Full Text
<p><strong>Introduction</strong></p><p>Urban environmental management has become an indispensable component of sustainable urban development as cities across the world continue to experience rapid population growth and spatial expansion. The increasing concentration of population and economic activities in urban centres has intensified pressure on land, housing, transportation, infrastructure, and environmental resources, resulting in challenges such as indiscriminate waste disposal, flooding, pollution, traffic congestion, environmental degradation, and uncontrolled urban development. Since urban environments are largely shaped by human activities, there is an increasing responsibility to ensure that urban growth is effectively planned and managed in order to safeguard environmental quality, strengthen urban resilience, and improve the quality of life of residents (Kweezi, 2023; Ogunbode et al., 2024; UN-Habitat, 2024).</p><p>Globally, urbanization has become one of the defining trends of the twenty-first century. The United Nations (2018) estimates that about 55% of the world's population currently lives in urban areas, with the proportion expected to increase to 68% by 2050. Although urbanization stimulates economic growth, innovation, and social transformation, it also creates enormous environmental and governance challenges that require integrated planning responses. Consequently, the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals advocate sustainable urban planning, resilient infrastructure, efficient land-use management, climate adaptation, and inclusive governance as essential pillars for creating environmentally sustainable cities (United Nations, 2015; UN-Habitat, 2020; United Nations, 2023; UN-Habitat, 2024; Watson, 2016).</p><p>In response to these challenges, many countries have strengthened their physical planning policies and environmental management frameworks to regulate urban growth and minimize the adverse effects of unplanned development. Countries such as the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, South Africa, and Nigeria have adopted planning policies that emphasize environmental conservation, orderly land-use development, infrastructure provision, pollution control, climate resilience, and sustainable urban governance (UN-Habitat, 2009; World Bank, 2022; Unegbu et al., 2024). Within these frameworks, professional town planners perform critical functions through land-use planning, development control, environmental impact assessment, environmental monitoring, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, infrastructure coordination, and enforcement of planning regulations. These responsibilities are fundamental to achieving environmentally sustainable urban development (Abayomi, 2013; Enoguanbhor et al., 2021; Yekeen & Misnan, 2024).</p><p>Evaluating the environmental management activities of town planners has therefore become increasingly necessary for determining the effectiveness of planning interventions in promoting sustainable urban development. Such evaluations provide evidence on whether planning policies, environmental regulations, and development control measures are achieving their intended objectives while identifying institutional, financial, and operational constraints affecting planning practice. They also provide a basis for strengthening planning institutions, improving environmental governance, enhancing climate resilience, and promoting sustainable urban development. Common indicators for evaluating urban environmental management include land-use efficiency, environmental sustainability, infrastructure adequacy, pollution control, conservation of natural resources, and equitable access to urban services (Jones et al., 2017; UN-Habitat, 2020; Iduseri et al., 2024; UN-Habitat, 2024).</p><p>In Nigeria, rapid urbanization has continued to outpace the capacity of planning institutions to effectively manage urban growth. Increasing demand for housing, transportation, commercial development, and public infrastructure has resulted in numerous environmental problems, including unplanned development, flooding, inadequate drainage systems, poor waste management, environmental pollution, and weak compliance with planning regulations. Although planning authorities are statutorily responsible for regulating physical development and enforcing environmental standards under the Nigerian Urban and Regional Planning Act, their efforts are frequently constrained by inadequate funding, weak institutional capacity, ineffective policy implementation, political interference, and poor enforcement mechanisms (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004; World Bank, 2023; Ogunbode et al., 2024; Unegbu et al., 2024).</p><p>Abakaliki Metropolis, the capital of Ebonyi State, typifies many of these urban environmental management challenges. Since becoming the state capital, the city has experienced rapid physical expansion and population growth, resulting in increased pressure on land resources, infrastructure, and environmental services. Despite successive government interventions through planning schemes, master planning, and urban renewal programmes, the metropolis continues to experience environmental challenges such as uncontrolled physical development, poor drainage, inadequate waste disposal, traffic congestion, and uneven spatial development. These persistent problems raise important questions regarding the effectiveness of the environmental management activities performed by professional town planners in the metropolis.</p><p>Against this background, evaluating the urban environmental management activities of town planners in Abakaliki Metropolis is essential for determining the effectiveness of existing planning practices and identifying areas requiring improvement. The findings of this study will contribute to strengthening planning institutions, improving environmental governance, promoting evidence-based policy implementation, and advancing sustainable urban development in Abakaliki Metropolis and other rapidly growing Nigerian cities (UN-Habitat, 2024; World Bank, 2023).</p><p><strong>Objectives and Hypothesis of the Study</strong></p><p>The objectives geared towards achieving the stated aim include identifying the existing environmental management activities in Abakaliki Metropolis; examine the effectiveness of these environmental management activities and determine the environmental problems facing Abakaliki Metropolis. Also, the hypothesis of the study states thus; Physical Planning interventions do not significantly affect the environmental sustainability of Abakaliki Metropolis.</p><p><strong>Literature Review</strong></p><p><strong>Conceptual Review</strong></p><p><strong>a. Physical Planning</strong></p><p>Physical planning is the systematic process of organizing, regulating, and managing the use and development of land to achieve orderly, functional, and sustainable human settlements. It integrates land-use planning, transportation, infrastructure provision, environmental protection, urban design, and regulatory control to ensure balanced spatial development and efficient resource utilization (Faludi, 2014; Healey, 2016). It also coordinates social, economic, environmental, and institutional considerations to promote sustainable urban growth while minimizing environmental degradation (Okpala, 2008; Daramola, 2021; Olanrewaju et al., 2024). Through policy formulation, implementation, monitoring, and development control, physical planning provides a framework for improving the quality of the built environment and enhancing the well-being of present and future generations (Adenaike et al., 2020).</p><p><strong>b. Urban Environmental Management Activities</strong></p><p>Urban environmental management activities refer to the coordinated planning, regulation, implementation, and monitoring measures undertaken by planning authorities and stakeholders to protect and improve the urban environment while promoting sustainable development. These activities encompass land-use regulation, waste management, pollution control, environmental protection, infrastructure management, conservation of natural resources, and enforcement of environmental standards to address the challenges of rapid urbanization (UN-Habitat, 2022; Bwala et al., 2022). Through collaborative governance, strategic planning, and stakeholder participation, urban environmental management activities seek to enhance environmental sustainability, urban resilience, public health, and the overall quality of life in cities (Yekeen & Misnan, 2024; Adeyemo & Olaitan, 2024; Nesmachnow & Callejo, 2025).\</p><p><strong>c. Town Planner</strong></p><p>A town planner is a professionally trained expert responsible for guiding the orderly, sustainable, and legally compliant development of urban and rural environments through spatial planning, land-use regulation, and environmental management. Town planners prepare development plans, administer development control, coordinate infrastructure provision, undertake environmental impact assessments, protect environmentally sensitive areas, and ensure compliance with planning laws and standards (UN-Habitat, 2024; Yekeen & Misnan, 2024). They also engage stakeholders, monitor urban growth, promote climate-resilient development, and integrate environmental, social, and economic considerations into planning decisions to enhance urban sustainability, resilience, and the quality of life of residents (Olanrewaju et al., 2024; World Bank, 2023; Adeyemo & Olaitan, 2024).</p><p><strong>Theoretical Inclination to the Study: The Collaborative Planning Theory</strong></p><p>This study is anchored on the Collaborative Planning Theory developed by Healey (1997), which emphasizes that sustainable urban development and environmental management are best achieved through collaborative decision-making involving government agencies, planning professionals, private organizations, and local communities. The theory argues that town planners should serve as facilitators who integrate environmental, social, economic, and institutional interests into planning and environmental management processes to achieve sustainable urban outcomes (Healey, 1997, 2003). It further maintains that effective urban environmental management depends on strong institutional capacity, stakeholder participation, transparent governance, and coordinated implementation of planning policies (Healey, 1998; Calderon & Westin, 2021).</p><p>The theory is relevant to this study because the environmental challenges confronting Abakaliki Metropolis including indiscriminate development, poor waste management, encroachment on environmentally sensitive areas, and weak enforcement of planning regulations reflect inadequate collaboration and institutional coordination among planning authorities and stakeholders. Evaluating the environmental management activities of town planners from this theoretical perspective provides a framework for assessing the effectiveness of planning institutions, development control, environmental governance, and stakeholder participation in achieving sustainable urban development. The theory therefore offers an appropriate lens for identifying institutional gaps and recommending strategies for improving urban environmental management and planning practice in Abakaliki Metropolis (UN-Habitat, 2024; Yekeen & Misnan, 2024).</p><p><strong>Empirical Review</strong></p><p><strong>Urban Environment Management Activities</strong></p><p>Empirical studies on environmental management activities in urban areas has focused on issues such waste management, urban environmental governance, the creation of green infrastructure, climate resilience, and public environmental education.</p><p>Eya et al. (2022) studied environmental management and city sustainability for sustainable development in Nigeria using a survey research design. The findings showed that activities like waste management, urban planning policies, and environmental monitoring play a vital role in sustainable urban development. The study highlighted that inadequate environmental management practices are a major reason for environmental deterioration in many Nigerian cities</p><p>Similarly, Yekeen and Misnan (2024) examined urban governance in Nigerian cities in relation to social exclusion and livability. The researchers used a qualitative research method that included policy analysis and a review of the literature to study how urban environmental management is done. According to the study, inadequate urban planning systems and weak environmental governance frameworks have a major impact on social inclusion and environmental sustainability in cities. The study advocated for integrated environmental management frameworks that incorporate community involvement, environmental regulation, and urban planning.</p><p>Amin et al. (2024) investigated environmental protection policies and sustainable waste management systems in Nigeria. The researchers utilized a survey method to gather data from environmental agencies and residents in urban areas. They analysed the data using descriptive statistics and inferential analysis. The results indicated that effective waste collection systems, recycling programs, and waste disposal regulations play a crucial role in reducing environmental pollution in urban settings. However, the study also highlighted significant challenges, including insufficient infrastructure and weak enforcement of environmental policies, which hinder effective waste management practices.</p><p>Jerie et al. (2024) investigated plastic waste management practices in the urban suburbs of Zimbabwe. Their research utilized a mixed-methods approach, incorporating household surveys, interviews, and field observations. The results revealed that inadequate waste collection systems and insufficient recycling infrastructure lead to environmental pollution and pose risks to public health. The study highlighted the importance of implementing circular economy strategies, such as waste reduction and recycling initiatives, to enhance environmental management in urban settings.</p><p>Akintunde et al. (2024) conducted a study on environmental literacy and solid waste management in Jos metropolis, Nigeria. They utilized a cross-sectional survey approach, gathering information from households through structured questionnaires. The data were analysed using correlation and regression techniques. The results indicated that environmental literacy plays a significant role in encouraging residents to engage in waste sorting and proper disposal practices. The study emphasized the importance of environmental education programs in enhancing environmental management in urban settings.</p><p>In a similar vein, Alam and Zakaria (2021) investigated environmental awareness among urban residents in Bangladesh. Their study utilized a survey approach to gather data from households in urban areas. The researchers applied statistical analysis methods, including logistic regression, to interpret the data. The results indicated that socio-economic factors, such as education, income, and occupation, play a significant role in shaping environmental awareness and involvement in environmental protection initiatives.</p><p>Ekele et al. (2025) carried out a study examining urbanization and environmental quality in the Abuja Municipal Area Council, Nigeria. They utilized remote sensing and GIS methods, incorporating environmental indicators like land surface temperature (LST), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), normalized difference built-up index (NDBI), and normalized difference water index (NDWI) to assess environmental quality. The results revealed that swift urbanization has resulted in higher land surface temperatures and diminished vegetation cover, adversely impacting environmental quality in urban settings.</p><p>Adamu et al. (2025) carried out a study on urban drainage systems and their environmental impacts in the city of Buea, Cameroon. Utilizing a case study method along with field surveys and hydrological assessments, the researchers discovered that inadequately designed drainage systems lead to flooding and environmental harm in urban settings. The study suggested the need for better urban drainage infrastructure and sustainable water management practices to strengthen environmental resilience.</p><p>Bera et al. (2023) conducted a systematic literature review on Urbanization and Its Effects on Environmental Sustainability, incorporating peer-reviewed articles, reports, and white papers from diverse academic sources. Findings indicated that while urbanization is crucial for societal advancement and economic growth, it has considerably influenced environmental sustainability. Major discoveries include rising greenhouse gas emissions, an amplified urban heat island effect, loss of green areas, and disruptions in local biodiversity. However, it also highlighted the potential for urban areas to lead sustainability efforts, given a combination of policy, innovation, and community involvement. </p><p>A research conducted by Cobbinaha et al. (2017) investigated urban environmental issues in Ghana. The research employed a survey methodology to explore the environmental challenges facing urban areas in Ghana by: (i) examining the elements that make urban Ghana susceptible to environmental risks; (ii) assessing the impact of human activities and natural phenomena on urban environmental resources; (iii) addressing environmental safeguarding as it pertains to sustainable urban progress in Ghana; and (iv) delivering policy ramifications concerning environmental issues in the country. Results reveal that significant population growth, ineffective planning systems, and increasing poverty make urban Ghana vulnerable to environmental degradation. Human activities (like pollution, poverty, and urban expansion) alongside natural disasters (including flooding, drought, and storms) have adversely altered the urban landscape. It strongly supports the adoption and execution of principles (such as inclusivity, fairness, and support for the underprivileged) inherent to the notion of sustainable urban development.</p><p>Edelman, (2021) focused on the management of the urban environment in Istanbul, Turkey. The study employed survey research methodologies. Initially, the article outlines the context of Turkey, followed by an examination of challenges, including poverty reduction, issues related to industry, transportation, energy, water supply, sewage and sanitation systems, and financial aspects. The results highlight numerous environmental challenges and propose a five-year strategy designed to tackle the urban environmental issues faced by this transcontinental city, relying on a real-world database sourced from Turkish government publications and constrained funding. </p><p>Adekola et al. (2017) conducted an empirical study assessing the environmental management situation in Nigeria's capital cities. This research implemented a qualitative approach to evaluate the environmental friendliness of various state capitals among the 37, including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. The findings indicate that merely five out of the 37 state capitals can be classified as environmentally friendly cities within Nigeria</p><p>Oyebode, (2018) assessed the management of municipal solid waste to enhance public health and the environment in Nigeria. A survey research method was utilized, and it was found that the average Nigerian generates approximately 0.43 kg of solid waste per person daily. Organic materials represent around 60% to 80% of the overall waste stream, alongside plastics, scrap metals, and nylon being significant recyclable elements. </p><p>Ofulue (2025) investigated environmental sanitation management in Nigeria, adopting a doctrinal approach that included both primary and secondary legal sources. Throughout the article, it became apparent that numerous legal challenges hinder effective environmental sanitation and waste management in Nigeria. These challenges include a lack of public awareness in the legislative process, ineffective law enforcement by governmental bodies, insufficient penalties for environmental violations, a deficiency in environmental responsibility among citizens, inadequate waste management systems and services, excessive adherence to legalism by the courts, and a lack of expertise among those managing environmental legal cases.</p><p>Abur, et al. (2024) focused on Evaluating Municipal Solid Waste Production, Management Practices and Energy Potential in Nigeria: The paper examined earlier empirical studies and research on waste generation rates, energy potentials, management practices, and challenges in Municipal Solid Waste, MSW service provision. Findings indicated that the average MSW generation rates range from 0.31 kg/person/day to 1.23 kg/person/day. The reported daily MSW delivery in a Nigerian city could yield between 30 to 52 MWh of electricity, with an energy value of 20,198.89 kJ/kg generating approximately 36.95 MW/day, while 584 tons/day of MSW could provide about 41 MW Electrical Power (EPPMSW) and 27 MW to the Grid. The study indicated that approximately 947,981,358 kWh/year of energy and $131,769,409/year in revenue could be sourced from MSW, while an estimated $493.3 million to $16.4 billion per year could be realized from MSW from daily activities of 34 million urban Nigerians. Annual biogas production of roughly 1.82 billion Nm3 and 1,085,688 tons of methane gas from urban areas in Nigeria is also anticipated from MSW. Common MSW management practices currently used include open dumping, land filling, open burning, and dumping into streets/streams/rivers, while incineration methods are rarely employed. Challenges in MSW management identified include insufficient funding/policy application/public awareness, outdated or inadequate infrastructure, absence of trained personnel/waste managers, limited recycling and recovery facilities, and weak enforcement of sanitary laws. The MSW generated across the nation shows promise for waste-to-energy conversion, economic benefits in revenue creation, and job opportunities with appropriate dedication.</p><p>Nwoko (2013) investigated the Evaluation of the Environmental Impact Assessment System in Nigeria using survey research methods, with findings highlighting the insufficient capacity of EIA approval bodies, shortcomings in screening and scoping, poor EIA quality, limited public involvement, and weak monitoring. Additionally, EIA studies seldom achieve the goal of being effective project planning tools for sustainable development and mitigating development project impacts</p><p>In summary, the empirical literature reviewed indicates that environmental management activities in urban areas include waste management, green infrastructure development, environmental monitoring, climate-resilient infrastructure, and community participation. These studies demonstrate that effective environmental management strategies significantly improve urban environmental quality and sustainability outcomes.</p><p>However, the literature also highlights several challenges, including inadequate environmental infrastructure, weak policy enforcement, and limited environmental awareness among urban populations. Furthermore, many studies focus on developed countries, creating a research gap in understanding environmental management practices in rapidly urbanizing African cities.</p><p><strong>Statement of Research Gap</strong></p><p>Despite the valuable contributions of these studies reviewed, there is a paucity of empirical research specifically investigating physical planning operations in Abakaliki Metropolis using a survey research design. Consequently, there remains a knowledge gap regarding the influence of physical planning operations on the physical development and administration of the metropolis. This study seeks to address this gap by providing empirical evidence from Abakaliki Metropolis, thereby contributing to the existing body of knowledge on urban and physical planning.</p><p><strong>Materials and Methods</strong></p><p><strong>Study Area</strong></p><p>Abakaliki is the capital of Ebonyi State in south-eastern Nigeria. It is located at latitudes 6°13'N and 6°25'N and longitude 8 00’E to 8°10'E (Fig. 1) and has an area of 320 square kilometers. The town hosts four local government councils: Abakaliki LGA, Izzi LGA, Ebony LGA, Ezza South LGA (Fig. 1) and several communities namely: Agbaja Unuphu, Nkalake, Ishieke and Igbeagu, Amagu, Enyigba, Inyimagu Unuphu Amike-Aba and Umuaghara. The city is crossed by the trans-Saharan African road that runs from the center of Enugu to Cameroon, a road known as Enugu, Abakaliki Ogoja road and other roads such as the Abakaliki-Afikpo Road and Old Abakaliki . Enugu Road. The city also has a network of paved roads within the city such as Water-Works, Ogoja, Quarry, Ezza, Onwe and Nkaliki, and other access roads that connect residential areas, businesses, institutions and industrial areas. </p><p></p><img src="https://airjournal.org/storage/airjournal/journal-assets/editor/a709d596-f4b0-4dc3-8b41-20c0bff148e8.png" alt="Pasted image" style="max-width: 100%; height: auto; object-fit: contain;"><p>Figure 1: Location Map of Abakaliki Metropolis and other relevant features.</p><p>Sources: Geology Department Ebony State University, Abakaliki, 2023</p><p>The area has experienced rapid urban growth since the creation of the state in 1996. The metropolis serves as the administrative, commercial, and socio-economic centre of the state and continues to attract increasing population and development activities. This rapid expansion has intensified pressure on land resources, infrastructure, public services, and the urban environment. The city is characterized by a mixed pattern of urban and peri-urban settlements, where former agricultural lands and wetlands have gradually been converted to residential, commercial, and institutional uses. Such land-use changes have significant implications for environmental management, including loss of green spaces, increased surface runoff, flooding, and environmental degradation.</p><p>The tropical climate of Abakaliki, with distinct wet and dry seasons and an average annual rainfall of about 1,500 mm, further influences environmental conditions within the metropolis. Heavy rainfall frequently exposes inadequacies in drainage systems and waste management infrastructure, leading to flooding and pollution of waterways. In addition, rapid urbanization, indiscriminate waste disposal, deforestation, and encroachment on environmentally sensitive areas continue to threaten environmental sustainability. These conditions underscore the importance of effective urban environmental management activities by town planners, particularly in land-use regulation, development control, environmental protection, and infrastructure planning, to promote sustainable urban development and improve environmental quality within Abakaliki Metropolis.</p><p><strong>Methods</strong></p><p><strong>a. Research Design:</strong> The study adopted a survey research design using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The mixed-method approach enabled the collection of numerical and descriptive data required to evaluate the urban environmental management activities of town planners, environmental challenges, stakeholder participation, and the effectiveness of planning practices in Abakaliki Metropolis.</p><p><strong>b. Sources of Data:</strong> Both primary and secondary data were utilized. Primary data were obtained through questionnaires, interviews, focus group discussions, and field observations involving town planners, community leaders, and other stakeholders. Secondary data comprised books, journals, planning documents, government reports, maps, policy documents, and relevant legislation on urban planning and environmental management.</p><p><strong>c. Study Population:</strong> The study population comprised professional town planners, planning consultants, officials of planning agencies, community leaders, and other built-environment professionals involved in environmental planning and urban development within Abakaliki Metropolis. These respondents were selected because of their knowledge and direct involvement in urban environmental management activities.</p><p><strong>d. Sampling Technique:</strong> Purposive sampling technique was adopted to select respondents with adequate knowledge and practical experience in urban planning and environmental management. The technique ensured that only individuals directly involved in planning administration, environmental regulation, and urban development were included, thereby improving the reliability and relevance of the information collected.</p><p><strong>e. Sample Size:</strong> A sample size of 400 respondents was determined using Yamane's sample size formula at a 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error. Proportionate allocation was applied to distribute the sample among planning institutions, local government planning authorities, and selected communities within Abakaliki Metropolis.</p><p><strong>f. Reliability of the Research Instrument:</strong> The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient following a pilot survey. The reliability coefficient of 0.966 demonstrated a high level of internal consistency, confirming that the instrument was dependable for evaluating urban environmental management activities among the selected respondents.</p><p><strong>g. Methods of Data Presentation:</strong> Collected data were presented using tables, frequency distributions, charts, graphs, and descriptive summaries. These presentation techniques enhanced data interpretation and facilitated comparison of respondents' views regarding urban environmental management activities, planning performance, environmental challenges, and stakeholder participation in Abakaliki Metropolis.</p><p><strong>h. Methods of Data Analysis:</strong> Data were coded and analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 27. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, summarized the data, while Cronbach's Alpha, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and Spearman Rank Correlation were employed to test hypotheses and examine relationships among the study variables at a 5% significance level.</p><p><strong>Findings</strong></p><p><strong>Existing Environmental Management Activities in Abakakiki Metropolis</strong></p><p>The question investigated stakeholders’ awareness of key urban environmental activities within Abakaliki Metropolis to assess how informed various groups (e.g., residents, local officials, community leaders, businesses, NGOs) are about environmental programs and policies. Respondents were asked to indicate which urban environmental activities exist in Abakaliki metropolis, and their responses were quantified into percentage values as presented in table 1.</p><p><strong>Table 1: Existing Environmental Management Activities in Abakakiki Metropolis</strong></p><table style="min-width: 100px;"><tbody><tr><td><p> Group</p></td><td><p>Frequency</p></td><td><p>Percent (%)</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Valid</p></td><td><p>Waste management and recycling programs</p></td><td><p>90</p></td><td><p>22.78%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Green space maintenance (parks, gardens)</p></td><td><p>80</p></td><td><p>20.25%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Air and water quality monitoring</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td><p>2.53%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sustainable transportation initiatives</p></td><td><p>70</p></td><td><p>17.72%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Urban planning and zoning regulations</p></td><td><p>120</p></td><td><p>30.37%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Climate action plans</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>0.5%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Community education and awareness programs</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>3.99%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Others</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>2.05%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total</p></td><td><p>395</p></td><td><p>100.0%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Source; Researchers’ Field Survey 2026</p><p></p><img src="https://airjournal.org/storage/airjournal/journal-assets/editor/d715a84d-d20b-454b-b764-664b7f13892c.png" alt="Pasted image" style="max-width: 100%; height: auto; object-fit: contain;"><p>Figure 2: Existing Environmental Management Activities in Abakakiki Metropolis</p><p>Source: Researchers’ Field Survey 2026</p><p>The result of the survey presented in table 1 indicated that (30.37%) of the respondents are aware of the existence of Urban Planning and Zoning Regulations, (22.78%) are aware of Waste Management and Recycling Program, while Stakeholders’ awareness of sustainable transportation initiatives (e.g., public transport improvements, traffic reduction schemes) stood at 17.72%. Green Space Maintenance – Parks and Gardens (20.25%), Air and Water Quality Monitoring (2.53%), Community Education and Awareness Programs (3.99%), Climate Action Plan (0.50%) and a small proportion of respondents indicated other environmental activities not captured by the main categories</p><p>The analysis showed that stakeholders responded positively to the current environmental initiatives, which encompass urban planning and zoning regulations, waste management and recycling programs, sustainable transportation efforts, parks and gardens, air and water quality monitoring, community education and awareness initiatives, and climate action plans.</p><p>The findings indicated that stakeholders are most familiar with tangible, regulatory, and service-related environmental activities, such as urban planning, waste management, and the upkeep of green spaces. In contrast, they are less aware of technical, programmatic, or long-term environmental strategies, including air and water quality monitoring, educational programs, and climate action planning.</p><p><strong>Effectiveness of Environmental Management Activities</strong></p><p>The question assessed residents’ perceptions of the effectiveness of environmental management activities in Abakaliki Metropolis, categorizing responses into five levels: very effective, effective, neutral, ineffective, and very ineffective. The variables were measured based on descriptive statistics presented in Table 2.</p><p><strong>Table 2: Effectiveness of Environmental Management Activities</strong></p><table style="min-width: 100px;"><tbody><tr><td><p> Group</p></td><td><p>Frequency</p></td><td><p>Percent (% )</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Valid</p></td><td><p>Very Ineffective</p></td><td><p>75</p></td><td><p>19.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Ineffective</p></td><td><p>113</p></td><td><p>28.6%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Neutral</p></td><td><p>107</p></td><td><p>27.1%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Effective</p></td><td><p>57</p></td><td><p>14.4%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Very Effective</p></td><td><p>43</p></td><td><p>10.9%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total</p></td><td><p>395</p></td><td><p>100.0%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Source: Researchers’ Field Survey 2026</p><img src="https://airjournal.org/storage/airjournal/journal-assets/editor/4260d015-6074-4ea8-806b-a0e552314b00.png" alt="Pasted image" style="max-width: 100%; height: auto; object-fit: contain;"><p>Figure 3: Effectiveness of Environmental Management Activities</p><p>Source; Researchers’ Field Survey 2026</p><p>The result of the survey as presented in table 2 indicated that more than 47% of respondents (19.0% very ineffective 28.6% ineffective) perceived environmental management activities as ineffective or very ineffective. A considerable proportion of respondents (27.1%) chose a neutral stance while only 25.3% of the sampled population viewed environmental management activities positively (14.4% effective, 10.9% very effective).</p><p>Stakeholders largely viewed these activities as ineffective or very ineffective, indicating a significant dissatisfaction with the current environmental management practices in the city.The neutral responses suggest either uncertainty about the effectiveness of environmental initiatives or indifference toward their results. This may reflect a lack of awareness about environmental programs or unclear communication regarding their outcomes. Additionally, the relatively small percentage of neutral responses highlights a general lack of confidence in environmental initiatives among residents.</p><p>However, interviews with stakeholders and focus group discussions revealed that environmental issues such as waste management, flood control, and sanitation continue to be serious challenges in the city, despite government efforts in these areas.</p><p>The findings indicate that environmental management activities in Abakaliki are currently viewed as insufficient in addressing critical issues like waste disposal, sanitation, pollution, and urban planning.</p><p><strong>Environmental problems Facing Abakaliki Metropolis</strong></p><p>The question examined stakeholders’ perceptions of major environmental problems confronting Abakaliki Metropolis. Respondents identified multiple environmental issues, and their responses were quantified to reveal which problems are most prevalent or most recognized within the urban area</p><p><strong>Table 3: Environmental problems facing Abakaliki Metropolis</strong></p><table style="min-width: 100px;"><tbody><tr><td><p> Group</p></td><td><p>Frequency</p></td><td><p>Percent (%)</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Valid</p></td><td><p>Air pollution.</p></td><td><p>3</p></td><td><p>0.8%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Water pollution</p></td><td><p>6</p></td><td><p>1.5%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Deforestation</p></td><td><p>80</p></td><td><p>20.3%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Flooding</p></td><td><p>161</p></td><td><p>40.8%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Waste management</p></td><td><p>132</p></td><td><p>33.4%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Others</p></td><td><p>13</p></td><td><p>3.3%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total</p></td><td><p>395</p></td><td><p>100.0%</p></td><td><p></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Source: Researchers Field Survey, 2026</p><p></p><img src="https://airjournal.org/storage/airjournal/journal-assets/editor/7615710a-de6f-40b1-a50f-78f3bac8e811.png" alt="Pasted image" style="max-width: 100%; height: auto; object-fit: contain;"><p>Figure 4: Environmental problems facing the metropolis</p><p>Source: Researchers Field Survey</p><p>The result of the survey presented in table 3 indicated that the dominant environmental problem identified by stakeholders was flooding, with 40.8% of respondents indicating this as a significant issue, Waste Management (33.4%), Deforestation (20.3%), Water Pollution (1.5%), Air pollution was reported by 0.8% of respondents, while a small percentage (3.3%) of respondents identified other environmental problems not captured by the main categories</p><p>The analysis reveals several significant environmental issues, including air and water pollution, deforestation, flooding, and waste management, highlighting the complex challenges faced in the region.</p><p>Flooding stands out as the most urgent environmental concern in the Abakaliki metropolis, largely due to inadequate drainage systems, rapid urban development, blocked waterways from solid</p><p>Waste, and heavy seasonal rainfall. The severity of flooding not only disrupts daily activities but also poses serious threats to property, public health, and infrastructure. Areas such as the Onuebonyi axis experience seasonal flooding from the Ebonyi River, while the Amike Aba axis is affected by the Abe River, and the Azuiyiokwu layout by the Iyiokwu River. The New layout is also suffering from the impacts of the Iyiudele River. Although the government has intervened through the National Erosion Management (NEWMAP) by dredging some rivers, issues persist in certain areas like Amike-Aba and Onuebonyi.</p><p>In addition to flooding, 33.4% of stakeholders reported waste management issues, citing problems such as the accumulation of solid waste, irregular collection services, illegal dumping, and insufficient disposal facilities.</p><p>Deforestation was also recognized by respondents as a significant environmental challenge in the metropolis. This issue stems from urban expansion, land clearing for development, and the harvesting of fuel wood, leading to a loss of trees and green cover. Stakeholders are increasingly concerned about the diminishing green spaces and overall environmental quality, particularly in the suburban areas surrounding Abakaliki.</p><p>Water pollution was identified as a significant issue, though it is perceived to be less critical than flooding or waste management. This suggests that there is some awareness of the contamination affecting rivers, streams, and groundwater. Thematic analysis indicated that the main sources of this pollution include improper disposal of household waste, discharge of effluents, and runoff carrying pollutants from urban areas.</p><p>Only 0.8% of respondents reported air pollution as a concern, indicating that very few stakeholders view air quality as a major environmental issue. Observations in the field showed that while localized air pollution such as that from vehicle emissions, dust from unpaved roads, and open burning of waste does occur, it seems to be less pressing to stakeholders compared to more visible problems like flooding and waste management.</p><p>A small portion of respondents (3.3%) pointed out other environmental issues not included in the main categories, such as noise pollution, soil degradation, erosion unrelated to deforestation, and specific community concerns. Although these issues are mentioned less frequently, they underscore the variety of environmental challenges faced by different stakeholder groups.</p><p>The findings indicate that flooding and waste management are viewed as the most urgent environmental problems in Abakaliki Metropolis, with over 74% of respondents highlighting these issues. These two problems are likely interconnected, as inadequate waste disposal can lead to blocked drainage systems and increased flooding. The notable concern about deforestation reflects worries about the environmental degradation linked to urban expansion. In contrast, air and water pollution are regarded as less significant, possibly due to their lower visibility, limited monitoring, or a lack of public awareness regarding pollution indicators.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis Testing</strong></p><p>Physical Planning interventions do not significantly affect the environmental sustainability of Abakaliki Metropolis.</p><p>Statistical Test: One-Sample T-test (Test Value = 3.0, the neutral mean)</p><p><strong>Table 4: Results from The Hypothesis Test</strong></p><table style="min-width: 175px;"><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Variable</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Mean (M)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Std. Error</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>t-calc</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>df</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Sig. (2-tailed)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Decision</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Env. Sustainability Impact</p></td><td><p>2.18</p></td><td><p>0.042</p></td><td><p>-19.52</p></td><td><p>394</p></td><td><p>.000</p></td><td><p>Reject H<sub>0</sub></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Result Interpretation: The mean score for the impact of planning interventions on environmental sustainability (M = 2.18) is significantly lower than the hypothesized population mean of 3.0. The t-statistic of -19.52 with a significance level of p < .05 indicates a significant departure from the norm.</p><p>Findings: The null hypothesis is rejected. The data indicates that current physical planning interventions are having a significant negative effect on environmental sustainability. The low mean confirms that the failure to implement green spaces and flood control measures is directly leading to environmental degradation in the metropolis.</p><p><strong>Discussion of Findings</strong></p><p>The environmental activities currently taking place in Abakaliki metropolis as presented in Table 1 include urban planning and zoning regulations, waste management and recycling programs, maintenance of green spaces (such as parks and gardens), water quality monitoring, community education and environmental awareness initiatives, and a climate action plan. The results indicate that while these activities are present, respondents are primarily aware of visible, regulatory, and service-oriented environmental efforts such as planning, waste management, and green space upkeep while they are less familiar with technical, programmatic, or long-term strategies, including air and water quality monitoring, educational programs, and climate action planning. These findings are consistent with the research conducted by Eya et al. (2022), which emphasized the importance of waste management, urban planning policies, and environmental monitoring in promoting sustainable urban development. The study pointed out that inadequate environmental management practices significantly contribute to environmental degradation in many Nigerian cities.</p><p>Furthermore, regarding the effectiveness of environmental management activities, as shown in Table 2, indicate that these efforts in Abakaliki are currently viewed as ineffective in tackling major environmental challenges, as issues such as waste disposal, sanitation, pollution, and flood control continue to persist. This aligns with the research by Amin et al. (2024), which found that effective waste collection systems, recycling programs, and waste disposal regulations are essential for reducing environmental pollution in urban areas. However, the study also identified substantial challenges, including inadequate infrastructure and weak enforcement of environmental policies, which impede effective waste management practices.</p><p>Findings on the environmental challenges facing Abakaliki Metropolis as shown in Table 3, revealed that flooding and waste management are viewed as the most pressing issues, with over 74% of respondents highlighting these concerns. These problems are likely interconnected, as inadequate waste disposal contributes to blocked drainage systems and increased flooding. The significant worry about deforestation indicates a broader concern regarding environmental degradation linked to urban expansion. Conversely, air and water pollution are considered less significant, possibly due to their less visible nature, limited monitoring, or a general lack of public awareness regarding pollution indicators. This aligns with the findings of Jerie et al. (2024), which indicated that insufficient waste collection systems and inadequate recycling infrastructure lead to environmental pollution and pose risks to public health. The study underscored the need for implementing circular economy strategies, such as waste reduction and recycling programs, to improve environmental management in urban areas.</p><p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p><p>The study concludes that the effectiveness of urban environmental management activities undertaken by town planners in Abakaliki Metropolis remains constrained despite the existence of planning policies, environmental programmes, and institutional frameworks. Persistent environmental challenges, including poor waste management, flooding, pollution, uncontrolled development, and environmental degradation, are largely attributable to weak enforcement of planning regulations, inadequate institutional capacity, limited funding, poor inter-agency coordination, and insufficient stakeholder participation. Consequently, the environmental management efforts of town planners have not adequately addressed the demands of rapid urbanization. Sustainable urban environmental management in Abakaliki therefore requires stronger governance, effective development control, enhanced institutional capacity, adoption of modern planning technologies, and inclusive stakeholder engagement to improve environmental quality and promote sustainable urban development.</p><p><strong>Recommendations</strong></p><p>In line with the findings of the study, the following recommendations were mde.</p><p>1. Enhance Urban Infrastructure and Basic Services: While there has been some progress in waste management and electricity supply, significant deficiencies in water supply, internet access, and gas distribution need to be addressed. Investing in modern and resilient infrastructure is crucial for elevating living standards and fostering urban development.</p><p>2. It is important to invest in decentralized transportation facilities, water supply, and sanitation services to alleviate pressure on urban centers. Public services such as healthcare, education, and recreational facilities should be distributed fairly across both central and peripheral areas.</p><p>3. Increased investment in essential infrastructure, including roads, drainage systems, and public utilities, is vital for effective physical planning and sustainable urban development.</p><p><strong>References</strong></p><p>Abayomi S. O. (2013). Physical development tools and planning strategies in Lagos State. <em>Journal of Architecture and Environment. 1(2)</em> 29-36. htpps://doi:10.12966/are.09.02.2013</p><p>Abur. B.T., Duvuna. G.A., 3Abubakar Adamu Wara. A.A (2024) Assessment of municipal solid waste generation, management practices and waste-to-energy potential in Nigeria: <em>International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews</em> (5), 5763-5773</p><p>Adamu, B., Buba, M. O., Nguh, B. S., Yengeh, M. J., & Zeh, A. F. (2025). Urban drainage systems and implications on the inhabitants and physical environment of Buea urban area, Cameroon. Journal of Environmental and Geographical Studies.4 (1), 61-88.</p><p>Adekola.P.O., Azuh.D., Olawole.I., Adebanke;A.E (2017). AN empirical assessment of the state of environmental management in Nigeria capital cities: examining core indicators of an environment-friendly city.<em>4th International Conference on Education, Social Sciences and Humanities10-12 July 2017- Dubai, UAE 1298-1308</em></p><p>Adenaike, F. A., Opoko, A. P., & Kosoko, R. A. (2020). Physical planning policies on Lagos Island and their effects on urban morphology. Urban and Regional Planning, 5(2), 50–60. </p><p>Adeyemo, O. I., & Olaitan, O. A. (2024). Effective property management in increasingly urbanized cities. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science.8 (1), 2325-2336</p><p>Alam, M. M., & Zakaria, A. (2021). Environmental awareness among urban residents: Evidence from Bangladesh. Environmental Economics Research. 9(1), 1-15</p><p>Bera. B., Chinta. S., Mahajan. D., Sailaja,. A., Mahajan. R. (2023). Urbanization and its impact on environmental sustainability: <em>Journal of Harbin Engineering University,</em> 44 (8) 1310-1318.</p><p>Bwala, H. B., Muhammad, I., & Aliyu, N. A. (2022). Long-term urban management strategies for the growth of Nigerian urban cities. International Journal of Engineering Research and Advanced Technology, 8(11), 1–8. </p><p>Cobbinaha. P.B., Poku-Boansia. M and Pepraha.D (2017) .Urban environmental problems in Ghana.<em> Environmental Development </em>(23) 33–46 <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.05.001"><em>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.05.001</em></a></p><p>Daramola, O. (2021). Physical planning and sustainable urban development. African Journal of Housing and Sustainable Development, 5(1), 1-15.</p><p>Enoguanbhor, E. C., Gollnow, F., Walker, B. B., Nielsen, J. Ø., & Lakes, T. (2021). Key challenges for land use planning and its environmental assessments in the Abuja city-region, Nigeria. <em>Land, 10</em>(5), 443. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/land10050443">https://doi.org/10.3390/land10050443</a></p><p>Eya, A. M., Sinniah, G. K., Junaidu, A. M., & Zubairu, M. (2022). Environmental management and cities sustainability as a basis for sustainable development in Nigeria. Planning Malaysia. 20(S12), 359-372</p><p>Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2004). <em>Nigerian Urban and Regional Planning Act, Cap N138, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria</em>. Federal Government Printer.</p><p>Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies (3rd Ed.). Red Globe Press.</p><p>Healey, P. (1998). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.</p><p>Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies (2nd Ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.</p><p>Jerie, S., Dube, T., & Moyo, T. (2024). Plastic waste management practices in urban suburbs in Zimbabwe. Discover Sustainability</p><p>Jones, P., Pett, K., & Urban, R. (2017). <em>Urban planning for sustainable development</em>. Routledge.</p><p>Kweezi, B. (2023). Urban environmental management and sustainable city development in developing countries. <em>Journal of Urban Management, 12</em>(2), 145–158.</p><p>Nesmachnow, S., & Callejo, L. H. (2025). The urban agenda and future city governance. Urban Science.</p><p>Ogunbode, T. O., Oyebamiji, V. O., Olatubi, I. V., Sanni, D. O., Ogungbile, P. O., Oladokun, G. E., & Adekiya, A. O. (2024). Exploring drivers of environmental degradation in urban centres of developing countries: A case study. <em>Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 196</em>(7), 618. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12772-2">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12772-2</a></p><p>Olanrewaju, S., Okubena, M., Garba, G., & Ismail, O. (2024). Space and land-use planning: From definition to management. FUOYE Planning Journal, 2(1). </p><p>Oyebode. O.J. (2018), Evaluation of municipal solid waste management for improved public health and environment in Nigeria. <em>European Journal of Advances in Engineering and Technology</em>, 5(8), 525-534</p><p>United Nations. (2015). <em>Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development</em>. United Nations.</p><p>United Nations. (2018). <em>World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision</em>. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.</p><p>United Nations. (2023). <em>The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023</em>. United Nations.</p><p>UN-Habitat. (2009). <em>Planning sustainable cities: Global report on human settlements 2009</em>. United Nations Human Settlements Programme.</p><p>UN-Habitat. (2016). <em>World Cities Report 2016: Urbanization and development—Emerging futures</em>. United Nations Human Settlements Programme.</p><p>UN-Habitat. (2020). <em>World Cities Report 2020: The value of sustainable urbanization</em>. United Nations Human Settlements Programme.</p><p>UN-Habitat. (2023). <em>The critical role of nature-based solutions for enhancing climate resilience in informal areas</em>. United Nations Human Settlements Programme.</p><p>UN-Habitat. (2024). <em>World Cities Report 2024: Cities and climate action</em>. United Nations Human Settlements Programme.</p><p>Unegbu, H. C., Yawas, D. S., Dan-Asabe, B., & Alabi, A. (2024). Sustainable urban planning and development: A systematic review of policies and practices in Nigeria. <em>Journal of Sustainability Issues</em>.</p><p>Watson, V. (2016). The New Urban Agenda: A road map for sustainable urban development? <em>Planning Theory & Practice, 17</em>(4), 1–6.</p><p>World Bank. (2022). <em>Leveraging urbanization in Africa: Managing urban growth for sustainable development</em>. World Bank.</p><p>World Bank. (2023). <em>Nigeria development update: Seizing the opportunity</em>. World Bank.</p><p>Yekeen, A. Y., & Misnan, S. H. (2024). Urban management in the context of liveability and social exclusion in Nigeria: A review. <em>International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science</em>.</p><p>Iduseri, E. O., Awoniran, D. R., Izunobi, J. U., & Abdulrasheed, T. H. (2024). Sustainable Development Goals, governance and assessment of the impact of urban growth on vegetation cover in Benin City, Nigeria, using land-use–land-cover change trajectories. <em>Discover Sustainability, 5</em>, 291.</p>