This article was downloaded by: [University of Ghana]
On: 09 June 2015, At: 03:32
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Urban Geography
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rurb20
How do Ghana’s landfills affect
residential property values? A case
study of two sites in Accra
George Owusu
a
, Edward Nketiah-Amponsah
b
, Samuel Nii Ardey
Codjoe
c
 & Robert L. Afutu-Kotey
d
a
 Department of Geography & Resource Development, Institute
of Statistical, Social & Economic Research (ISSER), University of
Ghana, Accra, Ghana
b
 Department of Economics, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
c
 Regional Institute for Population Studies (RIPS), University of
Ghana, Accra, Ghana
d
 Institute of Statistical, Social & Economic Research (ISSER),
University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Published online: 11 Aug 2014.
To cite this article: George Owusu, Edward Nketiah-Amponsah, Samuel Nii Ardey Codjoe & Robert
L. Afutu-Kotey (2014) How do Ghana’s landfills affect residential property values? A case study of
two sites in Accra, Urban Geography, 35:8, 1140-1155, DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2014.945261
To link to this article:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2014.945261
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
How do Ghana’s landfills affect residential property values? A case
study of two sites in Accra
George Owusua*, Edward Nketiah-Amponsahb, Samuel Nii Ardey Codjoec
and Robert L. Afutu-Koteyd
aDepartment of Geography & Resource Development, Institute of Statistical, Social & Economic
Research (ISSER), University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana; bDepartment of Economics, University
of Ghana, Accra, Ghana; cRegional Institute for Population Studies (RIPS), University of Ghana,
Accra, Ghana; dInstitute of Statistical, Social & Economic Research (ISSER), University of Ghana,
Accra, Ghana
(Received 24 April 2013; accepted 5 February 2014)
Like many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Ghana lacks well-engineered sanitary
landfill sites. Increased urbanization and concomitant real estate growth lead landfills
to compete with residential land use, resulting in closer proximity between landfill sites
and residential neighborhoods. The effects of landfills on the property values of nearby
residential communities have been the subject of much debate in the developed world,
where state-of-the-art and environmentally well-engineered landfills are common.
However, academic and other research is inconclusive on the effects of landfills on
property values in the developed countries. This paper addresses this knowledge gap
by exploring the effects of landfills on residential property values in Ghana, using the
Oblogo and Mallam landfills in Accra as a case study. Our analysis indicates that while
landfills do depress nearby residential property values, the effects are contingent on
property location relative to the level of urbanization in a community, and year of
completion and total costs of property development.
Keywords: Accra; landfills; property values; hedonic pricing models; OLS regression
Introduction
Engineered landfill sites are rare in many parts of the developing world, where the rapid
pace of urbanization and urban growth have outpaced municipal authorities’ waste and
sanitation management capacity (Fobil, Armah, Hogarh, & Carboo, 2008; Owusu, Oteng-
Ababio, & Afutu-Kotey, 2012). A significant proportion of solid and liquid waste
generated may be left uncollected or, when collected, disposed in open dump sites
(Chaplin, 1999; United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA], 2007; World Bank, 1999).
According to the World Bank (1999), while decision-makers in most developing countries
(including sub-Saharan Africa) recognize the need to upgrade open dumps to sanitary and
engineered landfills, achieving this has been difficult in practice. As such, at both national
and municipal levels, few developing countries have taken steps to construct, operate, and
maintain sanitary landfills.
Like much of the developing world, Ghana is undergoing rapid urbanization with
serious consequences for the provision of basic services, including sanitation and proper
waste management, particularly in large cities and towns (Environmental Protection
*Corresponding author. Email: gowusu@ug.edu.gh
Urban Geography, 2014
Vol. 35, No. 8, 1140–1155, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2014.945261
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
Agency [EPA], 2002; Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research [ISSER],
2007; The New Legon Observer [NLO], 2009). As a result of poor infrastructure and
weak capacities of municipal authorities, municipal solid waste (MSW) management has
become a critical problem in Ghana, especially in the largest city and national capital,
Accra (Ayee & Crook, 2003; Crook & Ayee, 2006; Mensah & Larbi, 2005; NLO, 2009).
Landfilling, which is described as the most feasible option of waste disposal due to its
costs and environmental impact, has been widely advocated in developing countries such
as Ghana (Lim & Missios, 2007; Parker, 2003; World Bank, 1999). If even society
reduces, reuses, and recycles waste at source of waste generation, safe and sanitary landfill
will still be needed (Al-Jarrah & Abu-Qdais, 2006; Fort & Scarlett, 1993; Parker, 2003).
However, landfills that meet engineering and environmental requirements are rare in
Ghana (EPA, 2002; Mensah & Larbi, 2005). In fact, Ghana’s EPA, the public agency in
charge of setting environmental standards, noted not even a single well-engineered landfill
existed in Ghana in 2002 (EPA, 2002). It is only more recently that cities such as Kumasi,
Sekondi-Takoradi and Accra have constructed engineered landfills. However, the capa-
cities of the landfills are very small relative to the quantity of wastes generated daily in
these cities.
Landfills in Ghana are usually not well engineered, and their operations tend to fall below
the environmental and health standards. As a result, the siting of landfills has engendered
conflicts and protests from both residents and civil society organizations (Owusu et al., 2012).
These protests usually stem from the perception that landfills will cause negative health and
environmental impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. Furthermore, the sites proposed for land-
fills tend to be in peri-urban areas, where there is already intense competition over land use.
Unlike the developed countries, where the impact of landfills on residential property
values has been given serious attention and researched, this issue is rarely studied in urban
Ghana or other sub-Saharan African cities. Ghana’s EPA landfill guidelines document,
which aims at improving landfill standards and serves as the blueprint for the develop-
ment of these sites, does not consider residential property values (see EPA, 2002). The
present paper seeks to bridge this knowledge gap by examining the effects of landfills on
property values, using two landfills (Mallam and Oblogo) in peri-urban Accra as case
studies. The goal of this research is to generate knowledge to be used for effective siting
of landfills and waste disposal, as well as to help decision-makers who seek to ameliorate
any negative impacts on property values in large Ghanaian cities.
In the next section, we turn to the theoretical underpinnings of our study. This is followed
by our research methodology and then a summary of existing knowledge on the growth of
Accra and its waste management challenges.We continuewith a brief overview of theMallam
and Oblogo landfills, followed by a regression analysis of the effects of our case study
landfills on property values in their two host communities. We conclude with some implica-
tions for the siting of landfills near residential and other properties in Accra and urban Ghana.
Theoretical perspectives: landfills and property values
Holding the physical characteristics (e.g. size, age, and construction materials) of a
property constant, the literature on land and housing values indicates that environmental
features can increase or decrease property value (Nelson, Genereux, & Genereux, 1992).
These environmental features include noise level (especially from vehicular, rail, and air
traffic), ambient air quality, and perceived general landscape conditions. According to
Nelson et al. (1992, p. 359), the possibility that some land uses may negatively impact
Urban Geography 1141
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
other uses drives planners to use zoning to physically separate land uses with prescribed
distances, setbacks, and buffers (also referred to as green belts).
In broad terms, landfills are generally regarded by both planners and the public as a
form of nuisance. Hence, as Parker (2003) notes, landfills exist according to “the first law
of garbage: everybody wants it picked up, but nobody wants it put down anywhere near
them.” According to Nelson et al. (1992) and Lim and Missios (2007), prospective
residential property owners or renters tend to equate landfill proximity and size with
diminished environmental and life quality in nearby neighborhoods. However, researchers
have not taken the effect of landfills on nearby property values as a given; rather, it is a
subject of intense debate. Some studies indicate negative effects, while others indicate no
significant effects or even positive effects on property values (Bleich, Findlay, & Michael
Phillips, 1991; Mundy, 1992; Nelson et al., 1992; Parker, 2003). Bleich et al. (1991, p.
252) concludes that landfills, if well designed and managed, can be a good neighbor and
have no statistically measurable negative impact on surrounding property values. In this
direction, Parker (2003) has cautioned that sweeping generalizations (whether positive or
negative) about the economic effects of a landfill on a community should not be extra-
polated as a universally applicable fact.
Within the debate on landfills and property values, researchers have been drawn to three
key interrelated issues: landfill and distance, landfill size, and nearby communities’ level of
exposure to or enclosure by landfills. Regarding distance, some research has established a
price–distance relationship between residential property and landfills. Here, the view is that
houses or properties located closer to a landfill will sell at a lower price than similar houses
located farther away (Ready, 2005). This reflects landfills’ possible property-price depres-
sing effects. However, other studies have found no statistical relationship between landfill
proximity and house price (see Bouvier, Halstead, Conway, & Manalo, 2000; Parker, 2003).
Expanding on the price–distance relation in terms of class and degree of urbanization,
Reichert, Small, and Mohanty (1992) introduced another dimension, noting that landfills
will likely have adverse impacts on housing values if located within several blocks of an
expensive housing area. However, for less expensive housing areas, the impact of landfills
on housing values is less pronounced or even absent, and it essentially has no effects on
properties in predominantly rural areas. Nevertheless, Ready (2005) concludes that there
has not yet been a study which uses empirical evidence to conclusively demonstrate small
or negligent property values impact on lower-value housing markets.
Second, various studies on landfills have concluded that a landfill’s size is generally
significant to its impacts on nearby property values. The underlying logic here is that
larger landfills tend to be associated with greater external effects, resulting from a higher
volume of waste trucks, larger parcel of land used, and a longer period of post-closure
stabilization—all consistent with greater negative impacts of landfills on the natural
environment and human health (Lim & Missios, 2007). On the other hand, smaller
landfills are perceived to be associated with smaller external effects, which therefore
result in limited or possibly no impact on the values of nearby properties. However, a key
difficulty of this theoretical proposition of landfill size and land values is its silence on
what specifically constitutes a “small” or “large” landfill. Furthermore, Lim and Missios
(2007) have questioned whether all types of landfill externalities are considered equally
(or are even perceived) by housing consumers. Again, this complicates how specific
landfills externalities impact residential property values.
Third, some studies have considered whether property value effects are a function of
nearby communities’ level of enclosure by or exposure to a landfill. In this regard, it has
been noted that property values tend not to be affected when a community is separated
1142 G. Owusu et al.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
from the landfill by a natural or an artificial barrier, if trucks moving to and from landfill
do not pass through the host community, and if community residents do not see, hear, or
smell the landfill. In short, landfills that are location-restricted, operate out of view of
nearby communities, and are well managed (such as having lower levels of odor, blowing
debris and seagulls) are unlikely to impact property values negatively. It has been stressed
that the reverse of this situation is also true.
Our research question is as follows: to what extent are existing scholarly views on
landfills and property values, which are largely captured from studies undertaken in the
developed world, applicable to the Ghanaian context? The subsequent sections of this
article will attempt to address this and related questions.
Research methodology
The analysis in this study is based on data and information collected from both primary
and secondary sources. However, key to our analysis is the primary data collected from
the two landfill host communities, Mallam and Oblogo, in June–July 2009, using ques-
tionnaires, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and direct observation. In addi-
tion, global positioning system (GPS) devices were used to map out the two landfills and
their host communities, including all houses/plots on which data were collected. We used
this technique to determine the exact distances between the two study landfills and the
properties/houses on which data were collected.
Using the four compass coordinates (north, south, east, and west), 120 houses and
plots of land within a two-kilometer radius of the edge of each of the landfill were mapped
and their owners interviewed using a questionnaire. This included 30 houses and plots of
land per coordinate direction for each landfill. Based on the houses and plots of land in
each direction, respondents were selected on the criterion of interviewing every second
house owner. Where there were few properties (either houses or land plots) in a row, we
used a 100% sample. Questions asked included the following: length of stay in the area,
changes in property values during that time, changes in land use, perceived changes in the
aesthetics of the area, effects of the landfill on residents’ livelihoods, and perception of the
management of the landfill site.
Using similar questions to those in the questionnaires, two focus group discussions for
nonproperty/land owners (one for adult males and the other for adult females) were
convened in each of the landfill communities. The participants in the focus group discus-
sions were adults who have resided in the area for not less than ten years. In addition, key
informant interviews were held with two traditional leaders and two opinion leaders (local
government representatives, an assembly person, and an educated/business personality) in
the area. Furthermore, direct observations were undertaken at the Mallam landfill (which
was still active at the time of fieldwork) regarding the number of trucks tipping per hour,
total number of scavengers on-site, equipment being used, and other related characteristics.
Secondary data used in our study included landfill area and population serviced,
opening and expected closure date, the size and annual waste intake, waste classification,
management of landfill gas and leachate, and site pest and rodent control. Other secondary
information requested from the operators included tipping fee (if any) and costs of landfill
operation. This information was collected from the Waste Management Department of the
Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) and a private waste collection company, Zoomlion.
It must be stressed that our study is limited in terms of the dearth of data on housing
and land sales in Accra and in Ghana generally. According to Aryeetey, Al-Hassan,
Auming-Brempong, and Twerefou (2007), the housing market in Ghana is not well
Urban Geography 1143
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
tracked, with transactions largely carried out informally. In addition, the operations of real
estate agencies and the mortgage market are limited for a number of reasons. These
include the high cost of land acquisition due to conflicting and parallel institutional
involvement in land transactions and titling; absence of basic infrastructure, placing
obligations on private housing developers to provide such infrastructure; high costs of
building materials, many of which are imported; and high costs of mortgage borrowing
(Mahama & Antwi, 2006; Songsore, 2003). For these reasons, especially high cost of
borrowing, many private or individual house owners build their own houses on an
incremental basis, taking several years to complete (ISSER, 2013; UN-Habitat, 2011).
In addition, like many local governments in Ghana, the Ga South Municipality (which
hosts the two landfills in our study) does not collect property taxes and therefore has
virtually no records on the values of individual properties in the study area.1 As a result of
the limitations imposed by the available data, commonly used techniques to evaluate
environmental benefits/costs, such as contingent valuation and hedonic pricing models
(see Lim & Missios, 2007; Nelson et al., 1992; Ready, 2005; Reichert et al., 1992), could
not be used in our study. Instead, we analyzed landfills’ effects on nearby property values
using proxy indicators drawn from the questionnaire survey. We used a simple econo-
metric method—the ordinary least square (OLS) method of estimation. Variables that are
taken into consideration in our OLS model include the following: property location,
declared property value should one decide to sell, cost of plot on which property is
located, size of land on which property is located, total cost incurred in developing the
property (house), and distance between the property and landfill site. Other variables
included status of property (completed or uncompleted),2 type (use) of property, material
used in building and roofing, type of toilet facility, whether the property is fenced or
unfenced, year in which property development began, and year in which property devel-
opment was completed.
The effect of landfills on property values could be generally specified as follows:
Yi ¼ β0 þ βiXi þ ei (1)
where
Yi is a proxy for property values in our study communities, estimated by the current sales
value declared by property owners,
β0 is a constant to be determined in the model,
βi is a vector of parameters to be determined in the model,
Xi is a vector of explanatory variables specified in Equation (2) and explained in Table 1.
ei is an error term which washes away in this case because both the negative and positive
errors cancel out in a linear unbiased estimate.
Specifically the equation becomes
VALUEP ¼ β0 þ β1LOCþ β2CPLOTþ β3PPRICEþ β4DISTANCEþ β5PSTATUS
þþβ6MATROOFþ β7TTYPE1þ β8TTYPE2þ β9BUILDMAT
þ β10FENCEþ β11LSIZEþ β12FDEVþ β13SDEV
(2)
Table 1 provides a detailed explanation of the variable used in Equation (2).
1144 G. Owusu et al.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
Accra: urban growth and the solid waste challenge
A key characteristic of the urbanization process in Ghana, like that in much of the
developing world, is the skewed distribution of the urban population toward a few large
centers, sometimes referred to as urban primacy (Yeboah, Codjoe, & Maingi, 2013). The
Greater Accra Metropolitan Area (GAMA) is the largest and densest metropolitan area in
Ghana. Currently, GAMA is made up of 12 local government areas: Accra Metropolis,
Tema Metropolis, and 10 other municipalities. Table 2 indicates that the population of
GAMA rose from over 827,000 in 1970 to about 1.3 million in 1984, reaching over
2.5 million in 2000 and nearly 3.6 million in 2010 (Ghana Statistical Service [GSS], 2012;
Table 1. Variables and definitions.
Variable Parameter Definition
Units of
measurement
LOC β1 Location of property 0 for Mallam and 1
for Oblogo
VALUEP (dropped due to
multicollinearity)
Value of property if one decides to sell Continuous, Ghana
cedi (GHC)
CPLOT β2 Cost of plot on which property is
situated
Continuous, Ghana
cedi (GHC)
PPRICE β3 Total cost incurred in putting up the
property
Continuous, Ghana
cedi (GHC)
DISTANCE β4 Distance between property and landfill
site
Continuous,
(Meters)
PSTATUS β5 Property status; captured by a dummy
variable coded 1 if property is
completed and occupied otherwise 0.
Dummy
MATROOF β6 Material used in roofing property (metal
sheets/tiles) are coded 1 otherwise 0
Dummy
TTYPE β7 and β8 Type of toilet facility available in the
property. Two dummies are used as
proxies. Properties with WC are coded
1 otherwise 0 (TTYPE1). All other
toilet facilities are coded 1 otherwise
0 with no toilet facility as the reference
point (TTYPE2).
Dummy
BUILDMAT β9 Material used in developing the property
(house). Properties built with blocks
and bricks are coded 1 otherwise 0
Dummy
FENCE β10 Fenced or unfenced. Fenced property is
coded 1 and unfenced coded 0
Dummy
YACQUI (dropped due to
multicollinearity)
Year in which property was acquired,
coded 1 if property was acquired
before 1990 otherwise
Dummy
LSIZE β11 Size of land on which property is
located
Continuous
(meters)
FDEV β12 Year in which development started on
property, coded 1 if property was
acquired before 1990, otherwise 0.
Dummy
EDEV β13 Year in which development on the
property ended, coded 1 if before
1990 otherwise 0.
Dummy
Urban Geography 1145
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
Owusu, 2013). The growth of GAMA is due to the fact that it hosts the national capital,
Accra, which is the hub of economic activities in the country. An industrial survey
conducted in 2003 revealed that the Accra region accounted for about 44% of all persons
engaged in industry and over 69% of manufacturing output (GSS, 2006).
As the national seat of government and nerve center of economic activities, the AMA4
possesses the most modern infrastructure and services in Ghana due to significant public
sector investments over the years. This has enhanced private sector investment in the city,
which has further boosted urban growth and development. In recent years, as a result of
the impact of global forces (globalization and market liberalization), Accra has become
the headquarters of several multinational companies and international nongovernmental
organizations (Grant, 2009; Grant & Yankson, 2003; Otiso & Owusu, 2008). A recent
study revealed that the Greater Accra area received about 84% of Ghana’s total foreign
investments (including agriculture) between 2001 and 2008 (ISSER, 2009). As a result,
Accra is growing rapidly and has attracted people from all parts of Ghana, the West Africa
subregion, and beyond.
As in most cities, urbanization creates both challenges and opportunities in Accra. A
key challenge facing Accra is poor sanitation and waste management. According to the
NLO (2009), despite various World Bank and other donor efforts at improving sanitation
in Accra and other Ghanaian cities, the situation remains dire. Poor sanitation and waste
management in Accra is largely attributed to rapid urban growth and inadequate local
government capacity to address urban development and management challenges (Ayee &
Crook, 2003; Crook & Ayee, 2006; Fobil et al., 2008; NLO, 2009). Sanitation infra-
structure in Accra is characterized by choked drains, indiscriminate waste disposal, and
overflowing central waste containers, especially in the city’s poor neighborhoods. AMA
(2006) notes that Accra generates between 1500 and 1800 tons of waste per day; however,
only between 66% and 80% of this waste is collected. Thus, between 20% and 34% of
waste remains uncollected and ends up in drainage systems, water bodies, and open
spaces. According to Agyei-Mensah and Owusu (2010), the proportion of uncollected
waste is even higher in low-income residential neighborhoods, where in some cases
access to sewage disposal and door-to-door waste solid collection is as low as 5% of
households. In these poor neighborhoods, a greater majority of households dispose of
waste in open gutters or must simply leave it in open spaces within communities.
Table 2. Population Growth of GAMA,3 1970–2010.
1970 1984 2000 2010
District Pop.
Growth
rate Pop.
Growth
rate Pop.
Growth
rate Pop.
Accra Metropolis 636,667 3.0 969,195 3.3 1,658,937 1.1 1,848,614
Ledzokuku-Krowor
Municipality
— — — — — — 227,932
Ga District* 66,336 4.9 132,786 8.9 550,468 5.0 908,053
Tema Metropolis 102,431 4.4 190,917 2.8 298,432 3.0 402,637
Ashaiman Municipality 22,549 5.8 50,918 6.8 150,312 2.4 190,972
Adenta Municipality — — — — — — 78,215
Total 827,983 3.5 1,343,816 3.9 2,501,196 3.8 3,656,423
Note: *Ga Districts include Ga South, Ga Central, Ga East and Ga West Municipalities.
Source: Derived from Population Census reports: 1970, 1984, 2000, and 2010 (Owusu, 2013).
1146 G. Owusu et al.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
Besides these difficulties with uncollected waste, AMA also faces challenges regard-
ing where to dump the collected waste. As a result of rapid urban growth, the peri-urban
areas most conducive for waste disposal have been converted into residential develop-
ments. Moreover, recent creation of new local government areas has resulted in a
fragmentation of the GAMA. In fact, all peri-urban areas of Accra which are conducive
for the development of landfills fall under separate and autonomous local government
areas. The implication of this situation is that land for waste disposal is becoming
increasingly difficult to obtain, as the AMA has to engage with several actors in order
to do so.
Increasingly, AMA is faced with the “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) syndrome. This is
reflected in the abandonment of the proposed Kwabenya Sanitary Landfill project, which
was to be funded by the World Bank (Oteng-Ababio, 2011). The land for this project was
secured in the late 1990s for a long-term landfill, but area residents, supported by civil
society organizations, took up legal battles with the AMA. The result was abandonment of
the project. Due to this and other challenges, such as difficulties in acquiring large dumping
sites, the AMA relies on small and short-term waste disposal sites.
In addition, waste trucks must travel far and spend significant time between collection
and disposal points due to the sprawling city form and traffic congestion. This has serious
implications for the cost of operations and the number of waste containers able to be lifted
per day. These factors have affected the overall sanitation and waste management situa-
tion; overflowing waste containers left uncollected for days are common sight in the city,
especially in poor neighborhoods. The inability of city authorities to deal with waste has
led to the proliferation of informal small-scale operators using carts and other nonmotor-
ized means. However, the operations of these small-scale operators are poorly regulated
and also saddled with the burden of where to dispose of collected waste (Oteng-Ababio,
2011).
Origin of the Mallam and Oblogo landfills
The Mallam and Oblogo landfills are located in the Ga South Municipal Assembly
(GSMA), about 15 km from the center of the Accra metropolis (Figure 1).
Communities surrounding the landfills include Mallam, Oblogo, parts of New Gbawe,
and MaCarthy Hill (noted for housing the rich and prominent politicians in Ghana). All of
these communities are located within the GSMA. Many have long existed as rural
communities on the fringes of the AMA, and their growth has been very rapid in recent
years largely due to the westward expansion of the metropolis (GSS, 2002, 2012).
Functionally and geographically, the GSMA is an integral part of AMA, but the two
are separated by a politico-administrative boundary. As population, rents, and land prices
increase, overcrowding and congestion have occurred in the core areas of Accra. Many
households have been forced to seek land and shelter in the GSMA and other adjoining
municipalities (Doan & Oduro, 2012; Owusu, 2013). Although much of the population
growth of the Accra region is now occurring in these adjoining areas, they have seen very
little infrastructure development.
Until the late 1980s, as Accra expanded westward, Mallam and Oblogo were major
sites for stone quarry. As such, the area is littered with abandoned or closed quarry pits
and much of the residential developments in the area has occurred around the quarry sites.
As the number of residential buildings increased in the early 1980s, commercial quarry
activities ceased, leaving behind small-scale operators who continued to extract stone to
serve the numerous residential construction works in the area. Over time, these small-scale
Urban Geography 1147
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
operators also eventually ceased their operations, mainly due to the takeover of the quarry
sites for residential developments. These were primarily single and two-story houses—
targeted at Ghana’s growing urban middle and upper-classes (see Grant, 2009; ISSER,
2013). It is these quarry pits that have been used and continue to function as landfills for
waste disposal in Accra. However, the presence of residential houses that predate landfill
operations has resulted in very close proximity between the landfills and residential
development. In fact, some houses could literally be described as “sitting” on the landfills,
as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 1. Map of Ga South Municipality showing the locations of Mallam and Oblogo landfills.
Figure 2. Close proximity between landfills and residential development.5
1148 G. Owusu et al.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
We divide active operations of the Mallam landfill into two phases. The first phase
began in the early 1990s and ended in early 2001. During this period, a large abandoned
quarry pit was filled in a terrace-like style with waste from the city of Accra and the
surrounding area. The site contained compaction equipment, a weighing scale, and a
management team which was supported by foreign expatriate personnel. This represented
the first attempt to introduce new waste disposal technology in Ghana.
The second phase of the Mallam landfill began in late 2008 and involved the filling of
an abandoned quarry pit of about 25,107 square meters. This second Mallam landfill was
only a few meters away from the completed landfill and was closed down in early 2010.
When it was active, the site received waste intake of about 1,400 tons and 150 waste
trucks per day.
The Oblogo landfill was opened in 2001 after the closure of the first Mallam landfill
pit. It involved the filling of two large abandoned quarry pits. Similar to the Mallam
landfill, the Oblogo landfill had compaction equipment, a weighing scale, and a manage-
ment team. Until the closure of the site in July 2008, it received an average of 1,200 tons
of MSW collected from Accra daily, a monthly average of 3.6 million tons of waste. Here,
similar to the Mallam landfill, residential houses are situated very close to the landfill.
Even though the landfill is closed, scavengers are still active at the site recovering plastic
and other materials for recycling.
We follow the generally accepted definition of landfills as deliberately designed and
constructed facilities with layer basins to prevent leaching, sumps to trap leachate, gas
escape tubes, compaction and spreading equipment, daily soil cover to reduce odor and
waste littering, a weighing scale to measure tonnage of waste discharge, regular spraying
to reduce pests/rodents infestation, and fences or other types of facility enclosure. The
Mallam and Oblogo landfills do not meet all aspects of this definition. For instance, both
landfills lacked well-constructed layer basins, sumps to trap leachate, tubes to trap gas,
and daily soil cover (Owusu et al., 2012). As such, the construction and operations of the
two landfills can be described as substandard, resulting in the free flow of leachate and
poor air quality. In addition, host community benefits (HCBs), which many experts on
landfills have found to be very useful in reducing community hostilities toward landfill
operations, are limited in both Mallam and Oblogo. This being the situation, this study
explores the extent to which the landfills affect nearby property values in the two
communities of Mallam and Oblogo.
Results and discussions
Table 3 shows the regression results of the OLS method used in estimating the effects of
landfills on nearby property values. For variables that were used in the estimation, the
parameter numbers are also listed. Prior to the estimation, all the predictor variables were
tested for multicollinearity using their respective and mean variance inflation factors
(VIFs). Variables with VIFs greater than or equal to 10 were dropped to avoid multi-
collinearity (see Long & Freese, 2006). Values that were dropped from the estimation
included value of property if one decides to sell (VALUEP) and year in which the
property was acquired (YACUI). The goodness of fit for the estimated equation is very
high for a cross-sectional data analysis. In particular, the R2 of 90% indicates that the
model explains 90% of the variation in property value. Additionally, the Ramsey RESET
test for model mis-specification indicates that the use of OLS is justified and the model
does not suffer from omitted variables bias. Moreover, the F-test for joint significance
Urban Geography 1149
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
shows that all the regressors are jointly significant in explaining variation in property
value.
Table 3 reveals that the most important variable for our estimation, that is, the distance
between properties and landfills (Parameter β4), is weakly significant at 10% and correctly
signed. Nevertheless, the result indicates that moving one meter away from the landfill
increases property value by about GhC 12.7 (about US$9.1).6 In other words, within the
study’s set parameter of 2 km, a house placed at 2 km (2,000 m) away from the edge of
the landfill will have an increased value of GhC 25,400 (US$18,143) compared with
similar properties located a meter away from the landfill. This result is consistent with
other studies in the literature, where a robust inverse relationship between distance to
landfill sites and property values has been established (see Bouvier et al., 2000; Lim &
Missios, 2007).
Again, while we acknowledged that distance-based neighborhood variables such as
distance to major school, store, health center and so on would have contributed tremen-
dously in improving the model fit of our semi-hedonic pricing model, these variables were
not collected in the survey. This is because the area lacks major educational facilities
(except private basic schools), hospitals, markets, and shopping malls. As noted earlier,
land use in the landfill vicinity is purely used for residential purposes.
However, our model-based conclusion that the two landfills depress nearby property
values is inconsistent with the views obtained from key informant interviews and focus
group discussions. The conclusion from the qualitative survey was that the landfills have
not had a depressing effect on property value or rent. A key informant at Mallam summed
it up as follows:
Table 3. Regression results of the ordinary least square model Equation (2).
Parameters Coefficient SE t-Statistic Prob.
β1 −26,235.4 9,838.11 −2.67 0.022**
β2 0.66 2.72 0.24 0.811
β3 1.74 0.33 5.20 0.0000**
β4 −12.71 7.06769 −1.8 0.1000*
β5 −12,530.86 11,224.74 −1.12 0.288
β6 15,537.85 8,983.93 1.73 0.112
β7 −10,222.37 13,141.99 −0.78 0.453
β8 15,907.09 16,036.46 0.99 0.343
β9 −4,075.8 20,152.56 −0.2 0.843
β10 −8,518.38 7,493.119 −1.14 0.28
β11 14,507.13 3,262.60 4.45 0.001***
β12 108.2606 1,822.95 0.06 0.954
β13 −2,812.81 1,410.23 −1.99 0.071*
Equation: VALUEP = β0 + β1LOC+ β2CPLOT + β3PPRICE + β4DISTANCE + β5PSTATUS
+ β6MATROOF + β7TTYPE1 + β8TTYPE2 + β9BUILDMAT + β10FENCE + β11LSIZE
+ β12FDEV + β13SDEV
Number of observations 212
R2 0.90
Joint test of significance (Prob > F) 0.00
Mean VIF 4.18
Ramsey RESET test (Prob > F) 0.57
Note: *, ** and ***connote statistically significant at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.
1150 G. Owusu et al.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
The presence of the landfill has resulted in neither a reduction in land prices nor house rent,
but rather a reduction in the number of people coming here [Mallam] to buy land or to rent a
place to live. However, anytime a pit is completed and there is a lull in the dumping of waste
here, we see a rush to acquire land here leading to increases in land values. In fact, land prices
and rents have continued to increase since people started settling here. (key informant,
Mallam)
Using basic supply and demand analysis, what we infer from quotes like this one is that
land prices and rents could have been much higher than they were, if not for the presence
of the landfills in the Mallam and Oblogo communities. In short, we infer that more
people would have sought land and shelter in these areas, which would have driven rents
and land prices even higher than their present levels. This logic in fact supports the
conclusion drawn from our analysis of the quantitative survey of the distance effects of
landfills on property values.
Another possible means to deduce the effects of the landfill on property value is to
examine the year in which development of residential properties ended, coded 1 for years
before 1990 (absence of landfill) and 0 after 1990 (presence of landfill). The ending year
of property development has serious implications for property value, as an additional year
in terms of when development of the property ended (Parameter β13) causes the value of
the property to decrease by about GhC 2,812 (US$2,008.6) and this is significant at 10%.
This could be due to the fact that earlier developers acquired their lands relatively further
away from the quarry pits that are now being used as landfills. However, as land became
scarce, developers started using land closer to the quarry pits (or landfill). This explana-
tion reinforces our earlier observation of the price–distance relationship of residential
property to the landfills. Thus, properties developed before the 1990s, which are located
further away from the landfills, will have higher values compared with more properties
developed in the 1990s and closer to the landfills.
Other factors such as the location of the property, the amount of money spent in
acquiring the property (land), and the size of the land were all significant at the 5%
confidence level. Additionally, the time development of the property ended was found to
be significant at the 10% confidence level.
The results indicate that the variable LOC is negative and significant at the conven-
tional 5% level, buttressing the importance of location in explaining the property value.
Thus, in moving from Mallam to Oblogo, property values depreciate by about GhC
26,235 (US$18,739). This could be explained by factors such as the rate of urban growth,
which is more pronounced in Mallam compared with Oblogo, and the vibrant economic
activities which tend to accompany population growth. Direct observations and focus
group discussions conducted during fieldwork indicated that the level of trade and
economic activities was more vibrant in Mallam than in Oblogo and could have caused
the differences in property values between the two communities. Mallam is a more mature
urban area compared with Oblogo, which is also reflected in Mallam’s higher property
values.
The PPRICE variable is also significant at 5% confidence interval.7 From the model, a
GHC 1.0 (US$0.7) increase in the amount of money spent in acquiring a property causes
the value of the property to increase by GhC 1.74. One might have expected that an
increase in PPRICE would cause the value of the property to increase at the same rate.
The difference could be accounted for by inflation and the fact that buildings kept in good
condition generally appreciate in value over time, especially within rapidly growing urban
communities such as Mallam and Oblogo.
Urban Geography 1151
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
Two dummy variables were introduced in the regression to capture the type of toilet
facility available in the property (TTYPE). All facilities fitted with water-closet (WC)
toilet facility were coded 1 otherwise 0 (TTYPE1) while all other toilet facilities were
coded 1 otherwise 0 (TTYPE2). Properties with no toilet facility are the reference point to
which comparison is made. Nevertheless, none of these dummies were found to have a
statistically significant effect on property value. It is probable that the introduction of
other variables into the regression has attenuated the positive relationship between addi-
tional toilet facilities and property value increases. It is common sense that additional
investment in a water closet toilet facility ensures comfort and safety in terms of
environmental sanitation and also increases property value. Clearly, in an environment
with no public toilet facilities, provision of such facilities in a private dwelling unit
enhances the value of the property in terms of both rent and total value.
Finally, a variable that proved to be statistically significant (at the conventional 5%
level) in explaining variations in property value is the size of the land on which the
property is located (LSIZE). Holding constant all other factors that potentially influence
property values, a meter increase in the size of the land on which the property is located
increases the market value of the property by about GhC 14,507 (US$10,362).
Conclusion and development implications
Though discussions about landfills and property values have largely taken place in the
developed world, this study has shown that there are implications of such studies for
Global South cities such as Accra. The scarcity of land available to be used for waste
disposal is largely due to the massive sprawl of urban residential development and the
absence of a dedicated planning zone for landfills. Without designated landfill zones, the
city has resorted to short-term measures involving the use of abandoned quarry pits as
landfill sites. While some level of mechanization and other practices are carried out at the
landfill sites, the sites do not meet the criteria of well-engineered, sanitary landfills.
Meanwhile, the close proximity of residential properties to the landfills has often brought
city waste management authorities into confrontations with residents.
Although our analysis is limited by the paucity of data on the Ghanaian housing and
real estate sector, we can conclude that our study of Mallam and Oblogo landfills and their
effects on nearby property values supports the conclusion of many developed world
studies that landfills have a depressing effect on residential property values. We conclude
that while the presence of the landfills affected property values negatively, it is not the
only variable to affect property values. Of equal importance and significance are factors
such as property location relative to the level of urbanization in the community where a
property is located, and total costs incurred in constructing the property. In other words, in
the context of this study, the value of property in the landfill area is determined both by
landfills (in terms of distance and year of completion of property development) and by
other factors of urbanization. Nevertheless, our conclusion is in line with analysts who
argue that landfills have depressing effects on property values.
The present state in which landfills are sited and operated in Accra and elsewhere in
Ghana leaves much to be desired. If residential properties are viewed as a strategic area
for stimulating economic growth, while at the same time improving the living conditions
of Ghanaians,8 then the siting and management of landfills warrants a more serious level
of political attention. National and local government investments (such as good and
durable roads, streetlights, schools, playgrounds) must be located in landfill host commu-
nities to ameliorate some of the negative externalities associated with landfills. Indeed,
1152 G. Owusu et al.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
national and local government provision of such resources would align with the obliga-
tions, commitments, and responsibilities contained in the national constitution and other
development policy documents. More importantly, the EPA (Ghana) should be endowed
with the necessary capacity to enforce its landfill health and safety guidelines. Though the
existing guidelines of the EPA do not address the issue of landfills and property values,
the full implementation of these guidelines will promote a clean and safe environment,
which will likely have a positive impact on housing values. Full implementation of
environmental guidelines, however, has rarely been the case in Accra and other urban
centers in Ghana.
Funding
This study was made possible as a result of a research grant (IFS Research No. S/4639) from the
International Foundation for Science (IFS). However, the views expressed herein do not necessarily
represent those of IFS or its Board of Governors.
Notes
1. See Appiah-Kubi (2004) for a detailed discussion of District Assemblies’ (local governments)
noncollection of property taxes in Ghana.
2. Because of the incremental nature by which houses are developed in Ghana, it is very common
to find people occupying uncompleted buildings while development of the structure proceeds.
3. Includes Ga East, Ga West, Ga Central, and GA South Municipalities.
4. City local governments are referred to as either Metropolitan Assemblies or Municipal
Assemblies. Metropolitan Assemblies are for cities/large towns with populations of over
250,000 while Municipal Assemblies are defined as towns with populations of 90,000–250,000.
5. The size of residential properties and materials used give some indications of property value,
socio-economic background of property owners, and the classification of the neighborhood as
“Class A.”
6. One Ghana Cedis (GhC) was equivalent to US$1.4 at the time of survey (June–July 2009).
7. The price variable (total cost incurred in putting up the property) per our estimate warrants
inclusion in the model. Aside from the fact that the initial costs of construction affect the current
sale value, a test for correlation between the independent variables (multicollinearity) using the
variance inflation factor (VIF) did not reveal any multicollinearity problems. The mean VIF for
the regression estimate is 4.16, which is distant from the standard multicollinearity threshold of
>10. Indeed, if the price variable is removed, only LSIZE (the size of the land) is significant in
the model and the R2 drops. This implies that the price variable contributes to the overall model
fit and its omission engenders omitted variable bias.
8. This is advocated in Ghana’s medium-term development policy frameworks including the
Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II) and Ghana Shared Growth Development
Agenda (GSGDA) (National Development Planning Commission [NDPC], 2005, 2010).
References
Agyei-Mensah, Samuel, & Owusu, George (2010). Segregated by neighborhoods? A portrait of
ethnic diversity in the neighborhoods of the Accra metropolitan area, Ghana. Population, Space
and Place, 16(6), 499–516.
Al-Jarrah, Omar, & Abu-Qdais, Hani (2006). Municipal solid waste landfill siting using intelligent
system. Waste Management, 26(3), 299–306.
AMA (Accra Metropolitan Assembly) (2006). Medium-term development plan 2006–2009. Accra:
Author.
Appiah-Kubi, K. (2004). Property tax as a source of local government finance in Ghana: A research
note. Legon Journal of Sociology, 1(2), 132–147.
Aryeetey, Ernest, Al-Hassan, R. M., Auming-Brempong, S., & Twerefou, D. K. (2007). The
organization of land markets and production in Ghana (Technical Publication No. 73,
Urban Geography 1153
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research, University of Ghana, Legon). Accra:
ISSER.
Ayee, Joseph, & Crook, Richard (2003). ‘Toilet wars’: Urban sanitation services and the politics of
public-private partnerships in Ghana (Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Working Paper
No. 213). Sussex: IDS.
Bleich, Donald H., Findlay, Chapman, & Michael Phillips, G. (1991). An evaluation of the impact
of a well-designed landfill on surrounding property values. Appraisal Journal, 59(2), 247–252.
Bouvier, Rachel A., Halstead, John M., Conway, Karen S., & Manalo, Alberto B. (2000). The
effects of landfills on rural residential property values: Some empirical evidence. Journal of
Regional Analysis and Policy, 30(2), 23–38.
Chaplin, Susan E. (1999). Cities, sewers and poverty: India’s politics of sanitation. Environment and
Urbanization, 11(1), 145–158.
Crook, Richard, & Ayee, Joseph (2006). Urban service partnerships, ‘street-level bureaucrats’ and
environmental sanitation in Kumasi and Accra, Ghana: Coping with organisational change in
the public bureaucracy. Development Policy Review, 24(1), 51–73.
Doan, Petra, & Oduro, Charles Y. (2012). Patterns of population growth in peri‐urban Accra, Ghana.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(6), 1306–1325.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Ghana (2002). Ghana landfill guidelines (Best Practice
Environmental Guidelines Series No. 1). Accra: Author.
Fobil, Julius N., Armah, Nathaniel A., Hogarh, Jonathan N., & Carboo, Derick (2008). The
influence of institutions and organizations on urban waste collection systems: An analysis of
waste collection system in Accra, Ghana (1985–2000). Journal of Environmental Management,
86(1), 262–271.
Fort, Rodney, & Scarlett, Lynn (1993). Too little too late? Host-community benefits and siting of
waste facilities. Washington, DC: Reason Foundation.
Grant, Richard (2009). Globalizing city: The urban and economic transformation of Accra, Ghana.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Grant, Richard, & Yankson, Paul (2003). Accra. Cities, 20(1), 65–74.
GSS (Ghana Statistical Service) (2002). 2000 Population and housing census—Special report on
urban localities. Accra: Author.
GSS (Ghana Statistical Service) (2006). 2003 National industrial census report (Vol. 1). Accra:
Author.
GSS (Ghana Statistical Service) (2012). Population and housing census: Summary of final results.
Accra: Author.
ISSER (Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research) (2007). The state of the Ghanaian
economy in 2006. Accra: Author.
ISSER (Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research) (2009). The state of the Ghanaian
economy in 2008. Accra: Author.
ISSER (Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research) (2013). Ghana social development
outlook 2012. Accra: Author.
Lim, Jong Seok, & Missios, Paul (2007). Does size really matter? Landfill scale impacts on property
values. Applied Economics Letters, 14(10), 719–723.
Long, J. Scott, & Freese, Jeremy (2006). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent
variables using STATA (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: STATA Press.
Mahama, Callistus, & Antwi, Adarkwa (2006). Land and property markets in Ghana. London:
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Mensah, Anthony, & Larbi, Eugene (2005). Solid waste disposal (SWD) in Ghana. WELL Fact
Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/fact-sheets/fact-sheets-htm/RSA%
20Solid%20waste.htm
Mundy, Bill (1992). The impact of hazardous materials on property value. The Appraisal Journal,
60(2), 155–162.
NDPC (National Development Planning Commission) (2005). Growth and poverty reduction
strategy (2006–2009) Vol. I. Policy framework. Accra: Author.
NDPC (National Development Planning Commission) (2010). Medium-term national development
policy framework: Ghana shared growth development agenda (GSGDA), 2010–2013 (Vol. 1).
Accra: Author.
Nelson, Arthur C., Genereux, John, & Genereux, Michelle (1992). Price effects of landfills on
residential land values. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 118(4), 128–137.
1154 G. Owusu et al.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5 
NLO (The New Legon Observer) (2009). Why is urban sanitation such a big challenge to Ghana?
NLO, 3, 1–5.
Oteng-Ababio, Martin (2011). Beyond technical details: The stalled Kwabenya Engineered Sanitary
Landfill Project in Accra, Ghana. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 111(2),
169–179.
Otiso, Kefa M., & Owusu, George (2008). Comparative urbanization in Ghana and Kenya in time
and space. GeoJournal, 71(2–3), 143–157.
Owusu, George (2013). Coping with urban sprawl: A critical discussion of the urban containment
strategy in a developing country city, Accra. Planum-The Journal of Urbanism, 26(1), 1–17.
Owusu, George, Oteng-Ababio, Martin, & Afutu-Kotey, Robert L. (2012). Conflicts and govern-
ance of landfills in a developing country city, Accra. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1),
105–113.
Parker, Bruce J. (2003). Solid waste landfills and residential property values (White Paper).
Washington, DC: National Solid Wastes Management Association.
Ready, Richard C. (2005). Do landfills always depress nearby property values? Journal of Real
Estate Research, 32(3), 321–340.
Reichert, Alan K., Small, Michael, & Mohanty, Sunil (1992). The impact of landfills on residential
property values. Journal of Real Estate Research, 7(3), 297–314.
Songsore, Jacob (2003). Towards a better understanding of urban change: Urbanization, national
development and inequality in Ghana. Accra: Ghana University Press.
UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) (2007). State of world population 2007: Unleashing the
potential of urban growth. New York, NY: Author.
UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) (2009). State of world population 2009: Facing a
changing world—Women, population and climate. New York, NY: Author.
UN-Habitat (2011). Ghana housing profile. Nairobi: UN-Habitat.
World Bank (1999). Observation of solid waste landfills in developing countries: Africa, Asia and
Latin America. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Yeboah, Ian E. A., Codjoe, Samuel N. A., & Maingi, John K. (2013). Emerging urban system
demographic trends: informing Ghana’s national urban policy and lessons for Sub-Saharan
Africa. Africa Today, 60(1), 99–124.
Urban Geography 1155
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [U
niv
ers
ity
 of
 G
ha
na
] a
t 0
3:3
2 0
9 J
un
e 2
01
5