Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNakedde, Devine Kaggwa
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-09T10:10:09Z
dc.date.available2017-01-09T10:10:09Z
dc.date.issued2006-03
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10570/5503
dc.descriptionThesis submitted to the school of graduate studies in partial fulfillment of the award of the degree of Master of Science in Environment and Natural Resources of Makerere University.en_US
dc.description.abstractConservation and development are initially two antagonistic processes that finally came together in the form of environmental planning. However, this integration still has some hurdles to overcome in order to become a tool for sustainable development. Therefore, this study focused on the factors affecting environmental planning and implementation in Bushenyi and Kasese districts in Western Uganda. The study objectives were to assess the extent to which completed DEAPs in the districts conform to the standardized guidelines that were issued by NEMA; find out how District Environment Action Plans are being integrated in to District Development plans; examine and recommend institution structures within the districts and determine the capacity for environment planning; find out the community attitudes towards Environmental Action Planning; and , finally determine other factors affecting environmental planning and management within districts. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used in the study. Questionnaires, interview and documentary analysis were all used to solicit the necessary information from sources. Qualitative methods were used especially to find out people’s attitudes about environmental planning whereas quantitative methods were used compare between districts and other variables. Results indicate that Bushenyi was more active in setting up of task force, synthesis and preparing work plans, while Kasese was more biased in personnel mobilization and information gathering. As far as Environmental Planning Structures of both districts are concerned; the District Council, the district Environment Officer and District Technical Planning Committees were not. In Bushenyi district the most prominent method of Environmental problems identification was through transect walk, while in Kasese it was through pair wise ranking. The Environment Planning and implementation capacity of both districts is still weak; both conducted DEAP with the help of external donors. In Kasese, NEMA is the major source of funding, while in Bushenyi it is COBs. On human capacity of the districts, results indicate that districts have extension and community development officers, but the environment officers are not adequate. The sub-county technical committee is responsible for integrating DEAP were more positive in Bushenyi district than in Kasese and averagely people from both districts agreed that DEAP was a realistic process. The best strategy to integrate DEAP into DDP was to include environment problems into the 3 – year DDP according to the respondents. In conclusion, although both districts did not fully conform to NEMA guidelines, Bushenyi performed better because of orientation and skills training. Therefore, the training should be encouraged in all districts. The positive attitudes should be turned into positive actions to conserve their environment planning as a priority through integration of issues into development plans.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipECOTRUST Uganda.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMakerere University.en_US
dc.subjectEnvironmental protectionen_US
dc.subjectEnvironmental conservationen_US
dc.subjectNEMAen_US
dc.titleFactors affecting environmental planning and implementation within districts: A comparative study of Bushenyi and Kasese Districts in Ugandaen_US
dc.typeThesis/Dissertation (Masters)en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record