} $. In this case, the generalized category associated with $ S^\diamond $ constructed in the proof of Theorem 4.5 is just $ (S, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $ and the corresponding generalized category with zero adjoined is just $ (S^\diamond, \cdot, ^+, ^\ast) $. By Remark 4.4, we can think that Theorem 4.5 also works for the semigroups considered in the last section. However, it is trivial certainly in the case.

    In this paper, we have obtained the structures of projection-primitive $ P $-Ehresmann semigroups. As a future work, one can investigate the associative algebras of these semigroups by using the results obtained in the present paper.

    The author expresses his profound gratitude to the referees for the valuable comments and suggestions, which improve greatly the content and presentation of this article. In particular, according to the advices of one of the referees, we rewrite Section 3 (with the help of the results of Lawson [14] provided by the referee) and Section 4. This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11661082). Thanks also go to the editor for the timely communications.

    The author declares there is no conflict of interest.



    [1] Johnson S, Robinson J, Thaicharoen Y (2004) Institutional causes, macroeconomic symptoms: Volatility, crises and growth. Journal of Monetary Economics 50: 49–123.. https//doi.org//10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00208-8 doi: 10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00208-8
    [2] Kishawy H, Gabbar H (2010) Review of Pipeline Integrity Management Practices. International Journal of Pressure Vessel and Process Piping 87: 378–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2010.04.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2010.04.003
    [3] Okoli A, Orinya S (2013) Oil Pipeline Vandalism and Nigeria's National Security. Global Journal of Human Social Science 13: 68–75.
    [4] Omeje K (2005) Oil conflict in Nigeria: contending issues and perspectives of the local Niger Delta people. New Political Economy 10: 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563460500204183 doi: 10.1080/13563460500204183
    [5] Onuoha F (2009) Why the poor pay with their lives: Oil pipeline vandalisation, fires and human Security in Nigeria. Disaster 33: 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01079.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01079.x
    [6] Collins N, Jürgen E (2012) Negative impacts of oil exploration on biodiversity management in the Niger De area of Nigeria. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 26: 139–147.
    [7] Asumi J (2009) Blood oil in the Niger Delta, United States Institute of Peace.
    [8] Incardona JP, Collier TK, Scholz NK (2010) Oil spills and fish health: exposing the heart of the matter. J. Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 21: 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2010.51 doi: 10.1038/jes.2010.51
    [9] Wunder S (2005) Oil wealth and the fate of the forest: a comparative study of eight tropical countries, Taylor and Francis e-Library, London, United Kingdom, 432.
    [10] Rajan SR (2002) Disaster, development and governance: reflections on the "Lessons of Bhopal". Environ Values 2002: 369–394. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327102129341136 doi: 10.3197/096327102129341136
    [11] Anifowose B, Damian M, Van der Horst D (2011) Attacks on oil transport pipelines in Nigeria: a quantitative exploration and possible explanation of observed patterns. Appl Geogr 32: 636–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.07.012 doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.07.012
    [12] Jukic A, Vidovic E, Janovic Z (2005) Alkyl methacrylate and styrene terpolymers as lubricating oil viscosity index improvers. Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oils 43: 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10553-007-0068-9 doi: 10.1007/s10553-007-0068-9
    [13] ITA, Nigeria Pipelines map - Crude Oil (petroleum) pipelines - Natural Gas pipelines - Products pipelines, 2017. Available from : https://theodora.com/pipelines/nigeria_oil_gas_and_products_pipelines_map.html.
    [14] Lawal MO, Pipeline development in the Nigerian petroleum industry, 1989. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40571568.
    [15] Waldman J, How the Oil Pipeline Began, 2017. Available from: https://nautil.us/how-the-oil-pipeline-began-236686.
    [16] Onuoha F (2007) Poverty, pipeline vandalism and explosion and Human Security: Integrating disaster management into poverty reduction in Nigeria. African security Review 16: 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10246029.2007.9627420 doi: 10.1080/10246029.2007.9627420
    [17] Johnson FI, and Marianthi L (2020) Identifying the immediate and remote causes of pipeline disasters in Nigeria. Global journal of science frontier research H: environment and earth sciences 20. https://doi.org/10.34257/GJSFRHVOL20IS3PG1
    [18] Nanninga N, Slifka A, Levy Y, et al. (2010) White. A Review of Fatigue Crack Growth for Pipeline Steels Exposed to Hydrogen. Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 115: 437. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.115.030 doi: 10.6028/jres.115.030
    [19] Hopkins P (2006) Oil and Gas Pipelines: Yesterday and Today. International Petroleum Technology Institute, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), New York, 1–9.
    [20] Pipeline Transport, In Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia, 2013. Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pipeline_transport&oldid=550407.
    [21] PHMSA, Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, "Significant Incidents", 2020. Available from: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/phmsa-data-and-statistics.
    [22] Okoli A (2013) The political ecology of the Niger Delta crisis and the prospects lasting peace in the Post-Amnesty Period. Global Journal of Human Social Science 3: 230.
    [23] Nwilo PC, and Badejo OT. (2005) Oil spill problems and management in the Niger Delta. In International oil spill conference 2005: 567–570. https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-2005-1-567 doi: 10.7901/2169-3358-2005-1-567
    [24] James H (2014) Shell is losing more oil sabotage and theft in Niger Delta is causing big jumps in spills. Dow Jones and Company Incorporation: The Wall Street Journal.
    [25] Oil and Gas Journal, Nigerian Pipeline Explosions Kills 250, 2012. Available from: https://www.ogj.com/pipelines-transportation/pipelines/article/17254114/nigerian-pipeline-explosion-kills-250.
    [26] Aroh KN, Ubong IU, Eze CL, et al. (2010) Oil spill incidents and pipeline vandalization in Nigeria: impact on public health and negation to attainment of Millennium Development Goal: the Ishiagu example. Disaster prevention and management: An international Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653561011022153
    [27] Ntukekpo DS (1996) Spillage: Bane of petroleum, ultimate water technology & environment. Environmental Research Journal 6: 100–105.
    [28] Kagan CR, Evans K, Knowles J, et al. (2002) Working with people who are marginalized by the social system: Challenges for community psychological work. In Psicología Comunitaria Europea: Comunidad, Poder, Éticay Valores/European Community Psychology: Community, Power, Ethics and Values 2002: 400–412.
    [29] Tajfel H, Turner JC (1982) Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology 33: 1–39. https//doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245
    [30] Altindag DT (2012) Crime and unemployment: Evidence from Europe. International review of Law and Economics 32: 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2011.10.003 doi: 10.1016/j.irle.2011.10.003
    [31] Aroh KN, Ubong IU, Eze CL, et al. (2010) Oil spill incidents and pipeline vandalization in Nigeria: impact on public health and negation to attainment of Millennium Development Goal: the Ishiagu example. Disaster prevention and management: An international Journal 2010. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653561011022153 doi: 10.1108/09653561011022153
    [32] Taber KS (2018) The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in science education 48: 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2 doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
    [33] Islam MA, Khan MA, Obaidullah AZM, et al. (2011) Effect of entrepreneur and firm characteristics on the business success of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Bangladesh. International Journal of Business and Management 6: 289. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n3p289 doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v6n3p289
    [34] DeCarlo LT (1997) On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological methods 2: 292. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.2.3.292 doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.2.3.292
    [35] Kline RB (2011) Principles and Practice for Structural Equation Modelling (3rd Eds).
    [36] Hoyle RH (1995) Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage.
    [37] Ho R (2006) Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. New York, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 424. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420011111
    [38] Omodanisi EO, Eludoyin AO, Salami AT (2014) A multi-perspective view of the effects of a pipeline explosion in Nigeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7: 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.11.002
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5353) PDF downloads(244) Cited by(2)

Figures and Tables

Figures(5)  /  Tables(7)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog