Journal of Contemporary African Studies
ISSN: 0258-9001 (Print) 1469-9397 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjca20
Landfill externalities and property values dilemma
– emerging insights from three Ghanaian cities
Martin Oteng-Ababio, Ebenezer Owusu-Sekyere & Samuel Twumasi Amoah
To cite this article: Martin Oteng-Ababio, Ebenezer Owusu-Sekyere & Samuel Twumasi
Amoah (2017) Landfill externalities and property values dilemma – emerging insights
from three Ghanaian cities, Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 35:3, 349-369, DOI:
10.1080/02589001.2017.1342785
To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/02589001.2017.1342785
Published online: 03 Jul 2017.
Submit your article to this journal 
Article views: 97
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles 
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjca20
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN STUDIES, 2017
VOL. 35, NO. 3, 349–369
https://doi.org/10.1080/02589001.2017.1342785
Landfill externalities and property values dilemma – emerging
insights from three Ghanaian cities
Martin Oteng-Ababioa, Ebenezer Owusu-Sekyereb and Samuel Twumasi Amoahc
aUrban Disaster Risk Reduction Programme, Department of Geography & Resource Development, University
of Ghana, Accra, Ghana; bDepartment of Development Studies, University for Development Studies, Wa
Campus, Tamale, Ghana; cDepartment of Environment and Resource Studies, Faculty of Integrated
Development Studies, University for Development Studies, Wa Campus, Tamale, Ghana
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY
Though debates about the negative impact landfill exerts on land Received 21 March 2015
and property values are by no means historically new, research Accepted 22 January 2017
into the case of developing countries has only recently begun.
This article attempts to synthesise existing literature on the KEYWORDSDisamenity; landfill; property
subject through the analysis of three case studies to enhance our values; urbanisation; waste
understanding, especially the contextual conditions surrounding disposal
the relationship. Applying this theoretical framework to the
disposal practices occurring in three cities in Ghana, this article
offers insight into the culpability of landfills in negatively
impacting property values. In an illuminating analysis, we argue
that most engineered landfills in the country serve as a catalyst in
correcting the ills of uncontrolled urbanisation (governance,
attitudinal and financial constraints, etc.). We opine that landfills’
relationship with host communities must be understood in
relation to our overall underdevelopment, coupled with the
increasing economic and technical challenges shaping much of
the country’s history.
Waste is one of the only things that unites all mankind. Everyone creates it – yet few
people want to think about what happens next. The issue of municipal solid waste man-
agement (MSWM), in particular, has, in recent years, stirred much academic and policy
interests, not least because progressive city authorities are making concerted efforts to
modify their management policies and practices (Oteng-Ababio 2011; Owusu, Oteng-
Ababio, and Afutu-Kotey 2012). These attempts coincide with, ‘an era where “waste” is wit-
nessing varied conceptualisation: as a billion dollar industry… ; expanding interests in and
uses of alternative practices… ; large-scale development institutions’ investment in waste
related infrastructure… ; and increasing sub-national transfers of municipal solid waste
… ’ (Moore 2012, 780). These dynamics are not only intended to reduce the amount of
waste meant for final disposal (Moore 2009, 2011) but also the over-reliance on landfills
and the environmental costs associated with their management, which continue to
grow at record pace (Fobil et al. 2008; Owusu, Oteng-Ababio, and Afutu-Kotey 2012; Elba-
kidze et al. 2015). Damghani et al. (2008, 929) argue aptly that ‘a high quality solid waste
CONTACT Martin Oteng-Ababio moababio@yahoo.com Urban Disaster Risk Reduction Programme, Department of
Geography & Resource Development, University of Ghana, P.O. Box LG59, Accra, Ghana
© 2017 The Institute of Social and Economic Research
350 M. OTENG-ABABIO ET AL.
management [SWM] system not only enhances social, economic and environmental effi-
ciency, and promotes sustainable development, but can also help resolve the dual crisis of
resource shortages and environmental deterioration’ (also see Oteng-Ababio 2014).
Despite the recent realisation and improvements in recycling and other disposal tech-
niques (Post, Broekema, and Obirih-Opareh 2003; Oteng-Ababio 2014), landfilling
remains the most widely used method of disposal globally.
The trajectory of this condition (the bane of most ill-fated MSWM interventions) has
by now been well mapped. Often times, and as rightly noted by Ali (2010), most studies
in this arena remain over-dependent on generalisations based on theories from the
North which offer no real way forward as they relate more to an ideal than anything
on the ground, or portray the global North as always ‘getting it right’ (Oteng-Ababio,
Melara, and Gabbay 2013). Indeed, there is a particular dissonance in regarding
western versus local priorities in the sub-region, such that many scholars work to
detail the myriad of ways in which African cities and/or governments tend to ‘fail’
when compared to western cities. Robinson (2006, 2) aptly suggests that ‘these concep-
tual fields continue to ascribe innovation and dynamism – modernity – to cities in rich
countries, while imposing a catch-up fiction of modernization on the poorest’. To her,
this has led to urban theorising that is truncated by developmentalism, which has pro-
duced a view of the West as modern by defining its ‘others’, cities and people who are
not viewed as modern, and therefore are excluded as potential sites and authors,
respectively, of significant ways of understanding the urban. She refutes ‘these divisions
within the field of the urban’, and posits a post-colonial urbanism that recognises ‘differ-
ence as diversity rather than hierarchical division’ (4).
Viewed from the perspective of the subject under consideration, one needs only to con-
sider the constant struggle in western countries to deal with the enormous amount of
waste produced to realise this is a worldwide problem which requires multiple solutions
at various levels. Perhaps New York City’s Mayor, Bill de Blasio’s effusions on 22 April
2015, [Earth Day], epitomises this global challenge:
The whole notion of a society based on constantly increasing waste and then putting it into a
truck or a barge or a train and sending it somewhere else – you dig a big hole in the ground,
you put the waste in the ground – that is outrageous and is outdated and we’re not going to
be party to it. (In Rosengren 2015, ii)
By this time, the Department of Sanitation of New York was collecting more than 3
million tonnes of residential and institutional waste per year, with about 16% of that
being diverted for recycling and about 12% sent to a waste-to-energy facility in Newark,
New Jersey. The remainder travels hundreds of kilometres to landfills in multiple states
and the exporting process cost for the Fiscal Year 2016 was estimated at $367,815,000
(Rosengren 2015, iv).
Suffice to state that the above discussion is not meant to provide an exhaustive view in
how these binaries are engaged in shaping a global, hierarchical way of knowing cities
based on their ordering on a singular grid/axis of ‘modern’ or ‘primitive’ (undeveloped),
‘global’ or ‘non-global’ (forgotten) or core versus peripheral (Robinson 2006). It neverthe-
less provides an overview of the competing debates and, more importantly, provides an
opportunity to unpack the impact of crude dumping on the host communities: their
health, properties and livelihoods as well as emissions of methane and leachate
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN STUDIES 351
(Nelson, Genereux, and Genereux 1992; Lim and Missios 2007; Botkin 2007; UN-Habitat
2008) from an African perspective. In most developed countries, the hedonic technique,
which attempts to infer people’s preferences by the way they behave in the market,
has been used to determine the effect of landfilling on property values, with widely differ-
ing results (see Havlicek, Richardson, and Davies 1971; Bouvier et al. 2000). However, the
situation in most developing countries does not easily lend itself to such analysis due to
paucity of data and therefore remains mainly under-researched or, at best, speculative
(Arimah 1996; Du Preez and Lottering 2009). How then do we ascertain the extent to
which the presence of a landfill threatens nearby communities? Is there evidence that
the presence of a landfill potentially destroys development gains and/or accumulated
wealth? Recently, a study by Owusu et al. (2014) attempted to address this knowledge
gap by exploring the effects of landfills on residential property values in two communities
(Oblogo and Mallam) in Accra, Ghana. Their analysis indicates that though landfill does
depress nearby properties, the effect is contingent on the communities’ level of urbanis-
ation, year of completion and the total costs of the property.
Building on this maiden empirical work, and in our attempt to respond to calls on
researchers to shift the focus of urban theories as they move from the global North to
the South (Parnell and Robinson 2012; Schindler 2015; Myers 2016), we moved beyond
these two dumpsites in Accra, (the most urbanised city in Ghana) and sampled nine landfill
sites in three major cities: Accra, Kumasi and Wa. These cities were purposefully selected to
cover the country’s three broad ecological zones and coincide with the socio-economic
trajectories: the coastal zone being the most, and the northern the least endowed finan-
cially and resource-wise. Gauging from their level of development, we hypothesise that
the location of a landfill can sometimes bring benefits to the host community. Put differ-
ently, we opine that in countries like Ghana, saddled with chronic financial, technical,
human capacity and attitudinal challenges, the presence of a landfill in an area does
not necessarily always assume an inverse relationship, which underpins most western-
country-focus discourses (see Bouvier et al. 2000; Owusu et al. 2014). We are not discount-
ing a situation where residents in a host community may fear the presence of a landfill can
imperil their future health and well-being, though such perceptions may not always be
based on reality.
We are convinced that adopting a one-size-fits-all principle will negate local practical-
ities (limitations), and that it guarantees embedding unsustainable structures, processes
and outcomes, and may provide little realistic guidance for policy-makers (EPA 2002;
Mahama and Adarkwah 2006). In other words, it may be that certain characteristics of
the landfill and the host communities, such as the size, operating status, perceptions,
past experiences, and the overall development of the host community may determine
the effect on surrounding property values, not the mere presence of one. The remainder
of the study is organised as follows. In the next section, we provide a brief theoretical
overview regarding landfill nuisance effects on the immediate property market. The
third section presents an overview of the processes involved in the selection of landfill
sites in Ghana particularly, and outlines the research methodology. The subsequent
section then reviews the empirical evidence of possible externalities from our study
locations, describing selected city-specific scenarios. Section five interrogates the impli-
cations of the findings while the final section draws some conclusions for policy
considerations.
352 M. OTENG-ABABIO ET AL.
Waste, landfill externalities and property values
Broadly speaking, waste refers to unwanted or unusable materials, substance or by-pro-
ducts, used synonymously with rubbish, refuse, litter, debris, dross, junk, scrap, etc. and
spread across diverse geographies and very active in a variety of cultural contexts
(UNEP 2005). When poorly managed, the impact of waste and its constituent parts can
be dire, especially for those staying in close proximity, even though several other
studies also highlight how many also make a living from such discarded materials
(Odama 2013; Grant and Oteng-Ababio 2016). The literature provides various challenges
that affect MSWM, including lack of technical skills among personnel within city govern-
ments; deficient infrastructure, poor roads and vehicles; inappropriate technologies and
lack of engineered landfills (Asase et al. 2009; Hazra and Goel 2009). These challenges,
as rightly noted by Moore (2012, 781), have compelled researchers to increasingly use
waste as a lens (litmus test) to explore environmental politics (Gandy 2002), urban
history (Melosi 2000; Sterner 2008), social behaviour (Barr, Gilg, and Ford 2001), social
movements (Cresswell 1996), capitalism (Clapp 2002; Gregson and Crang 2010), modernity
(Moore 2009), risk (Bickerstaff and Simmons 2009), regulation (O’Neill 2000) and govern-
ance (Davies 2008; Bulkeley and Askins 2009).
The significance of the varied conceptualisation of waste (i.e. hazard, object of manage-
ment, commodity, resource, archive, filth, fetish, risk, disorder, matter out of place, govern-
able object, abject and actant) manifests in the quest for an integrated MSWM, and how
the practice impacts on nearby property values (Senkoro 2003). Crecine, Davis, and
Jackson (1967) succinctly highlight how environmental features can increase property
values if they are viewed as attractive and desirable or vice versa. Referring specifically
to land values, Bello and Bello (2008) listed three potential factors, scarcity, utility and
desirability, which are highly variable depending on the type of operation, location and
development. Principally, the emerging debates can be categorised into three broad
trends.
The first debate establishes a price–distance decay relationship and argues that prop-
erties located close to landfills attract lower prices. For example, Reichert, Small, and
Mohanty (1992) studied the impact of five municipal landfills on surrounding residential
property values in Cleveland, Ohio, and established a strong correlation between landfill
nuisance and nearby property values. In a study by Nelson, Genereux, and Genereux
(1992), which adopted an empirical model to estimate the price effects on 708 homes
near a Minnesota landfill during the 1980s, it was established that the landfill adversely
affected home values by 12% at the landfill boundary and 6% at about 1.6 km. Beyond
about 3–4 km adverse effects were negligible. The proponents of this school of
thought, however, seem to be having a priori normative assumptions about how landfills
impact properties but fail to empirically situate and conclusively substantiate these asser-
tions geographically.
A second strand of literature examines landfill size and property values and maintains
that, generally, larger landfills are associated with greater externalities, manifesting in the
use of higher volume waste trucks, larger parcels of land and a longer period of post-
closure stabilisation. Lim and Missios (2007), for example, examined property values of
houses located in the proximity of two landfill sites of significantly different sizes in
Toronto, Canada. Their results suggested that large landfills have relatively greater
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN STUDIES 353
adverse impact on property values, implying the markets reflect difference in external
costs. Gamble et al. (1982) also conducted a case study in Montgomery County, Pennsyl-
vania, and found a negative effect on property values, though the results were not statisti-
cally significant. One challenge with this debate, however, relates to how to define what is
a ‘small’ or ‘large’ landfill.
The third school employs the theory of enclosure or exposure and argues that a landfill
with appropriate buffers has statistically insignificant or even no impact on property values
(see Zeiss and Atwater 1989; Clarion Associates 1991). To put it simply, proponents argue
that a landfill which is location-restricted and operates out of view of nearby communities
is unlikely to impact property values negatively. A study which examined the development
effects of landfills on residential properties at four sites in the USA revealed that the land-
fills did not impose negative price effects and, indeed, in some situations they found that
landfills actually increased property values and were associated with greater residential
development (see Research Planning Consultants Inc. 1983). The observation resonates
with the study by Bleich, Findlay, and Philips (1991) which revealed that, if well
managed, landfills can be good neighbours with no statistically measurable impact, and
that they can even improve infrastructural provision and create job opportunities.
Fundamentally, these arguments are closely related but provide inconclusive evidence.
One commonality among these debates relates to their failure (inability) to take into con-
sideration the perculiarities of the sub-region, such as differences in the level of socio-
economic development. For example, in Ghana, until 2004, landfill remained the exclusive
and most preferred, prevalent and endorsed waste disposal option (Owusu, Oteng-
Ababio, and Afutu-Kotey 2012; Oteng-Ababio 2013). This is in spite of the fact that the gov-
ernment had prepared landfill operational guidelines since 2000 (see EPA 2000). A review
of the guidelines (see Oteng-Ababio 2010) – which is beyond the current scope – found
that they mimic or were developed through the lens of developed countries, making its
strict operationalisation challenging.
Equally important challenges relate to the issue of spatial planning, which, in many
developed economies, is a matter of course, but in Ghana, this has been overshadowed
by the domain of socio-economic planning. Yet, for all intents and purposes, spatial plan-
ning was an integral to the economic policies of the country during colonial rule (Fuseini
and Kemp 2015). While the colonial governments employed spatial planning on limited
scale and for exploitative purposes, post-colonial governments have implemented
broad-based planning grounded in the ‘genuine’ aspiration to promote a spatially
balanced development. However, overwhelming evidence points to the fact that post-
independence planning has not been as successfully implemented when compared to
pre-independence planning due to a myriad of factors including rapid urban growth,
inadequate staffing, low capacity, lack of institutional coordination, political interference
in planning, complex land tenure and evolving landmarkets, thus creating a myriad of pro-
blems that are inimical to sustainable urban development. This partly explains the many
illegal dumpsites, most of which are located in peri-urban zones. These are zones where
land had long degraded through illegal quarrying and sand winning, a practice tacitly
endorsed by most city authorities. We hypothesise that site-specific characteristics may
be one of the largest determinants of whether a landfill affects property values. To wit,
such ‘overtly’ and poorly managed dumpsites in Ghana may cause social and aesthetic
354 M. OTENG-ABABIO ET AL.
nuisances, but their impact on property values remains speculative, a knowledge gap this
study contributes to bridge.
The research localities and methodology
Selection of waste disposal sites
As already noted, landfills have become one of the vital components in any well-designed
MSWM system and the ultimate repository of a city’s waste after all other management
options are completed. According to Ghana’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
(2002), properly managed landfills guarantee environmental friendliness, social acceptabil-
ity and financial sustainability, without impairing human and environmental health. To
achieve this calls for sound spatial planning, administration and management. Also, the
location and size of the facility, the level of interested parties participation and the elim-
ination of fatal flaws1 including sensitive environments and water resources are strategi-
cally critical (see EPA 2002). Table 1 outlines basic requirements for operating safe
disposal of waste in landfills.
Operationally, the use of landfill tends to be over-generalised and therefore city auth-
orities do not follow or maintain them stringently as stipulated in the EPA guidelines.
Ghana’s experience with landfills began in 1994, when a World Bank (Urban III) Project tar-
geted 11 district capitals (see Table 2). In 1995, five major cities: Accra, Tema, Sekondi-
Takoradi, Kumasi and Tamale were further targeted. A study by the local government
(see Oteng-Ababio 2013), however, shows that due to issues related to land acquisition
and endless litigations, work on the first 11 projects stalled while only 3 of the 5 initiated
in 1995 were completed after almost a decade. In seeking robust statistical evidence for
the study, three landfill sites in each of the three cities – Accra, Kumasi and Wa – were
sampled.
Table 2 summarises some of the challenges, which differ in character and severity,
encountered during the sites selection. According to Oteng-Ababio (2011), the Accra
site, for example, hit a snag when the landowners vehemently and wilfully resisted govern-
ment’s renewed efforts to break ground in 2002. These challenges made the burning of
waste, which causes plumes of smoke to cover the urban space and implicitly creates ter-
rible problems with odour and ecological hazards, the easiest disposal option (Post and
Obirih-Opareh 2002; Post, Broekema, and Obirih-Opareh 2003; Simon 2014). What
remains unclear, however, is how such practice impacts property values geographically,
particularly in the peri-urban communities which are normally delegated (disconnected)
and poorly serviced.
The research locations
The Accra case study
Accra is the national capital and the economic, administrative and cultural hub of Ghana.
Its geographical location allows it to function as a natural port, and this explains its pros-
perity (Grant 2009; Oteng-Ababio 2013). The city has grown significantly from a population
of 20,000 in 1891 to 135,800 by 1948, reaching 2 million in 2010 (GSS 2012). With an annual
growth rate of over 4%, Accra is one of the fastest-growing cities in the country; yet
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN STUDIES 355
Table 1. Basic requirements for safe disposal of waste on landfills.
Variable Preferred requirement Comments
Neighbourhood - Landfills should not be located in the Most landfills are illegal dumpsites where
immediate proximity of occupied people’s secrets become mountains and seas
dwellings, waterways or water bodies. of garbage hidden under mounds of clay.
- A minimum distance of at least 500 m should Most peri-urban areas are also home to
be provided between the landfill and the striking mounds of civilisation’s waste.
nearby settlement (though transport
costs for waste increase almost linearly
with distance).
- City development and future land use should
be anticipated.
- There should be a buffer zone for segregating
the landfill from residential areas to
prevent vector migration, absorb
scattered dust driven by landfill
equipment and waste collection vehicles,
and reduce noise and odour nuisances of
the landfill operations.
Geological and - Necessary to determine the potential risk of Types of soil and rock underlying the landfill
hydrogeological emissions from the landfill for the and the thickness of each layer can restrict
conditions underlying soil and groundwater. the migration of the leachate towards
- Best situated in areas where subsurface layers groundwater and reduce concentration of
are characterised by low hydraulic contaminants.
conductivity of less than 1 × 10−8 m/s.
- Necessary to develop groundwater
monitoring wells up- and down-gradient
of the landfill.
Risk of flooding, - Sites endangered by landslides, flooding and Most sites are already gouged natural
subsidence, and subsidence are unsuitable, and such depressions.
landslides information can be gained through
interviews with community leaders or
city authorities.
Access control and - To keep people and animals out for safety Most landfills are uncontrolled, makeshift
signposting reasons. dumpsites.
- To help monitor types and volumes of waste
dumped at the site.
- To provide information of the type of waste
acceptable.
Daily compaction and - To prevent wind scatter (windblown litter) Ideal, but usually cost is prohibitive.
cover and fly breeding.
- Compaction uses airspace more efficiently.
Record keeping - Record keeping of incoming waste types and Local assembly members are supposed to
quantities must be accurate for planning monitor but lack capacity and time.
and reporting purposes. Service providers thus do self-accounting.
- A weighbridge is very important, but in its
absence, a proper method for estimation
must be employed.
Fire must be avoided - Though difficult due to the presence of Burning is used to reduce waste volumes.
landfill gas, fire must be avoided to
prevent the release of harmful
substances in the air.
356 M. OTENG-ABABIO ET AL.
Table 2. Summary details of landfill siting in Ghana.
Location and Available
Town Population size of site (ha) budget (US$) Siting problems encountered
Bawku 46,483 10 70,000 No serious problems with siting. Land being developed
probably much larger than available waste as farmers
compete for solid waste for improving soil.
Bolgatanga 45,733 10 70,000 Land originally earmarked for development had to be
reduced during construction to resolve conflict with
landowners over compensation.
Wa 50,191 10 70,000 No significant problems.
Sunyani 52,927 11 Land originally earmarked for development had to be
replaced after contractor was chased away from site.
It took 12 months to identify acceptable alternative
site.
Techiman 40,143 9 110,000 No significant problems.
Koforidua 95,799 20 160,000 No significant problem – site was already used for
liquid waste disposal. However, the Municipal
Authority is unhappy about going ahead with the
use of the developed site owing to an isolated rock
outcrop.
Ho 43,966 9 70,000 The Ghana Civil Aviation Authority caused the
suspension of construction works, complaining about
the proximity of the site to the Ho airstrip. Twelve
months later, after several meetings and exchanges,
the GCAA agreed that work could proceed.
Keta/Anloga 53,985 11 500,000 Excessive distance of site from waste generation points
(about 30 km), as well as difficult terrain (flood plain)
Cape Coast 61,095 12 50,000 Site subject to flooding due to location close to valley.
Elmina 21,834 4.5 190,000 No significant problems.
Swedru 39,548 8 90,000 Site subject to flooding due to location close to valley.
Tamale 300,000 15 2,120,000 No significant problems.
Kumasi 880,000 40 6,280,000 Land originally acquired was adequate for 5 years’
operations only. Additional adjacent land acquired
later, to meet 10 years’ requirement. Settlements
immediately downstream of site dependent on
stream to which leachate is to be discharged.
Sekondi- 400,000 20 3,930,000 Site falls within catchment of city water supply source.
Takoradi This was not detected until long after preliminary
engineering designs had been undertaken.
budgetary constraint has compelled the city to practice open dumps for years (Post, Broe-
kema, and Obirih-Opareh 2003). Table 3 captures the magnitude of the problem with 11
dumpsites being commissioned and decommissioned within the last few years. Indeed,
apart from the Oblojo No. 1 site, the city has not maintained any site for more than five
Table 3. The lifecycle of the various dumpsites in Metropolitan Accra.
Dumpsite Date commissioned Date decommissioned Lifespan (years)
Mallam 1991 2001 10.00
Djaman September 2001 December 2002 1.25
Oblojo No. 1 January 2002 July 2007 5.50
Oblojo No. 2 August 2008 September 2008 1.10
Kwashibu September 2008 July 2009 0.33
Kokroko Mallam January 2009 February 2009 <1.00
Mallam SCC February 2009 September 2009 0.75
Anyaa 2009 July 2011 <2.00
Ablekumah 2009 November 2011 ∼2.00
Sarbah 2009 January 2012 >2.00
Abokobi 2008 December 2011 3.00
Source: Oteng-Ababio (2013).
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN STUDIES 357
years since 2002, thus breaching EPA’s guidelines with impunity and raising questions as
to whether the dumps are ‘a blessing or a curse’ for the people they are to serve.
With a floating population of one million a day (Grant and Yankson 2003), the
unplanned nature of disposal sites in Accra has made the negativities of waste disposal
conspicuously noticeable, exacerbating the ‘Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Any-
thing’ (BANANA); For-Not-On-Our-Street (NOSS) or ‘Not-In-My-Back-Yard’ (NIMBY) atti-
tudes of some residents. The Oblojo dumpsite presents a microcosm of such public
disenchantment. For example, an earlier study by Owusu, Oteng-Ababio, and Afutu-
Kotey (2012) recorded that as a trade-off for using an abandoned quarry as a dumpsite,
the city authorities undertook to provide certain infrastructure services but failed to
follow through; hence, after four years in operation, residents resorted to daily protests,
and eventually began preventing waste trucks from accessing the site (see Figure 1).
Currently, there are only three disposal sites serving the city and apart from the Oblojo
site, none operates with permits. A study by the Parliamentary sub-Committee on sani-
tation (PAR) in 2011 revealed that since 2000, Accra Metropolitan Area generates averagely
between 2500 and 3000 tonnes of waste daily but collects only between 1800 and 2000
tonnes at a financial cost of GH¢18,000 (US$12,000) (PAR 2011). Specifically, the study
noted that the city spent about 62% (US$4.38 m) of its internally generated funds on
waste collection in 2005, increasing to 72% and 77% in 2006 and 2007, respectively.
The three sites sampled for the study are Kwabenya, Oblojo and Pantang. This approach
to MSWM is relatively different from what pertains in, for example, Sweden, where the
authorities adopt a hierarchical approach: first, waste should be reduced through re-use
and recycling, next incinerated and, only if nothing else works, landfilled.
The Kumasi experience
Kumasi is Ghana’s second-largest city and, like the narratives above, illegal dumping of
waste has been the bane of the authorities for years (Tipple 2005). Though the city bene-
fited from one engineered landfill under the World Bank Project, open dumping practices
dominate the urban landscape as in Awhiaa (near Tafo); and Kwadaso, a heavily populated
Figure 1. Waste collection trucks being prevented from offloading at Oblojo landfill. Source: PAR
(2011).
358 M. OTENG-ABABIO ET AL.
area, where a transfer station has degenerated into ‘artificial mountains’. These have
dented the aesthetic image of otherwise beautiful and well-planned middle-class
communities. The engineered landfill is located at Dompoase, about 15 km southwest
of Kumasi. The construction started in 1998 and completed in 2004, with a lifespan
planned till 2018. Operationally the site, which covers about 100 ha of prime farmland,
is equipped with concrete-lined basins for the collection of leachate. Financially, the
city, with about 70% collection rate since 2005, spends approximately US$491,730 a
month on waste collection and disposal, with US$250,000 used monthly to maintain
the Dompoase landfill (Oteng-Ababio 2013). The state of affairs mirrors that of Accra
and for the empirical study, the Dompoase, Ahwia and Kwadaso disposal sites were
selected for in-depth studies.
Insights from Wa
The city of Wa, the youngest of the 10 regional capitals, had a population of 13,740 in 1970,
36,067 in 1984, 66,644 in 2000, with the 2010 population census recording 71,083 and a
growth rate of 4% (GSS 2002, 2012, 2013; WMA 2012). The city generates 54 tonnes of
waste daily and has a 45% collection rate (Zoomlion 2013, cited in Amoah and Kosoe
2014). Constitutionally, the city authority is mandated to provide waste management ser-
vices to residents, a mandate activated in 2006 when it partnered with Zoomlion Gh Ltd. In
the same year, the city benefited from a fenced and gated World Bank-sponsored 40-acre
landfill initiated in 1998 at Siriyiri, a distance of 15 km from the city centre.
Until this time, the city had depended exclusively on open dumpsites, which had orga-
nically emerged in most communities, including Wapaani, Kambali, Bomiyiri and Kpaguri.
Typically, Wa’s situation is not unexpected, gauging from the city’s position on Ghana’s
urban hierarchy. Indeed, infrastructure needs present a unique dilemma. In 2010, the
city had approximately 8505 residential units but only 1 public water closet, 12 Kumasi
Ventilated Improved Pits, 53 approved refuse dumps and 1008 unapproved sites (GSS
2012). Thus by inference, one unapproved dump could be cited within a cluster of
eight residential units and it was not uncommon to see containers, whose collection
period had sometimes been delayed for weeks (Amoah and Kosoe 2014). Surprisingly,
both adults and children engage in open defecation around these sites. The sampled
research locations are Siriyiri, Wapaani and Kpaguri.
Data collection and analysis
As already noted, most studies, which typically seek to estimate the impact of landfills on
property values, have used the hedonic price technique (Havlicek, Richardson, and Davies
1971; Bateman, Day, and Lake 2004), but this technique appears unsuitable in Ghana,
where reliable cross-sectional data needed for such analyses remain greatly patchy and
non-existent (Aryeetey et al. 2007). Consequently, our research adopted multiple
method models including questionnaires, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions
(FGDs) and direct observation to generate enough data. The discussions are captured
through the lens of those living in and around these LULU2 facilities and complemented
with the past and present land values and rent charges, which were used as proxies for
property values. This was deemed appropriate since most peri-urban areas where cities
tend to consolidate their municipal waste remain highly underdeveloped and generally
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN STUDIES 359
suffer from unavailability of the data. Our initial visits had revealed that these areas do not
have as many ‘quantifiable houses’, in some cases (e.g. Siriyiri, Dompoase and Kwabenya)
with a 2-km radius and therefore not as much data.
Our fieldwork, which spanned February to May 2014, saw each key researcher working
alongside two assistants fluent in the dominant local language and being assigned to a
city with a comparative advantage in terms of local knowledge and social links. In the field-
work itself, the global positioning system (GPS) devices were used to measure a 500 m
buffer radius from the edge of a particular landfill,3 and the landlords or their representa-
tives within this buffer were randomly interviewed. The survey was administered to a total
of 1450 residents, proportionately shared among the three cities and randomly sampled
from each of the three research locations. Of these, a total of 1300 responses were
received, made up of 806 (62%) men and 494 (38%) women, giving a response rate of
almost 90%, which was considered high for the purpose of the analysis. The questionnaire
sought details on respondents’ demographic characteristics and the landfills in question.
Others also related to any observed ecological hazards including land value changes, and
any emerging ‘stigma’. Information on land values and rents charges were also sought and
operationalised as proxies of possible environmental disamenity, although these values in
most low-income and peri-urban areas are generally low due to their peculiar standards
and characteristics regarding housing types, style, convenience and access to social ame-
nities (Konadu-Agyemang 2001).
As part of the data collection process, 27 key informants including traditional leaders,
self-appointed community representatives and local government officials were inter-
viewed. These interviews focused mainly on any perceived ecological hazards of operating
landfills on land values in the community. Additionally, one FGD was conducted in each
study location. Ideally, participants were to be selected randomly by the research team.
Yet in the field, this was found to be unfeasible logistically due to local politics, thereby
compelling the team to rely on the local assemblymen4 for assistance. Although this tech-
nique may have created political biases and may not have reached all sections of the
society, it was felt to be the most workable compromise. Participants were given the
opportunity to withdraw their involvement at the beginning and even at the end of the
sessions, thereby forestalling the issue of people consenting due to pressure from a
respected community leader.
In spite of the challenges, participants sampled gave a range of sexes, ages, geographi-
cal locations and included not only landlords (or their representatives) but also youth
leaders and opinion leaders within the study locations. To elicit objective and uncon-
strained responses from all participants, efforts were made to make all participants com-
fortable and able to participate fully. The meetings, therefore, were peppered with
humorous stories, brief relaxation periods and refreshments at strategic intervals. All inter-
views were voice recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed, and collectively pro-
vided substantial information to analyse our objectives.
To statistically determine whether a landfill affects property values, we use ‘before and
after’ land values as proxy indicators and calculated the mean t-test. As part of the data
collection processes households were presented with a Likert scale to measure whether,
within the past 10 years, the value of land had gone up, stayed the same or gone
down. We also examined land values before and after the introduction of the LULU facility
as well as rent charges across the various geographies within each city. The findings were
360 M. OTENG-ABABIO ET AL.
insightful, revealing and informative. Though the use of indicators and indices to measure
attributes of interest for a system continues to garner momentum in the literature, there is
the tendency to reduce the complexity of the interactions to just a particular variable or set
of variables. Nonetheless, due to the fact that some interactions are very difficult to
quantify, and development is mainly human-centred (Moore 2011), we firmly believe
that this approach provided the best level of methodological consistency of publicly
available data.
The LULU externalities: getting the fundamentals right
Examining respondents’ perceptions on landfill–land value interface
As stated earlier, empirical work on the nexus between landfill and property values is not
always adequately captured economically, and is often disfigured by lack of data. To cir-
cumvent the challenge, we sampled three sites in each city. All three sites sampled in
Accra were within the peri-urban zones, while in Kumasi and Wa, only Dompoase and Sir-
iyiri, respectively, fell within that zone. Generally, a major distinguishing characteristic
finding is that the landfills in the peri-urban zones are not easily visible. They were
tucked out of sight in mostly deprived environments, unlike those located in the built
environment (e.g. Kwadaso, Ahwiaa, Wapaani and Kpaguri).
Table 4 displays the results of the Likert-scale responses of participants’ perceived
impact of landfills on land values in their respective communities. The results show that
overall, 45% of the responses indicate a positive impact of landfills on land values with
35% and 20% indicating indifference and negative externalities, respectively. A critical
examination of the responses, particularly those from the peri-urban areas, which are lit-
tered with abandoned quarry pits, which needed reclamation anyway and were virtually
inaccessible (unknown) prior to the construction and operation of the landfill, revealed
nuanced geographical effectual variations. In all, 61% of respondents from Kwabenya,
84% from Dompoase and 75%t from Siriyiri display extremely high positive impacts
with the construction of their respective landfills.
The case of the Kwabenya landfill project saga clearly demonstrates one instance where
‘landfill’ produces fewer (negative) externalities. A previous study revealed that the area
was a highly degraded stone quarry that had remained un-noticed for decades until acqui-
sition by the local government for the LULU facility (Oteng-Ababio 2011). Consequently,
the area became so visible and spontaneously generated a mad rush for residential
plots within the ‘acquired land’ after the government had constructed a 2 km bitumen
road to the site. The embedded positive externalities was collaborated by a community
leader during the community’s FGD who stated: ‘Indeed, but for the proposed landfill,
Table 4. The construction of landfills and variations in land values.
Annual increment in land
values
City 1998 2008 GHC Per cent
Accra 150 6000 585 98
Kumasi 100 4500 440 98
Wa 100 1500 140 93
Source: Fieldwork, 2013/2014.
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN STUDIES 361
the possibility of even a footpath reaching this area any time soon would have been a
wishful thinking’.
The Kwabenya case is not an isolated issue. It mirrors the case of ‘Tantra Hill’, one of the
high-income neighbourhoods in Accra today. According to Songsore et al. (2008) the area
was an abandoned quarry site, and between 1970 and 1980 (see Figure 2) housed one of
the biggest ‘waste disposal sinks’ in the metropolis. Yet, with improved accessibility to the
site (courtesy of landfilling) the area has defied all odds to become one of the addresses for
high-income communities in Accra today.
The result from Kumasi is however mixed. With the exception of the Dompoase site, the
other two research locations were already heavily populated, and well-developed infra-
structure-wise, before the LULU facility was established. Kwadaso, for example, is
already a well-functioning middle-class neighbourhood (see Bank of Ghana 2008) while
the genesis of the Awhiaa dumpsite on the other hand is traceable to continuous illegal
dumping into an open space, which did not attract official attention in time. To statistically
validate and determine if the responses from the research locations were significantly
different, the Student t-test was employed (Table 5) to compare their mean responses.
Operationally, this was achieved by coding the negative responses by 1, indifferent by 2
and positive by 3. By implication, a higher mean connotes more positive responses and
vice versa. The results show that there are more positive responses in Accra and Wa
than in Kumasi, all at 1% significance level. The high positive responses in Accra and
Wa mean that there is a high probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (i.e. landfill in
those research locations negatively affect property values) and vice versa.
Figure 2. Satelite imagery of the decommisioned a landfill site at Tantra Hill. Source: Authors’ construct,
2015.
362 M. OTENG-ABABIO ET AL.
Table 5. Respondents’ perception on impact of landfills on property values.
Negative impact Indifferent Positive impact
Region Community Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Greater Accra Kwabenya 27 13 52 26 121 61
Oblojo 49 25 43 21 108 54
Pantang 33 17 92 46 75 37
Sub-total 109 18 187 31 304 51
Dompoase 11 5 22 11 167 84
Ashanti Kwaadaso 64 43 78 52 8 5
Ahwia 40 27 98 65 12 8
Sub-total 115 23 198 40 187 37
Siriyiri 12 12 13 13 75 75
Wapaani 7 14 32 64 11 22
Upper West Kpaguri 11 22 29 58 10 20
Sub-total 30 15 74 37 96 48
Grand Total 254 20 459 35 587 45
Note: Negative impact indicates current land values are relatively lower (depreciated) than similar lands elsewhere, while
positive impact connotes land values appreciated with the construction of the landfill. Indifferent indicates a business-as-
usual scenario.
Comparative analysis of land values
Our study captured information on land value variations in the host communities before
and after the introduction of the LULU facility. The results (see Table 6) depict a character-
istically similar pattern, with land values in peri-urban communities showing considerable
appreciation than those in the relatively developed areas. In Accra, the land values in Kwa-
benya, for example, appreciated from GH¢150 (US$100) in 1998 to GH¢6000 (US$4,000) in
2008. Similar observations were made in Kumasi (Dompoase) and Wa (Siriyiri), where both
sites witnessed an average of 98% or 93% land value appreciation during the same period
after their respective landfills were constructed. Incidentally, the Dompoase and Siriyiri
sites are among the only four large landfill sites in the country, all of which were sponsored
by the World Bank.
As already emphasised, the LULU facilities are normally sited in peri-urban areas, where
incidentally land for such facilities is ‘affordably available’. Characteristically, these are
areas where portions of the land have suffered severe environmental degradation and
are chronically deficient in basic social services and infrastructure. Meanwhile, increasing
urbanisation has accentuated the demand for residential plots from the rising middle class
(Grant 2015). Such sentiments were often expressed by many participants during the FDGs
in all three peri-urban communities and these are not without scientific basis. In Siriyiri,
during an FGD, a local opinion leader remarked:
… but for the landfill, we would have remained isolated. We hardly went to town and stran-
gers also hardly came here. Today, the story is different; the refuse truck move up and down
on an hourly basis; and even the taxis too.
Table 6. Results of the Student t-test to compare the mean responses of respondents.
Variable Obs. Mean Std. error Hypothesis P-value for H1a P-value for H1b
Gt. Accra (X1) 600 2.325 0.031 H1a: (X1 − X2) > 0 0 1
Ashanti (X2) 500 2.144 0.034 H1b: (X1 − X2) < 0
Gt. Accra (X1) 600 2.325 0.031 H1a: (X1 − X3) > 0 0.533 0.467
Upper West (X3) 200 2.330 0.511 H1b: (X1 − X3) < 0
Ashanti (X2) 500 2.144 0.034 H1a: (X2 − X3) > 0 0.999 0.001
Upper West (X3) 200 2.330 0.511 H1b: (X2 − X3) < 0
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN STUDIES 363
This observation ties in with the results of the quantitative survey, when, for example, the
majority of respondents from Dompoase (84%) indicated that the landfill operation has
incentivised the appreciation of land values. This was particularly endorsed in the FGDs,
when participants unanimously agreed that the construction of three bridges over the
River Oda, and the provision of water and electricity had greatly opened up and promoted
economic activities in their communities, which hitherto had been cynically christened
‘Kuwait’, ostensibly owing to the areas’ deprived nature and limited accessibility
(Owusu-Sekyere 2015). During another FGD, similar sentiments were captured:
Sixteen years ago, prior to the building [sic] of the landfill, no commercial driver was prepared
to come here, and those who dared always returned with one dysfunctional [vehicle] part or
the other.… . The price of a piece of plot was less than GH¢100 [US$66.7]… . Today, a land
plot is GH¢4,500 [US$3,000], and even then one needs an agent.
When probed further, a new sense of enlightenment became apparent, which was syno-
nymously correlated to positive externalities of landfills. Narratives would often include
the term anibue (‘eye-opening’ (associated with modernity)) as one of the immediate
impacts of the construction of the landfills in their respective communities:
Even though we still battle [swamps of] files and mosquitoes, we can’t forget the other side
too; today most of our children go to school, not only because there is market for our products
[farm products and land]; we [wives inclusive] can also collect condemn [metal/other scraps]
for sale. Lives have really changed!
By inference, we can draw a tentative conclusion: the infrastructure limitations notwith-
standing, the presence of the landfills in deprived peri-urban zones potentially serve as
a catalyst for the provision of hitherto deficient services, leading to a population influx
(explosion) and subsequently, the appreciation of property values.
Does the presence of landfill affect rent? We acknowledge that the paucity of cross-sec-
tional data used in hedonic price analysis (Pamlquist 1999; Freeman 2003) makes direct
attribution between respondents’ perceived variations in land values to the presence of
the landfills or otherwise quite challenging. We therefore complemented our findings
with current rent charges where possible. Our findings did not vary considerably from
the earlier observations. In Kumasi, for example, during an FGD discussion in Kwadaso
(Kumasi), over two-thirds of the participants, including a pensioner, recounted severe dis-
amenity (especially strong stench) as a result of the landfill. One landlord remarked: ‘My
son, I wish I could charge like GH¢50 [US$33.3] a month, but when they [tenants] come
they complain about this stench and the many visible flies they see around’. Similar senti-
ments were expressed by a tenant at Awhiaa (Kumasi) when discussing the impact of the
presence of a landfill near rented apartments: ‘As for me, I have asked the landlord to
reduce my rent from next year [2015] because, my brother, come and see mosquitoes
in the evenings. The problem is even worst after heavy downpour’.
These observations contradict the result from Wa, where 90% of responses from Siriyiri
quantitatively indicated that the construction of the landfill has impacted positively on
land values. Until the landfill began operations, most dumpsites in Wa were located
within poorly managed indigenous communities, where property values were and
remained exceptionally low. For example, a single room in an indigenous community
which is in the centre of the city attracts a rent of GH¢350 (US$233.33) per annum, as
364 M. OTENG-ABABIO ET AL.
against GH¢450 (US$300) some 500 m away. During the fieldwork, we particularly
observed that many new developments and convenience shops were ironically springing
up around the Siriyiri landfill, including even the government’s planned Affordable
Housing scheme.
Discussions
In accordance with the previous research on the impact of landfill on property values
(Owusu et al. 2014) and in light of the evidence presented, we find mixed support for
the thesis of the negative impact of landfills on property values. Such findings make it dif-
ficult to draw definitive or even generalised policy conclusions and therefore call for a
broader contextualisation of the socio-spatial dynamics in property values. At the very
least, the regions’ level of socio-economic development and the type of landfill collectively
interact with other factors to leverage the impact on property values. In the absence of any
generalisations, it seems that each landfill should be studied on a case-by-case basis to
determine whether it affects the surrounding property values.
So far, our study contradicts some of the earlier studies (Gamble et al. 1982; Lim and
Missios 2007) that large landfills affect property values more than small ones. For
example, the study revealed that Dompoase and Siriyiri were the biggest landfills in the
current study, yet their impacts on property values were statistically insignificant.
Indeed, the results show a positive correlation between the presence of landfills and
land values in their host communities. Our results resonate with Bateman, Day, and
Lake’s (2004) study in Birmingham (UK), which shows that the impact of distance to the
nearest landfill site on property values ‘are not consistently negative’. It further confirms
Amoateng, Cobbinah, and Owusu-Adade’s (2013) peri-urban studies in Kumasi (i.e.
Abuakwa) which indicated that the area’s indigenous people, who are mainly farmers,
are being denied their livelihood since ‘an upsurge in land value from GH¢250 in 1993
to GH¢5,000 in 2010 is pricing out the indigenes and low-income earners from the land
market’.
Significantly, our examination of the landfill–property value thesis, took into consider-
ation the prior socio-economic conditions of host communities – something earlier studies
have virtually overlooked. The findings has set the stage of ‘righting the wrong’ for policy
overlap of prior conditions in appreciating and understanding the impact of landfill on
property values. More importantly, our results provide enough evidence to suggest that,
under certain circumstances, the introduction of a landfill into host communities can
serve as a catalyst towards the correction of the ills of development, including poor gov-
ernance, attitudinal and financial constraints. Consequently, we suggest that attempts to
over-generalise the negativities associated with landfills will not only be a major opportu-
nity lost for poverty alleviation, but a recipe for compounding the already precarious con-
ditions of most urban poor, many of whom compete for space in peri-urban areas where
waste tends to be poorly managed.
These findings can, with further elaboration, provide the basis for re-thinking our
current waste disposal policy. Overall, the evidence suggests that in order to pursue a
more sustainable MSWM, local government policies may have to be rebalanced towards
assigning appropriate priorities and support to waste prevention activities, priorities and
support that have so far received lip-service within Ghanaian environmental policy
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN STUDIES 365
principles (see EPA 2002; MLGRD 2010) but are never effectively implemented. In addition,
the authorities may need to adopt measures either through adaptive local resource man-
agement or through adjustment in existing human systems. Situations where land is
allowed to be wantonly degraded (e.g. through sand winning) to justify future landfilling
are unsustainable and must be discouraged.
The role of a local government’s decentralisation process in achieving the objective
cannot be underestimated. This calls for proper stakeholder consultation (going beyond
the NIMBY syndrome), which listens to the voice of the voiceless in society, which is indispen-
sable and necessary to ensure any successful outcomes. The local authorities must also
ensure that policies advanced pass through implementable stages. For example, although
the EPA policy guidelines enjoin all local governments to operate sanitary landfills, policy
efforts so far have been biased towards ‘illegal’makeshift disposal practices (with tacit endor-
sement from local authorities). The impact of such disposal practices on land and property
values may not be sufficiently significant today; however, future pressure on land and
increased consolidation of waste in peri-urban zones may induce people to engage in
socio-economic ventures which will bring a multitude of deleterious effects in their wake.
Conclusion and policy implications
Our study finds exceptionally skewed support for the current thesis on landfill–property
values. Generally, the price–distance decay model and landfill size and property values
relationship seem applicable only if the landfills are cited in an already developed, urba-
nised and expanded neighbourhood, with basic infrastructure services and investments
in technology. However, this strategy does not attain a national optimum, given the under-
developed and degraded nature of most peri-urban areas. The main findings reinforce
arguments by the proponents of the enclosure or exposure discourses. The overarching
argument from studies such as those by Research Planning Consultants Inc. (1983) and
Bleich, Findlay, and Philips (1991) proposes that landfill with appropriate buffers has no
externalities on property values. In a non-western context, Owusu et al. (2014) highlighted
the significance of the communities’ level of urbanisation (development) in the whole
equation.
The findings here indicate much less gross economic cost when landfills are cited in
peri-urban areas. With more challenging infrastructure provision, the construction of a
landfill becomes a lesser expensive development abatement option. To illustrate, the Kwa-
benya saga has been repeatedly cited. Similarly, it was unanimously established that the
construction of three bridges over the River Oda, in Dompoase (Kumasi) and the provision
of water and electricity had greatly opened up and promoted economic activities in
adjoining communities (see Hendriks, Blok, and de Jager 2001). The broader question of
the effects of landfill on property values is of interest to both policy-makers and scholars
concerned with environmental management. One important caveat however remains.
Further empirical epidemiological research is necessary to compare and ascertain the
socio-environmental costs associated. Moreover, most landfills do not recover energy,
and leaking is often a serious problem, especially for older landfill sites. These types of
landfills may be less costly to implement than our modern sites, but their environmental
costs can be prohibitive. Therefore, proper treatment of and energy recovery from landfills
are some of the more important targets for waste policy.
366 M. OTENG-ABABIO ET AL.
Notes
1. Fatal flaws are areas that prohibit the development of environmentally or publicly acceptable
disposal sites.
2. The LULU/NIMBY syndrome (an acronym for ‘locally and unwanted land-uses/not in my back-
yard’) has become one of waste’s controversial issues. How to break through the predicaments
of the syndrome in the siting process becomes one of the most difficult tasks for site designers
and urban planners.
3. Most local authorities have defied the EPA’s directive for buffer zones, with some houses situ-
ated virtually in the landfills.
4. An assembly member is a person from a local government electoral area within a district
elected by universal adult suffrage.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to the research assistants who took time off to join us in the field. The
paper has no financial obligation to any institution or agency but has benefited greatly
from the constructive comments of the anonymous referees and the editors of the journal.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Martin Oteng-Ababio is an Assosciate Professor and Coordinator of the Urban Disaster Risk
Reduction Programme in the Department of Geography and Resource Management, University of
Ghana. He researches on urban and regional development, urban environmental management
and urban disaster risk reduction.
Ebenezer Owusu-Sekyere is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Development Studies, University
for Development Studies. His current research includes solid waste management and landfill extern-
alities in Ghana.
Samuel Twumasi Amoah is a Lecturer in the Department of Environment and Resource Studies, Uni-
versity for Development Studies. His teaching and research focuses on urban and regional develop-
ment issues.
References
Ali, A. 2010. “Wasting Time on Solid Waste in Developing Countries.” Waste Management 30: 1437–
1438.
Amoah, S. T., and E. A. Kosoe. 2014. “Solid Waste Management in Urban Areas of Ghana: Issues and
Experiences from Wa.” Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health 2 (5): 110–117. doi:10.
12691/jephh-2-5-3.
Amoateng, P., P. B. Cobbinah, and K. Owusu-Adade. 2013. “Managing Physical Development in Peri-
Urban Areas of Kumasi, Ghana: A Case of Abuakwa.” Journal of Urban and Environmental
Engineering 7 (1): 96–109.
Arimah, B. C. 1996. “Willingness to Pay for Improved Environmental Sanitation in a Nigerian City.”
Journal of Environmental Management 48: 127–138.
Aryeetey, E., R. M. Alhassan, S. Asuming-Bempon, and D. K. Twerefou. 2007. The Organisation of Land
Markets and Production in Ghana. Accra: ISSER.
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN STUDIES 367
Asase, M., E. K. Yanful, M. Mensah, J. Stanford, and S. Amponsah. 2009. “Comparison of Municipal
Solid Waste Management Systems in Canada and Ghana: A Case Study of the Cities of London,
Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana.” Waste Management 29: 2779–2786.
Bank of Ghana. 2008. “The Housing Industry in Ghana: Prospects and Challenges.” Bank of Ghana
Policy Briefing Paper. Accra: BoG.
Barr, S., A. W. Gilg, and N. J. Ford. 2001. “A Conceptual Framework for Understanding and Analysing
Attitudes Towards Household-Waste Management.” Environment and Planning A 33: 2025–2048.
Bateman, I. J., B. H. Day, and I. Lake. 2004. The Valuation of Transport-Related Noise in Birmingham.
Technical Report to the Department for Transport, Norwich: University of East Anglia.
Bello, M. O., and V. O. Bello. 2008. “Willingness to pay for Better Environmental Services; Evidence
From the Nigerian Real Estate Market.” Journal of African Real Estate Research 1 (1): 19–27.
Bickerstaff, K., and P. Simmons. 2009. “Absencing/Presencing Risk: Rethinking Proximity and the
Experience of Living with Major Technological Hazards.” Geoforum 40: 864–872.
Bleich, D. H., I. I. I. C. Findlay, and G. M. Philips. 1991. “An Analysis of the Impact of a Well-Designed
Landfill on Surrounding Property Values.” The Appraisal Journal 59 (2): 247–252.
Botkin, K. 2007. “Healthy Cities in Developing Countries: The First Evaluation?” Health Promotion
International 16 (2): 3–15.
Bouvier, R. A., J. M. Halstead, K. S. Conway, and A. B. Manalo. 2000. “The Effect of Landfills on Rural
Residential Property Values: Some Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 30:
23–37.
Bulkeley, H., and K. Askins. 2009. “Waste Interfaces: Biodegradable Waste, Municipal Policy and
Everyday Practice.” Geographical Journal 175: 251–260.
Clapp, J. 2002. “The Distancing of Waste: Overconsumption in a Global Economy.” In Confronting
Consumption, edited by T Princen, M Maniates and K Conca, 155–176. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Clarion Associates, Inc. 1991. “Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Real Estate Values: Annotated
Bibliography and Analysis.” Unpublished Paper, Prepared for Waste Management of North
America, Oak Brook, IL.
Crecine, J. P., O. A. Davis, and J. E. Jackson. 1967. “Urban Property Markets: Some Empirical Results
and Their Implications for Municipal Zoning.” The Journal of Law and Economics 10: 79–99.
Cresswell, T. 1996. In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology and Transgression. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Damghani, A. M., G. Savarypour, E. Zand, and R. Deihimfard. 2008. “Municipal Solid Waste
Management in Tehran: Current Practices, Opportunities and Challenges.” Waste Management
28 (5): 929–934.
Davies, A. R. 2008. The Geographies of Garbage Governance: Interventions, Interactions and Outcomes.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Du Preez, M., and T. Lottering. 2009. “Determining the Negative Effect on House Values of Proximity
to a Landfill Site by Means of an Application of the Hedonic Pricing Method.” South African Journal
of Economic and Management Sciences 12 (2): 256–262.
Elbakidze, M., L. Dawsonb, K. Anderssona, R. Axelssona, P. Angelstama, I. Stjernquistb, S. Teitelbaumc,
P. Schlyterb, and C. Thellbrod. 2015. “Is Spatial Planning a Collaborative Learning Process? A Case
Study from a Rural–Urban Gradient in Sweden.” Land Use Policy 48: 270–285.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. “Landfill Manual – Landfill Site Design, Wexford, Ireland.”
154. http://www.epa.ie/downloads/advice/licensee/epa20landfill20site%20design.pdf.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Ghana. 2002. Ghana Landfill Guidelines, Best Practice
Environmental Guidelines Series 1. Accra: EPA.
Fobil, J. N., N. A. Armah, J. N. Hogarh, and D. Carboo. 2008. “The Influence of Institutions and
Organisations on Urban Waste Collection Systems: An Analysis of Waste Collection System in
Accra.” Journal of Environmental Management 86: 262–271.
Freeman, A. M. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Fuseini, I., and J. Kemp. 2015. “A Review of Spatial Planning in Ghana’s Socio-Economic Development
Trajectory: A Sustainable Development Perspective.” Land use Policy 47: 309–320.
368 M. OTENG-ABABIO ET AL.
Gamble, H. B., R. H. Downing, J. S. Shortle, and D. J. Epp. 1982. Effects of Solid Waste Disposal Sites on
Community Development and Residential Property Values. Pennysylvania: Pennsylvania Institute for
Research on Land and Water Resources, Pennsylvania State University.
Gandy, M. 2002. Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Grant, R. 2009. Globalizing City: The Urban and Economic Transformation of Accra, Ghana. New York:
Syracuse University Press.
Grant, R. 2015. Africa: Geographies of Change. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grant, R., and M. Oteng-Ababio. 2016. “The Global Transformation of Materials and the Emergence of
Informal Urban Mining in Accra, Ghana.” Africa Today 62 (4): 2–20.
Grant, R., and P. W. K. Yankson. 2003. “City Profile: Accra.” Cities 20 (1): 65–74.
Gregson, N., and M. Crang. 2010. “Materiality and Waste: Inorganic Vitality in a Networked World.”
Environment and Planning A 42: 1026–1032.
GSS (Ghana Statistical Service). 2002. “Population and Housing Census: Special Report on 20 Largest
Localities/Republic of Ghana.” Accra: Statistical Service.
GSS (Ghana Statistical Service). 2012. Final Report on Population and Housing Census. Accra: Sakoa
Press.
GSS (Ghana Statistical Service). 2013. “Population and Housing Census: Regional Analytical Report.”
Upper West Region.
Havlicek, J., R. Richardson, and L. Davies. 1971. “Measuring the Impacts of Solid Waste Disposal Site
Location on Property Values.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 53 (5): 869–869.
Hazra, T., and S. Goel. 2009. “Solid Waste Management in Kolkata, India: Practices and Challenges.”
Waste Management 29 (1): 470–478. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.01.023.
Hendriks, C., K. Blok, and D. de Jager. 2001. Economic Evaluation of Sectoral Emission Reduction
Objectives for Climate Change: Bottom – Up Analysis of Emission Reduction Potentials and Costs
for Greenhouse Gases in the EU. Utrecht: ECOFYS.
Konadu-Agyemang, K. 2001. The Political Economy of Housing and Urban Development in Africa:
Ghana’s Experience From Colonial Times to 1998. London: Praeger.
Lim, J. S., and P. Missios. 2007. “Does Size Really Matter? Landfill Scale Impacts on Property Values.”
Applied Economics Letters 14: 719–723.
Mahama, C., and A. Adarkwah. 2006. Land and Property Markets in Ghana. London: RICS.
Melosi, M. V. 2000. The Sanitary City: Urban Infrastructure in America from Colonial Times to the Present.
Baltimore: MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
MLGRD (Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development). 2010. “Environmental Sanitation
Policy (Revised 2009).” Government of Ghana.
Moore, S. A. 2009. “The Excess of Modernity: Garbage Politics in Oaxaca, Mexico.” The Professional
Geographer 61: 426–437.
Moore, S. A. 2011. “Global Garbage: Waste, Trash Trading, and Local Garbage Politics.” In Global
Political Ecology, edited by R Peet, P Robbins and M Watts, 133–144. Abingdon: Routledge.
Moore, S. A. 2012. “Garbage Matters: Concepts in New Geographies of Waste.” Progress in Human
Geography 36 (6): 780–799.
Myers, G. 2016. Urban Environments in Africa: A Critical Analysis of Environmental Politics. Bristol: Policy
Press.
Nelson, A. C., J. Genereux, and M. Genereux. 1992. “Price Effects of Landfills on Residential Land
Values.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118: 128–137.
Odama, O. 2013. “Living on the Fringes: An Insight into the Activities of Child Waste Pickers in
Kaduna, Nigeria, (IDPR) International Development Planning Review.”
O’Neill. 2000. Waste Trading Among Rich Nations: Building a New Theory of Environmental Regulation.
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Oteng-Ababio, M. 2010. “No Ownership, No Commitment – The Bane of Environmental Regulations
in Ghana.” Ghana Social Science Journal 7 (1): 36–51.
Oteng-Ababio, M. 2011. “Beyond Technical Details: The Stalled Kwabenya Engineered Sanitary
Landfill Project in Accra, Ghana.” Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111 (2): 169–179.
Oteng-Ababio, M. 2013. “Unscripted (in) Justice: Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards in
Metropolitan Accra.” Journal of Environment and Planning A 45. doi:10.1068/a45256.
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN STUDIES 369
Oteng-Ababio, M. 2014. “Guilty with Explanation: Rethinking the Destiny of Landfills in a Millennium
City in Ghana.” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 25 (2): 200–215.
Oteng-Ababio, M., J. E. Melara, and O. Gabbay. 2013. “Solid Waste Management in African Cities:
Sorting the Facts from the Fads in Accra, Ghana.” Habitat International 39: 96–104.
Owusu, G., E. Nketiah-Amponsa, S. N. A. Codjoe, and R. L. Afutu-Kotey. 2014. “Solid Waste Landfills
and Residential Property Values in Ghana: A Case Study of the Oblogo and Mallam Landfills,
Accra.” Urban Geography 35 (8): 1140–1155. doi:10.1080/02723638.2014.945261.
Owusu, G., M. Oteng-Ababio, and L. R. Afutu-Kotey. 2012. “Conflicts and Governance of Landfills in a
Developing Country City, Accra.” Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (1): 105–113.
Owusu-Sekyere, E. 2015. “Epidemiological Analysis of Households Near Three Solid Waste Dumpsites
in Kumasi.” Unpublished thesis, University of Ghana, Accra.
Pamlquist, R. B. 1999. “Property Value Models.” In Handbook of Environmental Economics, edited by K.-
G. Mäler and J. R. Vincent, 763–819.Amsterdam: North-Holland.
PAR. 2011. “Performance Audit Report of the Auditor-General on Solid Waste Management by Accra
Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) Ref. No. AG.01/109/Vol.2/34.”
Parnell, S., and J. Robinson. 2012. “(Re)Theorizing Cities from the Global South: Looking Beyond
Neoliberalism.” Urban Geography 33: 593–617.
Post, J., J. Broekema, and N. Obirih-Opareh. 2003. “Trial and Error in Privatisation: Experiences in
Urban Solid Waste Collection in Accra (Ghana) and Hyderabad (India).” Unpublished.
Post, J., and N. Obirih-Opareh. 2002. “Quality Assessment of Public and Private Modes of Solid Waste
Collection in Accra, Ghana.” Habitat International 26: 95–112.
Reichert, A. K., M. Small, and S. Mohanty. 1992. “The Impact of Landfills on Residential Property
Values.” Journal of Real Estate Research 7: 297–314.
Research Planning Consultants, Inc. 1983. Effects of Sanitary Landfills on the Value of Residential
Property. Austin, TX: Planning Research Associates.
Robinson, J. 2006. Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development, 204. London: Routledge. ISBN
0-415-30487-3 cloth. http://www.routledge-ny.com/.
Rosengren, C. 2015. “New York’s Garbage System Faces Mounting Challenges of Cost, Carbon and
Equity.” http://citylimits.org/2015/05/18/new-yorks-garbage-system-faces-mounting-challenges-
of-cost-carbon-and-equity/.
Schindler, S. 2015. “Governing the Twenty-First Century Metropolis and Transforming Territory.”
Territory, Politics, Governance 3 (1): 7–26.
Senkoro, H. 2003. “Solid Waste Management in Africa: A WHO / AFRO Perspective.” Paper 1, pre-
sented in Dar Es Salaam at the CWG Workshop, March 2003. Accessed electronically: http://
www.skat .ch/sf-web/activities/ws/cwg/pdf/cwg-01.pdf.
Simon, D. 2014. “New Evidence and Thinking on Urban Environmental Change Challenges.”
International Development Planning Review 36 (2). doi:10.3828/idpr.2014.9.
Songsore, J., J. S. Nabila, Y. Yangyuoru, S. Avle, E. K. Bosque-Hamilton, P. E. Amponsah, and O.
Alhassan. 2008. “Integrated Disaster Risk and Environmental Health Monitoring: Greater Accra
Metropolitan Area, Ghana.” In Disaster Risk Reduction: Cases from Urban Africa, edited by Mark
Pelling and Ben Wisner, 65–85. London: Routledge.
Sterner, C. S. 2008. “Waste and City Form: Reconsidering the Medieval Strategy.” Journal of Green
Building 3: 67–78.
Tipple, G. 2005. “Housing and Urban Vulnerability in Rapidly-Developing Cities.” Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management 13 (2): 66–75.
UN-Habitat. 2008. State of African Cities 2008: A Framework for Addressing Urban Challenge in Africa.
Nairobi.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2005. “Closing of an Open Dumpsite and Shifting
from Open Dumping to Controlled Dumping and to Sanitary Landfilling. United Nations
Environment Programme, 92.
WMA. 2012. “The Composite Budget of the Wa Municipal Assembly for the 2012 Fiscal Year.” www.
mofep.gov.gh.
Zeiss, C., and J. Atwater. 1989. “Waste Facility Impacts on Residential Property Values.” Journal of
Urban Planning and Development 115: 64–80.