UNIVERSITY OF GHANA 
 
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND RESOURCE 
DEVELOPMENT 
 
 
EFFECTS OF POLLUTION ON COASTAL ENVIRONMENT AND 
SOCIO-ECONOMIC LIFE OF THE PEOPLE OF ELMINA 
 
 
 
 
BY 
 
JAMES LAWER DIKA 
(10233334) 
 
 
 
 
THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, 
LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR 
THE AWARD OF MPHIL GEOGRAPHY & RESOURCE 
DEVELOPMENT DEGREE. 
 
 
 
 
 
JULY, 2017
1 
 
DECLARATION 
I, James Lawer Dika, declare that this research and its whole contents signify my own 
work. I am accountable to every question relating to this work and duly acknowledged all 
secondary sources in the list of references.  No portion whatsoever has been presented to 
any other institution for the award of degree.     
 
 
JAMES LAWER DIKA    
ID. NUMBER: 10233334  
SIGNATURE…………………………...    
DATE……………………………………    
 
    
SUPERVISORS 
   
DR. JOHN M. KUSIMI                       DR. AWERE K. GYEKYE   
(PRINCIPAL SUPERVISOR)                        (CO-SUPERVISOR)  
SIGNATURE....................................         ...............................................  
DATE.............................................        ...............................................   
  
i 
 
ABSTRACT 
Coastal pollution is not only a serious threat to the coastal ecosystem but also to the life of 
those living there and depending on the coastal environment for their livelihood activities. 
The research examined the causes and effects of coastal pollution on socio-economic life of 
the people of Elmina as well as measures to mitigate the problem. A model of conceptual 
frame work showing circular inter-relationship among causes, environmental and socio-
economic effects and solutions of coastal pollution was used for the research. Research 
instruments used include questionnaire, in-depth-interviews and focus group discussions. 
Systematic sampling process was employed to collect the quantitative data. The research 
contributes to literature on coastal pollution in Elmina. The causes of coastal pollution in 
Elmina include negative attitude of the residents regarding defecation and dumping of waste 
indiscriminately at the beach, inadequate sanitary facilities, lack of in-house toilet facilities 
and large influx of people into the area due to thriving fishing industry. The effects of 
pollution in the area are presence of water borne diseases such as malaria, diarrhea and 
typhoid; filthy beach which affects marine species; unattractive beach resulting in low 
patronage to tourism and fishermen catching waste instead of fish leading to reduction in 
income. High concentrations of some heavy metals including cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As) 
and mercury (Hg) were found in the Elmina sea water and the Benya lagoon. The study also 
revealed that KEEA Municipal Assembly, EPA and NGOs had put in place sanitation 
management system to fight against pollution in Elmina but negative attitude of the residents 
regarding indiscriminate defecation and dumping of waste coupled with inadequate funds 
and sanitation facilities caused pollution to continue. The sanitation management system 
included organisation of regular clean-up exercises, enforcement of coastal sanitation laws 
or policies in the area, provision of sanitation facilities and creation of awareness on 
sanitation problems. Ways identified to address the pollution problem include provision of 
ii 
 
adequate sanitary facilities, education campaigns, vigorous enforcement of coastal laws 
without fear or favour and severe prosecution of offenders. The limitations of the research 
include unwillingness of personnel of some institutions to release data even at a fee, some 
respondents were reluctant in submitting themselves for the exercise and difficulty in 
securing funding. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
iii 
 
DEDICATION 
I dedicate this work to Almighty God who granted me in-depth knowledge and insight  
to go through this thesis fruitfully.  I also dedicate the work to my nuclear family members 
Edith Ladzagla, Caleb K. Dika, Pearl K. Dika, Dickson K. Dika and Lewisa K. Dika for 
their prayers and support during the period of this work. 
 
  
 
 
 
  
iv 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
 I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to God Almighty for his protection and guidance 
throughout my journey in completing this course. My supervisors, Dr. John M. Kusimi and 
Dr. Gyekye K. Awere deserve special commendation for their constant support to me 
throughout the study for their patience, positive criticisms and directives in ensuring that 
the outcome of the work is of good quality.  My next thanks also goes to Mr. Felix H. 
Nyamedor for his selfless help given me in writing this thesis. I also thank Mr. Dela 
Amenorvi for reading part of the work and making necessary corrections. 
A number of institutions that have provided me support on the field to have access to all the 
field data collected for the study deserve acknowledgement.  The list includes the KEEA 
Municipal Assembly, Ghana Health Service of Elmina Municipality and EPA of Cape 
Coast. To all friends who stood by me throughout this journey for their encouragement and 
support, God bless you all.   
 
 
 
  
v 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
CONTENT                                                                                                                    PAGE 
 
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................... i 
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... ii 
DEDICATION ..................................................................................................................... iv 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................... v 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... vi 
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. ix 
LIST OF TABLLES .............................................................................................................. x 
LIST OF PLATES ............................................................................................................... xi 
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................ xii 
 
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................... 1 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 
1.1 Background to the Study ............................................................................................. 1 
1.2 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 3 
1.3 Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 5 
1.4 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 6 
1.5 Proposition ................................................................................................................... 6 
1.6 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 6 
1.7 Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 7 
1.8 Organisation of the Study ............................................................................................ 8 
1.9 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 8 
 
CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................ 10 
LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................... 10 
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 10 
2.2 Definition of Coastal zone and Coastal Pollution ..................................................... 10 
2.3 Benefits of coastal zones ........................................................................................... 11 
2.4 Tragedy of the Commons .......................................................................................... 12 
2.5 Causes of Pollution in Coastal Environment ............................................................. 14 
2.6 Types of Pollutants in Coastal zone .......................................................................... 15 
2.6.1 Solid Waste ......................................................................................................... 15 
2.6.2 Metal Pollutants .................................................................................................. 19 
2.7 Effects of Pollution in Coastal Environment ............................................................. 20 
2.7.1 Environmental Effects ........................................................................................ 22 
2.7.2 Ingestion.............................................................................................................. 22 
2.7.3 Ghost fishing ....................................................................................................... 22 
2.7.4 Unfamiliar Species Introduction and Habitation Destruction............................. 23 
2.7.5 Heavy Metal Effects ........................................................................................... 23 
2.7.5.1 Human exposure to heavy metals ................................................................ 25 
2.8 Socio-economic Effects of Pollution ......................................................................... 27 
vi 
 
2.8.1 Social Effects of Coastal Pollutants .................................................................... 27 
2.8.2 Forfeiture of Aesthetic Value ............................................................................. 28 
2.8.3 Decreased Recreational Occasions ..................................................................... 28 
2.8.4 Public Health and Safety Effects ........................................................................ 29 
2.8.5 Harms to Recreational Users .............................................................................. 29 
2.8.6 Navigational Dangers ......................................................................................... 30 
2.8.7 Leaching of Lethal Chemicals ............................................................................ 30 
2.9 Economic Effects of Coastal Pollutants .................................................................... 31 
2.10 Solutions to Coastal Pollution ................................................................................. 32 
2.11 Sanitation Management in Elmina .......................................................................... 33 
2.12 Prevention of Heavy Metals .................................................................................... 34 
2.13 Conceptual Framework on Linkages between Causes, Effects and Solutions of 
Coastal Pollution at Elmina Coast ................................................................................... 34 
2.14 Summary ................................................................................................................. 37 
 
CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................. 38 
STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 38 
3.1   Introduction ............................................................................................................. 38 
3.2 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 38 
3.2.1 Location and Size................................................................................................ 38 
3.2.2 The definition of Elmina Coastline ..................................................................... 40 
3.2.3 Physical Characteristics of the Elmina Coastline ............................................... 40 
3.2.3.1 Relief and Drainage...................................................................................... 40 
3.2.3.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................... 41 
3.2.3.3 Climate ......................................................................................................... 41 
3.2.3.4 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................ 42 
3.2.4 Population ........................................................................................................... 42 
3.2.5 Economic activities ............................................................................................. 42 
3.2.5.1 Fishing .......................................................................................................... 43 
3.2.5.2 Tourism ........................................................................................................ 45 
3.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 45 
3.3.1 Philosophical Consideration for this Research ................................................... 45 
3.3.2 Research Design ................................................................................................. 46 
3.3.3 Research Strategy ............................................................................................... 47 
3.3.4 Data Sources ....................................................................................................... 48 
3.3.5 Data Collection Methods .................................................................................... 48 
3.3.5.1 Quantitative Data ......................................................................................... 48 
3.3.5.2 Qualitative Data ........................................................................................... 51 
3.3.6 Target Population ................................................................................................ 51 
3.3.7 Sample Size......................................................................................................... 52 
3.3.8 Sample Size for Qualitative Data........................................................................ 53 
3.3.9 Sampling Technique ........................................................................................... 53 
3.3.10 Observation ....................................................................................................... 54 
3.3.11 Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 55 
vii 
 
3.3.12 Chemical assessment of samples ...................................................................... 55 
3.3.12.1 Acid Digestion of Sea water ...................................................................... 56 
3.3.12.2 Acid Digestion of Soil Sample ................................................................... 56 
3.3.12.3 Acid Digestion of fish samples .................................................................. 56 
3.2.12.4 Determination of Heavy Metals Levels ..................................................... 57 
3.3.13 Ethical Consideration ........................................................................................ 58 
3.3.14 Summary ........................................................................................................... 58 
 
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................... 60 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ....................................................................................... 60 
4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 60 
4.1 Demographic Characteristics..................................................................................... 60 
4.2 Types and Causes of Pollutants in Elmina Coast ...................................................... 64 
4.3 Effects of Coastal Pollution ....................................................................................... 71 
4.3.1 Effects of Pollution on the Coastal Environment ............................................... 72 
4.3.2 Socio-economic Effects of Pollution .................................................................. 75 
4.3.3. Heavy Metal Concentrations in Elmina Coastal Environment .......................... 86 
4.4 Sanitation Management in Elmina ............................................................................ 97 
4.5 Recommended Measures to Address Pollution Problem ........................................ 101 
4.6 Summary ................................................................................................................. 103 
 
CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................... 104 
SUMMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMMENDATION .................................. 104 
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 104 
5.2 Summary of the Findings ........................................................................................ 104 
5.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 105 
5.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 107 
5.5 Area for Future Research......................................................................................... 109 
 
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 110 
 
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 120 
 
  
viii 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 
FIGURES                                                                                                                      PAGE 
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework Showing Linkage between Causes, Effects and 
Solution of Pollution at Elmina Coast ............................................................. 36 
Figure 3.1: Map of Study Area Showing Elmina Coastal Zone ......................................... 39 
 Figure 4.1Percentage of male and female respondents ...................................................... 60 
Figure 4.2: Percentage distribution of respondent’s occupation types ............................... 61 
Figure 4.3: Level of Education within Age Groups ............................................................ 63 
Figure 4.4: Causes of Coastal Pollution, ............................................................................. 66 
Figure 4.5: Respondents’ Knowledge about the Beach ...................................................... 72 
Figure 4.6: Social effects of Pollution in the Area .............................................................. 75 
Figure 4. 7: Health condition of the people in Elmina coastal area .................................... 78 
Figure 4.8: Cases of Water Borne Diseases Diagnosed at EUHC ...................................... 79 
Figure 4.9: Effects of Pollution on Economic Activities in Elmina ................................... 83 
Figure 4.10: Concentration of Heavy Metals in Water samples ......................................... 89 
Figure 4. 11: Concentration of Heavy Metals in Fish ......................................................... 94 
Figure 4.12: Waste Management processes in Elmina, Source: Field data (2017) ............. 98 
Figure 4.13: Recommended Measures .............................................................................. 101 
 
  
ix 
 
LIST OF TABLLES 
TABLES                                                                                                                        PAGE 
Table 4.1: Age and level of education cross tabulation ...................................................... 62 
Table 4.2: Cross tabulation of causes and effects of pollution with occupation at Elmina 
coast .................................................................................................................... 74 
Table 4.3a: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Sea Water ............................................... 86 
Table 4.3b: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Sea Water ……………………………..89 
Table 4.3c: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Sea Water………………………………90 
Table 4. 4a: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Beach Sand............................................ 91 
Table 4.4b: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Beach Sand……………………………..92 
Table 4.4c: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Beach Sand………………….…………92 
Table 4.5a: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Fish ......................................................... 93 
Tab. 4.5b: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Fish………………………………………94 
Tab. 4.5c: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Fish………………………………………94 
Table 4.6: Mean and Range of analysed data ..................................................................... 96 
Table 4.7: Maximum and Minimum of analysed data ........................................................ 96 
 
 
  
x 
 
LIST OF PLATES 
PLATES                                                                                                                        PAGE 
Plate 4.1: Waste left unmanaged in front of a market ......................................................... 69 
Plate 4.2: Defecating at the Beach of Elmina ..................................................................... 81 
Plate 4.3: Dumped Waste at the Beach ............................................................................... 81 
 
  
xi 
 
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
CZIMP               Coastal Zone Indicative Management Plan 
DANIDA         Danish International Development Agency  
ECI                   Elmina Castle Information 
 EFSA                 European Food Safety Authority  
EPA                    Environmental Protection Agency 
FGDs   Focus Group Discussions  
GSS                   Ghana Statistical Service 
JSS   Junior High School  
KEEA                Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abirem 
NEAP                National Environmental Action Plan  
NOAA                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
SHS   Senior High School 
STAP                 Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel 
UNEP               United Nations Environment Programme  
UNESCO-IOC     United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation 
US EPA              United States Environmental Protection Agency 
WHO                  World Health Organisation 
 
Key words: coastal pollution, socio-economic life, Elmina 
xii 
 
CHAPTER ONE 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
This chapter comprises of general introduction of the research which involves background 
of the study, problem statement, research questions, objectives, proposition, significance 
of the study, limitations of the study, organisation and summary.  
1.1 Background to the Study 
Coastal pollution can be seen as one of the serious environmental problems confronting 
many coastal communities in different parts of the world. Coastal societies in most parts of 
the world are facing crisis and threats as development, recreation and waste dumping 
activities rise (Williams, 2001). Coastal pollution can be defined as introduction of 
pollutants or impurities into the coastal environment which cause harm to marine species 
and human health. Pollution has been reported to have damaged most of the coastal areas in 
the world by affecting coastal commercial activities and marine fisheries (Md. Shahidul & 
Tanaka, 2004). Coastal pollutant is a problem that disturbs coastal zones and the floor of the 
sea at all depths, and its influence is of global concern (Tudor & Williams, 2001). Coastal 
pollutants can be seen in remote beaches as well as highly utilised recreational beaches all 
over the world notwithstanding widespread beach clean-up efforts by unpaid helpers and 
municipalities (Coe & Rogers, 1997; Jambeck et al., 2001; Sheavly, 2007). Coastal 
pollutants that collect along beautiful shorelines and waterways diminish the aesthetic 
attractiveness and gratification of those beaches and disturb tourism (Rockefeller, 2003). 
Pollutants can pose problem to human health and safety. Rejected fishing line, rope and 
plastic bags can loop around and destroy boat propellers, or penetrate into boat engines 
(UNEP, 2009). Medical wastes and medication stuff found on beaches can carry ailments, 
and fragmented glass and other piercing substances which pose clear hazards for barefooted 
1 
 
beachgoers (NOAA, 2011). Coastal pollutant can also be fatal for marine wildlife as 
numerous species unintentionally consume trash by mistaking it for food (NOAA, 2007b). 
Discarded fishing nets, fishing line and other forms of pollutants ensnare coastal wildlife 
such as sea turtles, manatees, sea birds and fish and destroy them (Sheavly, 2007).  
Faecal deposits also often occur in zones where the nearby communities do not have enough 
toilet amenities and with tidal cycles these deposits are carried away into the sea and worsen 
the value of the water (Vikas and Dwarakish, 2015). There is also straight sewage discarding 
into the sea (Nunoo & Evans, 1997), which can lead to health hazard to both the users of 
the beach and marine species. Coastal litter shelters the sea floor and disturbs the creation 
of marine benthos (Nunoo & Quayson, 2003).  
Coastal pollution has affected various countries in the world.  Economic activity directly 
related to the ocean injected more than $222 billion into the U.S. economy in 2009, but 
polluted water affected these revenues: contaminated beaches led to a loss of utilisation for 
those who have intended to visit and swim in the water; this influenced local economies in 
the form of lost tourist dollars and the jobs they supported (Devine, 2014). A Southern 
California study resolved that each year, faecal contamination at Los Angeles and Orange 
County beaches triggered between 627,800 and 1,479,200 excess gastrointestinal illnesses, 
with a public health cost of $21 million to $51 million (Devine, 2014). 
 The presence of coastal pollution in Ghana is triggered by certain elements. Rapid 
urbanization, lack of funding and economic decline in Ghana from the 1970s to the 1980s 
were quoted as likely reasons for the poor sanitation of most communities (Quartey et al., 
2015). But, the latest increase in waste disposal problems in Ghana can be attributed to 
people’s over-all attitudes and perceptions towards wastes (Quartey et al, 2015). Open and 
2 
 
uncontrolled dumps are still major features of waste disposal in most parts of Ghana 
(Quartey et al., 2015). 
Pollutants can be constituents of waste. Waste can be defined as an unwanted or undesirable 
material or substance. Waste or pollutants would always be generated but how pollutants 
are discarded of is the major problem of the world.  The types of waste may include solid 
waste, liquid waste and gaseous waste.  Some of the solid waste materials are biodegradable, 
whereas others are not (Vikas and Dwarakish, 2015). This study researched into causes, and 
effects of pollution on environment and socio-economic life of the people in coastal area of 
Elmina and provided measures to pollution in the area.   
1.2 Problem Statement 
Coastal areas of oceanic countries are important economic zones in various parts of the 
world because of the presence of natural resources which are vital for national development. 
As a result, the coastal areas must be managed well for both the present and future 
generations. Most people who live in the coastal areas of Ghana depend on the sea and the 
coastal resources for their living. Therefore, anything that affects the coastal zone or the 
environment can equally pose problems to the coastal folks as well as socio-economic 
activities such as fishing, tourism, recreation and business as well as health of coastal 
dwellers. Ghana is confronted with main trials in handling its waste that is particularly 
municipal waste in the urban areas (Obirih-Opareh, 2002; Mariwah, 2012). Although, many 
projects have focused on the provision of improved sanitation, hygiene and education in the 
coastal areas, improper disposal of urban solid and liquid wastes remains widespread 
(Nunoo & Quayson, 2003). Similarly, the problem of coastal pollution in Elmina beach is a 
problem that is seen as endless. The residents in Elmina coastal area use the beach 
indiscriminately as place of convenience and where waste is dumped. There are heaps of 
plastic materials and other forms of pollutants at several parts of the beach of Elmina. 
3 
 
Consequently, researches and programmes have been rolled out in the Elmina coastal areas 
concerning pollution and other issues of the area. 
According to Arthur and Mensah (2006), the KEEA Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abirem 
(KEEA) Municipal Assembly in close partnership with the Institute of Housing and Urban 
Studies (IHS) in Rotterdam commenced Elmina Cultural Heritage and Management 
Programme (ECHMP) in 2000 where a number of projects and policies were outlined and 
carried out for the development of Elmina town and its environs in five thematic areas such 
as (a) waste management and drainage; (b) tourism and local economic development; (c) 
fishing and fishing harbour; (d) education; and (e) health. Under the waste management and 
drainage in Elmina the following were done: five tractor trailers were bought for waste 
disposal; waste bins and equipment were procured; Elmina Beach Care Team was 
established; open drains along the Dutch Cemetery Street were covered; introduction of 
education and awareness programmes; waste collection equipment supplied by the World 
Bank under Urban III Programme; and sanitation equipment supplied by Gouda 
municipality in the Netherlands, a sister-city of Elmina (Arthur & Mensah, 2006). Annan-
Prah and Ameyaw-Akumfin carried out some scientific investigation about the condition of 
pollution along the coast of Elmina in 1991, and revealed that there is grave environmental 
threat to the coast (KEEA Municipal Assembly, 2006). Armah and Amlalo (1998) 
discovered waste contaminants along the beach of Elmina which posed a risk. As a result, 
the Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abrem Municipal Assembly (KEEA Municipal Assembly) 
hoped that with better-quality sanitation and infrastructure, the revival of the available 
monuments and the improvement of other vital cultural spots and tourism could be major 
socio-economic activities in Elmina which could improve the over-all standard of living in 
the township (KEEA Municipal Assembly, 2006). The interventions did not begin till in the 
year 2000 that a programme by the KEEA Municipal Assembly was introduced known as 
4 
 
the Elmina 2015 strategy which was a long-term programme with the aim of marketing 
Elmina both locally and globally (Gyedu, 2011). Over the years the Government and Non-
Governmental Organisations made attempts to reduce pollution in the area. For example, in 
the 1990s the Government with assistance from Danish International Development Agency 
(DANIDA) planned to dredge the Benya lagoon but that did not materialise (ECI, 2015). 
Gyedu (2011) also conducted research on assessing the welfare value of the Elmina beach. 
Lartey (2015) examined the effects of plastic pollution on inshore marine fishing activities: 
insights from Elmina coastline in the KEEA Municipality.  A visit to the area depicts that 
coastal pollution is still a problem in Elmina area. Why is it so? A lot of sediments of various 
kinds are found at the various points at the beach. 
Although programmes have been carried out in Elmina to improve sanitation situation in 
the area, pollution issues are still on the rise. Central region, for that matter Elmina coastal 
area of KEEA Municipality is an emerging area for tourism. Therefore, this research was 
carried out to examine causes and effects of solid waste pollution on the environment and 
socio-economic life of the people in Elmina to provide current information which could help 
local authorities and Central Government to initiate policy interventions in the area and 
elsewhere. 
1.3 Research Questions 
The following are the research questions: 
1. What are the causes of pollution in the coastal environment of Elmina? 
2. What are the effects of pollution on the coastal environment in Elmina? 
3. What are the effects of pollution on socio-economic life of the people in Elmina?  
4. What are the sanitation management processes in Elmina? 
5. What are the solutions to the effects of pollution of coastal environment of Elmina? 
5 
 
1.4 Objectives 
The main objective of the research is to assess the effects of pollution on the coastal 
environment and socio-economic life of the people in Elmina. 
The following are the specific objectives of the research: 
1. To find out about the causes of pollution in the coastal environment of Elmina; 
2. To examine the effects of pollution on the coastal environment of Elmina; 
3. To find out the effects of pollution on the socio-economic activities and life of the 
people in Elmina;  
4. To investigate the processes of sanitation management in Elmina; and, 
5. To recommend solutions to the effects of pollution in Elmina coastal environment. 
1.5 Proposition 
The following are the propositions of the research: 
i. The pollution in Elmina coastal environment is caused by negative attitude of the 
people, inadequate funding, lack of education, high rate of illiteracy and improper 
disposal of domestic waste at the beach; 
ii. The pollution robs the Elmina beach of its natural beauty and poses health problems;  
iii. The pollution reduces socio-economic activities of the area such as fishing, tourism 
and recreation. 
1.6 Significance of the Study    
Scientific knowledge on coastal pollution is inadequate so knowledge gaps have been noted 
as one of the major problems in initiating effective management strategies for pollution 
control in coastal environment (Md. Shahidul & Tanaka, 2004).  
It was observed that a lot of people were attracted to the coastal areas of Central Region 
due to emerging tourist sites and thriving fishing industry in the area. Castles in Cape Coast 
6 
 
and Elmina have been attracting tourists into the coastal areas. The tourists come to the 
areas for complex reasons.  
It was observed that the thriving fishing industry, Elmina Castle and other castles are 
attracted people and tourists to Elmina coastal area. The area is at the same confronted with 
the problem of coastal pollution. The filthiness in the area poses threat to the health of the 
residents and the users of the beach as well as socio-economic activities such as fishing, 
tourism and recreation activities. This could lead to reduction in number of tourists that are 
attracted to the area and affect soci-economic activities. Therefore, there was the need for 
the research to be conducted on ‘’The Effects of pollution on the environment and soci-
economic life of the people in Elmina coastal area’’. The findings of the research provide 
the local authorities, KEEA Municipal Assembly and the Central Government adequate 
information to come out with policies and interventions to deal with coastal pollution in the 
area and elsewhere. 
Concerning contribution to knowledge, the research contributes to literature in the area of 
coastal pollution in Elmina coastal area of the KEEA Municipality. It also contributes to 
the use mixed method approach in conducting research. 
1.7 Limitations of the Study 
Getting data from some institutions was difficult as officers of those institutions were 
unwilling to release the needed data requested for the study. Some of the respondents were 
not ready at some points to submit themselves for the research on the grounds that the 
information provided would be used for ritual purposes. Some also were of the view that 
information would be used to trace and collect taxes from them. Others said that they took 
part in similar exercises and since then nothing came out of them so they demanded money 
before taking part in the survey exercise. Inadequate funding was also a problem that 
7 
 
confronted the exercise of the research. The researcher could not secure any financial 
support, so he used his own resources to pay for all expenses incurred in carrying out the 
research which made the exercise a bit challenging. 
1.8 Organisation of the Study  
The study was organised into five chapters. The first chapter consists of background to the 
study, problem statement, research questions, objectives and propositions of the study. This 
chapter ended with the significance and summary of the study.  The second chapter reviewed 
related literature on specific themes including definition of coastal pollution, causes of 
coastal pollution, effects of coastal pollution on the environment and on the socio-economic 
activities along the coast.     
The third chapter dealt with the study area and methodology of the study. Specifically, the 
chapter touched on the study area, the data collection methods, sampling technique, 
sampling size, data sources and research instruments. The fourth chapter embodied the 
analysis and discussions of the results. The chapter analysed and discussed the 
characteristics of respondents, causes, environmental effects, socio-economic effects, 
effects of heavy metals and recommended solutions of coastal pollution of Elmina. The final 
chapter which is chapter five presented the summary of key findings, conclusion and 
recommendations of the study.    
1.9 Summary     
This chapter is made up of seven sections. The first section gave a general background to 
the study whiles the second section is devoted to the problem statement.   The focus of the 
third and fourth sections were on the research questions, objectives and propositions of the 
study respectively whiles the fifth section addressed issues relating to the significance of the 
study.  The sixth section was on limitations of the study. The final section looked at the 
8 
 
organisation of the study.  The next chapter was dedicated to the review of related literature 
and conceptual frameworks of the study. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
9 
 
CHAPTER TWO 
LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 
2.1 Introduction   
This chapter includes the literature review of the study which dealt with definition of coastal 
zone, and coastal pollution, causes of coastal pollution, effects of coastal pollution, types of 
coastal pollutant, heavy metals and solutions to coastal pollution. This chapter also 
comprises the conceptual framework of the research.   
2.2 Definition of Coastal zone and Coastal Pollution 
Coastal zone has been defined in various ways by different authors. A coastal zone is the 
border between the land and water (Nelson, 2013). Coastal zone is referred to as the dynamic 
area bordering the interface between the land and sea and includes the shoreline 
environment as well as nearby coastal and marine waters (Marea et al., 1996). It is loosely 
defined as the corridor where terrestrial and marine factors interact in their effect on natural 
and human converted system; the coastal zone embodies coastal plains, river-deltas, 
wetlands, lagoons, beaches, dunes, mangroves, reefs and other coastal features (Marea et 
al., 1996). Coastal Zone Indicative Management Plan (CZIMP) has demarcated the 
landward extension of the coastal zone of Ghana as the “line joining the landward limits of 
lagoons, lagoon depressions, marshes and estuarine swamps, together with intervening 
interfluve areas” (Armah & Amlalo, 1998).  On the average, this is approximated to 10km 
from the coastline (except river estuaries and some large lagoons) and is enclosed by the 
30m contour (Armah & Amlalo, 1998). “The coastal and marine zone of Ghana has been 
defined to include the 200 nautical mile limit which was claimed in 1977 [Territorial Waters 
and Continental Shelf Act 1973 as amended by the Territorial Waters and Continental Shelf 
Amendment Decree 1977]” (Amlalo, 2007). The coast is a zone or strip of land ranging 
10 
 
from the coastline which borders the sea to where the land rises inland and its limit is distinct 
by the level of high tide while coastline is the triple interface of air, land and sea (Vikas and 
Dwarakish, 2015).  
The definition of coastal pollution by the World Health Organization (WHO) is “The 
introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the marine 
environment, including estuaries, which results or is likely to result in such deleterious 
effects such as harm to living resources and marine life, hazards to human health, hindrance 
to marine activities, including fishing and other legitimate uses of the sea, impairment of 
quality for use of sea water and reduction of amenities.” (Portman, 1978; Vikas & 
Dwarakish, 2015). It has also been defined as an environmental, health, aesthetic and 
economic challenge (Sheavly, 2007; UNEP, 2009; NOAA, 2011). 
2.3 Benefits of coastal zones 
Coastal zones are very vital socio- economic zones of coastal nations and contribute 
significantly to the development of the nations. Some of the benefits or roles of marine and 
coastal zones are outlined. Though coastal zones occupy 10% of the land area of the earth, 
they are home-based to more than 60% of the global population (Lakshmi & Rajagopalan, 
2000; Tudor & Williams, 2001).  
Coastal resources denote the natural resources located in coastal areas, which is beneficial 
for presence or future generation of humans, including land, forests, coastal waters and 
wetlands, sand minerals, hydrocarbons, and living coastal organisms such as fish, shellfish, 
marine mammals, seabirds, seaweed and coral reefs (Walters et al., 1998). Coastal resources 
also generally comprise other vital resources such as those with archaeological, historic, 
sacred, or gender-specific significance (Walters et al., 1998). Coastal waters provide most 
of the world's fish catches and then, in terms of the shield of living marine resources, 
11 
 
maximum attention should be given to the coastal zone (Biney, 1982). Coastal waters to the 
edge of the continental shelf which take only 10 % of the world's oceans, yield 99 % of the 
world's fish catches (Waldichuk, 1977). It is recognised that 16% of people live in the coast, 
85% of the coast is developed and 90% of the external trade goes on by sea (Abdul-Nasser, 
2015). Coastal zones are significant since a majority of the population of the world inhabit 
such zones (Nelson, 2013). Numerous inhabitants and visitors to coastal societies value the 
beach as a communal amenity (Jurrasiccoast, 2012). Oceans, coasts and beaches are used 
for diverse recreational activities such as boating, swimming, recreational fishing, diving, 
and a wide diversity of water sports (Mouat et al., 2010). Some benefits of coastal areas 
include prevention of erosion, filtering of pollutants, and provision of food, shelter, breeding 
areas, and nursery grounds for a wide diversity of organisms (Liz, 2003). Coastal regions 
also offer critical inputs for industry, such as water and space for shipping and ports; 
opportunities for recreational activities which include fishing and diving; and other raw 
materials, such as salt and sand (Liz, 2003). 
2.4 Tragedy of the Commons 
 Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons model foretells the final overexploitation or degradation 
of all resources utilised in common (Feeny et al., 1990). A common in "The Tragedy of the 
Commons," of Garret Hardins (1968) refers to a natural resource shared by many 
individuals. In this situation, "shared" implies that each individual does not have a claim to 
any part of the resource, but rather, to the utilisation of a part of it for his/her own advantage 
(Feeny et al., 1990). The tragedy is that, without regulation, each individual will have a 
propensity to exploit the commons to his or her own advantage, characteristically without 
limit (Feeny et al., 1990). Under this situation of affairs, the commons are exhausted and 
finally ruined (Feeny et al., 1990).   Evidence gathered over the last twenty- two years shows 
12 
 
that private, state and communal property are all possibly feasible resource management 
options (Feeny et al., 1990). 
Several local and global environmental trials are tragedies of the commons dilemmas 
whereby private and collective interests are often at odds (Mark, 2009). Human actions are 
accountable for reducing natural resources, polluting the environment, and depleting 
biodiversity (Mark, 2009). Human-made environmental problems produce economic and 
social conflicts with possibly overwhelming effects for the health and wellbeing of humans 
and future generations (Mark, 2009). “The essay of The Tragedy of the Commons tells the 
story of how the management of a communal pasturage by a group of herdsmen turns into 
ecological disaster when each individual, upon realizing that adding extra cattle benefits him 
personally, increases his herd, thereby unintentionally causing the destruction of the 
commons” (Mark, 2009). On the other hand, the Tragedy of the Commons resurfaces in the 
challenges of pollution (Garret, 1968). In this context, it is not a situation of extracting 
something from the commons, but rather putting something into the commons such as 
chemical or sewage, heat wastes and radioactive into water; noxious and harmful fumes into 
the air and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight (Garret, 1968). 
He stated that unmanaged commons in a world of limited material wealth and unlimited 
desires inevitably ends in ruin. In this context, commons are taken to mean any shared and 
unregulated resource such as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, or even an office 
refrigerator (Garret, 1968). The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he 
discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing 
them; since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of “fouling our own nest,” 
so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers (Garret, 1968). The 
tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something 
formally like it (Garret, 1968). But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be 
13 
 
fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different 
means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his 
pollutants than to discharge them untreated (Garret, 1968). We have not progressed as far 
with the solution of this problem as we have with the first (Garret, 1968). Indeed, our 
particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive 
resources of the earth, favours pollution (Garret, 1968). The owner of a factory on the bank 
of a stream—whose property extends to the middle of the stream, often has difficulty seeing 
why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters flowing past his door (Garret, 1968). The 
law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly 
perceived aspect of the commons (Garret, 1968). The pollution problem is a consequence 
of population (Garret, 1968). 
2.5 Causes of Pollution in Coastal Environment 
According to Vikas and Dwarakish (2015) there are many causes of coastal pollution and 
depending on the position, the extent of the pollution differs. Vikas and Dwarakish (2015) 
identify that the primary cause of pollution in the coastal environment is by human either 
on the soil or on the ground which comes in the form of plastic debris, sewage and effluents, 
oil spills and non-point source. Numerous impurities that enter into the sea are generated by 
human activities directly or indirectly and some of these materials are biodegradable 
whereas some are not (Vikas and Dwarakish, 2015). Pollution in marine coastal areas 
similarly comes from point and non-point land-based sources such as rivers, drainage 
ditches, submarine outfalls and coastal cities (Vikas and Dwarakish, 2015). 
The key factor driving coastal ocean pollution is the rise in populations that is more affluent 
and hence use more energy and material resources and without proper management and their 
wastes can enter the oceans in intolerable quantities (Goldberg, 1995). Generation and 
release of contaminants into the coastal environment are usually caused by human 
14 
 
dwellings, resource use and interventions such as infrastructural development and 
construction, industrial development, tourism and agricultural activities (Md. Shahidul & 
Tanaka, 2004). The pollution in the marine coastal zones comes from point and non-point 
land-based sources like rivers, drainages ditches, coastal cities and submarine outfalls; the 
proportion of pollutants in the coastal zones is determined by addition of three mechanisms 
such as advection by currents, turbulent diffusion chemical, biological or other interactions 
(Vikas & Dwarakish , 2015). About 80 percent of marine litter in fact originates on land 
either brushed in from the coastline or carried to rivers from the streets during torrential rain 
by storm drains and sewer overflows (Engler, 2016). The growing pollution of Korle 
Lagoon is a result of the rapid urbanization of Accra and has been unaccompanied by a 
significant increase in sanitation facilities (Boadi & Kuitunen, 2002). 
2.6 Types of Pollutants in Coastal zone 
The pollutants that cause pollution in the coastal area are made up of different components. 
Some of the major contaminants that are recognised include organic pollutants, litters, 
debris, sediments, pathogens, heavy metals and radionuclides (William, 1996). The greatest 
volume of waste in the marine environment is coming from sewage which comprises 
industrial waste, municipal waste, water and waste from domestic baths, animal remains 
and slaughterhouse waste, washing machines and utensils, kitchen waste, faecal matter and 
many others which are generated on daily basis in densely populated area (Md. Shahidul & 
Tanaka, 2004).  
2.6.1 Solid Waste 
According to Biney (1982), along the beaches of Ghana, the main source of pollution is 
domestic sewage. Biney (1982) noted that sewage treatment plants in Ghana were 
inadequate so raw domestic as well as industrial sewage are discharged from coastal towns 
and cities into the ocean. Biney (1982) also identified the practice of dumping raw human 
15 
 
excreta on beaches or nearshore waters still continued and in areas where proper sanitary 
facilities were not available, residents used the beaches for such purposes. The presence of 
coastal pollutants along the coast of Ghana is triggered by certain elements. Rapid 
urbanization, lack of funding and economic decline in Ghana from the 1970s to the 1980s 
were quoted as likely reasons for the poor sanitation of most communities (Quartey et al., 
2015). But, the latest increase in waste disposal problems can be ascribed to people’s over-
all attitudes and perceptions towards waste management (Quartey et al., 2015). There is 
presence of bulk plastic material in developing countries with weak waste disposal laws 
(Md. Shahidul & Tanaka, 2004). 
Over decades, plastics materials have been ignored as major contributors to marine 
pollutants but there is no doubt that plastic materials are dominant suppliers of contaminants 
to coastal pollution in recent years (Derraik, 2002). Plastics supply large part of marine 
debris deposits and solid wastes into aquatic environments and also huge volumes of plastic 
materials which are dumped in well-used beaches, lakes, navigation channels and other 
kinds of water bodies (Md. Shahidul & Tanaka, 2004). Plastics provide largest amount of 
debris in the north-western Mediterranean at an average of about 77% (Goldberg, 1995). In 
1995, Wace reported that as many as 600,000 plastic containers all over the world were 
being dumped daily by shipping at sea (Md. Shahidul & Tanaka, 2004).  Plastics come from 
synthetic organic polymers (Derraik, 2002).  The plastic materials enter the coastal 
environment through various means such as dumping from merchant ships, accidental loss, 
careless handling, leaving behind by beachgoers, as well as litter carried by municipal 
drainage systems (Derraik, 2002). “Due to its resistance to degradation, most plastic debris 
will persist in the environment for centuries and may be transported far from its source, 
including great distances out to sea. Land and ocean-based sources are the major sources of 
plastic entering the environment, with domestic, industrial and fishing activities being the 
16 
 
most important contributors. Ocean gyres are particular hotspots of plastic waste 
accumulation” (Li et al, 2016).    
Marine Pollutant is a challenge along shorelines, in coastal waters, estuaries, and seas all 
over the world (US EPA, 2012). Marine litter is located in all marine and coastal areas of 
the world not only in highly populated areas but also in distant places far away from any 
clear source (World Ocean Review, 2010). Marine pollutants migrate over long distances 
carried by ocean currents and winds and is located ubiquitously in the marine and coastal 
environment from the equator to the poles and from continental coastlines to small isolated 
islands (World Ocean Review, 2010). Although there are various kinds of debris, it all has 
a common origin by people. Environmental phenomena, such as tsunamis, tornadoes, and 
floods, can all produce and transport debris into the marine environment (US EPA, 2012). 
Marine debris originates from local and global sources (Department of Environmental 
Conservation, 2012). Marine debris moves from variant sources of land and ocean based 
origins (Mouat et al., 2010).    
Land-based sources include storm water-runoff, solid, rivers and streams, landfills, solid 
waste, beach users, poor kept garbage bins and dumps (US EPA, 2012). Land-based sources 
produce about 80% of the marine debris located on our beaches and waters and the 
remaining 20% originating from ocean-based origins (US EPA, 2012). Ocean-based sources 
of litter consist of recreational boaters, galley waste and other litter from ships, offshore oil 
and gas exploration, fishermen and production facilities (US EPA, 2012).    
The sources can be branded into four key groups (Mouat et al., 2010):  
1. boats and ships litters: this covers trash which is accidentally or intentionally discarded 
overboard; 
17 
 
2. Sewage-based litter: this consists of water from storm drains and collective sewer 
overflows that discharge waste water precise into the rivers or sea during torrential rainfall. 
These waste waters convey trash such as syringes, street debris and condoms;  
3. Tourism based litter at the coast: this comprises debris left by beach visitors like beverage 
packaging and food and beverage, plastic beach toys and cigarettes; and, 
4. Fishing associated debris: this comprises fishing lines and nets, fishing pots and strapping 
bands from bait boxes that are missing accidentally by profitable fishing boats or are 
deliberately castoff into the ocean.   
The rising need for artificial and packaged goods, have led to an increase in non-
biodegradable solid wastes in our waterways (US EPA, 2012).  
Whereas the definition of coastal pollutants covers a broad variety of materials, most items 
fall into a comparatively small number of material kinds and usage groups (STAP, 2011a). 
Coastal debris comprises a widespread diversity of different kinds of remains and these can 
be classified into several distinct categories. These include:   
• Plastics including moulded, soft, foam, nets, ropes, buoys, monofilament line and other  
fisheries related equipment, smoking related items such as cigarette butts or lighters, and 
micro plastic particles; 
• Metal comprising drink cans, aerosol cans, foil wrappers and disposable barbeques;  
• Glass including buoys, light globes, fluorescent globes and bottles;  
• Processed timber including pallets, crates and particle board; 
• Paper and cardboard including cartons, cups and bags;  
• Rubber comprising tyres, balloons and gloves;  
• Clothing and textiles comprising hoes, furnishings and towels; and, 
18 
 
• Sewage related debris (SRD) comprising cotton bud sticks, nappies, condoms and sanitary 
products (Galgani et al., 2010; Mouat et al., 2010). Over the past 60 years, organic 
substances formed the major portion of solid waste in the coastal environment but now 
synthetic materials have taken over (Claire, 2016). 
2.6.2 Metal Pollutants 
Heavy metal polluted soils are very tough to restore and this type of soil pollution is chiefly 
ascribed to anthropogenic events such as smelting, mining and various industrial activities 
(Muhammad et al., 2013). Human activities like manufacturing, mining and the application 
of synthetic products (e.g. industrial waste, paints, batteries pesticides, and land usage of 
industrial or domestic sludge) can lead to heavy metal pollution of urban and agricultural 
soils (Donahue, 2000).  Naturally, heavy metals also come about, but hardly at toxic points 
(Donahue, 2000).  Polluted soils may take place at old landfill sites (mainly those that 
received industrial wastes), ancient orchards that accepted insecticides holding arsenic as an 
active ingredient, fields that had past usage of waste water or municipal sludge, zones in or 
around mining waste piles and tailings, manufacturing regions where chemicals may have 
been discarded on the ground, or in zones downwind from manufacturing sites (Donahue, 
2000). Heavy metals are known as toxic pollutants world-wide and when they pollute soils 
are very difficult to restore (Muhammad et al., 2013). Heavy metals are those metals which 
have relatively high density and toxic at low quantity e.g., arsenic (As), lead (Pb), mercury 
(Hg), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), thallium (Tl), etc. and there are also some ‘trace 
elements’ of heavy metals which include copper (Cu), selenium (Se) and zinc (Zn) (Pandey 
and Madhuri, 2014). They are vital to sustain the body metabolism, but then they are toxic 
at higher concentrations and the heavy metals can enter the bodies through food, drinking 
water and air (Pandey and Madhuri, 2014). The heavy metals regarding environmental 
science comprise Pb, Hg, Cd, Cr, Cu, Zn, manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), silver (Ag), etc. and 
19 
 
also, the heavy metals include metallic elements which have a relatively high density, and 
are poisonous at low quantity (Pandey and Madhuri, 2014). 
2.7 Effects of Pollution in Coastal Environment  
The continual availability of some marine resources is endangered by the augmented fluxes 
to the oceans of recognisable and measurable collections of contaminants, which include 
plant nutrients, plastics, environmental oestrogens, and organisms contained in ship-ballast 
waters (Goldberg, 1995). “The increasing population of the coastal zone introduces more 
and more enteric bacteria, viruses and fungi into adjacent waters as waste discharge. The 
organisms can jeopardize public health through the consumption of sea foods or through 
exposure. This form of pollution is probably responsible for the greatest number of human 
morbidities and mortalities as a consequence of involvement with the marine environment. 
The consumption of poorly cooked or uncooked seafood, primarily filter-feeding organisms, 
which can accumulate the pathogens, and the exposure of wounds are the primary causes of 
infection. This is often a consequence of working with sea foods” (Goldberg, 1995). A lot 
of the world coastal zones are damaged by pollution which is affecting commercial coastal 
and marine fisheries (Md. Shahidul & Tanaka, 2004). Therefore, control of aquatic 
contamination is recognised as pressing need for sustained management and conservation 
of existing fisheries and aquatic resources (Md. Shahidul & Tanaka, 2004). The coast of 
India is continuously endangered by effluent discharges from metropolis and industrial 
settlements which give rise to huge environmental problems that result in deterioration of 
water quality (Verlecar et al., 2006). Numerous marine species are recognised to be harmed 
and/or slain by plastic debris, which could endanger their survival, particularly since many 
are already threatened by other kinds of anthropogenic activities (Derraik, 2002). Macro 
plastics and micro plastics endanger organisms in the natural environment, for instance, by 
ingestion or entanglement in the plastic (Li et al., 2016). “Tons of plastic debris (which by 
20 
 
definition are waste that can vary in size from large containers, fishing nets to microscopic 
plastic pellets or even particles) is discarded every year, everywhere, polluting lands, rivers, 
coasts, beaches and oceans” (Claire, 2016). According to Engler (2016), plastic is especially 
problematic since it is non-biodegradable and consequently last around for a lot longer 
period (like up to 1,000 years longer) than other kinds of trash; animals can get snarled up 
in this trash or ingest it either because they mistake it as prey or since the plastic has been 
broken down into small particles by seawater. 
Apart from aesthetic problem, marine debris threatens wildlife through entanglement, ghost 
fishing, and ingestion (Gregory, 1999). By the indestructible nature of plastics, they gather 
organic coatings which absorb sand, shells and other debris and sink to the depth where they 
create and serve as partition preventing the transfer of nutrients between water and 
sediments which affect the normal function of the ecosystem and may alter the 
topographical and biological make-up of the ocean floor (Md. Shahidul & Tanaka, 2004).  
 Pollution of the marine environment is a world-wide issue as many economic activities are 
carried out through the maritime zones, therefore affecting the coastal states in one way or 
the other (Abdul-Nasser, 2015). In 1997, Captain Charles More discovered that plastic 
wastes which were swirled by currents accumulated to form large garbage patches at the 
bottom of sea and oceans and an example was Great North Garbage Patch (Claire, 2016). 
In Accra, the Waste Management Department of the Metropolitan Assembly is only capable 
of collecting 60% of the waste produced every day and the rest is discarded in open spaces, 
in surface drains, and into water bodies which end up in the Korle Lagoon so high 
eutrophication levels have developed in the shallow water body (Boadi & Kuitunen, 2002).  
 
 
21 
 
2.7.1 Environmental Effects  
The environmental effect of marine rubbish is severe and multidimensional (Valavanidis & 
Vlachogianni, 2011). Marine debris can result in a wide diversity of hostile environmental 
effects to individual creatures and ecosystems (Department of Environmental Conservation, 
2012).   Ingestion and entanglement of wildlife are part of the famous effects of marine 
rubbish and two key fears that marine debris brings to marine wildlife (Jambeck et al., 
2001). These events had been recognised to disturb individuals of not less than 267 species 
globally (NOAA, 2011). This comprises 44% of all seabird species, 86% of all sea turtle 
species, 43% of all marine mammal species, many fish and crustacean species (Mouat et al., 
2010). Plastic materials affect marine life both on shore and off shore by killing all kinds of 
creatures in coastal environment such as whale, sea lion and birds (Claire, 2016). 
2.7.2 Ingestion  
Ingestion happens when an animal takes marine debris (US EPA, 2007). Ingestion 
sometimes happens accidentally, but generally animals ingest debris since it resembles food 
(US EPA, 2007).  It was realised that from 1962 to 2012, eighty (59 percent) of 135 species 
ingested plastic and the estimation was that by 2050, 90 percent of the individual species 
would ingest plastic materials (Wilcox et al., 2015). 
2.7.3 Ghost fishing  
Fishing gears are manufactured of synthetic constituents which do not biodegrade and can 
carry on to catch marine creatures like fish and other species and can result in their demise 
if they cannot avoid it in a procedure identified as ghost fishing (Allsopp et al., 2006). A 
cycle is therefore set up in which marine creatures are trapped and, in turn, these species 
may entice predators that may also be captured (Allsopp et al., 2006). The cycle goes on as 
organisms which expire and decompose in the nets may then entice and trap crustaceans 
(Allsopp et al., 2006). The catching efficacy of ghost fishing gear is extremely reliant on 
22 
 
environmental conditions but a sole net has been depicted to carry on fishing for decades 
(Mouat et al., 2010).  Ghost fishing, for instance, can lead to damage to the environment, 
economic losses to fisheries and decreases chances for recreational fishing (Macfadyen et 
al., 2009 cited in Mouat et al., 2010). 
2.7.4 Unfamiliar Species Introduction and Habitation Destruction   
Activities of human have led to several species being moved from their natural 
environments to areas where they are not native in a procedure named as biological invasion 
(Allsopp et al., 2006).   Floating of natural debris in the oceans has always been the means 
of transport for some marine species (Mouat et al., 2010). Some of them are sea grasses, 
plant trunks or seeds, floating marine algae (Barnes & Milner, 2005 cited in Allsopp et al., 
2010). Conversely, the introduction of huge amounts of marine debris, mainly, plastics into 
the marine environs over the past half century has immensely enlarged the chance for the 
spreading of marine organisms (Gregory, 2009; Mouat et al., 2010). The sluggish portable 
rates of marine debris likewise provide alien species with more time to alter ecological 
conditions (Moore 2008 cited in Mouat et al., 2010). Entangled debris may also result in 
increased siltation and turbidity, hindering vital sunlight to sea grass or corals (Kershaw et 
al., 2011; NOAA, 2011).  
2.7.5 Heavy Metal Effects 
The heavy metals comprise Pb, Hg, Cd, Cr, Cu, Zn, Mn, Ni, Ag, etc.  but viz., As, Cd, Pb 
and Hg among the heavy metals are regarded most toxic to animals, fishes, human and 
environment (Pandey and Madhuri, 2014). Heavy metals threaten ecosystems due to their 
bioaccumulation in organisms, and toxic effects on biota and kill most living beings and 
also, the heavy metals contaminate fishes, because they are not eliminated from aquatic 
systems by natural methods, such as organic pollutants (Pandey and Madhuri, 2014). The 
toxic metals usually reveal chronic toxicity and the heavy metals such as Pb and Hg have 
23 
 
substantial toxic effects (Pandey and Madhuri, 2014). The world's heavily polluted areas 
from heavy metal pollution have been posing health hazards to more than 10 million people 
in various states (Muhammad et al., 2013).  
The following are some international standard limits for some heavy metals. The 
permissible limits of some selected heavy metals in water are Arsenic (0.01mg/l), Cadmium 
(0.003mg/l), Lead (0.01mg/l) and Mercury (0.001mg/l) (WHO, 1993). 
The EU Regulation1881/2006/ΕU has set maximum concentration limits in fish tissues for 
Hg, Cd, Pb and these are 0.5 mg/kg, 0.05 mg/kg, 0.30 mg/kg, respectively (Hahladakis, 
2015). According to Hahladakis, (2015), “The World Health Organization, WHO, has 
established as safety metal quantity limits from eating fishes a weekly maximum dosage, 
commonly known as Provisional Table Weekly Intake (PTWI), per kg of body weight. 
Taking an average human body weight of approximately 70kg, we can calculate the quantity 
per person/per week. Therefore, these limits are given in μg/person/week and are the 
following: 
 Hg: 5 μg/kgb.w.  = 350 μg/person/week = 0.35 mg/person/week 
 Cd: 7 μg/kgb.w. = 490 μg/person/week / = 0.49 mg/person/week 
 Pb: 25 μg/kgb.w. = 1750 μg/person/week = 1.75 mg/person/week.” 
In broad-spectrum, the toxicity of heavy metals to soil microbiota in forest soils is in the 
order Cd ˃Cu ˃ Zn ˃ Pb. According to Bengtsson & Tranvik (1989), the permissible metals 
concentrations in soils are Cu (100 mg kg -1), Zn (500 mg kg-1), Pb (100 – 200 mg kg-1) and 
Cd (10 - 50 mg kg-1). These high concentrations present contrary effect on soil invertebrates 
(Baath, 1989). Similarly, Kabata- Pendias, (2002) stated that the maximum metal 
concentrations in soils permitted under WHO/FAO (2001) and the US, EPA (1993) are 
mercury (2.00mg/kg), lead (50.00mg/kg) and cadmium (3.00mg/kg).  
24 
 
Holmgren et al., (1993) stated that Pb in agricultural soils range from < 1 to 135mg/kg with 
a mean of 10.5mg/kg; vegetation (stated on a dry weight basis) averages around 2-3mg/kg 
lead, though this figure approaches 70 mg/kg when the data are expressed on an ash weight 
basis. In natural soils, Cd content varies with parent rock type and it is high in soils on 
basaltic rock and low in soils on granitic rock (Ryan et al., 1982). Unpolluted soils generally 
contain 0.01 to 30 μg Cd dry weights with a mean of 0.06 to 0.5 μg/g fresh weight (Hopps, 
1974; Ryan et al., 1982); higher levels can occur in carboniferous soils and as a result of 
contamination from mining or smelting activity. The maximum tolerable intake of Cd is 
60–70μg/day (adult) (Alan, 1996). 
2.7.5.1 Human exposure to heavy metals 
Heavy metals occur in the environment as due to both natural processes and anthropogenic 
activities. Two of the major sources of heavy metal pollution are geological and 
anthropogenic activities (Dembitsky, 2003). Heavy-metal pollution of soil is mainly 
attributed to human activities, including, smelting, mining and various industrial activities 
(Wang et al., 2005). In certain conditions, these heavy metals could accrue into toxic levels, 
which can lead to ecological damage (Wang et al., 2005). Human exposure to heavy metals 
can take place through an array of routes, such as inhalation of air contaminants or polluted 
soil particles and ingesting of polluted foods and dietary intake is the key pathway of 
contact for most people, although inhalation can also play a significant part in much 
polluted sites (Tripathi et al., 1997). Heavy metals can hoard in the tissues of aquatic 
animals and conveyed to humans by intake, so elevated tissue- concentrations of heavy 
metals can be public worry (Fagbote and Olanipekun, 2010). World Health Organization 
(WHO, 1991) specifies that human mercury exposures happen mainly through inhalation 
of elemental mercury vapour via occupational or dental amalgam contact or through 
consumption of mercury bonded to organic moieties (methyl, dimethyl, or ethyl mercury) 
25 
 
chiefly from seafood. Extra heavy metal build-up in soils is toxic to humans and other 
animals (Donahue, 2000).  Exposure to heavy metals is generally chronic (exposure over a 
longer period of time), owing to food chain transfer (Donahue, 2000). Other routes of heavy 
metal intake comprise inhalation and absorption via the skin (Schuhmacher et al., 1997b).  
Humans can be exposed to Cd at all points through foods and tobacco consumption (Nriagu 
& Pacyna, 1988). Cd is extremely toxic and non-essential to humans; lack of recycling and 
dissipation through use of Cd –containing products and fuels add to contamination of 
general soils, principally via atmospheric fallout near key air emission sources (mining and 
refining, municipal waste incinerators, fossil fuel combustion sources) and processed waste 
dumping sites (Nriagu & Pacyna, 1988). Humans are also exposed to contaminants through 
creation of acid rain mainly (SO2, NO and HF) and also by organic pollutants (Kabata – 
Pendias, 2002).  
Exposure to mercury excessively is associated with adverse health problems including 
damage to brain, central nervous system and kidney and presents health risks during 
pregnancy (EFSA, 2009). Exposure to high levels of lead in short-term can result in brain 
damage, paralysis (lead palsy), anaemia and gastrointestinal symptoms (EFSA, 2009). 
Longer-term exposure to lead can cause damage to the kidneys, reproductive and immune 
systems as well as effects on the nervous system and intellectual disability in children 
(EFSA, 2009). Cadmium affects lungs and kidney when they are exposed to it (EFSA, 
2009). Exposure to arsenic can cause cancer and low level exposure to it results in skin, 
vascular and nervous system disorders (EFSA, 2009). 
 
 
26 
 
2.8 Socio-economic Effects of Pollution 
Socio-economic effects of pollution here refer to social effects and economic effects of 
coastal pollution. Social effects could be referred to as the impact on human life while 
economic effects imply the influence on economic activities.  
2.8.1 Social Effects of Coastal Pollutants  
Coastal debris is a mutual problem for coastal local communities and other institutes all over 
the world (KIMO, 2012). Marine litter impedes the attainment of a shared dream for safe, 
clean, productive, healthy, organically varied marine and coastal surroundings, managed to 
encounter the long run requirements of people and nature (Potts & Hastings, 2011). Debris 
in the marine surroundings leads to a wide variety of undesirable ecological, economic, 
social and public health and security impacts (Mouat et al., 2010). The social effects of 
coastal pollutants are rooted in the ways in which marine litter distresses quality of life of 
people and comprises reduced recreational opportunities, loss of aesthetic value and loss of 
non-use value (Cheshire et al., 2009; Mouat et al., 2010). According to Asmah et al (2013), 
improper disposal of both solid and liquid waste in communities has resulted in choked 
gutters, polythene bags at the beaches, choked lagoon close to the sea with many flies in the 
community and the acts have brought diseases such as cholera, malaria, river blindness, 
chest infections and other infectious and hazardous ailment distressing people in affected 
communities. Contaminated beach water causes not only swimmers to be sick but harms 
coastal economies and the diseases attributed to the polluted beach water comprise stomach 
flu, skin rashes, pinkeye, respiratory infections, meningitis and hepatitis (Devine, 2014).  
Releases of contaminated urban runoff result in raised bacteria levels and elevated illness 
rates among swimmers and also swimmers close to storm drains were found to have a 57 
percent greater occurrence of fever, for example, than those swimming farther away 
27 
 
(Devine, 2014). Faecal contamination from sewage in the Florida Keys is thought to be a 
major cause of disease in coral (Devine, 2014). 
2.8.2 Forfeiture of Aesthetic Value  
Coastal debris can harmfully distress quality of life of people by decreasing their pleasure 
of the landscape and scenery (Mouat et al., 2010). The forfeiture of visual amenity can have 
important impacts on recreational use of the marine surroundings of people but it can also 
merely be about the forfeiture of a formerly beautiful view (Mouat et al., 2010).  The marine 
setting is often the emphasis of numerous creative arts such as paintings, literature and films 
and a forfeiture of aesthetics could also adversely influence the inspirational quality of the 
marine surroundings (Naturvardsverket, 2009 cited in Mouat et al., 2010).   
2.8.3 Decreased Recreational Occasions  
Several inhabitants and visitors to coastal societies price the beach as a communal amenity 
(Jurrasiccoast, 2012). Oceans, coasts and beaches are used for countless different 
recreational events such as boating, diving, swimming, recreational fishing, and an 
extensive variety of water sports (Mouat et al., 2010).  Build-ups of marine litter can have 
a strong restraining consequence and dispirit recreational users from visiting contaminated 
zones (Sheavly and Register, 2007 cited in Mouat et al., 2010). The degree of litter needed 
to vigorously discourage people from visiting some zones is personal liable to personal 
favourite, drive of activity and litter levels in adjacent zones (Mouat et al., 2010). Beach 
users, for example, often rank cleanliness as their topmost priority when selecting where to 
visit (ENCAMS, 2005 cited in Mouat et al., 2010). A pioneering South African study 
identified that 85% of tourists and inhabitants would not go to a beach with more than two 
debris substances per meter and 97% would not visit a beach with ten or more large 
substances of litter per meter (Mouat et al., 2010).    
28 
 
People, animals and birds release billions of tons of faecal material into the surroundings 
annually; much of this faecal material get to drainages either indirectly through release after 
treatment or directly by being carried away by surface runoffs of rainfall or through 
defecation directly into drainages; and this faecal material can transmit pathogenic microbes 
that may pose a danger to people exposed to contaminated surface water (WHO, 2012). 
Marine litter also discourages other entertaining users such as sailors and divers (Sheavly & 
Register, 2007).  
2.8.4 Public Health and Safety Effects   
Marine debris influences humans by jeopardising health and safety (US EPA, 2007). It 
hinders some public health and safety anxieties like navigational dangers (US EPA, 2007). 
It hurts recreational users of the water (Cheshire et al., 2009). It poses risks related to the 
leaching of toxic chemicals (Department of Environmental Conservation, 2012).   
2.8.5 Harms to Recreational Users  
Substances including broken glass, medical waste, rope and fishing line leads to instant risks 
to human health and safety (Valavanidis & Vlachogianni, 2011). Piercing items, like broken 
glass and rusty metal may result in injuries when people step on them on the beach or ocean 
floor (Cheshire et al., 2009). Divers and swimmers can become ensnared in inundated or 
floating debris (Mouat et al., 2010; STAP, 2011a). Health and personal cleanliness debris 
can specify the presence of unseen pathogenic contaminants such as faecal coliform and 
other bacterial pollution (Sheavly, 2007). Usage of water contaminated with these pathogens 
cause some infectious diseases such as dysentery, skin rashes, hepatitis, diarrhoea, cholera 
and typhoid (Sheavly, 2007).   
29 
 
2.8.6 Navigational Dangers  
Marine debris is also a momentous continuing navigational danger for shipping (STAP, 
2011a). Marine debris can bring many diverse safety jeopardies for vessels, for example 
entanglement in dilapidated fishing gear such as nets, ropes and lines brings a main anxiety 
(Mouat et al., 2010).   Dilapidated fishing gear can lead to severe impairment to vessels 
(Department of Environmental Conservation, 2012). One such occurrence is when a whole 
Russian submarine allegedly became tangled in a rejected fishing net in 600 feet of water 
off the Kamchatka coast making navigation and surfacing problematic accordingly meriting 
an international rescue effort to save the seven-man crew (Mouat et al., 2010). Nets, ropes 
and other derelict gear ensnare vessel propellers and rudders or puncture the bottom of boats 
leading to costly maintenances, forfeiture of time and hazard to boaters and crew particularly 
if power is missing in a tempest and the vessel cannot arrive at shore or steering is hindered 
and collision cannot be circumvented (NOAA, 2011).    
2.8.7 Leaching of Lethal Chemicals  
Marine debris, especially plastic debris, is extensively acknowledged as a world-wide 
environmental problem (Mouat et al., 2010; STAP, 2011a). Currently there has been a 
growing emphasis on the effects of poisonous chemicals as they associate with plastic debris 
(NCBI, 2012). Whereas plastics are taken to be biochemically inactive in the marine 
environs, they can transport lethal compounds that potentially pose health hazards to both 
wildlife and people (Mouat et al., 2010). Some plastic debris serves as a source of poisonous 
chemicals: materials that were added to the plastic throughout production seep from plastic 
debris (NCBI, 2012). Plastic debris also serves as a basin for toxic chemicals (NCBI, 2012).  
 
 
30 
 
2.9 Economic Effects of Coastal Pollutants  
Marine litter has a considerable direct and indirect effect upon the economy (Potts & 
Hastings,  
2011). For some years, policy makers and societies have experienced the burden of marine 
debris on beaches, ports, waterways and bays and the following effects on a variety of 
economic activities (Potts & Hastings, 2011). The direct effects are the most noticeable, 
from local authorities accountable for clean-up events and the loss of tourism expenditure 
or swings in tourism activity due to propeller entangling litter in fishing nets (Potts & 
Hastings, 2011). Indirect effects can also be considerable and arise from a deterioration in 
ecosystem services and the environmental value of the coast that can cause losses in amenity 
and property values (Potts & Hastings, 2011). Whereas economic costing of ecosystem 
services is regarded a comparatively new science, it is apparent that marine and coastal litter 
can affect and decline a variety of natural roles that provide continuing social and economic 
profits (Potts & Hastings, 2011).  The full economic cost of the effect of marine litter on the 
environment is composite since some effects are more willingly assessed than others (Mouat 
et al., 2010; Potts & Hastings, 2011). For instance, costs for scrubbing operations or lost 
fishing proceeds from entanglement are apprehended in traditional economic calculations, 
however the economic effects of deteriorated ecosystem services are tough to value (Mouat 
et al., 2010; Potts & Hastings, 2011).   
  Investments in improving water quality lead to greater economic returns (Devine, 2014). 
For example, a 2007 Brookings Institution study established that the $26 billion Great Lakes 
Regional Collaboration Strategy to clean and preserve the Great Lakes would result in more 
than $50 billion in long-term economic benefits and between $30 and $50 billion in short-
term “multiplier benefits” (Devine, 2014). Also, a 2007 study by the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration revealed that an improvement in water quality in Long Beach, 
31 
 
California, to the healthier standards of Huntington City Beach would generate $8.8 million 
in economic benefits over a 10-year period (Devine, 2014). Furthermore, a 2001 study of 
the Chesapeake Bay related the 1996 water quality of the bay with the quality it would have 
had if legislation to clean the waters had not been passed and the study estimated that the 
water quality improvements increased annual boating, fishing, and swimming revenue by 
$357.9 million to $1.8 billion (Devine, 2014). 
2.10 Solutions to Coastal Pollution 
To check coastal pollution, the Government of India started surveillance programme 
‘’Coastal Monitoring and Protection System (COMAPS)’’ where 26 sites along India coast 
have been recognised as hot spots that are either ecologically sensitive or badly affected by 
pollution (Verlecar et al., 2006). According to Derraik (2002), plastic pollutants in the 
coastal zones can be controlled more through education carried out in schools than strict 
laws’ enactment and enforcement. Derraik (2002) explained that when the youngsters 
understand the environmental problems that are created by plastic debris they in turn would 
educate the adults such as their parents and relatives in their communities. However, Derraik 
(2002) stated that both education and law enforcement would assist in curbing the 
environmental threat. “To address the issue of plastic pollution in the marine environment, 
governments should first play an active role in addressing the issue of plastic waste by 
introducing legislation to control the sources of plastic debris and the use of plastic 
additives. In addition, plastics industries should take responsibility for the end-of-life of 
their products by introducing plastic recycling or upgrading programmes.” (Li et al., 2016).  
“States are therefore obliged to reduce and prevent marine pollution as well as to protect the 
marine resources. This obligation is stipulated under article 192 of the UNCLOS. Depending 
on the jurisdiction of the state, all states have the right to protect the marine environment 
while exploiting their natural resources as given under article 193 of UNCLOS. A line of 
32 
 
obligation is therefore drawn between the coastal state preventing pollution and other states 
having the right of use.” (Abdul-Nasser, 2015). Some laws and policies have been put in 
place in preventing marine pollution at the national and international levels (Vikas and 
Dwarakish, 2015).  Asmah et al (2013) stated that one of the ways of managing plastic waste 
was to encourage local people to collect plastic waste and sell it to recycling companies for 
financial reward. Cleaning up of the bases of pollution so that beach water does not pose a 
risk to swimmers is the best solution to the challenges of coastal pollution; in the meantime, 
protecting public health will require improved beach water monitoring and the closing of 
beaches when contamination is detected or suspected, rather than allowing people to swim 
and get sick (Devine, 2014). Numerous laws and policies have been formulated to avert 
marine pollution at the national and international levels (Vikas and Dwarakish, 2015) 
2.11 Sanitation Management in Elmina 
According to Arthur and Mensah (2006), the KEEA District Assembly in close partnership 
with the Institute of Housing and Urban Studies (IHS) in Rotterdam began Elmina Cultural 
Heritage and Management Programme (ECHMP) in 2000 where a number of projects and 
policies were outlined and carried out for the development of Elmina town and its environs 
in five thematic areas such as (1) waste management and drainage; (2) tourism and local 
economic development; (3) fishing and fishing harbour; (4) education; and (5) health.. Under 
the waste management and drainage in Elmina the following were done: bought five tractor 
trailers for waste disposal; procured waste bins and equipment; established Elmina Beach 
Care Team; enclosed open drains along the Dutch Cemetery Street; introduced education 
and awareness programmes; waste collection equipment supplied by the World Bank under 
Urban III Programme; and sanitation equipment supplied by Gouda municipality in the 
Netherlands, a sister-city of Elmina (Arthur & Mensah, 2006). 
33 
 
Some problems have been identified which are militating against the programme (ECHMP) 
in Elmina.  The challenges of the programme in Elmina include inadequate local funds, slow 
response of some development partners, and poor attitudes of some inhabitants with regard 
to indiscriminate dumping of waste (Arthur & Mensah, 2006). 
2.12 Prevention of Heavy Metals 
Preventing heavy metal pollution is serious because cleaning polluted soils is extremely 
expensive and tough (Donahue, 2000). Prevention is the greatest process to protect the 
environment from pollution by heavy metals (Donahue, 2000). According to Donahue 
(2000), some available treatments are:   
i. High temperature treatments (produce a vitrified, granular, non-leachable material). 
ii. Solidifying agents (produce cement-like material).  
iii. Washing process (leaches out contaminants). 
2.13 Conceptual Framework on Linkages between Causes, Effects and Solutions of 
Coastal Pollution at Elmina Coast 
A conceptual framework, according to Jabareen (2009), is defined as a network or a “plane” 
of interlinked concepts that together offer an inclusive understanding of a phenomenon or 
phenomena. The conceptual framework in this study is a model which explains a linkage of 
causes, effects and solution of coastal pollution. 
The diagram in Figure 2.1 represents the conceptual framework of the study. The diagram 
depicts some causes of pollution in the marine coastal environment. The causes (A) of 
pollution according to the diagram lead to both coastal environmental effects (B) and socio-
economic effect (C) (Figure 2.1). Some of these effects include ingestion and entanglement 
of marine species, degrading of ecosystem, outbreak of diseases and reduction of 
recreational activities along beaches. Therefore, in order to curb the causes and effects of 
34 
 
the coastal pollution then the solutions (D) in Figure 2.1 ought to be applied as indicated by 
the arrows on the diagram.  
For instance, human dwellings and urbanisation in coastal environment brings about shore 
defecation and indiscriminate dumping of waste along coastal beaches when residents do 
not have places of convenience and rubbish containers. Also practices such as livestock 
rearing, litter left behind by beach visitors and dumping of contaminants at the beaches 
result in effects of coastal pollution (Goldberg, 1995; Md. Shahidul & Tanaka, 2004; Mark, 
2009; Vikas & Dwarakish, 2015). The results are ingestion by birds, entanglement, ghost 
fishing, degraded ecosystem and unattractive beaches. Also, it results in socio-economic 
ramifications such as outbreak of diseases, reduction in recreational activities at the beach, 
impediment of fishing activities, less tourist attraction and migration. 
However, to address the causes and effects of pollution in coastal environment, the 
following measures should be applied: education campaigns of coastal pollution, enactment 
and enforcement of laws and policies on pollution, regular and effective management of 
coastal areas as well as provision of proper waste management system in coastal areas. 
There is an overall relationship that binds each of these factors to pollution of coastal 
ecosystems. Coastal pollution leads to effects on environment and socio-economic life and 
that demands solutions. The feedback is that the solutions are also applied to the causes and 
effects of the pollution (Figure 2.1). This, therefore, suggests relationships from one 
dependent variable to independent variable through an intermediate variable and where 
necessary pollution must be tackled holistically and not in isolation (Jabareen, 2009). Thus 
there is a circular holistic relationship among all variables from one direct or indirect 
position that affect or leads to coastal pollution (Figure 2.1). 
 
35 
 
Conceptual Framework Showing Linkages between Causes, Effects and Solutions of 
Pollution at Elmina Coast 
 
 CAUSES OF POLLUTION IN  
EFFECTS OF POLLUTION 
  COASTAL AREA (A)  ON ENVIRONMENT (B) 
 
 Ingestion by birds 
  Human dwellings and 
 Affect marine species 
urbanisation in coastal area 
 Ghost fishing 
  Litter left behind by beach  Degrading of the ecosystem 
visitors 
 Pollutants make the beaches 
 Dumping of contaminants into 
 unattractive the sea  
  Entanglement 
 Defecation along the beaches 
 
  Rearing of livestock along the  
 beaches and farming 
  Discarded fishing gears 
  Industrial activity 
 
 
 
 
   SOCIO-ECONOMIC 
 SOLUTIONS TO COASTAL 
 EFFECTS (C) 
  POLLUTION (D) 
  Out breaking of diseases 
  Educational campaigns  Reduces recreational 
  Enactment and enforcement of activities along the beaches 
 coastal laws or policies on 
 Impedes fishing activities in 
 pollution 
the coastal environment 
  Regular and effective 
  Discourages tourists and management of marine and 
 holiday makers from visiting coastal areas 
 the beaches 
 Provision of proper waste 
  Leads to migration from 
management system in coastal 
 coastal zones 
 areas  
  Waste treatment plant in 
 coastal areas 
  Government Policies 
  Offenders must be prosecuted 
 
 
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework Showing Linkage between Causes, Effects and 
Solution of Pollution at Elmina Coast  
Source: Author’s Construct (2017) 
36 
 
The conceptual framework is related to the concept of Tragedy of Commons by Garret 
Hardin (1968). According to him the commons does not only mean over exploitation of 
resources from the environment individuals but also stands for releasing of pollutants into 
the surroundings as population increases wealth consumption. These pollutants cause harm 
to the environment. As a result, he suggests enactment and implementation of laws and taxes 
to safeguard the commons which is the environment including water bodies, land and the 
air. This situation is what is depicted the conceptual framework in Fig. 2.1 
2.14 Summary 
This chapter dealt with the literature on specific themes of the study, tragedy of the common 
and conceptual framework that the research is based upon. The various themes of the 
literature review touched on definition of coastal environment and pollution, benefits of 
coastal areas, causes of coastal pollution, environmental and socio-economic effects of 
pollution in coastal areas, sanitation management in Elmina and solutions of coastal 
pollution.  The conceptual framework is a model which depicts the interlinkage among 
causes, effects and solution of coastal pollution.     
 
 
 
 
 
  
37 
 
CHAPTER THREE 
STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY 
3.1   Introduction    
The chapter is devoted to the presentation of a comprehensive literature on the study area 
and the methodology that directed this study. The study area presented issues on physical 
location of the study area, climatic conditions and the livelihood conditions of the people. 
Also, the chapter offered information on the methodology that directed the study. The 
methodology was based on issues of the philosophical background which underpinned the 
study, as well as giving specifics on the research strategy, design, sampling technique, 
sample size, research instruments and data analysis.  
3.2 Study Area  
3.2.1 Location and Size   
Elmina coastal is located in Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abirem Municipal Assembly.  Elmina 
is one of the twenty (20) Metropolitan, Municipalities and District Assemblies in the Central 
Region of Ghana (ECI, 2015). Elmina is the administrative capital of the Municipal 
Assembly which is located on the south coast of Southern Ghana in the Central Region 
(ECI, 2015). Elmina is bounded on the north by the Twifo-Hemang-Lower-Denkyira 
District, on the south by the Atlantic Ocean (Gulf of Guinea), and on the west by the 
Mpohor-Wassa East and Shama Districts and on the east by the Cape Coast Metropolitan 
Area (ECI, 2015). It is situated between longitude 10 20' West and 10 40' West and latitude 
50 05' North and 150 North (ECI, 2015). The Municipality occupies an area of 452.5 square 
kilometres (from the assembly portal). A density of 319.8 persons per square kilometres is 
the population density of the municipal area (ECI, 2015).   
  
38 
 
Map of Elmina Coastal Area 
 
Figure 3.1: Map of Study Area Showing Elmina Coastal Zone  
Source: Author’s construct, 2017.   
Elmina coastal area is situated on a south-facing bay on the Atlantic Ocean coast of Ghana 
which stretches 12 km within the Central region and at the west of Cape Coast (ECI, 2015). 
39 
 
The study area which is chosen for the research is Elmina coastal area of KEEA 
Municipality on the south coast of South Ghana in the Central Region. The Elmina coastal 
area selected for the study stretched from Coconut Grove Hotel at the west of the Elmina 
Castle to Elmina Police Station beach at the east of the Elmina Castle. The area is selected 
for the research and not any other place in Central Region or outside the region due to large 
influx of people into the area for tourism and fishing activities and the area at same is faced 
with different degrees of sediments lying (high and low pollutants) at various parts of the 
beach. The western corridor (west of the Elmina Castle) had heaps of municipal waste while 
the eastern corridor (east of the Elmina Castle) had low sediments of pollutants.   
3.2.2 The definition of Elmina Coastline 
For the purpose of this thesis, Elmina coastal zone is defined to be the coastal area along the 
Elmina Township from Coconut Grove Hotel west of the Elmina Castle involving the 
harbour to the Elmina Police Station beach at the east of the castle.  
3.2.3 Physical Characteristics of the Elmina Coastline  
The physical characteristics of Elmina coastline comprises drainage, vegetation climate and 
geology. 
3.2.3.1 Relief and Drainage  
Benya, Abrobi, Brenu, Susu and Ankwanda lagoons are a series of wetlands and lagoons 
along the coastal zone of Elmina. These lagoons promote a vivacious salt industry. The hills 
and slopes are quite sharp in the inland areas. Among the hills of Elmina are valleys with 
numerous streams, which flow into the coastal lagoons and the Atlantic Ocean. These water 
courses are the Iture and Ante in the west as well as the Udu and Suruwi in the east (KEEA, 
2006).  
40 
 
3.2.3.2 Vegetation  
The vegetation located in the Elmina coastal zone differs as a result of the rainfall pattern. 
There is presence of coastal scrub and grassland type of vegetation with scattered trees and 
mostly marked with mangrove and palm fronds. KEEA Municipality which Elmina belongs 
to, is usually humid with a 30 kilometre coastline which forms part of the littoral anomalous 
zone of Ghana and receives less rainfall than the interior (Ghana Statistical Service, 2012).  
3.2.3.3 Climate  
The coastal area of Elmina is part of the irregular coastal zone of Ghana. It receives a lower 
amount of rainfall in the region compared to the interior locations (KEEA, 2014). Generally, 
temperatures are high. Therefore, the difference in climate and vegetation is caused by 
rainfall rather than temperature (KEEA, 2014). Regarding double maxima rainfall annual 
totals in coastal locations range between 750mm and 1,000mm whereas in the hinterland, it 
ranges between 120mm and 1500mm (KEEA, 2014). 
Climate change affects fisheries in a number of ways. Rise in sea temperatures has the 
capability of damaging coral reefs which provide food and home for some species of fish 
and also as a means of protection for many coastlines (KEEA, 2014). Though the rise in the 
temperature of the sea may be seen to be an advantage to the growth of some fish species, 
the obvious disadvantages it has on total fish species is gross and the poor fishermen are left 
to build general adaptive capacity to the current trend of events (KEEA, 2014). Again, 
Paintsil (2010) revealed that most of the fishermen could not predict seasons and times for 
the harvest of particular species of fish because of the change in weather conditions as a 
result of climate change.  
  
41 
 
3.2.3.4 Geology and Soils 
The area is made up of hills and valleys. Mostly the Birimian rock type comprising granite, 
schist and pegmatite underlining a great portion of the municipality (KEEA, 2014). On the 
slopes of the hills are sandy and clayey soils while the valleys are made up of graves and 
sandy soil (KEEA, 2014). 
3.2.4 Population  
Elmina is the fastest growing town in the KEEA Municipality and the most populated town 
in the municipality, mainly because it is the centre of an important economic activity such 
as fishing. According to Aheto et al. (2012), population of Elmina was 32,819. Again, the 
castles which are major tourist attraction sites in the town, receive about 100,000 tourists 
annually of which 50,000 are foreigners (ECI, 2015).  
3.2.5 Economic activities  
Elmina does not boast of large industries but rather has small and medium scale enterprises 
located throughout the township and the municipality; these small and medium scale 
enterprises include boat making, oil extraction, barbering and hairdressing (ECI, 2015). Salt 
making is also an important aspect of the economy of Elmina. Elmina used to be the centre 
of trade (import and export) in the colonial era, but has lost its trade status in contemporary 
times (KEEA, 2006). Now, Elmina serves as an important trade town for fish and salt. 
Elmina also hosts two of the UNESCO World Heritage protected sites:  the castle of St. 
George d ‘Elmina and Fort Coenraadsburg on St. Jago Hill. These two sites receive over 
100,000 tourists annually (ECI, 2015). The private informal sector employs 87% of the 
population of the municipality followed by 6.9% by the public sector (ECI, 2015). The 
employees in the informal sector are made up of 28.3% males and 9.1% females (Ghana 
Statistical service, 2012).   
42 
 
The local economy of Elmina developed relatively one-sided in the 20th century; the town 
has become mainly a fishing town with employment being generated in the fishing and 
related industries such as fish processing and boat building. In recent years also salt making 
has become a sector of significance in Elmina (ECI, 2015). Yet, the economic activities in 
Elmina are relatively undeveloped and mainly centred around delivery of raw products to 
which little value is added (ECI, 2015). With revenue generation out of these traditional 
industries gradually declining, unemployment is increasing; Elmina also suffers from a 
brain-drain and those citizens with good education tend to move away to find employment 
in the larger urban centres (ECI, 2015). 
3.2.5.1 Fishing   
Fishing and its related activities constitute the main and major economic activity in Elmina. 
About 75% of the people living in Elmina derive their livelihood directly from fishing or 
other activities that depend on it such as processing and trading of fish and canoe building 
(ECI, 2015). Although Elmina is still the biggest traditional harbour in Ghana, its 
importance is slowly decreasing (ECI, 2015). 
Fishing activities started way back in Elmina since 1400‘s where fishing activities were 
fundamentally done to meet domestic demands and to provide feed for slaves (Aheto et al., 
2012). The location of the Elmina fishing harbour is along the Benya river and mostly serves 
the inshore vessels and canoes. Elmina became an essential town in 1470‘s, when the 
Portuguese voyagers found the rich gold land on the shores of the West African coast. King 
Alfonso called the town previously as Anomansal as el mina which means the mine (GSS, 
2014).    
Elmina is fundamentally a cosmopolitan area since it receives migrants from other places 
who drift in search of job opportunities in the fisheries industry (Koranteng, 2012).  
43 
 
Elmina has the third largest fishing harbour in Ghana, and serves as the most significant 
inshore fishing harbour as well (Aheto et al., 2012). Apart from her fishing capabilities, it 
also happens to be a significant ancient city, which is well known for its role in the popular 
slave trade and functioned as home to the biggest slave castle in the country (Asiedu-Addo, 
2013).  
The Elmina coastline also known as atekyem‖ (muddy place) was regenerated in January 
1986 by a group of young activists in Elmina called the Zion Mobisquad (Enninful, 2009). 
The fishing area was constructed to improve the fishing industry in the community. After 
the establishment of a proper fishing ground, migrants from other fishing communities 
around the country moved in, to join the fisher folks in the Elmina community. This 
vaccinated life into the once dead community after the abandonment of the Portuguese, the 
Dutch and lastly the bombardment of the town into ashes by the British in June 1873 
(Enninful, 2009). Currently, Elmina serves as a lively inshore fishing port for numerous 
vessels of varying shapes and sizes that function in the country. According to the report of 
KEEA 2006, several programs have been put in place to assist in promoting the sector. 
Amongst them are the fishing continuation school for first cycle school graduates and the 
founding of the Paul Isert Centre to get fishermen abreast with the latest technology in the 
fishing industry. The fishing sector in Elmina mostly experiences two fishing seasons. The 
seasons include the peak season and the off peak season. The peak season mostly extends 
from July to September. This season is associated with bumper catches and some fishermen 
even go to sea on Tuesdays, which is usually a resting day for the fishermen and the sea. 
The off-season, which generally is between January and June is also associated with low 
catches (Koranteng, 2012). During this period, large number of fisher folks drift to other 
fishing harbours in search of higher catch. The fish harvested in the Elmina harbour 
exclusively contributes about 15% of the total fish production in Ghana (Aheto et al., 2012), 
44 
 
which is a chief contributor to the National fisheries GDP (Asiedu-Addo, 2013). The Elmina 
2015 Strategy also discloses that about 75% of the total population of the town depends on 
fishing and its related activities as their source of livelihood (ECI, 2015).  
3.2.5.2 Tourism  
There are some hotels, fantastic beaches, cafes and restaurants in Elmina (ECI, 2015). Apart 
from Elmina Castle, Fort Coenraadsburg and the fishing harbour, some other tourist 
attractions in Elmina comprise the Dutch Cemetery and the Elmina Java Museum (ECI, 
2015). The Elmina Java Museum is funded by the Edward A. Ulzen Memorial Foundation. 
Castle St. George d'Elmina features conspicuously in the standard itinerary of each tourist 
who arrives at Ghana (ECI, 2015). The castle entices over 100,000 visitors annually, of 
whom 50,000 are foreign visitors (ECI, 2015). Visitor numbers have increased greatly over 
the past decade. Yet most tourists only visit the castle and then leave town (ECI, 2015). 
According to the Ghana Tourism Board the average stay of tourists in Elmina is one night 
(ECI, 2015). Further development of tourism is important to entice tourists to stay longer 
and spend more money locally so the people of Elmina can start to benefit from their 
heritage assets as generators of employment (ECI, 2015). Also, development of other 
economic activities is important to complement the traditional fishing industry as a source 
of income for the people of Elmina (ECI, 2015).  
3.3 Methodology 
3.3.1 Philosophical Consideration for this Research 
The place of philosophical consideration in a research is one that is very vital. The 
philosophical worldview underlying a research underscores the path and general ideas of 
how the world is conceived by a researcher (Guba, 1990). This idea about the world is what 
guides a research through its design and strategies for enquiry into the problem investigated 
(Guba, 1990). The worldview or paradigm implies a set of beliefs that guides an action 
45 
 
through the investigation of an identified problem affecting man and his environment (Guba, 
1990). A philosophical consideration in a research will follow two broader methodologies 
denoted to as ontology and epistemology. The epistemological viewpoint of any research 
will seek to gather data subjectively from the world where people produce their own 
understanding of what they see around them. The ontological viewpoint on the other hand 
represents what exists as what people perceive to occur in the world they live in rather than 
making meaning out of their own environments. These two methodological bases go a long 
way to express the route of enquiry accepted by a researcher to investigate the world. A 
number of philosophical viewpoints exist but this study considered Creswell’s (2009) line 
of argument for the pragmatics.  According to Creswell (2009), pragmatism rises out of the 
actions, situations and consequences rather than the antecedent conditions in 
post/positivism. The pragmatics associate themselves with the mixed method strategy to 
research as it involves both qualitative and quantitative approaches to study. It therefore has 
been acknowledged to be the philosophical underpinning for mixed method research 
(Creswell, 2009). This research was focused on mixed method which comprised of 
qualitative and quantitative approaches of data collection. Therefore, the philosophical 
viewpoint upon which this study was based upon was pragmatic philosophical viewpoint. 
3.3.2 Research Design   
The research used a case study approach in collecting data for this study. Case study design 
was considered to be the most suitable and ideal because of the place and nature of the 
research. The study was not a continuous one. Therefore, case study design was employed. 
This approach involved comprehensive and intensive analyses of a case under study, in this 
case, ‘effects of pollution in the coastal environment as well as on socio-economic life of 
people’. This helped the researcher to conduct investigation into the complexity and peculiar 
nature of the research problem.  
46 
 
The research also used cross-sectional survey design in collecting samples of sand and sea 
water in the study area. This design was used because there was limited time in conducting 
the research and differences among the various samples were needed for comparison. 
3.3.3 Research Strategy   
The research made use of a mixed method strategy. The mixed method strategy as 
distinguished in Creswell (2009) is a concept that includes the mixing of different methods 
in a single research. The research employed quantitative method of questionnaire and 
qualitative methods such as interviews and focus group discussions to gather data 
holistically. The two approaches complemented each other to collect holistic data on the 
field for this research. This was because there was certain information which was captured 
by questionnaire but not captured by interviews and focus group discussions and vice versa. 
So the use of the mixed method strategy in this research helped to attain certain data which 
could have been missed when only quantitative method or qualitative method was used.  
Teye (2012) clarified that the quantitative approach stresses the use of statistics for 
analytical purposes for the generalization and prediction whiles the qualitative approach 
involves the experiences, perceptions, emotions, beliefs and behaviours of respondents. 
Teye (2012) also distinguished that finding from quantitative data is not influenced by the 
researcher. Triangulation of these methods allowed a thorough path to data collection as 
they balance each other rather than contrast. The triangulation of the two methods offered a 
good platform in collecting varying data to understand the state of coastal pollution in 
Elmina and its surrounding. Therefore, the mixed method strategy helped gather sufficient 
data under research design of case study.   
 
 
47 
 
3.3.4 Data Sources    
The research collected data from both primary and secondary sources. The primary data 
comprised data that were gathered from qualitative and quantitative sources through in-
depth interviews, digital photographs, observations, questionnaire as well as collection of 
sea water samples, lagoon water samples, soil samples, and fish samples for analysis in the 
laboratory. The secondary sources of data comprised articles, books, reports and 
publications      
3.3.5 Data Collection Methods  
The methods used to collect the data were quantitative and qualitative approaches. This is a 
mixed method because it makes use of two approaches. The mixed methods were used 
because the quantitative and qualitative data complement each other.  
3.3.5.1 Quantitative Data  
Quantitative data was obtained from the field using semi-structured questionnaires. The 
questions involved both open-ended and close-ended questions. The household 
questionnaires were structured or divided into six sections to reflect the order of the 
objectives of the study. This was to assist in the organisation of responses to themes for the 
analysis. The first section collected the demographic-data of the respondents including age, 
sex, and educational level. The second section was based on respondents’ general 
knowledge on causes of coastal pollution in the area.  The third section gathered data on 
livelihood activities and socio-economic effects of coastal pollution in the area. This was to 
get information on the living conditions of respondents including their economic activities, 
assets acquired, and how coastal pollution affects them. The fourth section touched on how 
coastal pollution influences the coastal environment and socio-economic activities in the 
study area. The fifth section sought for information on sanitation management of coastal 
48 
 
pollution in Elmina.  This section dealt with how pollution of coastal area had been 
managed.  
Furthermore, various samples were collected from five sites each in Elmina coastal area. 
The samples were collected based on the observation of high deposit of sediments in 
polluted areas and low deposit of sediments in areas perceived as clean areas or less polluted 
areas. The influences of waves were also considered whether or not they were active. Active 
waves would carry pollutants while calm water or waves would permit high concentration 
of pollutants in the water. 
The sampling of seawater, beach sand and fish samples were carried out from March 2017 
to June 2017 along the Elmina coast. Three samples were collected from the five sampling 
sites within the study area. The sampling strategy was designed to cover the areas considered 
to have some presence of sediments contributing to the pollution in the area and also the 
activeness of the waves whether low or high. 
Seawater samples from the various sampling points were collected by the use of a Nansen 
water sampler below the water surface, while facing the direction of the flow of the sea 
current and then transferred into 500 ml high density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles per-
conditioned with 1 % nitric acid. Before sampling, the bottles were conditioned by rinsing 
with some of the seawater and discarded before finally filling the bottles with the water.  
The water samples were collected in five bottles (Five litre size of each bottle) from five 
points. The points were Ayisah beach (high deposit of sediments and active waves), Mpoden 
beach (high deposit of sediments and active waves), Benya lagoon bank (high deposit of 
sediments and calm water), Elmina castle beach (calm waves or water) and Elmina Beach 
Resort beach (calm sea water).  The bottles were put in ice-chest containing ice to maintain 
the temperature and natural condition of the sampled water. The water samples were sent to 
49 
 
Ecological Laboratory at University of Ghana to test for four heavy metals such as arsenic 
(As), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg). The four heavy metals were selected 
because according to the literature they contain high concentrations of toxicity that is 
harmful to humans and species in the environment. Soil samples were collected from five 
points. Soil samples were also picked from the respective points of the sea water samples. 
The sand samples were put into a recommended wooden box and sent to the Ecolab for 
analysis.  The reason was to avoid changing the condition of the samples. The collection 
points were Ayisah beach, Mpoden beach, Benya lagoon bank, Elmina castle beach and 
Elmina Beach Resort beach. The soil samples were collected at the depth of 15 centimetres 
by gridding method using PVC pipe at the sampled points.  Each point of collection was 
demarcated in square with one metre distance apart. The PVC pipe was used to pick sand 
up at 15 centimetres depth at four vertices of squares drawn and put into a basket and stirred 
to mix. The method was to ensure evenly mix up of the concentration of the heavy metals 
in the soil. The sand samples were fetched into the recommended wooden box and sent to 
the Ecolab to test for the heavy metals and results analysed.  
Also, two fishes were sampled from fishermen who use drag nets along the shore of Elmina 
and a fish from Benya Lagoon (due to difficulty in getting two samples) to test for metal 
pollution influences on them. Two other fishes from off shore fishermen were also sampled 
and tested to identify variations in the metal presence in the fishes.   The fishes were marked 
and placed in the ice-chest for analysis at the Ecolab, University of Ghana. They were kept 
in the ice-chest containing ice to maintain their conditions in order to avoid some chemical 
reaction. 
  
50 
 
3.3.5.2 Qualitative Data    
Qualitative data was obtained by an in-depth interview with key stakeholders in the Elmina 
area. The interviews employed semi-structured interview guide. An interview is a form of 
chat in which one person restrains himself to asking questions concerning ideas, behaviours, 
experiences and attitudes in relation to social phenomena to one or more participants or 
interviewees who restrict themselves to supplying answers to these questions (Boejie, 2010 
pg. 61). The selection of the participants varied to reflect the stakeholder compositions 
within the study area. They were fisher folks, men, women, chief fisherman, boat owners as 
well as officers of Ghana Health Service of Elmina, the KEEA Municipal Assembly and 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Cape Coast.  Digital photographs were also 
taken during the data collection. These helped in presenting pictorial view of the areas and 
situations that were observed on the field in order to give a clear clarification to the problem 
understudy.   
3.3.6 Target Population  
The target population for the study included inhabitants with at least five years stay in 
Elmina coastal areas and not less 20 years of age who included both male and female. This 
group of people were perceived to have enough experience of coastal pollution and could 
give satisfactory information. These inhabitants depend mostly on the sea and Benya River 
for livelihood and are mostly affected by the coastal pollution. The next target groups were 
officers of EPA and the KEEA Municipality and Ghana Health Service of Elmina. These 
groups served as the experts to give information to authenticate the accounts from the target 
inhabitants. Ministry of Health, EPA and KEEA Municipal Assembly were interviewed for 
policies on coastal pollution as well as other related structures on the problem. The officer 
of the Ministry of Health was interviewed on the health basis, medical diagnosis in the areas, 
case reporting in the hospitals and related health policies in the Elmina area. 
51 
 
3.3.7 Sample Size 
The projected population for 2016 by the KEEA Municipal Assembly (2014) for Elmina 
was 27,060 people. The number of males were 12,448 and the number of females were 
14,612 (KEEA, 2014). For the sample size used for quantitative data collection in this 
research was based on five percent sample error of projected population of Elmina. From 
the calculation below, 394 was the sample size, but 300 respondents were used due to 
limited time. For quantitative studies, large sample sizes are needed for purposes of 
quantification and representativeness of the sample (Beazley, 2004 as cited in Teye, 2012). 
This is to safeguard that population will be fairly represented in the study to permit a more 
rigorous analysis and interpretations (Teye, 2012).  Both men and women were considered 
in the administering of the questionnaires because both groups were affected directly or 
indirectly by coastal pollution in the area. Yamane (1967:886) offers a simplified formula 
to compute sample sizes.   
Using Yamane (1967:886) formula: 
 
Considering the calculation of the sample size above, 300 sample size was used for the 
research due to limited time and resources. Questions covered the objectives of the research 
for 300 households. 
52 
 
3.3.8 Sample Size for Qualitative Data 
Key opinion leaders and substantive stakeholders were purposively selected for interview 
during the field work. The stakeholders and key informants involved KEEA Municipal 
Assembly, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and local opinion leaders such as chief 
fisherman, boat owners and fishmongers. In all 25 participants were interviewed. Interviews 
as distinguished by Teye (2012) do not require large sample sizes as emphasis is placed on 
process and meaning. This was not counting of opinions but consideration of emotions, 
beliefs, perceptions and related cultural underpinnings.  
3.3.9 Sampling Technique   
Systematic sampling was used in collecting the quantitative data in Elmina coastal area 
using 300 questionnaires. Systematic sampling method was used because it was found to be 
more suitable to the area under study. It was used to ensure that respondents were picked 
across the entire study area to get authentic data. The Elmina coastal area was divided into 
east and west corridors of the Elmina Castle and in each corridor 150 questionnaires were 
administered to household heads at an interval of five houses who stayed in the area not less 
than five years and were at least 20 years of age. The rationale for the choice of this age 
group was to get people who have experiences of the problem. Where a household head of 
a selected house did not meet the criteria that house was skipped off and next house picked 
for the exercise. The respondents were picked from houses within 400 metres from the 
perceived polluted points. This was because respondents in this category were perceived to 
have much information and experiences of coastal pollution of the area. The research also 
considered men and women who stayed in the area.  
 Non-probability sampling employed for the collection of qualitative data was purposive 
sampling. This sampling technique also recognised as judgmental sampling is a procedure 
whereby the researcher selects sample elements on the basis of judgement derived from 
53 
 
experience. Participants were sampled based on the nature of information being sought 
(Teye, 2012). Sampling units or participants for this study were selected purposively based 
on the knowledge possessed on the subject matter as inhabitants in the area.  
Qualitative data was collected from some stakeholders who included boat owners, chief 
fisherman and fishmongers. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were organised for both 
fishermen and fishmongers to qualitative data. This is a qualitative interview with a number 
of participants at a time, generally varying from 8 to 10 members (Teye, 2012). FGDs are 
carried out to promote group interaction as it serves as a social platform for the group to 
explain well the problem of the research in a social setting. Two FGDs were conducted for 
ten participants in each group in the area. One was organised for fishermen and boat owners 
who lived close to the beach who could present their views on pollution in the area. The 
second group involved fishmongers who live in coastal environment of Elmina.  
Experts from various institutions in the Elmina area were also interviewed for expert 
information on coastal pollution in the area. They were Principal Environmental Unit 
Officer of KEEA Municipal Assembly, Principal Director of Nurses of Ghana Health 
Service of Elmina and a EPA Officer of Cape Coast. 
3.3.10 Observation   
Cohen and Crabtree (2006) define observation as a systematic data collection approach and 
researchers use all of their senses to inspect people in natural locations or naturally occurring 
circumstances. Researchers will to some degree embrace their observations to cross check 
detected phenomenon on the field and as a result integrate them in the final analysis of the 
research. Therefore, the research observed peculiar features on the field. It was observed 
how clean or filthy the environment was. Factors that contributed to the generation of the 
pollutants were also observed.  
54 
 
The field work incorporated observation through the community to understudy the coastal 
pollution and other related concepts. Peculiar features observed were also taken 
photography to ensure clarity.   
3.3.11 Data Analysis    
The data collected using quantitative and qualitative methods as well as various samples 
collected were analysed and the results combined to complement each other. Qualitative 
data and quantitative data from the social surveys were analysed to observe the nature of 
variations in each dataset and responses whiles creating meaning out of these data. Water, 
soil and marine species samples were sent to Ecological laboratory (Ecolab) for heavy metal 
analysis. At the second phase of analysis, the data was combined to present a holistic and 
comprehensive clarification of the study where the data corroborated and complemented 
each other for understanding of the issues under study. The quantitative data was analysed 
using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software.  The data was then used 
to generate and compute for various statistical analyses using descriptive statistical tools. 
Pie charts, bar graphs, histograms, figures, cross tabulations, plates and tables were 
developed to enhance visual presentation of result using Microsoft Excel.  
The qualitative data on the other hand was analysed manually into themes using appropriate 
issues arising from the various interviews and that of the focus group discussions. Audio 
interviews were also transcribed before successive manual analysis was conducted to 
generate themes for better understanding of coastal pollution.  
3.3.12 Chemical assessment of samples  
The various samples collected were sent to the laboratory for analysis. Chemical assessment 
was carried out on each of the samples. The samples included sea water, beach sand and 
fish. 
55 
 
3.3.12.1 Acid Digestion of Sea water 
Five milligrams of filtered seawater samples were measured into labelled vials. Six 
milligrams of 65% concentrated nitric acid (HNO3), 3ml of 35% concentrated hydrochloric 
acid (HCl) and 0.25 ml hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) were applied respectively to each vial 
containing the sample in a fume chamber, followed by “open digestion” for 30 minutes on 
a sand-bath placed on a hot plate. After digestion, the samples were cooled in a water bath 
for 20 minutes. The digested sample was quantitatively transferred into a volumetric flask 
and diluted to 20 ml using distilled water.  They were analysed with the same procedure 
above to correct any errors that may occur in the analysis of the seawater samples. 
3.3.12.2 Acid Digestion of Soil Sample  
Soil sample of 1.5g or specimen was weighed into a previously acid washed labelled 100 
ml polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Teflon beaker. Two millilitre (ml) of concentrated nitric 
acid (HNO3, 65%), one ml of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2, 30%) and five ml of concentrated 
hydrochloric acid (HCl, 36%), were added to each sample in a fume chamber. The samples 
were then put on a microwave carousel. The vessel caps were secured tightly using a wrench. 
The complete assembly was microwave irradiated for 26 minutes using milestone 
microwave lab station ETHOS 900, INSTR:  MLS – 1200 MEGA. 
3.3.12.3 Acid Digestion of fish samples 
One to five grams of fish or food sample was weighed into a macro-kjeldahl digestion flask. 
Pour 20 ml concentrated nitric acid to 20 ml water (depending on the water content of 
sample). Heat the contents of the flask to reduce the volume to 20 ml. Ten ml of concentrated 
sulphuric acid and heat again was applied. Small quantities of nitric acid whenever the 
contents begin to blacken were applied. When the pouring of nitric acid is no longer essential 
(i.e. when the liquid no longer blackens) do not stop heating till white fumes are evolved. 
56 
 
 Ten ml of saturated ammonium oxalate solution again was applied to heat until copious 
white fumes are again produced. The oxalate treatment helps in removing yellow 
colouration due to nitro compounds, fats, etc. so that the end solution is colourless. Every 
trace of nitric acid must be taken away before proceeding for assay of metals. After sample 
turns colourless, apply distilled water and aspirate using AA PinAccle 900T employ Flow 
Injection Assemble system (FIAS) to the mark of 100 ml flask. 
3.2.12.4 Determination of Heavy Metals Levels 
After digestion the Teflon beaker mounted on the microwave carousel were cooled in a 
water bath to reduce internal pressure and allowed volatilized material to re-stabilize. The 
content of each Teflon beaker was transferred into test tubes using volumetric flask.  The 
digestant was made up to 20 ml with distilled water. For analytical quality assurance, a 
solution which contained no analyte element (analytical blank) was prepared. A series of 
calibration standard containing known amounts of analyte elements were also prepared 
(2.00 mg/l, 5.00 mg/l,10 mg/l etc.) and used to calibrate the VARIAN AA 240FS – Atomic 
Absorption spectrometer AA240FS. Blanks were atomized followed by the standards and 
calibration graphs plotted showing responses from the AAS. Responses of standards were 
used to establish accurate performance of machine and accurate concentration values of 
elements. The machine was calibrated after every three analyses.  Light was generated from 
a hollow cathode lamp at wavelength characteristic to each analyte. 
Each analyte was then atomized using an atomizer to create free atoms from the samples. 
Air –acetylene gas was used as the source of energy for the production of free atoms for the 
elements Lead (Pb), Arsenic (As) and Cadmium (Cd) and argon- acetylene gas for Mercury 
(Hg). The sample was introduced as an aerosol into the flame and the burner aligned in the 
optical path to allow the light beam pass through the flame where the light was absorbed. 
57 
 
The light was directed into a monochromator which then isolates the specific analytical 
wavelength of the light emitted by the hollow cathode lamp from the non-analytical.  The 
sensitive light detector then measures the light and translates the response into the analytical 
measurements. Calculation of concentration of heavy metals was done using: 
Final conc. (mg/kg) = Conc. (analytical measurement) × Nominal volume 
     Sample weight in grams 
Where conc. (analytical measurement) = instrumental measurement 
Nominal volume (ml) = final volume of digestant sample solution  
Conc. (mg/kg) = concentration of metals in soils and bottom ash 
3.3.13 Ethical Consideration 
Ethics of this research was assured by the use of probity. Survey instruments for this 
research were scrutinised at the Geography and Resource Department of the University of 
Ghana. Approval was sought and granted from Nougouchi Memorial Institute where the 
university ethics office is located. Confidentiality of respondents and participants was 
assured.  
3.3.14 Summary    
Chapter three was devoted to the study area and the methodology for the study. The chapter 
was divided into two main sections including the study area and data collection methods. 
The first section of the chapter looked at the description of the study area that offers a general 
background information to the study area and also discussed the various socio-economic 
activities that are found in Elmina. The second section of the chapter included the data 
collection methods and instruments that were used for the study. They included the 
philosophical paradigm that directed the research, the research strategy, data sources, 
quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, sampling techniques and sample sizes, 
58 
 
observation, taking of photography of unique features, data analysis and ethical 
consideration of the research.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
59 
 
CHAPTER FOUR 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 
4.0 Introduction 
This chapter is made up of results and discussions of the analysis of quantitative and 
qualitative data gathered from the field. The results and the discussions include some 
demographic characteristics of the respondents and various themes based on the objectives 
of the study. The themes comprise causes of waste pollution, effects of waste pollution on 
the coastal environment and socio-economic life of the people, sanitation management in 
Elmina and recommended measures to pollution in Elmina.  
4.1 Demographic Characteristics 
The demographic characteristics of the respondents include the number of the respondents 
that took part in the research, age, level of education and occupation of the respondents.  
 
Male
47%
53% Female
Figure 4.1Percentage of male and female respondents  
Source: Field data (2017) 
The research captured both male and female respondents because both sexes were affected 
by pollution in Elmina coastal area. The research sampled 300 respondents from Elmina 
coastal area which represented 100% of the sample size used for the study. The respondents 
60 
 
comprised 160 males and 140 females from age 20 years and above which represented 53% 
male and 47% female respectively (see Fig. 4.1).  
Related to the sexes is the occupation types that respondents do. Results from the data 
showed the distribution below. 
Percentage
60 56.7
50
40
30.3
30
20
10 7.75.3
0
Primary Secondary Tertiary Unemployed
Occupation Category
 
Figure 4.2: Percentage distribution of respondent’s occupation types 
 
The occupation types were categorised into four. Primary occupation type which included 
fishing, fish mongering and labourers, representing 30.3% of respondents within the 
occupation categories (Fig. 4.2). The secondary type included artisans such as masons, 
carpenters, hair dressers, food vendors and electricians. The secondary category was the 
most represented among the respondents with 56.7%. The tertiary type was the least 
represented with a percentage of 5.3% which included teachers, drivers and credit vendors. 
The next category was the unemployed that included students, retired teachers and the 
jobless.  
61 
 
Percentages
Apart from the occupation types of the people as indicated above, a cross tabulation of their 
levels of education and age distribution was also considered (see Tab. 4.1). 
Table 4.1: Age and level of education cross tabulation 
Age  No formal Primary  JSS/Middle SHS Tertiary Total  Percentage  
education Sch. 
20-30 29 19 59 21 11 139 46.3 
31-40 9 8 36 23 3 79 26.3 
41-50 11 6 16 10 0 43 14.3 
51+ 6 2 18 13 0 39 12.9 
Total  55 35 129 67 14 300 100 
% 18.3 11.6 42.9 22.3 4.6 100 - 
Source: Field data (2017) 
df is 0.05, Confident Interval is 95%, and Level of Significance is 0.0413 
 
The age and level of education cross tabulation in Table 4.1 showed that the age groups, 20-
30 years recorded 46.3% of the respondents, 31-40 years of age records 26.3% of the 
respondents, 41-50 years recorded 14.3% of the respondents and 50 years and above 
recorded 12.9% of the respondents. Among the levels of education, 18.3% of the 
respondents had no formal education, 11.6% had primary education, 42.9% had JSS/Middle 
School education, 22.3% had SHS education and 4.6% had tertiary education. The 
JSS/Middle School recorded a highest percentage and that reflected in all the age groups 
(Fig. 4.3). This means that the age group 20-30 years was the largest number of people in 
Elmina coastal area as per the number of respondents sampled. It also revealed that the 
JSS/Middle school education had the highest number of people among the educated 
population of the respondents and the tertiary had the lowest number among the educated 
group (Fig. 4.3). On the whole, 81.7% of the respondents received some form of formal 
education from the primary school level to tertiary level. However, 18.7% of the respondents 
did not receive any formal education (Tab. 4.1/ Fig. 4.3).  
62 
 
 
Figure 4.3: Level of Education within Age Groups  
Source: Field data (2017) 
It was set out from the proposition that high illiteracy rate contributed to the cause of 
pollution in Elmina coast. Therefore, one expects that with high literacy rate of 81.7% per 
the respondents, it would help reduce indiscriminate dumping of waste and defecation 
around. From the fact that they would know of the bye- laws and the effects of pollution on 
their socio-economic life through reading and the knowledge they acquired from school. 
However, that was not the case in Elmina coastal area from the fact that despite the high 
literacy rates, pollution levels were equally high.  
Interview with the KEEA Municipal Environmental Health Officer revealed that it was not 
high illiteracy rate of the inhabitants in Elmina which was causing the coastal pollution in 
the area but rather the negative attitude of those people who did not want to walk some 
distance before dumping solid waste into the containers provided for that purpose. Excerpts 
from his words are as follow: 
63 
 
“A school teacher was caught defecating at the beach. In this case, the teacher is 
educated and he knows the effects of defecating at the beach openly but that does 
not prevent him from defecating at the beach. So defecation and dumping of waste 
are caused by negative attitude rather than high illiteracy rate” (KEEA Municipal 
Environmental Officer, 13/04/2017). 
It was observed also that inadequate and poor condition of toilet facilities and inadequate 
waste containers were greatly responsible for faecal matter and other pollutants such as 
municipal wastes in the area rather than the high illiteracy rate in the area. The observation 
was that the people were many but there were inadequate or no sanitary facilities for them 
to use. The people were using the beach for such purposes.  Where the people know about 
good hygiene practices but there is no place of convenience, they are compelled to defecate 
around and dump waste anywhere (Biney, 1982) and this confirms what is happening in 
Elmina (Plate 4.1 and Plate 4.2).  
4.2 Types and Causes of Pollutants in Elmina Coast 
The pollutants in Elmina coastal area included organic and inorganic substances. These 
include plastic waste, faeces, discarded nets and boats, tins, coconut husks among others. It 
was observed that plastic waste formed the greater portion of the pollutants in Elmina coastal 
area. Spatial variation among the pollutants was observed. It was realised that there was 
high degree of pollutants at some parts of western corridor of the study area stretching from 
Mpoden Market beach west of Elmina Castle beach through Ayisah beach to Batuma beach. 
The presence of large heaps of sediments here was due to indiscriminate dumping and 
defecation. The geology of hard rocks presence at the beach at the west resisted erosion 
which could carry the pollutants away like other parts in the eastern corridor at the east of 
Elmina Castle. Although at eastern corridor dumping at the beach was on going and the run 
offs were also bringing pollutants to the beach, there was low presence of sediments at the 
beach. This was due to soft geology of the coast here. Therefore, erosion was taking place 
64 
 
here which was carrying sediments away into the sea. According to the KEEA Municipal 
Environmental Officer, “Household waste such as rubbish, plastic materials form the 
greater portion of the pollutants”. These findings are confirmed by William (1996) that 
different pollutants are identified in coastal environments. The organic pollutants are 
biodegradable while the inorganic substances are non-biodegradable (plastic waste) which 
affect the environment because they can take very long period of time to decay, that is, over 
hundred years. Disposable processes of non-biodegradable pollutants like plastic materials 
can affect the environment and the life of people. Burying of plastic materials can affect the 
environment because they do not decay and burning them too produces carbon dioxide 
which at the long run succeeds in increasing the greenhouse effect that results in global 
warming.  
From the study, a number of practices were identified as factors that caused pollution in 
Elmina coastal area (Fig. 4.4). From the Fig.4.4, the factors included dumping of waste at 
the beach, living close to the beach, defecation at the beach, visitors who come to the beach 
and livestock rearing at the beach. The leading factor contributing to the generation of high 
volume of pollutants at the beach was dumping of waste (89%) followed by people living 
close to the beach (87%) whiles the least revealed factor according to Fig. 4.4 was livestock 
of rearing at the beach which recorded 46% of the respondents saying yes and the rest 54% 
said no.  
65 
 
 
89 87 86
90
80
70  54 54
60 46 46
50
40  
30
20 11
13 14
10
0
Dumping of Living close Defecation Visitors to Livestock
waste to beach the beach rearing  at
beach
Causes of coastal pollution
Percentage (%)   Yes Percentage (%)   No
 
Figure 4.4: Causes of Coastal Pollution,  
Source: Field data (2017) 
 
Residents living close to the beach dumped their waste at the beach because of close 
proximity to the beach and also due to the lack of dustbins within their vicinities. This was 
also revealed in FGD with the women group as: 
“We dump waste around since there are no waste containers for that and when the 
containers are available, they are located far away or not kept clean. The National 
Sanitation Day was helping to keep the surrounding clean but now that it is not 
operational the waste has increased. The Zoom Lion workers are not being paid 
these days so they do not do their cleaning work effectively” (Gifty, a 54-year-old 
fishmonger, 24/03/2017). 
From transect observation, Benya lagoon in the area is located in the bay which contained a 
lot of debris that were dumped there by residents. The coastal area of Elmina was densely 
populated due to thriving fishing activity and good landing beaches in the area which enticed 
fisher folks from other towns such as Apam, Cape Coast, Ada, Kpone etc., but there were 
inadequate waste management facilities in the area to match the large number of people. 
There were not enough containers and dustbins at vantage points for the residents to dump 
66 
 
Percentage
waste materials into them. The inhabitants over there dumped their domestic waste and 
sewage at the beach. 
Another causation factor that came up strongly was defecation at the beach due to 
inadequate sanitary facilities in the community to meet the needs of the people. The men 
group asserted to this factor as:  
“We defecate at the beach and the bank of Benya lagoon because the public toilet 
facilities are not kept clean and they smell. We defecate at the beach because of 
inadequate toilet facilities in the area and bad odour that comes out from the few 
available” (Nkrumah, a 42-year-old fisherman).  
Similarly, it was observed that there were insufficient places of convenience to cater for the 
large population in the area and those public toilets available too smell badly because they 
were not kept well. As a result, some inhabitants and visitors to the area were forced to 
defecate into Benya river and at the beach which contributed to pollution and poor sanitation 
condition in the Elmina coastal area. 
In response to the issue of littering of the beach and open defecation, KEEA Municipality 
officer related to it in the discussion as: 
“KEEA Municipality provides some public toilet facilities and waste containers but 
due to negative attitude, the residents do not use them. The residents do not want to 
walk some distance to access the facilities so they throw the rubbish around and 
defecate at the beach. Also, some of the houses built 30 years ago do not have toilet 
facilities, so the occupants defecate at the beaches” (A 51-year-old Environmental 
officer of KEEA Municipality). 
Other comments related to the use of the beach as a place of defecation and refuse dump 
came up strongly as being more of an attitudinal concern rather than that of lack of adequate 
facilities as:  
67 
 
“Attitudinally, residents dump waste at the beaches and defecate as well. But the 
beaches are not dumping grounds.  People deliberately dump waste materials along 
the shore all over the country, an act which is not only limited to Elmina. The cause 
of pollution along the coast of Ghana is due to the attitude of the people. People 
deliberately carry rubbish from their homes and dump them into the sea which is 
eventually brought back to the shore by the sea to make the beach dirty” (A 41-year- 
old EPA Officer in Cape Coast, 13/04/2017). 
Activities of visitors that lead to the littering of the beach include tourists who do not dispose 
off their waste into bins and also boat builders and fishermen whose activities generate waste 
such as debris of wood, abandoned spoilt boats and nets. One of the reasons why people are 
attracted into the area is as a result of the thriving fishing activities, good landing beach and 
the tourist sites in Elmina coastal zone.  
According to KEEA Municipal Environmental Officer,  
“Seasonal fisher migrants are attracted to Elmina coastal area from different fishing 
communities along the coast of Ghana. The influx of the people into Elmina coastal 
area leads to people dwelling very close to the beach as in the case of communities 
in Elmina such as Ayisah and Batuma. As a result, the residents generate a lot of 
waste and dump them at the beach as well as practising open defecation due to their 
negative attitude. Some of the tourists or visitors to the beach also defecate and drop 
litter along the beach”.  
Some residents at Batuma, Ayisah and others have turned their part of the beach into rearing 
of pigs which contributes to the production of filth at the beach. 
In relation, officers attested to the pouring of unwanted engine oil into the sea and Benya 
lagoon as one of the factors contributing to coastal pollution in Elmina. This is the gist of 
what they said:   
“The fishermen in Elmina pour unwanted petroleum product like engine oil removed 
from their machines into the Benya lagoon which affect the aquatic species” (A 50-
year-old officer of the Ministry of Fisheries in Elmina). 
68 
 
It was also detected that waste management was not effectively carried out in the area. Some 
heaps of rubbish were found at various points along the beach unattended to. One of the 
offensive ones was one in front of the Mpoden Market between Ayisah community and the 
Elmina Castle (Plate 4.1).  
 
Plate 4.1: Waste left unmanaged in front of a market 
 
The causes of pollution were cross-tabulated with the occupation types to ascertain the level 
of significance in the respondents’ views (Tab. 4.2). Tab. 4.2 showed the distribution of the 
results of the causes and effects of pollutants according to the respondents. The classification 
of occupational types was represented and explained in Fig. 4. 2. 
As the population is high and the people do not have matching facilities to take care of the 
waste they generate daily, they use the beach as a dumping ground. This is confirmed by 
the various occupational groups with higher percentages and the least among them is the 
secondary occupational group with a percentage of 87.1% (Tab. 4.2). In Tab. 4.2, the 
different occupational groups agreed to the fact that living close to the beach is one of the 
major causes of pollution at the beach. This study confirms findings as the results show high 
percentages (Tab. 4.2). For example, people in the primary occupation category showed 
69 
 
86.8% agreement to the fact that defecation at the beach was a major cause of coastal 
pollution in Elmina. The percentage distributions of the various groups are high with each 
higher than 80%. The large population of people at the Elmina beach in terms of the facilities 
available showed that the facilities were inadequate and people resorted to defecating and 
dumping rubbish anywhere in the coastal area. These findings are confirmed by the study 
of Goldberg (1995) that large population living close to the beach contributes significantly 
to coastal pollution. According to Biney (1982), where a coastal community does not have 
adequate refuse dumping facilities, the inhabitants use the coastal environment as a waste 
dumping area and then create pollutants that disturb users of coastal environments.  
From the qualitative data, the interviews with the chief fisherman and local opinion leaders 
such as boat owners and fishmongers of Elmina coastal area revealed that ocean current was 
also a causation of pollution. According to the men focus group,  
“Apart from individuals who dump rubbish, defecate and rear pigs at the beach 
causing pollution in the Elmina coastal area, the sea also brings some waste 
materials or pollutants of various types like polythene bags, plastic substances and 
others to the beach. So pollution in Elmina coastal area is also caused by 
transportation process of the sea” (Kofi, a 30-year-old man of men FGD).  
From the interviews, this was a major factor as confirmed by the chief fisherman in the area 
who had much experience in the area. This is an excerpt from his words: 
 “The sea also brings waste materials from elsewhere to our beach” (Excerpts from 
an interview with a 56-year-old chief fisherman of Elmina).  
The topography and runoffs in Elmina were also mentioned as causes of pollution at the 
beach and Benya lagoon. According to the KEEA Municipal Environment Health Unit 
Officer,  
“The topography of Elmina is responsible for the solid waste pollution in the coastal 
area of Elmina. The conical nature of the topography of Elmina causes runoffs to 
70 
 
transport waste materials whenever it rains into the sea, lagoon and the rivers in the 
area. Therefore, the coastal area becomes dirty and polluted” (A 45-year old man 
of KEEA Municipal Environmental Health Unit). 
It was noticed that there were inadequate sanitary facilities because of limited funds on the 
part of KEEA Municipal Assembly. Also because of inadequate funds, the KEEA Municipal 
Assembly was not able to contract and pay people to keep the few available sanitary 
facilities well to prevent bad odours coming from them.  
This finding is confirmed by William (1996) that different pollutants are identified in coastal 
environments. The findings are confirmed by other earlier studies that were carried out by 
different authors elsewhere. For example, Vikas and Dwarakish (2015) identify that human 
beings living in coastal areas are the primary cause of pollution in the coastal environment; 
Islam and Tanaka (2004) reveal that human dwellings, tourism and others are responsible 
for release of pollutants into the coastal environment that cause pollution ; Goldberg (1995) 
states that the key driving factor of coastal pollution is the rise in population that produces 
waste without proper management; and Biney (1982) also states that unavailability of 
sanitary facilities compel residents to use the beach for such purposes. 
From the findings, the propositions are confirmed that inadequate funding and improper 
dumping are some of the causes of pollution in Elmina coastal area.  
4.3 Effects of Coastal Pollution  
Pollutants are released into the coastal environment through natural and anthropogenic 
events. The pollutants impact negatively on the coastal zone, users and residents of coastal 
area as well as socio-economic activities that take place in the region. The effects of coastal 
pollution in this section consist of environmental effects, socio-economic effects and effects 
of concentrations of some heavy metals.   
71 
 
4.3.1 Effects of Pollution on the Coastal Environment  
Pollution in Elmina coastal zone affects the environment by making the area dirty and 
unclean. This makes the place less attractive to residents and visitors. The pollutants disturb 
the ecosystem too. Sometimes the pollutants trap and kill marine species in the area. 
80 76
70
60 56
50 44
40
30 24
20
10
0
Yes               Yes  No              No
Observations about the beach
Clean beach Pollutants affect marine species at the beach
 
Figure 4.5: Respondents’ Knowledge about the Beach   
Source: field data (2017) 
The following were the observations of respondents about pollution on the coastal 
environment. From Fig. 4.5, out of 300 respondents, 76% observed that the coastal area of 
Elmina was dirty. Twenty-four percent (24%) of the respondents said that the beach was 
clean. On the issue of influence of pollutants on marine species, 56% of the respondents 
(Fig. 4.5) being the majority thought that the pollutants environmentally did not affect 
marine species.  The rest of the 44% were of the view that the pollutants affected the marine 
species in the coastal environment.  
There was presence of a large quantity of municipal waste at the hard rocky part at the 
western corridor of the study area. Similarly, it was observed that the presence of different 
types of pollutants in the area made some part of the beach very filthy and stinky and 
affected people and marine species. A lot of flies were also observed not only perching on 
72 
 
Percentage 
faeces and other rotten pollutants at the beach but also hovering around. Coastal pollutants 
can result in wide diversity of hostile environmental effects to individual creatures and 
ecosystems (Department of Environmental Conservation, 2012). Women interviewees 
observed that beaches were dirty due to the pollutants and related effects on the coastal 
species as:  
“The pollutants make the beach dirty and unclean. Plastic pollutants trap, choke and 
kill fishes and birds” (From Tutu, a 45- year old woman in Elmina, 23/03/2017).  
Plastic debris serves as a basis for toxic chemicals which affect marine species (NCBI, 
2012).  Plastic materials in general move poisonous compounds that potentially post health 
hazards to wildlife (Mouat et. al,.2010). Observations made by the KEEA Municipal 
Environmental Officer. He narrated how pollutants affected marine organisms: 
“Pollutants around cover the habitation and breeding grounds of marine species at 
the shore and affect them as well. Pollutants in the coastal zone trap and kill marine 
species such as fishes, birds, turtles and others. Pollutants also retard the growth of 
important marine species that are useful for the support of the ecosystem” (A 56-
year old Environmental Officer in KEEA Municipality). 
According to the officer of Ministry of Fisheries in Elmina Municipality,  
“Unwanted oil poured by fishermen into the sea and Benya lagoon prevents the 
marine species from getting enough oxygen which fishes and other marine species 
need to live and reproduce. If the pollution process continues, it will result not only 
in the reduction of number of coastal marine species but also lead to extinction of 
the organisms in the coastal environment”. 
  
73 
 
Table 4.2: Cross tabulation of causes and effects of pollution with occupation at 
Elmina coast 
 Causes Effects 
Living close to the beach Economic Activity 
Occupation Type Frequency Yes (%) Frequency Yes (%) 
Primary 78 85.7 41  45.6 
Secondary 147 86.5 62 36.5 
Tertiary 14 87.5 9 56.3 
Unemployed 21 91.3 8 34.8 
Total 260 86.7 120 40.1 
     
Defecation  at the beach Influence on the life of people 
Occupation Type Frequency Yes (%) Frequency Yes (%) 
Primary 79 86.7 82 90.1 
Secondary 142 83.5 140 82.4 
Tertiary 15 93.8 15 93.8 
Unemployed 22 95.7 23 100.0 
Total 258 86 260 86.7 
     
Dumping waste  Poor Health Conditions 
Occupation Type Frequency Yes (%) Frequency Yes (%) 
Primary 82 90.1 76 83.5 
Secondary 148 87.1 163 95.9 
Tertiary 15 93.8 15 93.8 
Unemployed 22 95.7 19 82.6 
Total 267 89 273 91.0 
     
Effects on Marine Species   
Occupation Type Frequency Yes (%)   
Primary 39 43.3   
Secondary 71 41.8   
Tertiary 8 50   
Unemployed 14 60.9   
Total 132 44.1   
Source: Field data (2017) 
df is 0.05, Confident interval (CI) is 95% 
Level of significance is 0.032 
 
The pollutants were seen to pose problem to sea creatures such as turtles and birds that use 
the beach as breeding place. Some domestic animals such as pigs and fowls were seen 
feeding on the pollutants at the beach. Tab. 4.2 shows cross tabulation of causes, effects and 
occupation types. 
74 
 
4.3.2 Socio-economic Effects of Pollution  
The socio-economic effects comprise the effects of pollution on the social life in terms of 
health condition as well as recreational activities and economic activities. The socio-
economic effects of pollution in coastal area occur in various forms. Debris in the coastal 
area leads to wide variety of undesirable ecological, economic, social and public health as 
well as security impacts (Mouat et al., 2010). In the light of this, the study explores some of 
the effects of the coastal pollution as per the respondents’ occupational groups.  
It was observed that pollution made the beach dirty and less attractive to its users. Pollution 
influenced the health condition, recreational activities and economic activities in the area.  
Pollution caused spread of water borne diseases which affected the inhabitants. The 
presence of Pollutants such as rubbish and faeces reduced recreational activities such as 
swimming and strolling along certain parts of the Elmina beach.  
 The dirty and unattractive beach of Elmina also retarded the economic growth in the area 
as some tourists would never visit polluted area twice. Therefore, there would be reduction 
in generation of revenue from tourism sector. The Fig. 4.5 indicates the various ways by 
which pollution affects the people in Elmina coastal area. 
89.3 91 84.3
100 74.3
80
60
25.7
40 10.7 9 15.7
20
0
Bad odour Comfortable Coastal  Beach
from the using the dirty pollution in pollution
beach beach the area contributing
causing poor to migration
health from the area
conditions
Percentage (%) Yes Percentage (%) No
 
Figure 4.6: Social effects of Pollution in the Area 
 Source: Field data (2017) 
75 
 
 
From Fig. 4.6, an overwhelming majority of respondents representing 91% indicated that 
the pollution in Elmina coastal zone caused poor health conditions. Poor health conditions 
include presence of diseases and unattractive nature of the beach. Respondents representing 
89.3% stated that they smelled bad odour from the beach which made them uncomfortable. 
Respondents representing 84.3% were of the view that pollution in Elmina did not compel 
them to migrate from the area.  
Pollutants in the surroundings brought untold hardship to the residents in Elmina. The 
pollutants contaminated the water bodies and the air which led to contraction of various 
diseases on the part of the residents. As a result, the victims spent more money on drugs and 
payment of hospital bills. The bad odour from the pollutants coupled with unpleasant sight 
of them such as faeces, plastic and debris made the residents and other users of the beaches 
uncomfortable.  That was not all but also, the pollution was putting the life of the residents 
in the area at risk as people defecated and threw waste around which caused water borne 
diseases in the area. At Batuma, smoke from the ovens of the fishmongers filled the air and 
affected eyes of some residents there. At Ayisah, spoilt fish were seen dried on sheds at the 
beach which filled the air with bad odour. This is confirmed by the statement that coastal 
pollutants influence negatively humans’ health and safety (US EPA, 2007).  It was observed 
that there were heaps of pollutants at the beach and at various points. Plastic bottles, 
polythene bags and discarded nets as well as ropes were seen in the Benya lagoon and the 
beach which disturbed the users of the lagoon and the beach. Pigs, wild birds and flies were 
also sighted feeding on some of the pollutants. Some women were sighted disposing waste 
water into the sea after processing fish. This is confirmed by a study which states that 
improper disposal of both solid and liquid waste in communities has resulted in choked 
gutters, choked lagoon close to the sea with many flies in the community and the acts have 
76 
 
brought diseases such as cholera, malaria, river blindness, chest infections and other 
infectious as well as hazardous ailment distressing people in affected communities (Asmah 
et al., 2013). The respondents pointed out that though the beach was polluted in the area 
which brought health problem to them, they did not migrate from the area because the area 
served as the source of their livelihood. The statement that pollution does not cause 
migration in Elmina coastal area is supported by the men FGD:  
“Although pollution makes us fall sick sometimes and we visit the hospital, we do 
not migrate because fishing serves as main source of our livelihood which is thriving 
in the Elmina coastal area. Therefore, we prefer to stay in the area and work to get 
income and food rather than leaving the area to elsewhere. The presence of rubbish, 
faecal matter and other waste materials in the area produces bad odour. It then 
makes us sick and uncomfortable but we still stay in the area without migrating 
because that is where we work to get our daily bread. Fishing migrants are rather 
attracted highly to the area which add to the pollution problem as they defecate 
around due to inadequate toilet facilities” (Mensah, a 50-year old Fisherman at 
Elmina coast).   
The finding is confirmed by earlier finding that pollution in coastal zone affects the health 
of the people. This is confirmed by the finding of Nunoo and Evans (2007) that coastal 
pollutants lead to health problem to the users of the beach. Some of the health problems in 
Elmina Coastal area include presence of diseases such as cholera, malaria and others as 
shown in Fig. 4.7 
77 
 
60
51
50
40
40
30
20
10 6
3
0
Percentage
Cholera Outbreak Dysentry Outbreak Malaria Outbreak Other Diseases
 
Figure 4. 7: Health condition of the people in Elmina coastal area  
Source: Field data (2017) 
 
It was identified that pollution in Elmina coastal area resulted in some health problems and 
this is depicted by the survey conducted in Fig. 4.7. Cholera was mentioned by 51% of 
respondents as a health problem in the area, followed by malaria with 40%, dysentery with 
6% and other health problems followed with 3%.  Poor sanitation condition in Elmina 
coastal area caused the diseases. The waste was poorly disposed off in the area. People 
dumped pollutants at the beach and defecated into the water bodies such as the sea and the 
Benya lagoon. These practices accounted for the presence of water and food borne diseases 
such as cholera, dysentery and others. Choked gutters and stagnant water created by 
improper dumping of waste were responsible for the breeding grounds mosquitoes which 
caused malaria in the area.  
“Cholera is a common disease that occurs mainly during the raining season in 
Elmina coastal area. The disease was common in the area due to poor sanitation as 
people defecate around which pollute the water bodies and food” (A 44-year-old 
Deputy Director of Nursing in Elmina, 12/06/2017).  
78 
 
The effects of poor health conditions on respondents showed a total of 91.0% (Tab. 4.2) 
which meant that respondents generally agreed to the percentage that coastal debris affected 
the health of fishermen and people who live around the polluted environment as confirmed 
by US, EPA (2007), that, coastal debris influences humans by endangering their health and 
safety. A high percentage of 95.9% of respondents in the secondary occupation type showed 
a high percentage as their work was also more related to the coastal ecosystem.  For 
example, usage of water contaminated with pathogens from faecal matter causes some 
infectious diseases such as dysentery, skin rashes, diarrhoea, typhoid and cholera (Sheavly, 
2007), which confirms the findings that coastal debris affects the lives of coastal dwellers. 
Data on some water borne diseases were obtained from the Elmina Urban Health Centre 
(EUHC) for the period January to May 2017 to ascertain the actual pollution related diseases 
diagnosed at the health facility (Fig. 4.8) 
70 66
60
50
40
30 27
20
10 7
0
Malaria Diarrhoea Typhoid Cholera
Cases of Water Borne Diseases
 
Figure 4.8: Cases of Water Borne Diseases Diagnosed at EUHC   
Source: Field data, 2017 
79 
 
Percentages
According to their records, 66% of malaria cases were diagnosed, followed by diarrhoea 
with 27% and typhoid with seven percent. Therefore, malaria was the leading water related 
health problem in the area from January to May 2017.   
The interviews and focus group discussions indicated that cholera and water borne diseases 
were caused by the poor sanitation conditions in the Elmina coastal zone as people defecated 
openly and threw pollutants around indiscriminately.  
“People defecate around because of inadequate toilet facilities and poor state of the 
few available toilet facilities which result in outbreak of diseases” (Mansa, a 45-
year-old fishmonger at Elmina, 24/03/2017).  
Through observation, it was revealed that the population in Elmina coastal area was large 
but there were limited public toilet facilities to match up with the large size of the population. 
Also, where the toilet facilities were available, the residents did not use them as places of 
convenience because the facilities were either not kept clean and they smelled or residents 
did not want to pay fees before using them. So they preferred to use the beach instead. 
Furthermore, it was realised that some houses near the beach lacked toilet facilities. As a 
result, the occupants used the beach as place of convenience.  Similarly, people disposed of 
waste at the beach because there were inadequate waste management containers for that 
purpose. Plates 4.2 and 4.3 showed people defecating and dumping waste at the beach 
respectively. The poor sanitation practices discussed triggered the prevalence of the health 
problems in the area. An earlier study states that contaminated beach water causes not only 
swimmers to be sick but harms coastal economies and the diseases attributed to the polluted 
beach water comprise stomach flu, skin rashes, pinkeye, respiratory infections, meningitis 
and hepatitis (Devine, 2014).  
80 
 
 
Plate 4.2: Defecating at the Beach of Elmina  
Source: Field data (2017) 
The poor sanitation conditions are caused by people defecating at the beach and also 
dumping of waste around indiscriminately. 
 
Plate 4.3: Dumped Waste at the Beach  
Source: Field data (2017) 
81 
 
Interview and discussions revealed that there were frequent occurrences of water borne 
diseases like cholera, malaria and typhoid fever. People defecate around and into water 
bodies which causes the cholera and the other related diseases while stagnant water caused 
by indiscriminate dumping of waste materials breed mosquitoes which bite people and give 
them malaria. 
The men focus group narrated that some of the pollutants including faecal matter did not 
only cause water borne diseases like cholera and typhoid fever but also produced bad smell 
which polluted the air and made the people uncomfortable. For the waste materials, they 
pointed out that they caused stagnant water whenever it rained which resulted in breeding 
of mosquitoes which gave people malaria when they bit them. This is a gist of what they 
said: 
 “We use the sea water as substitute for salt when cooking in our boats. So the 
presence of faeces in the sea water makes us to contract diseases such as cholera, 
typhoid fever and other water borne diseases. So we ended up at the hospital which 
imposed financial burden on us and reduced productivity because man hours are 
lost” (Kwame, a 40-year-old fisherman at Elmina coast). 
The experts group also explained how the health problems occur in the area. This is an 
excerpt of their words: 
“The nature of the topography of the Elmina and the poor sanitation practices of 
people have made the coastal areas such as the beach and the Benya Lagoon dirty 
which is inimical to tourist attraction and general health condition of the residents. 
Apart from residents who defecate at the beach and the buffer zone of Benya 
Lagoon, seasonal visitors also contribute to this problem in the coastal area of 
Elmina which result in outbreak of water borne diseases like cholera and typhoid 
fever.  Seasonal fishing migrants are attracted to Elmina coastal area from Cote’ 
D’voire, Accra, Apam and other fishing communities who do not stay in any house 
during the visit but in their boats and defecate along the beach. Also, tourists and 
82 
 
holiday makers defecate along the beach” (A 51-years old, KEEA Municipal 
Environment Health Unit Officer).  
In relation to the health findings, the proposition that the pollution robs Elmina beach of its 
natural beauty and poses health problems has been confirmed by the findings. This implies 
that pollution at the Elmina beach poses major health issues such as malaria, diarrhoea, 
typhoid, cholera and others. 
Also, there is a relationship between public health and economic activity and therefore once 
people are living in an unhealthy environment, they are likely to have a lower economic 
turnover. Potts and Hastings (2011), related that coastal litter had considerable direct and 
indirect effects upon the economy. Another category of the effects of the coastal pollution 
in Elmina coast is the effects on economic activities including fishing and tourism. These 
economic effects are presented and discussed as follows. 
62
70
60
50 38
40
30
20
10
0
Yes No
 
Figure 4.9: Effects of Pollution on Economic Activities in Elmina 
Source: Field data (2017) 
The respondents of Elmina coastal area showed their agreement about how the coastal 
pollution influenced economic activities in the area. They indicated whether or not the 
pollution affects economic activities in Elmina coastal area. 
83 
 
Percentage Response on effects on 
economic activities
The economic activities in the area include fishing, salt mining, tourism and others. From 
Fig. 4.9, 62% of the respondents were saying that pollution in the area did not affect the 
economic activities such as fishing and tourism in the study area while 38% claimed 
pollution in the area affected economic activities in the area. The presence of pollutants like 
faeces and rubbish at the beach discourage tourists who patronage tourist industry in the 
area. Therefore, there is reduction in revenue mobilisation from the tourism sector in the 
area. Pollutants such as plastic materials are caught by fishermen instead of fish. These 
reduce the catch of the fishermen and lead to low level of income generation.  From the men 
focus group discussions, it was recognised that the pollutants in the coastal environment 
affected those who carried out fishing activities close to the shore more than it affected those 
who did fishing far away from the shore. It was observed that there was presence of so much 
debris pollutants along the shore which affected those fisher folks who cast their nets close 
to the shore. Some of fishermen said that away from the coast on the sea there was little or 
no pollutants so they did not catch debris pollutants when they cast their net in the sea far 
away from the shore. It was also observed that majority of fishermen carried out their fishing 
activities in the boats far away on the sea.  
Other major effects were narrated concerning debris which made the beach dirty and were 
caught in nets instead of fishes by drag net fishermen and that affected their revenue 
generation. The men focus group also said that the propellers of the outboard motors were 
also destroyed and their fishing business was on the downturn due to coastal pollution. 
Consequently, it does not only put financial burden on them but also reduces the income of 
the fishermen and productivity in the fishing industry. They said that pollutants like 
polythene bags and plastic materials affected drag net fishermen who carried fishing 
activities close to the shore. They said there were situations where rubbish was caught in 
nets by fishermen instead of fish. Therefore, pollutants reduced their income and made them 
84 
 
poor. Also, the KEEA Municipal Environment Health Unit Officer confirmed that the 
various pollutants such as polythene bags, rappers and plastic materials were affecting 
fishing activities in Elmina. He witnessed situations where fishermen cast their nets and 
caught debris instead of fish. Therefore, there is retardation in economic growth in the area. 
This is an excerpt from the men focus group discussion: 
“There are times that we catch plastic waste instead of fish and that makes us poor 
as well as debtors because we credit petrol and food before going to sea. Pollutants 
like ropes, polythene bags and nets loop around propellers of outboard motors and 
damage them. Plastic pollutants trap, choke and kill fishes, birds and other marine 
species.” (Badu, a 43-year-old fisherman in Elmina, 24/03/2017). 
Revenue generation at the coastal areas of Elmina from tourism is also of much concern to 
government agencies. The excerpts of interview with the Ministry of Fisheries, 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Assembly People narrated that pollutants 
discouraged beach users and tourists and made them feel uncomfortable at the beach. This 
affirms the effects of such pollutants as gathered from the interviews: 
“The pollutants make the beach dirty and unclean which discourage users of the 
beach. Pollutants like faeces unattractively reduce tourist patronage for the area 
leading to decrease in revenue generated from tourism sector in Elmina.” (A 56-
year old Environmental officer in KEEA Municipality).  
Responses from respondents on the effects of marine species in Elmina coastal area revealed 
that tertiary group of occupations has lower frequency than other responses from all other 
occupational groups (Tab.4.2). This indicates a decrease in the percentages across the 
occupational groups. This implies that respondents who are not fully among the primary and 
the secondary occupations are not fully aware of such dangers. The highest percentage of 
the tabulation in this category was recorded among the tertiary group which one will expect 
to be more enlightened and would understand the relationships between the debris and the 
85 
 
coastal wildlife to a large extent compare to other groups except the unemployed which is 
also mostly students and retired officers. The finding is confirmed by Claire (2016) who 
indicates that pollutants affect marine life both on shore and off shore by killing all kinds of 
creatures in coastal environment such as whale, sea lion and birds. 
The findings here have agreed with the study proposition that, “Pollution reduces socio-
economic activities of the area such as fishing, tourism and recreation”. In other words, if 
the rate of pollution at the Elmina beach is left unattended to will result in poverty which 
will induce out migration and other related social vices in the metropolis. 
4.3.3. Heavy Metal Concentrations in Elmina Coastal Environment 
Four heavy metals such as cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), arsenic (As) and mercury (Hg) were 
tested to find out their accumulated deposits in sea water, beach sand and fish in Elmina 
coastal environment and were compared with some standards of permissible levels. Spatial 
differentiations of the metals were looked at where necessary. Three samples were each 
collected. The samples were sea water, beach sand and fish from five points each in Elmina 
coastal zone. The following tables indicate the test for each category of samples. 
Table 4.3a: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Sea Water 
Sample ID (sea water) Cd (mg/L) Pb (mg/L) As (mg/L) Hg (mg/L) 
Elmina Castle Beach (clean) 0.135 0.001 0.003 0.001 
Elmina Beach Resort (clean) 0.103 0.002 0.011 0.003 
Mpoden Market Beach 
(unclean) 0.086 0.001 0.007 0.001 
Benya Lagoon  (unclean) 0.120 0.004 0.016 0.005 
Ayisah Beach    (unclean) 0.055 0.003 0.021 0.004 
WHO’s water standard, 1993 0.003 0.01 0.01 0.001 
Source: Field data (2017) 
 
From Tab. 4.3a, among the sea water samples tested for the four heavy metals at the five 
points of Elmina coast, cadmium tested higher concentrations in all the cases than the 
WHO’s water standard, 1993 (0.003mg/l) (also indicated clearly in Fig. 4.10) and lead tested 
86 
 
the lowest concentrations in all the five points as compared to WHO’s water standard, 1993 
(0.01mg/l). Elmina Castle Beach tested the highest concentrations of cadmium and Ayisah 
beach tested the lowest comparatively. The Elmina Castle beach and Elmina Resort beach 
looked clean but showed high concentrations of cadmium than Mpoden Market beach and 
Ayisah beach which contained heaps of sediments. This was so because former beaches at 
the eastern corridor were experiencing coastal erosion and run offs which carried a lot of 
pollutants into the sea while the later beaches at the western corridor were made up of hard 
rocks which did not allowed much of the pollutants to be carried into the sea. At Elmina 
Castle Beach and Benya lagoon, the water was calm because the waves were not strong and 
there were concentrations of human activities such as dumping of waste, fishing activities, 
recreational activities and defecation. Therefore, there was high concentrations of cadmium 
there. On the other hand, there were strong waves and large volumes of sediments at Ayisah 
Beach and Mpoden Market beaches. These could be responsible for the differences in the 
concentrations of the heavy metals there between the two places.  Exposure to cadmium and 
arsenic result in some health problems. For example, exposure to cadmium leads to lung 
and kidney problems to the victims (EFSA, 2009).  Also, exposure to arsenic brings about 
cancer and also low level exposure to arsenic causes skin, vascular and nervous system 
disorders (EFSA, 2009). So the health of those who use the beaches with high concentrations 
of cadmium and arsenic along Elmina coast would be at risk.   
Benya lagoon indicated high concentrations of all the four heavy metals tested except lead 
compared to WHO’s water standard, 1993 (Tab. 4.3a). Although lead had the lowest 
concentrations among the heavy metals tested, activities that contributed to its presence in 
Benya lagoon must be brought under control to prevent it from getting to critical point in 
years to come. The activities included boat painting, using of dangerous chemicals during 
economic activities such as mining, fishing and farming as well as pouring of waste of all 
87 
 
kinds into the lagoon which contributed to high concentrations of metals in the lagoon. 
Though the lead concentrations at the five points were lower than the permissible limit 
(0.01mg/l), Benya lagoon recorded the highest concentration of 0.004mg/l among the five 
points. It was then followed by Ayisah Beach with 0.003mg/l and the least concentration 
was recorded by both Elmina Castle Beach and Mpoden Market Beach with 0.001mg/l. The 
fishermen poured oil around and also used paint on their boats which were possible causes 
of lead concentration. Influence of high levels of lead in the short-term can cause brain 
damage, paralysis (lead palsy), anaemia and gastrointestinal symptoms (EFSA, 2009). 
Longer-term influence of lead can result in damage to the kidneys, reproductive and immune 
systems as well as effects on the nervous system and intellectual disability in children 
(EFSA, 2009).  
Mercury concentration in the Benya lagoon was the highest among the water samples tested 
for five points. This could be accounted by gold mining activities that took place in the 
surrounding areas years ago. This could pose health problems to the users of lagoon water. 
Mercury recorded higher concentrations in the water samples from Benya lagoon, Elmina 
Castle beach, and Ayisah beach (Fig. 4.10). Benya lagoon contained the highest 
concentration of mercury among the five samples tested. Mercury values at Mpoden and 
Elmina Beach Resort were equal to the WHO’s 1993 standard limit. Exposure to mercury 
excessively causes adverse health problems including damage to brain, central nervous 
system and kidney and also presents health risks during pregnancy (EFSA, 2009). The high 
concentrations of heavy metals in the Benya lagoon and other points were caused by human 
activities around the lagoon such as agricultural and industrial waste that were carried by 
streams and rained water run offs into the lagoon which ended up in the sea.  Therefore, 
those who use the sea water with high concentrations of mercury in Elmina are likely to face 
some of the health problems associated with mercury.  
88 
 
Heavy metals are seen as toxic to animals, fishes, human and the environment (Pandey and 
Madhuri, 2014). So, the high concentrations of Cd, As and Hg in Elmina sea water will 
affect the coastal species in the area. The population of some of the species will be reduced 
because they will die as a result of the heavy metal pollution in the area. 
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Elmina Castle Elmina Beach Mpoden Market Benya Lagoon Ayisah Beach WHO’s water 
Beach (clean) Resort (clean) Beach (unclean) (unclean) (unclean) standard, 1993
Concentration of heavy metals in water samples
Cd (mg/L) Pb (mg/L) As (mg/L) Hg (mg/L)
 
Figure 4.10: Concentration of Heavy Metals in Water samples  
Source: Field data (2017) 
 
Table 4.3b: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Sea Water  
Sample ID (sea water) Cd (mg/L) Pb (mg/L) As (mg/L) Hg (mg/L) 
Elmina Castle Beach (clean) 0.134 0.002 0.001 0.001 
Elmina Beach Resort (clean) 0.104 0.001 0.013 0.001 
Mpoden Market Beach 
(unclean) 0.083 0.002 0.005 0.002 
Benya Lagoon  (unclean) 0.130 0.003 0.014 0.006 
Ayisah Beach    (unclean) 0.052 0.004 0.023 0.004 
WHO’s water standard, 1993 0.003 0.01 0.01 0.001 
Source: Field data (2017) 
  
89 
 
Analysed data in mg/kgl
Table 4.3c: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Sea Water 
Sample ID (sea water) Cd (mg/L) Pb (mg/L) As (mg/L) Hg (mg/L) 
Elmina Castle Beach (clean) 0.1330 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 
Elmina Beach Resort (clean) 0.1010 0.0030 0.0120 0.0020 
Mpoden Market Beach 
(unclean) 0.0850 0.0010 0.0060 0.0030 
Benya Lagoon  (unclean) 0.1310 0.0030 0.0150 0.0060 
Ayisah Beach    (unclean) 0.0560 0.0030 0.0200 0.0040 
WHO’s water standard, 1993 0.003 0.01 0.01 0.001 
Source: Field data (2017) 
 
In Tab. 4.7, the minimum value of cadmium from the analysed data was 0.0520mg/l with a 
maximum value of 0.1350mg/l. Both the minimum and the maximum values are higher than 
WHO sea water standard 0.003mg/l, 1993 (WHO, 1993). In between the samples there were 
also recorded values higher than the permissible limit, which indicate high concentration of 
cadmium in those samples. From Tab. 4.6, the average cadmium value was 0.1005mg/l 
which is far higher than the standard 0.0030 mg/l. According to European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA) (2009), exposure of humans to cadmium affects lungs and kidney. Human 
activities including mining, industrial activities, agricultural activities and dumping of waste 
contribute to heavy metal pollution in the environment (Donahue, 2000). The high cadmium 
concentration in the sea and lagoon water in Elmina coast could be accounting for by the 
activities of the residents who dump waste into the environment and the run offs that bring 
pollutants from farming areas and the Elmina urban area.    
In the test for the presence of Lead (Pb), the minimum value recorded was 0.001mg/l and 
the maximum value 0.004mg/l which were lower than the standard value 0.01mg/l. The 
calculated mean was 0.0023mg/l which was also less than the standard value. The values of 
lead in Elmina are in good standard within the three sample collection periods. 
The tested value for arsenic showed a range of 0.1670 mg/l and the mean value was 
0.0210mg/l from Tab. 4.6.  Both were far greater than the standard value 0.010 mg/l, which 
ranges in higher rates per kilo than the standard. Both the maximum and the minimum values 
90 
 
of arsenic in the water samples were 0.168mg/l and 0.001mg/l respectively. The maximum 
value was higher than the standard value while the minimum was lower.  
In the test for the presence of mercury (Hg), the minimum value recorded was 0.001mg/l 
and a maximum of 0.0060mg/l with the maximum value higher than the standard value 
0.001mg/l, see Tab. 4.7. The calculated mean and range were 0.0029mg/l and 0.0050mg/l 
respectively which are also higher than the standard value. The values of mercury in Elmina 
are not in good standard within the three sample collection periods. 
Heavy metals pollute the environment through natural processes and anthropogenic actions 
(Knezevic et al., 2009). Human activities such as manufacturing, urban waste dumping, 
mining and the application of synthetic products cause heavy metal pollution (Donahue, 
2000). It can therefore be said that the high concentrations of Cd, As and Hg in most of the 
water samples tested in Elmina coastal area were caused mainly by the human activities of 
the residents in the area. These activities include dumping of waste, sewage discharge and 
open defecation in the area. Heavy metals are observed to be greatest toxicity to animals, 
fishes, human and environment (Pandey and Madhuri, 2014). If the activities that contribute 
to the high concentrations of the heavy metals are not prevented in Elmina, then both human 
and marine species in the area will be affected greatly. It will result in the reduction in the 
stock of fishes and organisms as they die.  
Table 4.4a: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Beach Sand 
Sample ID (beach sand) Cd (mg/kg) Pb (mg/kg) As (mg/kg) Hg (mg/kg) 
Elmina Castle Beach (clean) 0.0020 0.010 0.0026 0.0015 
Elmina Resort Beach (clean) 0.0040 0.0150 0.0015 0.0019 
Mpoden Market Beach 
(unclean) 0.0370 0.0090 0.0033 0.0021 
Benya Lagoon      (unclean) 0.0440 0.0110 0.0046 0.0012 
Ayisah Beach          (unclean) 0.0020 0.0080 0.0022 0.0016 
U.S. EPA, 1993 Max. Limit of 
Heavy Metal in soil 85 420 75 840 
Source: Field data (2017) 
91 
 
From Tab. 4.4a, all the four heavy metals tested in the sand samples at the five points were 
far lower than the US EPA, 1993 standards. However, some points recorded relatively 
higher concentrations than others.  
Table 4.4b: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Beach Sand 
Sample ID (beach sand) Cd (mg/kg) Pb (mg/kg) As (mg/kg) Hg (mg/kg) 
Elmina Castle Beach (clean) 0.0030 0.020 0.0027 0.0014 
Elmina Resort Beach (clean) 0.0050 0.0160 0.0014 0.0018 
Mpoden Market Beach 
(unclean)  0.0330 0.0080 0.0034 0.0022 
Benya Lagoon      (unclean) 0.0420 0.0120 0.0047 0.0013 
Ayisah Beach          (unclean) 0.0030 0.0070 0.0023 0.0015 
U.S. EPA, 1993 Max. Limit of 
Heavy Metal in soil 85 420 75 840 
Source: Field data (2017) 
Table 4.4c: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Beach Sand 
Sample ID (beach sand) Cd (mg/kg) Pb (mg/kg) As (mg/kg) Hg (mg/kg) 
Elmina Castle Beach (clean) 0.0010 0.0200 0.0025 0.0014 
Elmina Resort Beach (clean) 0.0030 0.0140 0.0014 0.0020 
Mpoden Market Beach 
(unclean) 0.0360 0.0080 0.0034 0.0022 
Benya Lagoon      (unclean) 0.0450 0.0120 0.0047 0.0011 
Ayisah Beach          (unclean) 0.0030 0.0070 0.0021 0.0014 
U.S. EPA, 1993 Max. Limit of 
Heavy Metal in soil 85 420 75 840 
 
Source: Field data (2017) 
 
The following are the results of beach sand samples which were taken on three occasions. 
The minimum value of cadmium from the analysed data of soil samples was 0.001 mg/kg 
with a maximum value of 0.045 mg/kg (see Tab. 4.7). Both the minimum and the maximum 
values are far lower than U.S. EPA (1993) maximum limit of heavy metal (Donahue, 2000) 
allowed in soils. This indicates the value of cadmium in mg/kg in sand is far lower which is 
a good sign of good health environment. There will not be Cd health problems so far as the 
use of the sand the beach is concerned. 
In the test for the presence of Lead (Pb), the minimum value recorded was 0.0070 mg/kg 
and a maximum of 0.0200 mg/kg. The calculated mean was 0.0118 mg/kg which is also less 
92 
 
than the standard value of 420 mg/kg. The values of lead in Elmina are in good standard 
within the three sample collection periods. 
The tested value for arsenic showed a range of 0.0033 mg/kg and the mean value of 0.0029 
mg/kg (see Tab. 4.6). Both were far less than the standard value of 75 mg/kg which range 
in far lesser rates per kilo than the standard level. The maximum and the minimum as per 
the data analysed were 0.0014 mg/kg and 0.0047mg/kg respectively from Tab. 4.7.  
In the test for the presence of Mercury (Hg), the minimum value recorded was 0.0011 mg/kg 
and a maximum of 0.0022 mg/kg. Both the minimum value and the maximum are far lesser 
than the standard value of 840 mg/kg.  This indicates that the rates of mercury (Hg) in the 
sand for recreation among others is in good condition as far as Mercury is concerned. So it 
can be said that the concentrations of the heavy metals in the sand samples tested were not 
at the levels that could cause harm. The following are the results and discussions on the fish 
samples tested. 
 
Table 4.5a: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Fish 
Sample ID (fish types) Cd (mg/kg) Pb (mg/kg) As (mg/kg) Hg (mg/kg) 
Drag net : Fish 0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0002 
Drag net : Crab 0.0020 0.0080 0.0014 0.0005 
Off shore: Herring  0.0010 0.0050 0.0009 0.0007 
Off shore: Red fish  0.0020 0.0090 0.0017 0.0001 
Benya Lagoon: fish-tilapia 0.0020 0.0050 0.0013 0.0002 
EU 1881/2006 Max. Limit 0.05 0.30 0.01 0.50 
Source: Field data (2017) 
 
From Tab. 4.5a, also the metal concentrations in the fish were far lower than the EU 
1881/2006 standard. However, there are some variations among the concentration of the 
metals (Fig. 4.11). 
 
93 
 
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Cd (mg/kg) Pb (mg/kg) As (mg/kg) Hg (mg/kg)
Concentration of heavy metals in fish samples
Drag net : Fish Drag net : Crab Off shore: Herring
Off shore: Red fish Benya Lagoon: fish-tilapia EU 1881/2006 Max. Limit
 
Figure 4. 11: Concentration of Heavy Metals in Fish  
Source: Field data (2017)  
 
Tab. 4.5b: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Fish 
Sample ID (fish types) Cd (mg/kg) Pb (mg/kg) As (mg/kg) Hg (mg/kg) 
Drag net: Fish 0.0020 0.0020 0.0012 0.0003 
Drag net: Crab 0.0010 0.0070 0.0015 0.0006 
Off shore: Herring 0.0020 0.0040 0.0008 0.0008 
Off shore: Red fish  0.0030 0.0080 0.0016 0.0002 
Benya Lagoon: fish-tilapia 0.0010 0.0060 0.0014 0.0003 
EU 1881/2006 Max. Limit 0.05 0.30 0.01 0.50 
Source: Field data (2017) 
Tab. 4.5c: Results of Heavy Metal Analysis of Fish 
Sample ID (fish types) Cd (mg/kg) Pb (mg/kg) As (mg/kg) Hg (mg/kg) 
Drag net 1. Fish 0.0010 0.0020 0.0012 0.0001 
Drag net 2. Crab 0.0030 0.0090 0.0015 0.0006 
Off shore: Herring  0.0020 0.0060 0.0007 0.0008 
Off shore: Red fish  0.0040 0.0080 0.0016 0.0003 
Benya Lagoon: fish-tilapia 0.0030 0.0060 0.0013 0.0001 
EU 1881/2006 Max. Limit 0.05 0.30 0.01 0.50 
Source: Field data (2017) 
Fish samples were taken on three occasions and the results were as follow. 
The minimum value of cadmium from the analysed data was 0.001 mg/kg with a maximum 
value of 0.004 mg/kg (see Tab. 4.7). Both the minimum and the maximum values are lower 
94 
 
Analysed data in mg/kg
than EU 1881/2006, Hahladakis (2015), maximum limit of 0.05 kg/mg. From Tab. 4.6, the 
average cadmium value was 0.002 mg/kg and the range was 0.003 mg/kg which are all lower 
than the standard value, showing that the fish samples have no cadmium effects.  So 
according to the result of the test fish consumption in the area will not pose any health 
related problem of cadmium such as lung and kidney problems.  
In the test for the presence of lead (Pb), the minimum value recorded was 0.001mg/kg and 
a maximum 0.009 mg/kg which are lower than the standard value of 0.300 mg/kg. The 
calculated mean was 0.0057 mg/kg which is also less than the standard value. The values of 
lead as analysed among the fish was in good condition as far as lead poisoning is concerned. 
The tested value for arsenic showed a range of 0.0010mg/kg and the mean value was 0.0013 
mg/kg (Tab. 4.6). Both were far less than the standard value of 0.010 mg/kg.  Therefore, 
consumption of fish from the area would not cause arsenic health related problems such as 
cancer, vascular and nervous system disorders.  
The maximum value of mercury was 0.0008mg/kg and the minimum was 0.001mg/kg and 
both values were lower than the allowable limit of 0.05mg/kg by EU 1818/2006 
(Hahladakis, 2015). The mean and the range as per the data analysed were 0.0039mg/kg and 
0.007mg/kg respectively from Tab. 4.6. Both the mean value and the range are lesser than 
standard value of 0.500 mg/kg indicating the fish types sampled and analysed had no 
plausible mercury poisoning. 
The concentrations of heavy metals tested in the fish samples were also not up to the levels 
that could pose risk to the fish and its consumers. This was because the concentrations of 
the metals were lower than the standard limit prescribed by regulation of EU 1818/2006 
(Hahladakis, 2015). 
  
95 
 
Table 4.6: Mean and Range of analysed data 
 Cadmium (Cd) Lead (Pb) Arsenic (As) Mercury (Hg) 
Samples Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range 
Sea Water 0.1005 0.083 0.0023 0.003 0.021 0.167 0.0029 0.005 
(mg/L) 
Beach Sand 0.0175 0.044 0.0118 0.013 0.0029 0.0033 0.0016 0.0011 
(mg/kg) 
Sea Fish 0.002 0.003 0.0057 0.008 0.0013 0.001 0.0039 0.0007 
(mg/kg) 
Source: Field data, 2017 
Table 4.7: Maximum and Minimum of analysed data 
Samples Cadmium (Cd) Lead (Pb) Arsenic (As) Mercury (Hg) 
 Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. 
Water 0.052 0.135 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.168 0.001 0.006 
(mg/L) 
Sand 0.001 0.045 0.007 0.02 0.0014 0.0047 0.0011 0.0022 
(mg/kg) 
Fish 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.009 0.0007 0.0017 0.001 0.0008 
(mg/kg) 
Source: Field data (2017) 
From the determination of four heavy metals’ concentrations in fish, beach sand and sea 
water samples compared to the standard levels of the WHO/EU and the US EPA (1993), 
cadmium and arsenic had higher ranges relating the maximum values of 0.135mg/l and 
0.168mg/l respectively for sea water samples. The high ranges and high maximum 
concentrations of Cd and As indicated by the analysed samples of sea water in Elmina 
coastal area were caused by municipal waste, agricultural and industrial pollutants which 
were carried into the sea by run offs whenever it rained as well as direct dumping of waste 
into the sea. Lead and mercury had lower concentrations with maximum values of 0.004m/l 
and 0.006mg/l respectively. These findings suggest that the water samples contained more 
concentrations of cadmium and arsenic than that of lead and mercury. So the higher 
concentrations of the heavy metals in the sea water samples are threats to marine species 
and human life. The toxic metals mostly show chronic toxicity and the heavy metals such 
as Pb and Hg bring toxic effects (Pandey and Madhuri, 2014). If the processes of heavy 
96 
 
metal pollution in Elmina sea and Benya water continue, it will lead to reduction in fish 
species as many of them will die as a result of heavy metal toxicity. Therefore, fish 
reproduction will also reduce and fishermen will be catching less quantities of fish and their 
income will decrease. The world's severely contaminated zones from heavy metal pollution 
have been posing health hazards to more than 10 million people in several countries 
(Muhammad et al., 2013). Similarly, residents in Elmina coastal zone will also be affected 
by heavy metal related health disorders as they use the sea and Benya lagoon water for 
various activities.       
In the soil samples, generally the results indicated lower concentrations of the four metals 
tested for. Lead and mercury have lowest concentrations with least maximum and minimum 
values (0.007m/kg, 0.02m/kg and 0.0022m/kg, 0.0011m/kg) respectively.  
The concentrations of the heavy metals in the fish samples indicated that arsenic and 
mercury are in higher concentrations compared to lead and cadmium. However, all the 
values of the four heavy metals in the fish samples tested were far lower than the standard 
values. These mean that consumption of fish from the area will not pose any health problem. 
On the whole, among the three groups of samples tested in the sea and in Benya lagoon 
water was found to have pollution of heavy metals such as cadmium, arsenic and mercury. 
Though the lead concentration in the water is lower than the permissible limit, if the human 
activities that contribute to its concentration in Elmina are not prevented or controlled it can 
rise to critical point in a few years to come.  
4.4 Sanitation Management in Elmina 
The survey reveals that attempts have been made by KEEA Municipal Assembly and other 
agencies in order to curb the coastal pollution problem in Elmina.  
97 
 
28.3
30.0 25.7
25.0
18.0 16.7
20.0
15.0 11.3
10.0
5.0
.0
Provision of Clean-up Enforcement Public Other
refuse exercise of coastal law education
collectors
Waste Management
Percent
  
Figure 4.12: Waste Management processes in Elmina, Source: Field data (2017) 
  
The efforts made in various forms in addressing beach pollution at Elmina are indicated in 
Fig. 4.12. The chart shows which exercises were carried out more to solve the problem. 
From Figure 4.12, among activities carried out to address the problem of pollution in the 
study area were clean-up exercise(1st), enforcement of law (2nd), public education (3rd), 
provision of refuse containers (5th) and others (4th). Clean-up exercise was ranked first 
among the attempts to curb the pollution in the study area with 28.3%, followed by law 
enforcement with 25.7% and the least was provision of refuse containers (Fig. 4.12).  
Concerning sanitation management system of Elmina, the interviews of the experts and the 
FGDs indicated the KEEA Municipal Assembly and other bodies were doing a lot to 
maintain good sanitation in the area. They narrated that the KEEA Municipal Assembly and 
local stakeholders organised clean up exercises, enforced laws, created awareness about 
good sanitation practises, provided sanitary facilities and others. According to the 
Environmental Officer of KEEA Municipality, 
“The KEEA Municipal Assembly stated that the KEEA Municipality collaborated 
with Zoom Lion organisation to undertake regular clean-up and disinfectant 
98 
 
Number of persons (%)
exercises to keep the area clean. The Municipality enacted and enforced bye laws 
that recent houses being built should have component of toilet facilities in the 
building plan before permits would be granted. The Municipality also carried out 
law enforcement by arresting and punishing those who break environmental 
sanitation bye laws by either defecating at the beach or dumping refuse at 
unauthorised points in the coastal area of Elmina. The Municipality built public 
toilet facilities and provided communal waste containers to ensure good sanitation 
of the area. The KEEA Municipal Assembly has been organising regular awareness 
exercise for the people through some two local radio stations in the area; regular 
community durbar to meet the people and the use of information vans. Solid waste 
pollution in Elmina continues in spite of efforts being made by the KEEA Municipal 
Assembly to curb it because of the cultural behaviour of the inhabitants. The people 
cultivate the behaviour that they will not walk some distances to put waste 
substances into containers provided for that purpose instead they dump the solid 
waste at the beach and into the drains near them”. 
As an important issue, it came up in the FGD of men how the KEEA Municipal Assembly 
deployed a task force to ensure good sanitation practices and create awareness about the 
problem. It was also revealed how residents ignored the awareness creation by the 
authorities and continued to dump and defecate at the beach. This is an excerpt of their 
words:   
“A task force called ‘City Guards’ from KEEA Municipal Assembly goes round to 
arrest culprits who defecate or dump waste materials at the beach and fined them. 
KEEA Municipal Assembly has also provided a few toilet facilities but residents do 
not use the toilet facilities because the facilities are not kept clean. So they are afraid 
that they will contract diseases when they use the toilet facilities. KEEA Municipal 
Assembly announces frequently that nobody should defecate or dump waste at the 
beach but residents ignore those warnings because they have no choice than to use 
the beach as place of convenience” (Kuma, a 30-year-old fisherman of men FGD).  
99 
 
In spite of all the above attempts to solve the problem of pollution, pollution still continues 
in the area. The interviews and the focus group discussions revealed that the problem of 
coastal pollution still continued due to the following: 
i. Inadequate sanitation facilities such as toilet facilities and containers to dump waste 
inside 
ii. The attitude of the people of defecating at the beach and dumping waste around 
iii. The workers of Zoom Lion organisation that carry out clean-up exercise are not 
being paid these days so they do not do their work effectively as it used to be in the 
past 
iv. They also claimed that the National Sanitation Day where one day in every month 
was used to do clean-up exercise was helping but when it stopped poor sanitation in 
the area started rising.  
These are the views of the interviewees: 
“The inhabitants were educated and some waste management containers were 
provided by the KEEA Municipal Assembly and other bodies for the waste to be 
dumped into them but residents ignored all the attempts and hid under the cover of 
darkness to dump rubbish and defecate at the beach. ‘City Guards’ and 
Environmental Health Officers are helping to ensure good sanitation practices in 
the area. Workers of Zoom Lion are assisting to keep the area clean, but they are 
not paid lately.  So they did not work well and poor sanitation condition is on the 
increase. The National Sanitation Day where one day in every month was used to 
do clean-up exercise was helping but when it stopped poor sanitation in the area 
started rising” (Abla, a 44-year-old woman of women FGD) 
The findings are confirmed by Arthur and Mensah (2006) that KEEA Municipal Assembly 
together with other bodies had initiated projects under ECHMP so far as sanitation 
management is concerned but the challenges had to do with inadequate local funds, poor 
attitude of residents about indiscriminate waste disposal and slow response of partners. 
100 
 
4.5 Recommended Measures to Address Pollution Problem 
The people suggested various ways by which they think the pollution menace in Elmina 
coastal area could be addressed. The respondents stated which measures they think should 
be used in addressing the problem of pollution in Elmina in order of importance. Their views 
are in Fig. 4.13. 
34.3 35.0
35.0
30.0
25.0 20.7
20.0
15.0
10.0 6.3
3.7Percentage
5.0
.0
EDUCATION ENFOCEMENT OF PROSECUTION OF FINE OTHERS
COASTAL OFFENDER
POLLUTION LAW
Recommended measures
Percentage
 
Figure 4.13: Recommended Measures  
Source: Field data (2017) 
In Figure 4.13, the measures that the respondents suggested to be used to address effects of 
coastal pollution in the Elmina area are enforcement of coastal laws, prosecution of culprits, 
fining of offenders, educating the people among others. Most of the respondents are of the 
view that coastal law enforcement and prosecution should be very effective approaches to 
use to bring the pollution problem in the area under control (Fig. 4.13). The respondents 
think that because some of the residents are stubborn in abiding by rules and education then 
force must be applied. This is confirmed by the findings of Islam and Tanaka (2004) that 
101 
 
Percentage 
developing countries with weak waste disposal laws accounts for the presence of bulk 
pollutants they have. Therefore, the respondents want the laws to be applied effectively. 
The expert interviews, focus group discussions and other interviews indicate that apart from 
inadequate sanitation facilities such as toilet facilities and rubbish containers, the attitude or 
the negative behaviour of the people of defecating and throwing waste around is one of the 
causes of continuous presence of pollution in the Elmina coastal area.  
The men recommended again that the KEEA Municipal Assembly should provide more 
toilet facilities and waste containers to be used. According to them, after that anybody who 
breaks the rule by defecating in the open or throwing waste around must be punished. 
Recommending ways to address the problem of solid waste pollution in the area, they 
suggested that residents should be educated more about good sanitation practices as well as 
about the risk of bad sanitation practices. They said that after the education and adequate 
provision of sanitary facilities, culprits should be fined heavily or jailed when caught. They 
think strict implementation of the coastal law will help to solve the pollution problem. 
The women recommended that KEEA Municipal Assembly should provide more toilet 
facilities and help to maintain already existing ones in order to attract residents to use them 
without going to prohibited points such as the beach. Also they suggested that more rubbish 
containers should be provided to prevent residents from dumping waste materials around 
which pollute the environment. 
Ghana Health Service Officer of Elmina in KEEA Municipal Assembly stated that the 
Ghana Health Service of Elmina Municipality liaised with environmental health officers 
and opinion leaders in the communities to educate residents about the importance of good 
sanitation practices. She advised that the KEEA Municipal Assembly must provide more 
toilet facilities and waste disposal containers for residents in the communities. In addition, 
102 
 
she was of the view that bye-laws governing sanitation practices must be enforced without 
fear or favour. She suggested that all agencies should be brought on board to ensure good 
sanitation practices in the area for healthy living. 
To help solve the problem of coastal pollution in Elmina, EPA Principal Programme Officer 
of Cape Coast recommended that the inhabitants in the coastal area should be educated about 
the effects of dumping waste substances into the coastal area. He was of the view that some 
of them were not aware of the risk of dumping waste into the sea. He added that if the 
education failed because the culprits did not refrain from throwing waste materials into the 
sea or coastal area anyhow, then force must be applied. That he meant that culprits should 
be arrested and arraigned before court to face the full rigors of the law.  
The findings are in agreement with the propositions that the pollution makes the Elmina 
beach dirty and poses health problem to the residents in the area. Also, the findings confirm 
the proposition that the pollution affects socio-economic activities in the area including 
fishing, tourism and recreation.  
4.6 Summary 
Chapter four dealt with the results and discussions of data on various themes based on the 
objectives of the study. The themes include causes of pollution, environmental and socio-
economic effects of coastal pollution in Elmina, testing of four heavy metals in sea water, 
beach sand and fishes, sanitation management in Elmina, and suggested solutions to the 
causes and effects of pollution in Elmina coastal area. Furthermore, the study reveals that 
only the sea water among the samples tested in Elmina contains high concentrations of some 
heavy metals such as Cd, As and Hg. The findings of the study are in agreement with all the 
propositions but disagree that high illiteracy rate is one of the causes of pollution in Elmina. 
It rather projects negative attitude in place of high illiteracy rate.  
103 
 
CHAPTER FIVE 
  SUMMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMMENDATION 
5.1 Introduction 
This chapter comprises summary of the findings, conclusion and recommendation of the 
study. The findings are based on the various objectives of the research. They include causes 
of coastal pollution in Elmina, environmental and socio-economic effects, sanitation 
management in Elmina and recommendations. 
5.2 Summary of the Findings 
 The study revealed some causes that were responsible for the pollution in Elmina coastal 
area. These factors include negative attitudes regarding dumping of waste around and 
defecation at the beach, large population living close to the beach, inadequate sanitary 
facilities, poor sanitation condition of available public toilet facilities, lack of  in-house toilet 
facilities in certain homes, inadequate funds to sustain waste management programmes as 
was started by KEEA Municipal Assembly and other bodies under ECHMP,  transportation 
processes of the ocean current and nature of the topography (sloppy nature of the land) of 
Elmina which supports run offs to carry pollutants down to the lagoon and beach.  
The research revealed that the coastal pollution in the area made the beach dirty and unclean. 
The various pollutants dumped at the beach by people or brought by the sea polluted the 
beach. It was identified that the coastal pollution affected marine species in the area. It was 
observed that pollutants occupied and polluted the breeding ground of sea creatures such as 
turtles and fish that come to the shallow waters and shore to reproduce their young ones 
during certain periods of the year. 
It was, also, realised that the dirty beach of Elmina discouraged tourists from visiting the 
area in their numbers. The pollutants affected those who did their fishing work close to the 
104 
 
shore or beach more than the off-shore fishers. Debris tore nets and entangled propellers of 
the outboard motor of the fishermen and damaged them. Some were also caught by 
fishermen when they cast their nets instead of fish. In terms of health, the pollution affected 
the health of the resident greatly. There was a bad smell which came from the pollutants and 
spoilt fish on sheds at the beach. The polluted environment made the inhabitants to contract 
diseases like diarrhoea, malaria and typhoid. These caused the victims to spend a lot of 
money to pay hospital bills and reduced their income and economic productivity.  
From the three samples tested for the contamination of four heavy metals such as arsenic 
(As), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg), it was found that the concentrations of 
heavy metals tested in soil and fish samples were lower than the standard that could cause 
harm to marine species and human health. In the water samples, lead concentration 
identified in Elmina sea water was lower than the permissible limit. However, arsenic, 
cadmium and mercury concentrations in Elmina sea water exceeded WHO 1993 water 
standard limit and these could affect the health of those who consume or use the sea water 
for various recreational activities in Elmina coastal area. 
It was recognised that KEEA Municipal Assembly, EPA, NGOs and local stakeholders 
made some efforts to bring pollution phenomena in the Elmina coastal area under control. 
They educated the residents about good sanitation practices, organised clean-up exercises, 
enforced coastal management laws and provided sanitary facilities.  
5.3 Conclusion 
The research was conducted in Elmina coastal area of the KEEA Municipal Assembly in 
the Central Region. The five objectives of the research were achieved in spite of various 
challenges encountered in conducting the research.  
105 
 
The findings of the research disagree with one of the propositions that high illiteracy rate is 
one of the causes of pollution in Elmina coastal area. However, the findings are in agreement 
with the rest of the propositions that:  
 The pollution in Elmina coastal environment is caused by negative attitude of the 
people, inadequate funding for coastal management, lack of education and improper 
disposal of domestic waste at the beach; 
 The pollution robs the Elmina beach of its natural beauty and poses health problems; 
and; 
 The pollution reduces socio-economic activities of the area such as fishing, tourism 
and recreation.  
The research came with some key findings. It was identified that the pollution in Elmina 
continued mainly due to negative attitude of the residents regarding indiscriminate dumping 
and defecation at the beach as well as inadequate sanitary facilities, unclean state of few 
existing sanitary facilities, lack of in-house toilet facilities and inadequate funds. 
The study found solid pollutants in Elmina such as plastic substances, debris from various 
sources, faeces and rubbish.  High concentrations of some heavy metals in the sea water and 
Benya lagoon were also found. They include arsenic, cadmium and mercury.  
The study further revealed some environmental and socio-economic effects of the pollution 
in the Elmina coastal area. It was realised that pollutants did not only make the beach dirty, 
trap, kill marine species and retard their growth but also deprived them of breeding grounds. 
Economically, the pollutants reduced revenue from the tourist sector, affect fishing activities 
among in-shore fishers more than off-shore fishers.  Socially, it was revealed that the 
pollutants caused some health problems to the residents and made life uncomfortable for 
them.  
106 
 
Heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium and mercury were in high concentrations in the sea 
water in Elmina which could affect the health of residents and marine species. 
It was identified that the KEEA Municipal Assembly, local authorities and NGOs helped in 
diverse ways to curb the problem in the area. They organised clean-up exercises, created 
awareness about pollution problem, provided some sanitary facilities and enforced coastal 
sanitation laws. The study also revealed that in spite of sanitation management system in 
place, pollution continued in Elmina due to poor attitude of the people in terms of 
indiscriminate disposal of waste and open defecation, inadequate fund and inadequate 
provision of sanitary facilities.  
Measures were suggested which could help to address the problem. They include strict 
enforcement of sanitation policies, imprisonment or heavy fine of offenders, provision of 
more sanitary facilities and awareness creation about sanitation.  
Coastal pollution is a serious environmental problem which affects the environment, life 
and productivity in Elmina coastal area. Therefore, the findings of this research will help 
the local authorities, KEEA Municipal Assembly and Central Government to design policies 
regarding how to prevent or address pollution problem in Elmina or at any part of the 
country. The research contributes towards enhancing knowledge on coastal pollution in 
Elmina coastal area. 
5.4 Recommendations 
The KEEA Municipal Assembly and other local stakeholders such as chiefs and opinion 
leaders should do more to address the problem of coastal pollution in Elmina.  
As revealed by the research that there were inadequate toilet facilities and rubbish containers 
which contributed to the pollution in the area; the residents should be levied by the KEEA 
Municipal Assembly to generate more funds to provide more of the sanitary facilities. The 
107 
 
already existing ones which are not in good condition ought to be disinfected regularly and 
kept clean to attract the users in the area. Owners of those houses which do not have sanitary 
facilities should be compelled by the KEEA Municipal Assembly to make provision for 
toilet facilities for the occupants in the houses to use. The KEEA Municipal Assembly 
should make sure new houses to be built in Elmina coastal area should have provision for 
sanitary facilities in their building plan before permits are granted. 
 Educational campaign programmes should also be intensified and strengthened on regular 
basis than ever before about good sanitation practices and dangers of dumping waste around. 
It should be done by radio stations in the area in local languages and in English to reach out 
to almost everybody. The residents should also be educated at various social gatherings like 
durbars, churches, festivals, funerals, marriage ceremonies, naming ceremonies and any 
other relevant occasions. Stickers and booklets providing education on pollution and its 
effects should also be given out to the residents in the area. Social media such as WhatsApp, 
text messages and Facebook should use to reach a lot of people on issues of pollution in the 
area.     
The coastal sanitation laws must be enforced vigorously to prevent residents with negative 
attitude from defecating and throwing waste anywhere. Task forces should be formed to 
monitor the beach and the entire coastal environment on regular basis. The culprits must be 
arrested, fined heavily and jailed if the need be without fear or favour. There should be no 
political interference or favouritism where culprits would be left to go because of their 
political affiliations or on the grounds that somebody knows them.  
Efforts should also be made by the stakeholders in Elmina to stop or reduce those activities 
that contribute to heavy metal pollution in the area. The stakeholders include the KEEA 
Municipal Assembly, EPA and the residents in Elmina coastal area.  
108 
 
5.5 Area for Future Research 
The study explored the constitutes of Elmina ocean water in terms of metallic pollution and 
that should be another area of future research. Also feedback from those whose activities 
are indirectly affected by pollution in the area can be considered for future research. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
109 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Abdul-Nasser, H. H. (2015). Protecting the Maritime Zones from Pollution by Coastal 
State: A Legal Analysis of the Law of the Sea. International Affairs and Global 
Strategy ISSN 2224-574X (Paper) ISSN Vol.37, 2224-8951. 
Aheto, D. W., Asare, N. K., Quaynor, B., Tenkorang, E. Y., Asare, C., & Okyere, I. 
(2012). Profitability of small-scale fisheries in Elmina, Ghana. Sustainability, 
4(11). 2785-2794. 
Alan, W. (1996). Soil and the Environment an Introduction, Low Price Edition, 
Cambridge University Press. pp. 197 – 203, 189. 
Allsopp, M., Walters, A., Santillo, D., & Johnsto. (2006). Plastic debris in the world’s 
oceans. Greenpeace publs, 2006. 
Amlalo, D. S. (2007). The Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and 
Coastal Environment of Ghana [online]. Available at :< 
URL:http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pub36/chapters/chapter_10.pdf > [Accessed 
3rd August 2012]. 
Armah, A. K., & Amlalo, D. S. (1998). Coastal Zone Profile of Ghana. Gulf of Guinea 
Large Marine Ecosystem Project. Ministry of Environmental, Science and 
Technology, Accra, Ghana. vii + 111. 
Arthur, S. N., & Mensah, J. V. (2006). "Urban Management and Heritage Tourism for 
Sustainable Development: The case of Elmina Cultural Heritage and Management 
Programme in Ghana", Management of Environmental Quality. An International 
Journal, Vol. 17 Issue: 3, pp.299-312, doi: 10.1108/14777830610658719. 
Asiedu-Addo, S. (2013). Fishing at Elmina. Graphic Online. Available at: 
http://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/9228-fishing-at-elmina.html. 
Asmah, G. B., Owusu, A., & Kankam , S. (2013). Improving Livelihoods through 
Cleanliness in the Coastal Communities of the Western Region of Ghana: 
Achievements and Lessons Learned. Asmah, G.B., Owusu, A., Kankam, S. (2013) 
Improving LivelihoodsDaasgift Quality Foundation. USAID Integrated Coastal 
and Fisheries Governan. 
Bengtsson , & Tranvik . (1989). The Allowable Metals Concentrations in Soils. 
Biney, C. A. (1982). Preliminary survey of the state of pollution of the coastal 
environment of Ghana. Oceanologia Acta No. SP, 39–43. 
Boadi, K. O., & Kuitunen, M. (2002). Urban waste pollution in the Korle Lagoon, Accra, 
Ghana. The Environmentalist, 22, 301–309, 2002. 
Boejie, H. (2010). Analyisis in Qualitative Research. Sage Publications Ltd. 
Carpenter, E. J., & Smith , K. L. (1972). Plastics on the Sargasso Sea Surface. Science, 
175(4027), 1240-1241. 
110 
 
Cheshire, A. A. (2009). UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine 
Litter. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC Technical Series 
No. 83: xii + 120. pp. 
Claire, L. G. (2016). Plastic Pollution. Available at: 
http://www.coastalcare.org/2009/11/plastic-pollution/ [5th November, 2016]. 
CMC. (2000). Pocket guide to marine debris. In Center for Marine Conservation (p. 35). 
Washington, DC, USA. 
Coe , J. M., & Rogers, D. B. (1997a). Consideration the land-based sources of debris. In: 
Marine Debris. Sources, Impacts, Solutions. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 
pp289-291. 
Cohen , D., & Crabtree, B. (2006). "Qualitative Research Guidelines Project." Available 
at: http://www.qualres.org/HomeObse-3594.html (20/04/2017). 
Concentrations of heavy metals in soils and leaves of plant species Plaulownia elongata 
and Plaulownia fortunei. (2009). 
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Methods: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method 
Approaches, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 
Cundell, A. M. (1973). Plastic materials accumulating in Narraganasett Bay. Marine 
Pollution Bulletin, 187-188. 
Cunningham, D. J., & Wilson, S. P. (2003). Marine debris on beaches of the greater 
Sydney region. Journal of Coastal Research, 19(2), 421-430. 
Demanya, B. K. (2006). The Role of Local Knowledge in planning and managing urban 
solid waste: the tale of two (2) West African Cities, Accra and Kumasi, Ghana. 
PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 
Dembitsky , V. (2003). Natural occurrence of arseno compounds in plants, lichens, fungi, 
algal species, and microorganisms. Plant Science 165, 1177-1192, 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2003.08.007. 
Denscombe, M. (2011). Communities Practice: A Research Paradigm for the Mixed 
Methods Approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283. 
Department of Environmental Conservation. (2012). Marine debris in Alaska [online]. 
Available at :< URL: http://dec.alaska.gov/commish/tsunami 
debris/docs/Marine_Debris_in_AK.pdf> [Accessed 5 September 2012]. 
Derraik, J. G. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. 
Marine Pollution Bulletin 44 (2002), 842–852. 
Devine, J. (2014). The Impacts of Beach Pollution. Natural Resources Defense Council 
2014: Available at www.nrdc.org/policy ( Accessed on 17/09/2016). 
Donahue , S. (2000). Heavy Metal Soil Contamination. United States Department of 
Agriculture, Soil Quality Institute 411 Auburn, AL 36832 334-844-4741 X-177. 
111 
 
ECI. (2009-2015). Elmina Tourism, Elmina Castle – Ghana - ElminaCastle.Info. Available 
at: http://www.elminacastle.info/Elmina-tourism.html [Accessed 16th October, 
2016]. 
EFSA. (2009). Mercury, Lead, Cadmium, Tin and Arsenic in Food. 
TOXICOLOGYFACTSHEETSERIES. ISSUE NO.1 / MAY2009. 
ENCAMS. (2005). Beach and surrounding area user segmentation [online]. Available 
at:<URL:http://www.keepbritaintidy.org/ImgLibrary/beach_segmentation_2005_6
37. pdf> [accessed July 2010.]. 
Engler, S. (2016). 10 Ways to Reduce Plastic Pollution. Available at: 
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/10-ways-reduce-plastic-pollution [Accessed on 4th 
November, 2016]. 
Enninful, P. (2009). Fishing Port Design, Elmina. Post- Graduate Diploma Thesis. 
Department of Architecture. University of Science and Technology. Kumasi. 
Fagbote, E. O., & Olanipekun , E. O. (2010). Evaluation of the Status of Heavy Metal 
Pollution of soil plants. (Chromolaena odorata) of Agbabu Bitumen Deposit Area, 
Nigeria. American - Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research, 5 (4) 241- 248. 
Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J. (1990). The Tragedy of the Commons: 
Twenty-Two Years Later. Human Ecology, Vol. 18, No. 1 0300-7839/90/0300-
0001506.00/09 1990 Plenum Publishing Corporation. 
Frost, A., & Cullen, M. (1997). Marine debris on northern New South Wales beaches 
(Australia): sources and the role of beach usage. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 34, 5, 
348-352. 
Galgani, F. F. (2010). Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Task Group 10 Report: 
Marine Litter. In JRC Scientific and Technical Reports (ed. N. Zampoukas). Ispra: 
European Commission Joint Research Centre. 
Garret, H. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, New Series, Vol. 162, No. 3859. 
(Dec. 13, 1968), 1243- 1248. 
GESAMP. (1991). The State of the Marine Environment. London: Blackwell Scientific 
Publications. 146 pp. 
Ghana Statistical Service . (2012). 2010 Population and Housing Census. Summary report 
of final results. 
Goldberg, E. D. (1995). Emerging Problems in the Coastal Zone for the Twenty-First 
Century. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 31, Nos 4-12, 152-158. 
Gregory, M. R. (1999). Plastic and South Pacific Island shores: environment implications. 
Ocean and Coastal Management 42, 603-615. 
GSS. (2014). 2010 Population and House Census. Available at: 
http://www.statsghana.gov.gh.  
112 
 
Guba, E. C. (1990). The Alternative Paradigm Dialog. In: E.C. (Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: 
Sage. 
Gyedu, Y. N. (2011). Assessing The Welfare Value of the Elmina Beach. MA. thesis, 
Department of Economics. Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and 
Technology. 
Hahladakis, J. N. (2015). Standard of the permissible limits of toxic heavy metals and 
arsenic in fish and sea water and sediment?; National Aquatic Resources Research 
and Development Agency. National Aquatic Resources Research and Development 
Agency. Available at: 
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Standard_of_the_permissible_limits_of_toxic_h
eavy_metals_and_arsenic_in_fish_and_sea_water_and_sediment (17/07/2017). 
Herbstein, M. (2014). Ama: a story of the Atlantic slave trade. Open Road Media.  
Hoagland, P., & Kitte-Powell, H. L. (1997). Characterisation and mitigation of marine 
debris in the Gulf of Maine. A report prepared for the US Gulf of Maine 
Association. Contract No. GM 97-13: Woods Hole Research Consortium. 36 pp. 
Holmgren, G. G., Meyer, M. W., Chaney, R. L., & Daniel, R. B. (1993). Cadmium, lead, 
zinc, copper, and nickel in agricultural soils of the United States of America. J. 
Environ. Qual. 22, 335-348. 
Hopps, H. C. (1974). Overview. In Geochemistry and the Environment, vol. 1, pp. 3-21. 
Natl. Acad. Sci. Washington, DC. 
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and 
Procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Available at: 
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468.7232&rep=rep1&ty
pe=pdf#p ge=1&zoom=auto. 
Jambeck, J., Timothy, G. T., & Barr, C. G. (2001). A Survey of Marine Debris 
Management and Research [Online]. Available at. Jambeck, J., Timothy, G. T., and 
Barr, C. G., (2001). A Survey of Marine Debri< URL: 
http://www.crrc.unh.edu/marine-debris/awma_paper.pdf>[Accessed 17 July 
2012].  
Jurrasiccoast. (2012). Litter Free Coast and Sea. What is marine and beach litter? [Online]. 
Available at :< URL: http://jurassiccoast.org/visiting-the-coast/help-protect-the-
coast/801-litter-free-coast-and-sea> [Accessed 31 October 2012]. 
Kabata- Pendias, A. (2002). Agricultural problems related to excessive trace metal 
contents of soils, In W. Salomons, U. Forstner and P. Mader (Eds.) Heavy metals, 
problems and solutions, 2002. Springer – Verlag. Berlin.pp. 5.  
KEEA District. (2006). Environmental Situation. Available at: 
http://www.ghanalocalassemblies.gov.gh/districts/?r=3&_=57&sa=2826 [Accessed 
on 17th September, 2016]. 
KEEA Municipal Asembly. (2014). District Analytical Report. 
113 
 
Kershaw, P., Katsuhiko, S., Lee, S., & Leemseth, J. (2011). Plastic debris in the ocean. In 
UNEP year book: emerging issues in our environment. Nairobi: UNEP.  
KIMO International. (2012). Marine litter. An increasing threat to the health of our marine 
ecosystems [Online]. Available at:<URL: 
http://www.kimointernational.org/MarineLitter.aspx> [Accessed 25 September 
2012]. 
Koranteng, T. (2012). The Vulnerability of Elmina Fisher- folks to HIV/AIDS Contagion. 
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare. 2 (4). ISSN, 2224-3208. 
Lakshmi, A., & Rajagopalan, R. (2000). Socio-economic implications of coastal zone 
degradation and their mitigation: a case study from coastal villages in India. Ocean 
and Coastal Management, 43, 8-9, 749-762. 
Lartey, T. (2015). The Effects of Plastic Pollution on Inshore Marine Fishing Activities: 
Insights from Elmina Coastline in the KEEA Municipality. M.Phil. thesis. 
Department of Geography and Resource Development. University of Ghana. 
Li , C. W., Tse, M. F., & Fok, L. (2016). Plastic waste in the marine environment: A 
review of sources, occurrence and effects. Science 0f The Total Environment 
Volumes 566–567, 333–349. 
Liz, C. (2003). Ripple Effects: Population and Coastal Regions. Population Reference 
Bureau. 
Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., & Cappell, R. (2009). Abandoned, lost or otherwise 
discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 185; FAO 
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 523.Rome: UNEP/FAO. 
Marea, H., Carl , G. L., & Anders, A. (1996). African: A Framework for Integrated 
Coastal Zone Management. USA. 
Mariwah, S. (2012). Institutional Arrangements for Managing Solid Waste in The Shama-
Ahanta-East Metropolis, Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 14 
(6), 292-312. 
Mark , V. V. (2009). Averting the Tragedy of the Commons: Using Social Psychological 
Science to Protect the Environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science 
2009 18, 168. 
MARPOL. (1973/1978). International convention for prevention of pollution of the sea 
from ships. International Maritime Organisation Convention, 1973. 
Md. Shahidul Islam, & Tanaka , M. (2004). Impact of pollution on coastal ecosystems 
including coastal and marine fisher and approach for management: a review and 
synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48 (2004), 624-649. 
Moore, C. J. (2008). Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, 
long-term threat. Environmental Research 108, 131-139. 
Mouat, J., Lozano , L. R., & Bateson , H. (2010). Economic Impacts of marine litter, pp. 
117: KIMO (Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljoorganisasjon). 
114 
 
Muhammad, B. S., Shafaqat , A., Mujahid , F., Muhammad , A. F., Hafiz , M. T., Usman , 
I., . . . Saima , A. B. (2013). Heavy metal pollution, a global problem and its 
remediation by chemically enhanced phytoremediation: A Review. Journal of 
Biodiversity and Environmental Science (JBES) ISSN: 2220-6663 (Print) 2222-
3045 (Online) Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 12-20, 2013 http://www.innspub.net. 
Naturvårdsverket. (2009). What‘s in the Sea for Me? Ecosystem Services Provided by the 
Baltic Sea and Skaggerak. Report 5872 [online]. Available at: < 
URL:http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-5872 
2.pdf> [Accessed July 2010.]. 
NCBI . (2012). The Complex Interaction between Marine Debris and Toxic Chemicals in 
the Ocean [online]. Available at: URL: < 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23088563> [Accessed 7 November 2012]. 
Nelson, S. A. (2013). Coastal Zones. Available at: 
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/Natural_Disasters/coastalzones.htm [Accessed on 
11th November, 2016]. 
Niag, I. (2012). Coastal erosion major threat to West Africa. Available at: 
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2012/01/26/coastal-erosion-major-threat-to-
west-africa/ [18July 2016]. 
NOAA. (2007b). Marine Debris 101: Land-Based Sources of Marine Debris, Fishing 
Facts, Boating Facts. 
NOAA. (2011). Coastal issues: Climate change. [Online]. Available at. < 
URL:http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate.html> [Accessed February 
2011].  
NOAA. (2011a). Coastal issues: Climate change. [Online]. Available at :< 
URL:http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate.html> [Accessed February 2011]. 
Nriagu, J. O., & Pacyna, J. M. (1988). Quantitative Assessment of Worldwide 
Contamination of Air, Water and Soils by Trace Metals. Nature (London). pp. 
333,134- 139. 
Nunoo , & Evans. (1997). The by-catch problem of the commercial shrimp fishery in 
Ghana. In S. M. Evans, C. J. Vanderpuye, & A. K. Armah, Nunoo and Evans 
(1997). The by-catch problem of the commercial shrimp fishery in Ghana. p. 1The 
coastal zone of West Africa: problems and management (pp. p. 187-196). UK: 
Penshaw Press. 
Nunoo, F. K., & Quayson, E. (2003). Towards management of litter accumulation – case 
study of two beaches in Accra, Ghana. Journal of the Ghana Science Association, 
5 (1), 145-155. 
Nunoo, F. K., & Quayson, E. (2003). Towards management of litter accumulation– case 
study of two beaches in Accra, Ghana. Journal of the Ghana Science Association, 
5 (1), 145-155. 
115 
 
Obirih-Opareh, N. (2002). Solid Waste Collection in Accra: The Impact of 
Decentralization and Privatisation on the Practice and Performance of Service 
Delivery. AGIDS: Amsterddam. 
Odatei , I. (1991). An Introduction of new technology in the artisanal fishing industry. A 
Historical over view. 
Paintsil , D. A. (2010). Elmina in surprise lean fishing season catch. Modern Ghana. 
Available at: https://www.modernghana.com/news/300254/1/elmina-in-surprise-
lean-fishing season catch.html. 
Pandey , G., & Madhuri , S. (2014). Heavy Metals Causing Toxicity in Animals and 
Fishes. Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences Vol. 2(2), 
17-23. 
Partha , D. S. (2008). Marine pollution – Degradation Mitigation Management is Essential 
for improving Marine Environment. Available at: 
https://saferenvironment.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/marine-pollution-
%E2%80%93-degradation-mitigation-manageme. 
Portman , J. E. (1978). Portman J. E. Preparatory work for the protection of the marine 
environment in the Gulf of Guinea and adjacent area. FAO/UNEP Joint Project 
No. FP/0303-77-02, Rome, 53, 53 p. 
Potts, T., & Hastings, E. (2011). Marine Litter Issues, Impacts and Actions[Online]. 
Available at :< URL:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00402421.pdf> 
[Accessed 30 January 2013]. 
Quartey, E. T., Tosefa, H., Danquah, K. A., & Obrsalova, I. (2015). Theoretical 
Framework for Plastic Waste Management in Ghana through Extended Producer 
Responsibility: Case of Sachet Water Waste. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 
2015, 12(8), 9907-9919; doi:10.3390/ijerph120809907. 
Rockefeller, D. (2003). Oceans Away [Online]. Available at. < URL: 
http://www.populationeducation.org/docs/earthmatters/reading-
oceans_away.pdf> [Accessed 17 July 2012].  
Ryan, J. A., Pahren,, H. R., & Lucas, J. B. (1982). Controlling Cd in human chain: Review 
and rationale based on health effects. Environ. Res.28, 251-302. 
Schuhmacher, M., Xifro, A., Llobet , J. M., de Kok, , H. A., & Domigo, J. L. (1997b). 
PCDD/Fs in soil samples collected in the vicinity of a municipal solid waste 
incinerator: human health risks. Archives of Environmental Contamination & 
Toxicology, vol. 33, no 3, pp. 239-46. 
Scott, G. (1972). Plastics packaging and coastal pollution. International Journal of 
Environmental Studies. 3, 35-36. 
service, G. S. (2014). 2010 Population and House Census. Available at: 
http://www.statsghana.gov.gh.  
116 
 
service, G. S. (2014). 2010 Population and House Census. Available at: 
http://www.statsghana.gov.gh.  
Sharan, B. M. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and 
Analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 
Sheavly , S. B., & Register , K. M. (2007). Marine debris and plastics: environmental 
concerns, sources, impacts and solutions. Journal of Polymers and the 
Environment, 15, 301-305. 
Sheavly, S. B. (2007). National Marine Debris Monitoring Program: Final Program 
Report, Data Analysis and Summary. Prepared for U. S. Agency. Environmental 
Protection Agency by Ocean Conservancy, Grant Number X83053401-02, 76. 
Sheavly, S. B. (2007). National Marine Debris Monitoring Program: Final Program 
Report, Data Analysis and Summary. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency by Ocean Conservancy, Grant Number X83053401-02. 76. 
STAP. (2011a). Marine Debris as a Global Environmental Problem: Introducing a 
solutions based framework focused on plastic. Washington, DC: A STAP 
Information Document. Global Environment Facility. 
Storrier, K. L., McGlashan, D. J., & Bonellie, S. (2007). Beach Litter Deposition at a 
Selection of Beaches in the Firth of Forth, Scotland. Journal of Coastal Research,, 
23, 813-822. 
Teye, J. K. (2012). Benefits, Challenges and Dynamism of Positionalities Associated with 
Mixed Method Research in Developing Countries: Evidence from Ghana. Journal 
of Mixed Methods Research 6(4), 379-391. 
Topping, P., Eade, A., & Eaton, P. (1994). Marine plastic debris research in Canada. 
Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on marine debris, Miami, 
Florida, May 1994. Canada: Marine Environment Division. 
Tripathi, R. M., Raghunath, R., & Krishnamoorthy, T. M. (1997). Dietary intake of heavy 
metals in Bombay City, India. Science of the total environment. 
Tsagbey, S. A., Mensah, A. M., & Nunoo, F. K. (2009). Influence of tourist pressure on 
beach litter and microbial quality: case study of two beach resorts in Ghana. West 
African Journal of Applied Ecology, 15, 13-23. 
Tudor, D. T., & Williams, A. T. (2001). Investigation of litter problems in the Severn 
Estuary / Bristol Channel Area. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency R&D Technical 
Report E1-082/TR. 
UNEP. (1999a). The problem of persistent plastics and marine debris in the oceans. UNEP 
Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 114.  
UNEP. (2009). Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. World Ocean Review, (2010). Living 
with the oceans (p. 232). Nairobi: UNEP: Maribus gGmbH, Pickhuben, Hamburg. 
United States Environmental Protection Agency . (2012). Water: Marine Debris. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 
117 
 
US EPA . (1993). “Clean Water Act”, Section, 503, Vol. 58 No. 3, US Environmental 
Protection Agency Washington, DC. 
US EPA. (2007). Turning the tide on trash. A learning guide on marine debris. EPA 842-
B-92-003. 
Valavanidis, A., & Vlachogianni, T. (2011). Marine Litter: Man‐ made Solid Waste 
Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea and Coastline. Abundance, Composition and 
Sources Identification [online]. Available at: 
<URL:http://www.chem.uoa.gr/scinews/env01/MARINE-LITTER-REVIEW 
2011.pdf> [Accessed 5 August 201. 
Verlecar, X. N., Desai , S. R., Sarkar, A., & Dalal, S. G. (2006). Biological indicators of in 
relation to coastal pollution along Karnataka coast, India. Water Research 40 
(2006), 3304-3312. 
Vikas, M., & Dwarakish , G. S. (2015). Coastal Pollution: A Review. Aquatic Procedia 4 
(2015), 381-388. 
Waldichuk, M. (1977). Global marine pollution: overview. UNESCO, OIC Tech., Ser. 18, 
Paris, 96. 
Walters, J. S., Maragos, J., Siar , S., & White, A. T. (1998). Participatory Coastal 
Resource Assessment. Walters, J.S., J. Maragos, S. Siar and A.T. Whi A Handbook 
for Community Workers and Coastal Resource Managers. Coastal Resource 
Management Project and Silliman University, Cebu City, Philippines.  
Wang , J., Hsiue , T., & Chen , H. (2005). Bronchial responsiveness in an area of air 
pollution resulting from wire reclamation. Arch. Dis. Child. 67:488-490. 
Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS). (2012). Marine Debris and 
Cetaceans. Chippenham, SN15 1LJ: Brookfield House, 38 St Paul Street. 
WHO. (2012). Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health. Edited by Al Dufour, 
Jamie Bartram, Robert Bos and Vic Gannon. ISBN: 9781780401232. Published by 
IWA Publishing, London, UK. 
Wilcox, C., Sebille, E. V., & Hardesty, B. D. (2015). Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds 
is global, pervasive, and increasing: Available at 
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/38/11899 (25th January, 2017). 
William, C. (1996). Combating marine pollution from landed-based activities: Australia 
initiatives. Ocean and Coastal Management (1-3), 87-112. 
Williams, S. J. (2001). Coastal Erosion and Land Loss Around the United States: 
Strategies to Manage and Protect Coastal Resources- Examples from Louisiana. 
Coastal Ecosystems and Federal Activities Technical Training Symposium 
Proceedings Gulf Shores State Park, AL . 
Wolf, A. (2008). Vital Water Graphics; An Overview of the State of the World’s Fresh 
and Marine Waters - 2nd Edition – 2008. Available at: 
http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article179.html [6 July, 201616)]. 
118 
 
World Health Organisation . (1993). Drinking water standards; Guidelines for drinking-
water Quality, Geneva, 1993. Lenntech. 
World Health Organization. (1991). Inorganic mercury: environmental health criteria 118,. 
International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization, Geneva, 
Switzerland. 
World Health Organization. (1996). Inorganic mercury: environmental health criteria 118,. 
International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization, Geneva, 
Switzerland. 
World Ocean Review (WOR). (2010). Living with the oceans. – A report on the state of 
the world's oceans.  
Yamane. (1967:886). Determining sample size. 
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&qsp=1&q=yamane+formul
a+sample+size (25/04/17). 
 
 
 
 
 
  
119 
 
APPENDICES 
Appendix I: Questionnaire for Inhabitants in the Area 
This research is being organised by a graduate student from the Department of Geography 
and Resource Development, University of Ghana, Legon, in a partial fulfilment of the 
degree of Master of Philosophy in Geography and Resource Development. The research 
seeks to investigate the Causes and Effects of pollution on coastal environment and on socio-
economic life of the people in Elmina in the KEEA Municipality. The achievement of this 
research will depend on the sincere response you give. Please you are assured that this 
research is purely for academic purpose and your identity will be held confidentially. 
Date of interview……/……./……….                         Time of interview………..  
Section A: Respondent’s Social and Demographic  
Background  
1. Name ………………………………………………………………..  
2. Sex                    a. Male [    ]                             b.  Female [     ]  
3. Age ………………………….  
4. How long have you being living here? ……………………………..  
5. What is your ethnic background?    a. Akan [    ]     b. Efutu [    ]     c. Ewe [     ]         d. 
other(s) (specify)…………………                                                                                                  
 6. What is your highest level of education?   a. No Education [       ]      b. Primary [     ]           
c. JHS/Middle School [    ]   d. SHS/ Vocational/Technical / O‘level  [    ]    e. Tertiary [      ]     
7. Marital Status    a. Single [     ]            b. Married [    ]     c. Living Together [     ]                     
d.  Separated [      ]                e. Widowed [      ]  
120 
 
8. Number of dependents ………………………………   
9. Occupation................................... 
10. Level of income……………………………………..  
11. Alternative source of livelihood…………………………….. 
Section B: Causes of Coastal Pollution in Elmina 
12. In your opinion, how will you describe the beach? a. There is rubbish covering beach 
area [   ]. b. There are spirogyra species covering the beach [   ] c. People are using the beach 
as a place of convenience [   ]. d. waste from seine net of fishermen are left unattended to in 
the beach [    ]. e. Other(s) specify ……………. 
13. In your opinion, what makes a clean beach for you? a. A beach devoid of plastic 
materials b. A beach devoid of rubbish, c. A beach devoid of faeces d. A beach devoid of 
improper disposal of livestock waste. e. Other ……. 
14. In your opinion, what makes a coast or beach polluted in the area?   a. beach full of 
rubbish [    ]. b. A beach full of plastic materials [   ]. c. A beach full of faeces d. A beach 
full of disposed animal waste [    ]. e. Other….  
15. Are you aware of existence of any coastal pollution in this area? a. Yes [    ]    b. No [   ] 
16. Do you see any pollutant in the coastal environment of Elmina? a. Yes [    ]  b. No [    ] 
17Which of the following are causes of coastal pollution in the area? 
Causes Yes No 
   
Visitors to beach   
Living close to beach   
Defecation at beach   
Dumping of waste at beach   
Ineffective waste   
management policies 
Livestock rearing at beach   
 
121 
 
18. Are there other causes of coastal pollution you know of in the area? b. Yes [  ]  b. No [] 
If yes, list them…………………………………………………………………………….. 
Section B: Effects of Pollution on the Coastal Environment of Elmina 
19. Is the beach clean? b. Yes [    ]  b. No [    ] 
20. What makes a beach unhygienic?  a. plastic waste [   ] b. refuse [   ] c. faeces [   ] d. other 
substance(s) [    ] specify………………………. 
21. Do the pollutants affect organisms such as birds, fishes and plants in the coast 
environment? 
b.Yes [    ]  b.No [    ] 
22. If yes, how do the pollutants affect the organisms at the coast? a. entanglement [   ] b. 
kills them [    ] c. choke them [    ]  d. destroying them [   ] e. other(s) specify…………….. 
23. What is the rate of waste pollution in this area? a. high (3) [   ] b. medium (2)  [    ]  c. 
low (1) [    ] d. none (0) [  ] 
Section C: Effects of Pollution on the Socio-Economic Life of the People in Elmina 
I. Social Issues 
24. Does the pollution affect the life of the people in the area? a. Yes [     ] b. No [      ] 
25. Do you smell bad odour from the beach sometimes? A. Yes [     ] b. No [     ] 
26. Do you feel comfortable visiting the beach in the area? a. Yes [      ]  b. No [      ]  
If No, then why? 
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
122 
 
27. Do you feel comfortable using dirty beach in the area? a. Yes [      ]  b. No [      ] 
28.  Do you think coastal pollution can cause poor health condition? a. Yes. [   ] b. No. [      ] 
If Yes, explain……………………………………………………………..……………….. 
29. What will you say is the health condition of people living in Elmina with regards to 
coastal pollution? a. Outbreak of Cholera b. Outbreak of Dysentery c. Outbreak of Malaria 
d. Other diseases? 
30. Does the pollution in the area contribute to people migrating from the area? a. Yes [    ]  
b. No  [  ]  
31. If yes, what is the migration rate in the area …… a. high (3) [   ]  b. medium(2) [   ] c. 
low (1) [  ]  
II. Economic Issues 
32. Which of the following is a main economic activity in the area?  a. fishing [     ]  b . 
trading [     ] c. tourism [      ] d. mining [      ] 
33. Does the pollution in the area affect any economic activity in the area? a. Yes [ ] b. No 
[   ] 
34. If yes, explain how the affect economic activities 
………………..........................................…………………………………………………
……………………………………………  
35. How do the coastal pollution affect economic activities in the area, does it contribute 
towards reduction in generation of income of the people in the area? a. Yes [    ]  b. No [      ] 
If yes, explain……………………………………………………………………… 
123 
 
Section D: What Has Been Done About Coastal Pollution in Elmina in Relation to 
Factors That Cause Coastal/Marine Pollution 
36. Are any organisations involved in resolving the issues on coastal pollution in the area?  
a. Yes [      ]  b. No [      ] 
If yes, please mention the organisations involved in these activities (Tick as many as you 
know).    a. KEEA District [     ] b. EPA  [      ] c. NGOs [      ] d. Other(s), specify 
………………………………………………………………………………………… 
37. What have these organisations done? a. provision of refuse containers [      ]  b. regular 
coastal clean-up exercises [    ] c. enforcement of coastal management laws [      ] d. educating 
people on coastal pollution and sanitation [ ]  e. Other(s), 
specify…………………………………. 
38. Are there personal or local people initiative towards management of the coastline. If yes, 
mention…………………………………………………………………………………….. 
If no, Why? …………………………………………………………………………………. 
39. What was the impact of the national sanitation day at the coast? 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
Section E: Solutions to the Effects of Pollution in Elmina Coastal Environment 
40. What do you think should be done to reduce the effects of coastal pollution in the area? 
a. education of the people the dangers of pollution and good sanitation practice (tick as many 
as be applicable) [    ]   b. enactment of coastal pollution bye laws and enforcement of laws 
on coastal pollution [    ]  c. imprisonment to offenders [     ]  d. Heavy fine imposition on 
offenders [      ]  e. Other(s), specify ……………………………………………………….. 
124 
 
Appendix II: Interview Guide for Chief Fisherman and Local Opinion Leaders 
Section A: Respondent’s Social and Demographic  
Background  
1. Introduction 
 Name………………… Sex……………. Age……………. 
 Duration of living here…………, Ethnic background………., Level of education…….., 
Marital Status…………., Number of dependents…………….Occupation……………..   
Section B: Causes of Coastal Pollution in Elmina 
2. In your opinion, how will you describe the beach of Elmina?  
Probes: Rubbish around beach area, Spirogyra species covering the beach, Beach as a place 
of convenience. Debris from seine net of fishermen left unattended to in the beach.  
3. In your opinion, what makes a clean beach?   
Probes: A beach devoid of plastic materials, A beach devoid of rubbish, A beach devoid of 
faeces, A beach devoid of improper disposal of livestock waste.  
4. In your opinion, what makes a coastal pollution in the area?  
Probes: A beach full of rubbish, A beach full of plastic materials, A beach full of faeces, A 
beach full of disposed animal waste.   
5.What show that there is coastal pollution in this area? 
Probes: Presence of pollutants such as plastic waste, faeces, etc.  
6.What are the causes of coastal pollution in the area? 
Probes: Visitors to beach, Living close to beach, Defecation at beach,  
125 
 
Dumping of waste, Ineffective waste management policies, Keeping pig at beach. 
Section C: Effects of Pollution on the Coastal Environment of Elmina 
7. How will you describe the beach in Elmina?  
Probes: clean or not, Beach unhygienic (plastic waste, refuse, faeces etc.) 
8.How do the pollutants affect organisms in the coastal environment in the area such as 
birds, fish and plants? 
Probes: Entanglement, kill them, choke them, Destroying them. 
 
Section D: Effects of Pollution on the Socio-Economic Life of the People in Elmina 
I. Social Issues 
9. How does the pollution affect the social activities of the people in the area? 
Probes: Smell bad odour from the beach sometimes, feel un/comfortable visiting the beach 
in the area, then why? 
10. Describe how you feel when using dirty beach in the area?  
11.  Explain whether or not coastal pollution contribute to poor health condition of the 
people in the area?  
Probe: Outbreak of Cholera, Outbreak of Dysentery, Outbreak of Malaria, Other diseases? 
12. Explain whether or not the coastal pollution in the area contribute to migration. 
II. Economic Issues 
13. What are main economic activities in the area?   
Probes: fishing, trading, tourism, salt production 
126 
 
14. How does the pollution in the area affect any of the economic activities in the area?  
Probes: fishing, trading, tourism, mining  
15. Do you think whether or not the effects of coastal pollution on economic activities in 
the area contribute towards reduction in generation of income of the people in the area?   
Section E: What Has Been Done about Coastal Pollution in Elmina 
16. What are you doing about the problem of coastal pollution in the area? 
Probes: clean up exercise, education, provision of refuse collectors, enforcement of coastal 
management laws. 
17. If you know of any other organisations narrate, how they contribute in resolving the 
issues on coastal pollution in the area. 
Probes: KEEA District, EPA, Ministry of fisheries, NGOs-  provision of refuse collectors, 
regular coastal clean-up exercises, enforcement of coastal management laws, educating on 
coastal pollution and sanitation.  
Recommendation(s) 
Section F: Solutions to the Effects of Pollution in Elmina Coastal Environment 
18. What do you think should be done to reduce the effects of coastal pollution in the area? 
 Probes: education of the people on the dangers of pollution and good sanitation practice, 
enactment of coastal pollution bye laws and enforcement of laws on coastal pollution, 
imprisonment to offenders, Heavy fine imposition on offenders. 
  
127 
 
Appendix III: Focus Group Discussion for Men and Women 
Section A: Causes of Coastal Pollution 
1.What are the causes of coastal pollution in the area? 
2. What are the components of the various materials that cause the beach pollution? 
Section B: Effects Generated by the Pollutants 
4.How do the debris pollutants impact on the coastal area and organisms? 
Probes: Birds, fishes and other species, beauty of the beaches 
5.How does the coastal pollution impact on the livelihood activities of the people in the 
area? 
Probes: Health, going to the beach, swimming, recreational activities  
6. How do the debris pollutants of the pollution affect economic activities of the people in 
terms of fishing, tourism, salt production and so on the area? 
Section C: Institutional Frameworks to Help Solve the Problem 
7. What measures have any groups or associations taken to address the problem of coastal 
pollution in the area? 
8. What has the District Assembly done to reduce the impact of pollutants on  
your life and economic activities?  
9. Have you ever been educated on the effects of indiscriminate dumping of waste materials 
in to the sea by any stakeholder? 
!0. What do you think can be done to help curb the pollution situation in your own way? 
  
128 
 
Appendix IV: Key Informants Interview Guide 
Interview Guide for Officer of KEEA Municipal Assembly 
Section A: Personal Information of Participant(s)   
1. Position and rank of participant…………………………………………………………..  
2. Number of years served as a KEEA Municipal Assembly officer?  
3. Sex of participant……………………… …………………………………………………. 
4. Qualification……………………………………………………………………………. 
Section B: Awareness of Coastal Debris 
5. What makes up the Coastal Environment? 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
6. What are the main components of Coastal Debris? 
……………………………………………………………………………………  
   7.  Do the constituents of Coastal Debris have effects on the habitat of living organisms? 
……………………………………………………………………………. 
Section C: Causes of Coastal Debris Pollution  
8. What are the causes of the debris pollution along Elmina coast and beach?   
…………………………………………………………………… 
9. What are the effects of pollution in the marine and coastal environment of Elmina? 
10. What are the effects of pollution on the life of the people in Elmina in terms of health, 
recreational activities and so on? 
129 
 
11.What are the effects of pollution on economic activities of the people of Elmina such as 
fishing, tourism, salt production and others? 
12. What has the KEEA Assembly done to curb the problem of pollution in the coastal area 
of Elmina? 
13. Has The KEEA Assembly educated the people about the dangers of dumping debris into 
the coastal environment? 
14. Does the KEEA assembly have bye laws to control pollution in the Coastal area? 
  
130 
 
Appendix V: Interview Guide for Ghana Health Service of Elmina in KEEA 
Municipality 
Section A: Personal Information of Participant(s)   
1. Position and rank of participant…………………….  
2. Number of years served as a health officer?  
3. Sex of participant………………………  
4. Qualification………………………………………….. 
Section B: Causes of Break of Diseases in the Area 
5. Is there frequent outbreak of diseases in the area? 
6. If yes, mention the diseases involved…………………………………….. 
7. How often do outbreak of diseases occur in the area? 
8. How often do victims of outbreak of diseases report at your facility? 
9. What are the causes of frequent outbreak of the diseases in the area? 
10. Does the coastal pollution in the area contribute to the outbreak of some of the diseases?  
11. If yes, explain the effects of pollution on health and social life of the inhabitants in 
Elmina. 
12. What has been done by your department to reduce the causes and effects of the coastal 
pollution in the area? 
13. What do you think should be done to prevent health problems of the coastal pollution in 
the area? 
  
131 
 
Appendix VI 
Interview Guide for EPA Officer of Cape Coast 
Section A: Personal Information of Participant(s)   
1. Position and rank of participant…………………….  
2. Number of years served as a KEEA District Assembly officer?  
3. Sex of participant………………………  
4. Qualification………………………………………….. 
Section B: Causes of Coastal Pollution 
5. What are the causes of coastal pollution in Elmina? 
6. What are the types of debris pollutant in the area? 
7. What are the effects of the pollution in the area? 
8. How is your institution helping to control the menace of coastal pollution in the area? 
9. What do you think should be to prevent or eliminate coastal pollution in the area? 
 
 
  
132 
 
Appendix VII: Interview Guide for Ministry of Fisheries 
Section A: Personal Information of Participant(s)   
1. Position and rank of participant…………………….  
2. Number of years served as a KEEA District Assembly officer?  
3. Sex of participant………………………  
4. Qualification………………………………………….. 
Section B: Causes of Coastal Pollution 
5. What are the causes of coastal pollution in Elmina? 
6. What are types of debris pollutant in the area? 
7. Does debris coastal pollution affect fishing activities in the area? 
8. If yes, explain how debris pollution affect fishing activities in the area? 
9. What is your department doing to curb the effects of debris pollution on fishing activities? 
10. What do you think should be done to the prevent the coastal pollution? 
 
 
 
 
 
  
133 
 
Appendix Viii: Samples and Sample Sites  
   
Plate A7.1: Elmina off shore red tested              Plate A7.2: Benya lagoon tilapia 
  
Plate A7.3: Sediments at Mponden 
134