ISSN: 2157-7625

生態系と生態学のジャーナル

オープンアクセス

当社グループは 3,000 以上の世界的なカンファレンスシリーズ 米国、ヨーロッパ、世界中で毎年イベントが開催されます。 1,000 のより科学的な学会からの支援を受けたアジア および 700 以上の オープン アクセスを発行ジャーナルには 50,000 人以上の著名人が掲載されており、科学者が編集委員として名高い

オープンアクセスジャーナルはより多くの読者と引用を獲得
700 ジャーナル 15,000,000 人の読者 各ジャーナルは 25,000 人以上の読者を獲得

インデックス付き
  • CAS ソース インデックス (CASSI)
  • 索引コペルニクス
  • Google スカラー
  • シェルパ・ロミオ
  • 環境研究へのオンライン アクセス (OARE)
  • Jゲートを開く
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • ウルリッヒの定期刊行物ディレクトリ
  • Global Online Research in Agriculture (AGORA) へのアクセス
  • 電子ジャーナルライブラリ
  • レフシーク
  • ハムダード大学
  • エブスコ アリゾナ州
  • OCLC-WorldCat
  • SWBオンラインカタログ
  • 仮想生物学図書館 (vifabio)
  • パブロン
  • ジュネーブ医学教育研究財団
  • ユーロパブ
このページをシェアする

抽象的な

Mitigating Impacts of Projects on Biodiversity Conservation in Uganda

 Fred R Muwanika, Mwaura F, Ogwal F, Masiga M, Akullo M and Okurut TO

Introduction: This study provides light on the impact of implemented projects on biodiversity in Uganda in terms of harmful and enhancing projects. Biodiversity harmful projects are defined as the types of projects that destroy or led to biodiversity loss during their implementation. While biodiversity enhancing are projects that lead to biological diversity during their implementation.

Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the impact of implemented projects in the communities on biodiversity conservation and management in Uganda.

Methods: The data used in this analysis was obtained from Uganda Bureau of statistics (UBOS) previously collected during the National Service Delivery Survey. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was used to derive the different impact dimensions of projects on biodiversity among the communities in Uganda.

Results: Implemented projects in the communities impact on biodiversity both positively and negatively. Findings revealed that livestock improvement/restocking/breeding contribute about 30% on the biodiversity positive impacts while introduction of improved crop variety at about 20% and agricultural technology at about 11.4%. Furthermore, construction of new road/bridges are the leading projects in destroying biodiversity accounting for about 13.5% of the variation in negative impacts while construction of toilet/latrines and health units accounts for 11.8% and 9.4%, respectively of the variation in biodiversity loss.

Conclusions and recommendations: Construction related projects impact negatively on biodiversity in their implementation while agricultural related projects are the leading agro-biodiversity enhancing projects in Uganda. This implies that works sector must play an important role in biodiversity conservation in Uganda. Secondly, construction and agriculture related projects should endeavour to allocate a percentage of the project budget equivalent to expected impact on biodiversity towards its management and restoration.