2 research outputs found
The terrain of urbanisation process and policy frameworks: A critical analysis of the Kampala experience
Kampala is urbanising in an unplanned manner, but without a clear picture
of the underlying dynamics. The city is characterised by lack of proper zoning
of economic activities and construction of physical infrastructure without regard to
subsequent spatial quality and environmental conservation. Consequently, there are
sharp differences in residential standards where expensive housing and luxury flats
co-exist with shanty towns and informal settlements, with about 60% of the city’s
population living in unplanned informal settlements and often faced with challenges
of unemployment. The unprecedented increase in the urban population in
Kampala and the prospects for further increases in the near future have economic
and social implications concerning employment, housing, education and health,
among others. Understanding the nature of the dynamics of the growth or decline
of cities like Kampala helps planners to support the processes that lead to harmonious
urban development and to deal with the negative consequences of urban
growth. This paper reflects the urbanisation dynamics explaining Kampala’s urbanisation
process with the view to analysing the implications for an alternative urban policy framework. It argues that the conditions that have allowed the situation to
exist have serious policy implications which require the need for an integrated policy
framework that can be used to effectively prevent or halt Kampala’s unplanned
urbanisation while promoting planned urbanisation. Induced by the migration and
lack of information, understanding urban dynamics is crucial to the development of
urban policies that can effectively ensure that further urban changes occur in a systematic
and satisfactory manner. The current urban process in developing countries
like Uganda is associated with poverty, environmental degradation and population
demands that outstrip service capacity
Recommended from our members
Funding and delivering the routine testing of management interventions to improve conservation effectiveness
Evidence-based approaches are key for underpinning effective conservation practice, but major gaps in the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions limit their use. Conservation practitioners could make major contributions to filling these gaps but often lack the time, funding, or capacity to do so properly. Many funders target the delivery of conservation and can be reluctant to fund primary research. We analysed the literature testing the effectiveness of interventions. Of a sample of 1,265 publications published in 2019 that tested conservation interventions, 96% included academics. Only 21% included conservation practitioners, of which just under half were first or last author. A community of conservation funders and practitioners undertook a series of workshops to explore means of improving the quality and quantity of intervention testing. A survey of the suggested proportion of conservation grants that should be allocated to testing intervention effectiveness showed practitioners tended to prefer larger percentages (median 3-6%) than funders (median 1-3%), but the overlap was considerable. Funders can facilitate the testing of interventions through a range of measures, including welcoming applications that incorporate testing, allocating funds to testing, and providing training and support to deliver testing. The funders represented by the authors of this paper have committed to these actions. Practitioners can contribute by committing to routine testing, benefiting from funding allocated specifically to testing, and establishing processes for testing interventions. The organisations of the practitioner authors have committed to test at least one intervention per year and share findings, regardless of outcome. Currently, practitioners rarely lead the testing of conservation actions. We suggest processes by which both funders and practitioners can make this routine. This will not only improve the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of practice, but also make conservation more attractive to funders.This paper arose from a series of workshops attended by funders and practitioners, focused on how to integrate evidence in conservation. We thank all participants. The first workshop was hosted by Lord Mountevans at the House of Lords, UK, with funding from Arcadia. Subsequent workshops were held online. We thank Kate Willott for providing the 2019 references from the Conservation Evidence database. We are also grateful to two anonymous reviewers whose feedback provided helpful suggestions for improving this manuscript