Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Kumasi,

Using GIS to Determine Waste Transfer Stations in Relation to Location of Landfill Site in the Metropolis

A thesis submitted to the Department of Environmental Science of the

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master

of Science in Environmental Science

BY

Lyndon Nii Adjiri Sackey, BSc. (Hon.)

November, 2012

1

CERTIFICATION

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work towards the MSc. and that, to the best of my knowledge, it contains no material previously published by another person nor material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree of the University, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.

Lyndon Nii Adjiri Sackey ______

(PG4177110) Signature Date

Dr. Bernard Fei-Baffoe ______

(Supervisor) Signature Date

Rev. Stephen Akyeampong ______

(Head of Department) Signature Date

ii

THIS THESIS IS DEDICATED TO MY BELOVED LATE FATHER, NII QUARCOOPOME SACKEY. MAY HIS SOUL REST IN PERFECT PEACE

iii

Abstract

The existing landfill sites in Accra are reaching full capacity and the acquisition of land for the construction of landfill sites has become very difficult due to rapid developmental activities in Accra. However, with the current rate of development which will cause the construction of landfill sites far from the source of generation, there is the urgent need to get an intermediate facility, i.e., waste transfer station where waste would be processed and compacted in long distance trucks to reduce the cost of waste transport and disposal. The objective of the study was to determine suitable places that could be used as waste transfer stations in relation to location of landfill sites using Geographic Information System (GIS). Here, coordinates of all the container sites in Accra were determined with the Geographic Positioning System (GPS). The coordinates were then converted into points using ArcGIS and Microsoft Excel 2007 to help analysed the data collected. From the study four transfer stations were located with the help of the GIS, namely: Ablekuman and Amomola (Transfer station 1) Oblogo and Weija (Transfer station 2) Ashongman and Agbogba (Transfer station 3) Ashaley Botwe and Ogbozdo (Transfer station 4).

iv

Table of Content

Certification…………………………………………………………………. ii

Abstract …………………………………………………………….. ……… iv

Table of Content ……………………………………………………...... v

List of Tables ………………………………………………………………..viii

List of Figures ……………………………………………………………….ix

List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………... x

Acknowledgement …………………………………………………………. .xi

1.0 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………….. 1

1.1 Background …………………………………………………………….…..1

1.2 Justification of Study ……………………………………………………… 2

1.3 Problem Statement ………………………………………………………….2

1.4 The Main Objective………………………………………………….……...3

1.5 Scope of Study………………………………………………………………4

1.6 Organization of the Report………………………………………………….4

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………5

2.1 Waste Transfer Stations……………………………………………………..5

2.2 Types of Waste Transfer Stations……………………………………………6

2.2.1 Direct Dump-No Floor Storage…………………………………………...6

2.2.2 Direct Dump-Tipping-Floor Storage……………………………………...7

v

2.2.3 Compactor………………………………………………………………..8

2.2.4 Pit………………………………………………………………………...9

2.2.5 Combination……………………………………………………………...10

2.3 Planning and Siting a Transfer Station………………………………….....10

2.3.1 Types of waste……………………………………………………………10

2.3.2 Site Selection…………………………………………………………….11

2.3.3 Determining Transfer Station Size and Capacity………………………...12

2.3.4 Technical Siting Criteria…………………………………………………15

2.4 Developing Community Specific Criteria…………………………………18

2.5 Transfer Station Operations………………………………...... 19

2.6 Environmental Issues………………………………………………………21

2.7 Safety Issues……………………………………………………………….22

2.8 Geographical Information Systems………………………………………..23

2.9 Waste Transfer Station in Ghana…………………………………………..24

3.0 RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY………………….25

3.1 Study Area………………………………………………………………….25

3.1.1 Location and Climate………………………………………………….....27

3.1.2 Housing…………………………………………………………………..28

3.2 Data Collection…………………………………………………………….30

3.3 Analysis of Data……………………………………………………………31

vi

4.0 RESULTS………………………………………………………………….33

4.4 Determination of Transfer Stations………………………………………...33

5.0 DISCUSSIONS……………………………………………………………59

5.1 General Discussion on all the Sub-metro………………………………….59

5.1 Sub-metro…………………………………………….….63

5.2 Sub-metro…………...………………………………...... 64

5.3 Sub-metro…………...………………………………....65

5.4 Asiedu Keteke Sub-metro………………………………………………….66

5.5 Sub-metro……………………………………………….67

5.6 Sub-metro…………………………………………………..68

5.7 Sub-metro………………………………………………….68

5.8 LA Sub-metro……………………………………………………………...70

5.9 Okaikoi North Sub-metro……………………………………………….....71

5.10 Okaikoi South Sub-metro………………………………………………...72

5.11 Osu Klottey Sub-metro………………………………………………...... 73

5.13 Location of Container Site and Landfill Sites……………………………74

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………………………75

6.1 Conclusions ……………………………………………………………….75

6.2 Recommendations………………………………………………………….76

Reference……………………………………………………………………...77

Appendices…………………………………………………………………….82

vii

List of Tables

Table 4.1: The average distance to final disposal site, nearby transfer stations

and from transfer station to final disposal site………………………58

Table A1: Coordinates of final disposal sites converted into points…………...82

Table A2: Coordinates of the container sites converted into points……………82

viii

List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Map of Ghana indicating the study area…………………………..26

Figure 4.1: Shows the results of the Ablekuma North Sub-metro……………..34

Figure 4.2: Shows the results of the Ablekuma Central Sub-metro…………...36

Figure 4.3: Shows the results of the Ablekuma South Sub-metro……………..38

Figure 4.4: Shows the results of the Asiedu Keteke Sub-metro……………….40

Figure 4.5: Shows the results of the Ayawaso Central North Sub-metro……..42

Figure 4.6: Shows the results of the Ayawaso East Sub-metro………………..44

Figure 4.7: Shows the results of the Ayawaso West Sub-metro……………….46

Figure 4.8: Shows the results of the La Sub-metro…………………………….48

Figure 4.9: Shows the results of the Okaikoi North Sub-metro……..…………50

Figure 4.10: Shows the results of the Okaikoi South Sub-metro………………52

Figure 4.11: Shows the results of the Osu Klottey Sub-metro………………...54

ix

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

GIS Geographic Information System

CERGIS Centre for Remote Sensing and Geographic Information

System

GPS Geographic Positioning System

U.S EPA United State Environmental Protection Agency

A.M.A Accra Metropolitan Assembly

OCC Old Corrugated Cardboard

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

HHW House Hazardous Waste

C&D Construction and Demolition

U.S.A United State of America

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NPC National Population Census

BBC British Broadcasting Corporation

FDS Final Disposal Site

LF Landfill Site

x

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, glory and honour goes to our heavenly father for his unending grace, strength, guidance and direction given me throughout my stay for this programme. I offer my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Bernard

Fei-Baffoe of the Environmental Science Department for his support throughout my thesis work with his patience and knowledge whilst allowing me the room to work in my own way. I attribute the level of my Master’s degree to their encouragement and effort and without him this thesis would not have been written. One simply could not wish for better or friendlier supervisor. To Mr

Emmanuel Tetteh of CERGIS-Legon, I say thank you for your support in diverse ways during the analysis phase of this work. To Mr Ebenezer Kye-

Mensah of CHF international-Ghana and Mr Victor Kotey of AMA, also I say thank you, for assisting me with some of the data on location of container sites.

I cannot afford to leave my wife, Mrs Jennifer V.N.D Annan Sackey and our lovely children Jeslyn N.A Annan-Sackey and Lyndon N.Q Annan-Sackey for the understanding, support and love they showed to me during the program, may God richly bless them. I am also very grateful to my mother Mrs Esther

Sackey and my Siblings, Winnifred N.A Sackey and Josslyn N.A Sackey for their prayers and encouragement.

xi

To management of Zoomlion Ghana Limited, I thank you for the opportunity given to me to be part of the waste management giant family, which through the experienced gained enabled me to go through my research work successfully.

xii

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In recent years, management of solid waste has become an issue of increasing concern, becoming one of the primary environmental concerns of public debate

(Rahman, 2007). Historically, solid waste was collected in “packer”-type collection vehicles which delivered the waste directly to landfills. As landfills closed, haul distances became greater, giving rise to the use of transfer stations in which the waste is transferred to larger-capacity transfer trailers. The trailers are then hauled to the landfill site (U.S EPA, 1995).

In recent years, transfer stations have also been used for diverting, collecting, and transporting recyclables as well as incorporating materials processing systems into the same transfer facility. Transfer station currently being designed are typically enclosed in a building to reduce problems associated with noise, odour, and blowing litter and provide an aesthetically pleasing facility (Schaper,

1986). Advantages associated with transfer stations have resulted in rapid growth in the number constructed for the past three decades. Waste transfer stations are facilities where municipal solid waste is unloaded from collection vehicles and briefly held while it is reloaded onto a lager long-distance transport vehicle for shipment to landfills or other treatment or disposal facilities (Brown . et al, 1981). Waste transfer stations play an important role in a community’s

1 total waste management system, serving as the link between a community solid waste collection program and a final disposal site (U.S EPA, 1995).

1.2 Justification of Study

As land becomes more urbanised, public resistance to new landfill sites increases. The current trend is to use network of transfer stations from which waste is transported to a remote landfill site, processing facility, or energy- recovery facility. Transfer stations can be located on relatively small parcels of land and perceived by the public as more compatible with urban development than landfill sites. This challenge has resulted in final disposal sites being established far from the source of waste generation. Hence, the need for waste transfer stations which can serve as an intermediate between the sources of generation and the final disposal sites. When this is established it will then ensure effective collection of waste from the city, because haulage distance will be reduced and hence the rate of collection by the waste collection trucks will increase. Furthermore, the cost of collection, fuel and maintenance will reduce.

Also, air pollution will be reduced as the long distance travel by individual vehicles will likewise reduce by the establishment of the transfer station.

1.3 Problem Statement

The fast urbanization of the city of Accra has made finding a piece of land to be used as landfill site very challenging. There is greater demand of land for real

2 estate development in Accra. These estates frown against landfills in their neighbourhoods. They buy lands in large sizes and their presence then become a great challenge in locating a landfill. The advocate for other methods of management of waste in Ghana must be gradual and because the need for a landfill is still very important. Landfill is one of the options of waste management essential to get rid of residues that are generated from other waste treatment facilities. The challenge of acquiring land close to where wastes are being generated affects the rate of waste collection. Due to distant landfills, waste management companies spend so much money in hauling waste to the final disposal sites.

The problem this study sought to address is to identify suitable places that can be used as transfer stations in relations to the location of final disposal sites.

1.4 The Main Objective

To determine suitable places that could be used as waste transfer stations in

Accra in relation to location of landfill sites using Geographic Information

System (GIS).

Specific objectives include the following:

a. To determine possible places that could be used as waste transfer stations

in Accra, using GIS as a tool.

3

b. To gather information on the geographical location of waste containers

and landfill sites.

1.5 Scope of Study

The area selected for the study is Accra. Due to lack of logistics and funds, the study was limited to the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA). The research involves using GIS to identify possible places that could be used as transfer station considering all the factors needed to establish such a facility. This involved taking the coordinates of all the waste container sites in Accra and also the final disposal sites. Furthermore, data on the traffic situation, population density, land use, natural condition (vegetation, water bodies etc.) and human settlement will be obtained from the appropriate agencies.

1.6 Organization of the Report

This report is made up of five chapters. Chapter one begins with an introduction which consists of the background, the objectives, the problem statement, the justification and the scope of the study. Chapter two presents a review of available literature. Chapter three describes the study area and the research methodology. Chapter four presents the results, whiles the fifth chapter presents the discussion. The sixth chapter outlines the conclusions and recommendations of the study.

4

CHAPTER TWO

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Waste Transfer Stations

A waste transfer station is a light industrial-type facility where trash collection trucks discharge their loads so trash can be compacted and then reloaded into larger vehicles (e.g., trucks, trains and barges) for shipment to a final disposal site, typically a landfill or waste-to-energy facility (U.S EPA, 1995). Transfer station operators usually move waste off the site in a matter of minutes or hours.

Transfer stations serve both rural and urban communities. In densely populated areas, they are generally fully enclosed. Waste transfer stations handle the trash that you set out for collection. At many transfer stations, workers screen incoming wastes on the receiving floor or in an earthen pit, recovering materials from the waste stream that can be recycled and separating out any inappropriate wastes (e.g., tires, large appliances, automobile batteries) that are not allowed in a disposal facility (Brown et al, 1981).

The American Heritage Dictionary of English language defines waste transfer stations as a facility where solid waste materials, including yard waste, demolition materials, and household refuse, are transferred from small vehicles to large trucks for efficient transport to landfills, recycling centres and other disposal sites(AHDEL,2011).

5

2.2 Types of Waste Transfer Stations

There are five types of waste transfer stations: Direct dump-no floor storage, direct dump-floor storage, Compactor, Pit and Combination. All these types are well established and many successful examples of each type of transfer station are in operation. There are larger numbers of compactor stations, in part because this concept has been promoted by sales representatives of equipment manufacturers. The pit concept has traditionally been popular on the west coast of America, whilst the direct-dump concept has gained popularity as improved self-unloading; open-top trailers have been developed (Herbert, 2001).

2.2.1 Direct Dump-No Floor Storage

The direct-dump transfer station is a two-level facility in which collection vehicles on the upper floor discharges waste through hoppers directly into open- top transfer trailers on the lower floor. The concept is inherently efficient because equipment and labour necessary to load the trailers are minimized (U.S

EPA, 1995). A significant feature of this concept is that the trailer-loading operation must be capable of handling wastes as they are received.

The concept dates back to at least 1950s, when it was used by Los Angeles

County Sanitation District. It is appropriate for small or large stations with the capacity determined by the number of direct-direct dump hoppers. Several variables control the capacity of a hopper, including the pay loader of collection vehicles, average unloading time, number unloading simultaneously at a hopper,

6 and capacity of the transfer station trailer. Based on these conditions, the 20 tons transfer station trailer would be loaded in 12 min and 7 min, would be required to level the load, move it out and replace it with an empty trailer. Three transfer trailers would be loaded each hour, providing a peak capacity of 30 tons per hopper (Brown et al, 1981).

Direct-dump transfer stations typically use a stationary clamshell device to distribute the solid waste in the transfer trailer. The clamshell also provides a degree of compaction of the solid waste in the trailer. The clamshell is typically provided with specially designed grapple. The grapple can be opened and closed to move solid waste around in the trailer and it can be closed to allow it to be used in compacting the solid waste.

2.2.2 Direct Dump-Tipping-Floor Storage

Many stations that have the capability for direct dumping of waste from the collection vehicles to the transfer trailer also utilize floor storage to increase station capacity during peak hours (Brown et al, 1981). This concept results in substantial changes to both station construction and operation.

The station construction cost is significantly increased due to the larger tipping area required to accommodate the stored waste. This larger tipping floor area results in the need for larger building space and therefore significant increase cost. Operation methods and cost are increased. Storage of waste on the tipping

7 floor results in the need for a larger wheel to load waste into the open-top trailer. The advantage of this concept is that during peak period, the station capacity is not limited by the rate at which transfer trailers can be loaded. There are economic trade-offs between station cost and trailer cost that must be evaluated by the design engineer (Schaper, 1986).

The direct-dump type of facility with tipping-floor storage is also more suitable for a combined transfer station and materials-recovery facility. The tipping – floor storage provides the ability to separate materials that can be recycled before the waste is loaded into the trailer. Provided there is enough space

,barriers can be erected on the tipping floor to provide storage bunkers for various materials such as yard waste, old corrugated cardboard(OCC), and other recyclable material(Tchobauoglous et al, 1993).

2.2.3 Compactor

Many compactor transfer station have been constructed in the United States in the past few decades. Typically, they are two-level operation with collection vehicle unloading onto a receiving floor or into a hopper at the upper level. The solid wastes are then moved into the compactor and compacted into a transfer trailer at the lower level (U.S EPA, 1995).

When compactor stations use the receiving floor as a waste storage area, a wheel loader is used to pick up the waste and loaded into the hopper. Depending

8 on the loader equipment capability and the operators’ skill, it may be practical for one operator to load more than one compaction hopper.

Another compactor station concept is to provide a large bunker to receive wastes directly from collection vehicle. The receiving bunker is at a right angle to the compaction hopper and the transfer trailer. The waste is pushed by a large hydraulically operated blade from the receiving bunkers into the compaction hopper and then compacted into the transfer trailer. The transfer trailers are closed-top mechanical or hydraulic system types sized to handle the maximum legal payload (U.S EPA, 1995).

2.2.4 Pit

The pit concept has been in use for many years in some of the largest transfer stations in Europe. The principal advantage is the large storage capacity provided by the pit. It provides storage for peak deliveries and allows transfer haul to be operated on as much as a 24-h basis, if desired. Pit station has proven to be capable of handling bulky waste (Brown et al, 1981).

The pit type transfer station is not conducive to recycling efforts. The emphasis with this type of transfer station is to unload the material as quickly as possible into the pit.

9

2.2.4 Combination

Larger transfer stations may include more than one transfer method. Several stations include both pit and direct. The pit portion provides storage for waste received during peak periods. The direct-dump portion reduces handling of the waste and provides economical operations. The collection vehicles manoeuvring area is generally in the center of the station and serves both the pit and direct dump. The Montgomery County, Maryland, transfer station, constructed in the mid-1980s, is an example of this combination concept (U.S

EPA, 1995).

2.3 Planning and Siting a Transfer Station

A variety of issues must be taken into account during the planning and siting stages of transfer station development such as the type of waste, size and capacity of transfer station, site selection public acceptance and site criteria

(Tchobauoglous et al, 1993).

2.3.1 Types of Waste

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is generated by households, businesses, institutions, and industry. MSW typically contains a wide variety of materials including discarded containers, packaging, food wastes, and paper products.

10

MSW includes a mixture of putrescible (easily degradable) and non-putrescible

(inert) materials (Bilitewski et al, 1994). Three types of MSW are commonly diverted and handled separately.

Yard waste (green waste) commonly includes leaves, grass clippings, tree trimmings, and brush. Yard waste is often diverted so that it may be composted or mulched instead of going for disposal (Zurbrugg, 2003).

Household hazardous waste (HHW) includes hazardous materials generated by households, such as cleaning products; pesticides; herbicides; used automotive products such as motor oil, brake fluid, and anti-freeze; and paint

(Zurbrugg, 2003).

Recyclables include discarded materials that can be reprocessed for manufacture into new products. Common recyclables include paper, newsprint, ferrous metals, plastic, glass containers, aluminium cans, motor oil, and tires.

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris results from demolition or construction of buildings, roads, and other structures. It typically consists of concrete, brick, wood, masonry, roofing materials, sheetrock, plaster, metals, and tree stumps. Sometimes C&D debris is managed separately from MSW; other times it is mixed with MSW (Zurbrugg, 2003).

2.3.2 Site Selection

Identifying a suitable site for a waste transfer station can be a challenging process. Site suitability depends on numerous technical, environmental,

11 economic, social, and political criteria. When selecting a site, a balance needs to be achieved among the multiple criteria that might have competing objectives

(Johannessen, 1999). For example, a site large enough to accommodate all required functions and possibly future expansion might not be centrally located in the area where waste is generated. Likewise, in densely developed urban areas, ideal sites that include effective natural buffers simply might not be available. Less than ideal sites may still present the best option due to transportation, environmental, and economic considerations. Yet another set of issues that must be addressed relates to public concern or opposition, particularly from people living or working near the proposed site. The relative weight given to each criterion used in selecting a suitable site will vary by the community’s needs and concerns: i.e. whether the site is in an urban, suburban, or rural setting will also play a role in final site selection (Waste transfer status,

2001).

2.3.3 Determining Transfer Station Size and Capacity

The physical size of a planned transfer station is typically determined based on the following factors (U.S EPA, 2000):

• The definition of the service area. Sometimes this is relatively simple, such as

“all waste generated by any town, USA,” or “all waste collected by Acme

Hauling Company.” Other times, the service area is more difficult to define

12 because of varying public and private roles in solid waste management and the changing availability of existing disposal facilities.

• The amount of waste generated within the service area, including projected changes such as population growth and recycling programs.

• The types of vehicles delivering waste (such as car or pickup truck versus a specially designed waste-hauling truck used by a waste collection company).

• The types of materials to be transferred (e.g., compacted versus loose MSW, yard waste, C&D), including seasonal variations.

• Daily and hourly arrival patterns of customers delivering waste. Hourly arrivals tend to cluster in the middle of the day, with typical peaks just before and after lunchtime. Peak hourly arrivals tend to dictate a facility’s design more than average daily arrivals.

• The availability of transfer trailers, intermodal containers, barges, or railcars, and how fast these can be loaded.

• Expected increases in tonnage delivered during the life of the facility. For example, in a region with annual population growth of 3 to 4 percent, a facility anticipating a 20- year operating life would typically be designed for about twice the capacity that it uses in its first year of operation.

• The relationship to other existing and proposed solid waste management facilities such as landfills, recycling facilities, and waste-to-energy facilities.

The same factors are used to determine the size of the following transfer station features:

13

• Amount of off-street vehicle queuing (waiting) space. At peak times, vehicles must often wait to check in at a facility’s “gatehouse” or “scale house.” It is important that the queue does not block public streets or impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

• Number and size of unloading stalls, and corresponding number of transfer trailer loading positions.

• Short-term waste processing and storage areas (for holding waste until it can be reloaded into transfer vehicles). Present and projected daily, weekly, and annual waste volumes (including seasonal variations) are important in planning facility size to accommodate waste deliveries. The maximum rate at which waste is delivered is a crucial consideration as well. In general, it is best to build a facility to accommodate present and projected maximum volumes and peak flows, with a pre-planned footprint for facility expansion. A useful exercise is calculating how much tipping floor space a facility would require to store a full day’s waste in case of extreme emergency. One approach to estimating the required tipping floor space is to begin with a base area of 4,000 square feet and add to it 20 square feet for each ton of waste received in a day (assuming the waste will be temporarily piled 6 feet high on the tipping floor). For example, if the facility receives 100 tons of waste per day, a tipping floor space of 6,000 square feet would be required (i.e., 4,000 ft² + (100 TPD x 20 ft²/ton) = 6,000 ft²) (U.S EPA, 1995).

14

2.3.4 Technical Siting Criteria

The second category of criteria to develop includes technical parameters that help define the best potential facility sites (White, 1995). These criteria provide guidance on specific engineering, operation, and transportation conditions that should be considered to ensure that potential sites are feasible from technical, environmental, and economic perspectives. These criteria address the following issues:

Central location to collection routes: To maximize waste collection efficiency, transfer stations should be located centrally to waste collection routes. As a rule of thumb in urban and suburban areas, transfer stations should be no more than 10 miles away from the end of all collection routes (Pieber,

2004).

Beyond that distance, collection routes might need to be altered to enable refuse to be collected and deposited at the transfer station within one operating shift.

Access to major transportation routes: The transfer station should have direct and convenient access to truck routes, major arterials, and highways (or rail or barge access, if appropriate). For large metropolitan areas, direct access to rail lines or barges will significantly reduce the number of large transfer trailers leaving the station and traveling area roads (Schaper, 1986). It is preferable to avoid routing traffic through residential areas because traffic generated by transfer stations contributes to congestion; increased risk to

15 pedestrians; increased air emissions, noise, and wears on roads; and might contribute to litter problems (U.S EPA, 1995).

Site size requirements: The area required for specific transfer stations varies significantly, depending on the volume of waste to be transferred, rates at which waste will be delivered, the functions to be carried out at the site, and the types of customers the facility is intended to serve (U.S EPA, 2000). Locating a site of sufficient size is critical to operating efficiencies and minimizing impacts on the surrounding community.

Sufficient space for onsite roadways, queuing, and parking: Transfer stations typically have onsite roadways to move vehicles around various parts of the transfer site. Waste collection trucks can be up to 40 feet long. Transfer trailers that move waste to a disposal facility are typically 50 to 70 feet long.

These vehicles need wide roadways with gradual slopes and curves to manoeuvre efficiently and safely.

Truck and traffic compatibility: Transfer stations often receive surges of traffic when collection vehicles have finished their routes. Transfer station traffic varies locally, but tends to peak twice a day. The first peak is often near the middle of the day or shift, and the second at the end of the day or shift.

Therefore, the best sites for transfer stations are located away from areas that have midday traffic peaks and/or school bus and pedestrian traffic (Pieber,

2004).

16

Ability for expansion: When selecting a site, consider the potential for subsequent increase in the daily tonnage of waste the facility will be required to manage, or added processing capabilities for recycling and diversion (Henry,

1989).

Space for recycling, composting, and public education: A transfer station could be sited in areas also conducive to recycling or composting activities.

Many transfer stations are designed to enable residents and businesses to drop off recyclables and yard waste in addition to trash (McDougall, 2000).

Buffer space: To mitigate impact on the surrounding community, a transfer station should be located in an area that provides separation from sensitive adjoining land uses such as residences. Buffers can be natural or constructed and can take many forms, including open spaces, fences, sound walls, trees, berms, and landscaping (Cointreau, 1989).

Gently sloping topography: Transfer stations often are multilevel buildings that need to have vehicle access at several levels. Completely flat sites need ramps or bridges constructed to allow vehicle access to upper levels (or areas excavated to allow access to lower levels). Sites with moderately sloping terrain can use topography to their advantage, allowing access to the upper levels from the higher parts of the natural terrain and access to lower levels from the lower parts. Sites with steep slopes might require extra costs associated with earthmoving and retaining walls (Waste Transfer in Illiniois, 2001).

17

Access to utilities: Transfer stations generally require electricity to operate equipment, such as balers and compactors; lighting; water for facility cleaning, restrooms, and drinking; and sanitary sewer systems for waste-water disposal.

Some smaller transfer stations use wells for water supply, and some, especially in more rural settings, use septic systems or truck their waste water for offsite treatment (U.S EPA, 1995).

Zoning Designations and Requirements: Zoning ordinances frequently classify transfer stations as industrial uses, which limit their siting to areas zoned for industry usually in conjunction with a special use permit (Ojdemark,

2005).

Exclusive use of predetermined land use criteria, however, might result in locating transfer stations in areas already overburdened with industries or clustering of these types of facilities in areas adjacent to poor and minority communities (U.S EPA, 2000).

2.4 Developing Community-Specific Criteria

The third categories of criteria to consider are impacts that the facility will have on the surrounding community. These criteria are typically less technical in nature and incorporate local, social, and cultural factors (Lund, 1992).

To maintain objectivity in the facility siting process, the community-specific criteria should be prioritized before potential sites are known. After potential sites are identified, the committee will apply these criteria to evaluate each

18 potential site’s suitability as a waste transfer station. These issues also factor into permitting decisions concerning private facilities and should not be ignored by the permitting agency or transfer station developer (Lund, 1992).

2.5 Transfer Station Operations

Although a transfer station’s basic function as a waste consolidation and transfer facility is straightforward, operating a successful station involves properly executing many different tasks (Ojdemark, 2005). Some tasks are routine and easily understood, while others occur infrequently and might be difficult to conduct properly without step-by-step directions. To help ensure proper operations, transfer stations should have written operations and maintenance plans which is required by law. The laws are usually written pertaining to a particular facility and it includes the following: Facility operating schedule, including days of the week, hours each day, and holidays.

Description of acceptable and unacceptable wastes, and procedures for diverting restricted waste before and after unloading. Operating methods for each component of the facility, including waste-screening methods, truck-weighing procedures, tipping floor operations, transfer vehicle loading, onsite and offsite litter clean up, and wastewater collection system operations. Description of maintenance procedures for each component, employee training, safety rules and regulations, record keeping procedures and emergency procedures.

19

If their wastes are refused at a transfer station, some customers might illegally dispose of unacceptable materials or might try to hide these materials in a future delivery. When customers arrive with unacceptable materials, operators could give them a pre-printed fact sheet that describes the issue and suggests alternative management methods. In addition, community programs dedicated to reducing the use of products that generate dangerous wastes can decrease unacceptable waste deliveries to transfer stations (Henry, 1989).

At the transfer station, screening for unacceptable wastes could start at the scale house (where customers first check in upon arrival at the facility). Employee training on identifying and managing suspect materials is the cornerstone in any waste-screening program.

Operators could interview customers about types of waste they have and from where the waste was collected. A list of common unacceptable items could be posted, and operators could ask if any of the items are present in the load.

Visual inspections can also help identify unacceptable wastes (Bӧhmar, 1995).

Some facilities provide overhead cameras or walkways to facilitate a view of the top of uncovered loads (or loads that can easily be uncovered at the scale house). Walking around the truck to examine its contents and checking for smoke or suspicious odours might be appropriate. Sensors for detecting radioactive materials can be used at the scale house or at a point along the incoming truck route to the tipping area.

20

Some unacceptable wastes might not become apparent until the unloading process. Operators should observe waste unloading and examine suspected unacceptable wastes.

Waste unloaded onto the floor or into a pit is easier to monitor than waste unloaded directly into a transfer container or vehicle.

2.5.1 Environmental Issues

Developing transfer stations that minimize environmental impacts involves careful planning, designing, and operation. Design and operational issues regarding traffic, noise, odours, air emissions, water quality, vectors, and litter are important environmental issues to consider. Proper facility siting, design, and operation can address and mitigate these potential impacts on the surrounding natural environment and the community (Bilitewshi, 1997).

Careful attention to these issues begins with the initial planning and siting of a facility and should continue with regular monitoring after operations begin.

Transfer station design must account for environmental issues regardless of surrounding land use and zoning. Stations sited in industrial or manufacturing zones are subject to the same environmental concerns and issues as stations located in more populated zones (Lund, 1992). Minimizing the potentially negative aspects associated with these facilities requires thoughtful design choices. Identifying and addressing these important issues can be a significant part of the overall cost to develop the waste transfer station.

21

2.5.2 Safety Issues

Thoughtful facility design coupled with good operating practices help ensure transfer stations are safe places. Transfer stations should be designed and operated for the safety of employees, customers, and even persons illegally trespassing when the facility is closed (Greedy, 2005).

Designers need to consider that people might trespass on facility grounds during operating hours or after the facility is closed for the night. Most state regulations require security and access control measures such as fences and gates that can be closed and locked after hours. Signs should be posted around the perimeter, with warnings about potential risks due to falls and contact with waste. Signs should be posted in multiple languages in jurisdictions with high percentages of non- English-speaking residents.

Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations require facilities to provide safe working conditions for all employees. Although regulations specific to waste transfer stations do not currently exist, general

OSHA regulations apply as they would to any other constructed facility. State, tribal, and local workplace safety regulations, which can be more stringent than federal regulations, also might apply.

Some state, tribal, or local governments might require a facility’s development permit to directly address employee and customer safety. State and tribal solid waste regulations, for instance, often require development of operating plans

22 and contingency plans to address basic health and safety issues. Transfer station safety issues are the facility operator’s responsibility.

2.6 Geographical Information Systems

Geographic Information System (GIS) is a computerized system that can store, analyse and display geographically referenced information combined with database information. It has the ability to relate different information in a spatial context. GIS is used in a number of different fields, for example; Archeology, urban planning, remote sensing, land surveying and natural resource planning.

Geographically referenced information, i.e. identified according to a location on the globe, can be stored as raster--‐ or vector images. Raster images are stored as pixels in rows and columns with each cell storing a single value Vector data is stored as points (ex. houses, wells), Lines (ex. roads, rivers) or as polygons(ex. Land use, city boundary). Database information is stored as attribute tables connected to the map--‐layers (the raster--‐ or vector images).

Differently combined data can reveal relationships, patterns and trends to the user that is difficult to associate in any other way. As an example map layers showing topography, rivers and houses can be combined and analysed see which houses in a residential area that might be exposed to flooding. GIS helps the user to display data in a way that is easily understood by people from different fields, education and language.

23

2.7 Waste Transfer Station in Ghana

There has not been any waste transfer station constructed in Ghana. The ones we have are communal container sites which are most often mistakenly called waste transfer stations. It was quite recent, that it was reported in the daily graphic of government’s intension to construct transfer stations at strategic locations in the Accra metropolis to ease the burden of carting garbage from the city to the Accra Compost and Recycling Plant at Adzen-Kotoku. The move has become necessary to reduce the long distances that trucks carrying the city's solid waste will have to travel to dump the waste, following the closure of the

Achimota refuse site in Accra. The Accra Compost and Recycling Plant is located in the Ga West municipality in the Greater Accra Region and, therefore, quite far from the national capital (Bentil, 2012). Some work which has been done by Hanna Öberg (2011) on a GIS-based Study of Sites for Decentralized

Composting and Waste Sorting Stations in Kumasi, Ghana. The aim of that study was to make an assessment of sites for waste sorting stations and decentralized compost facilities in Kumasi, Ghana using GIS as a tool.

24

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Area

Accra is the capital city of Ghana and also the regional capital of the Greater

Accra Region. It is Ghana's primate city, serving as the nation's economic and administrative hub. It is furthermore a centre of culture and tourism, sporting a wide range of nightclubs, restaurants and hotels. Accra stretches along the

Ghanaian Atlantic Coast, bounded to the east by the Ga East Municipal

Assembly, to the west by the Ga West Municipal Assembly and to the South by the Ga South Municipal Assembly. Most of the people in Accra are office workers, factory workers, Artisans and traders (Ghana Web 2010). The study was conducted in the Accra Metropolitan Assembly which is made up of eleven

Sub-metros namely: Ablekum Central, Ablekum North, Ablekuma South,

Ashiedu-Keteke, Ayawaso central, Ayawaso East, Ayawaso West –Wuogon,

La, Okaikoi North, Okaikoi South and Osu Klottey (Ghana districts, 2006).

In Accra waste management is franchised to private contractors who collect and manage the waste generated in the city. They are then monitored by the

Assembly to ensure that waste generated are collected and management as stipulated in their contracts.

There are two systems by which waste are collected; we have the house to house method of collection which is usually done by the compactors and then

25 the skip and roll-on-roll off trucks which do the lifting of the communal containers.

The communal containers are metallic containers which ranges between 10m³,

14m³ and 23m³ and are usually placed at institutions, markets, communities and schools which serve the population in that catchment area. Wastes collected in the city of Accra are all sent to final disposal site where they are managed to prevent any negative environmental impact.

Figure 3.1: Map of Ghana indicating the study area

26

3.1.1 Location and Climate

Owing to its location in the Dahomey Gap, where the coast runs parallel to the prevailing moist monsoonal winds, Accra features a tropical savanna climate that borders on a semi-arid climate (Ghana districts, 2006). The average annual rainfall is about 730 mm, which falls primarily during Ghana's two rainy seasons. The chief rainy season begins in April and ends in mid-July, whilst a weaker second rainy season occurs in October. Rain usually fall in short intensive storms and gives rise to local flooding where drainage channels are obstructed.

There is very little variation in temperature throughout the year. The mean monthly temperature ranges from 24.7 °C (76.5 °F) in August (the coolest) to

28 °C (82.4 °F) in March (the hottest), with an annual average of 26.8 °C

(80.2 °F). It should be noted, however, that the "cooler" months tend to be more humid than the warmer months (Ghana districts, 2006). As a result, during the warmer months and particularly during the windy harmattan season, the city experiences a breezy "dry heat" that feels less warm than the "cooler" but more humid rainy season.

As Accra is close to the equator, the daylight hours are practically uniform during the year. Relative humidity is generally high, varying from 65% in the mid-afternoon to 95% at night. The predominant wind direction in Accra is from the WSW to NNE sectors. Wind speeds normally range between 8 to

27

16 km/h. High wind gusts occur with thunderstorms, which generally pass in squall along the coast.

The maximum wind speed record in Accra is 107.4 km/h (58 knots). Strong winds associated with thunderstorm activity often cause damage to property by removing roofing material. Several areas of Accra experience micro-climatic effects. Low-profile drainage basins with a north-south orientation are not as well ventilated as those orientated east-west (Ghana districts, 2006).

Air is often trapped in pockets over the city, and an insulation effect can give rise to a local increase in air temperature of several degrees.

3.1.3 Housing

Almost all low-income areas are built up with little room for expansion. This is particularly so in the indigenous areas of the inner city. Conditions are generally depressed, with poor supporting social and engineering infrastructure.

Buildings are of poor-quality material, often using mud, untreated timber and zinc roofing sheets for walling. The housing environment is characterized by haphazard development, inadequate housing infrastructure, poor drainage, erosion and high population concentrations (Ghana web, 2010).

The middle-income areas of Accra are predominantly populated by business, administrative and professional families. Much of the housing in these areas has

28 been provided by state, parasternal and private sector organizations and individuals.

The middle-income areas include Dansoman Estates, North Kaneshie Estates,

Asylum Down, Kanda Estates, Abelempke, Achimota and Tesano. Usually, these areas, unlike the low-income areas, are planned developments, but are in need of infrastructure services. Building materials and general housing conditions are of better quality (Ghana districts, 2010). The middle-income group comprises 32% of the city's population.

The high-income areas provide housing for the remaining 10% of the population. They include areas like North and West Ridge, Ringway Estates, north Labone Estates, Airport Residential Area, Roman Ridge, East Legon.

These areas are all planned and have well developed infrastructure with spacious and landscaped ground in sharp contrast with, particularly, the low- income areas. Buildings are usually built with sand Crete blocks, and have walls and roofed with aluminium, or asbestos roofing sheets.

There are also high-income peripheral areas like Hatso, Adenta, Taifa, Mallam, where development of engineering infrastructure is not yet complete. These areas developed ahead of infrastructure and consequently lack almost all utility services. Building materials used are similar to those in the middle and high- income zones.

29

In total, 84.4% of all houses in the Accra Metropolitan Area have their outside walls made up of cement, as compared to 63.3% for other Ghanaian urban areas, and 44.8% for the nation in general. Similarly, houses found within Accra have 99.2% of their floor materials made up of cement, while the figures for other urban areas and the nation are 95.1% and 84.7% respectively (Ghana web,

2010, Ghana districts, 2010). It can therefore be inferred that, although in some instances low-income areas have exhibited poor housing conditions, the general quality of housing in Accra is significantly better than that of other urban areas and Ghanaian housing in general.

Conditions are nonetheless much worse in the low-income areas, with very high pressures on facilities – on average, there are about 30 people per toilet, 48 per kitchen and 22 per bathroom in the Accra slums (Ghana web, 2010). This is due to a combination of inadequate facilities, continual population growth and the conversion of facility spaces to other uses.

3.2 Data collection

The Geographical position System (GPS) was used to get the coordinate of all the container sites in the Accra Metropolis.

The coordinates of the various places here marked to be used as final disposal sites namely: New Bortianor and Adjen-Kotoku were also taken by using the

GPS and the coordinates of the current dump sites were also taken.

30

3.3 Analysis of Data

These coordinates were then converted into points, using ArcGIS and Microsoft

Excel 2007 to analyse the data collected.

The coordinates were converted into degree decimals, by dividing the minutes by 60, and dividing the seconds by 3600 eg 5° 33´ 30´´ becomes 5.55833 and the figures typed in excel.

The table was opened in ArcGIS and exported as data base file which was displayed as points in ArcGIS as shown in Figure B1(Appendix B).

The Sub-Metro boundary was obtained from A. M. A and using ArcGIS software the various buffers (3km, 6km and 9km) were created from the external boundary of the merged sub-metro as shown in Figure B3 (Appendix

B).

The average distances amongst the various container sites were determined with the help of the GIS.

Also, the average distance between these container sites and the final disposal sites were also determined to help determine the possible places that could be used as waste transfer stations.

During the analyses the following were considered to help determine those suitable places that could be used as transfer stations:

31

- Closeness to water body and settlement

- Accessibility.

- Closeness to school or health facility

- Closeness to source of drinking water

- From the transfer station to final disposal site should be void of traffic.

To establish the above factors in the analysis, digitized data were obtained from

Centre for Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System (CERGIS)-

Legon, and Ghana Statistical Services and Survey Department.

32

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Determination of transfer stations

Ablekuma North Sub-metro: The average distance from the sub-metro to final disposal site (FDS) is 28km and that from the sub-metro to a nearby transfer station (TS) is 8km.The average distance from Waste Transfer Station

(WTS) to Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 20km.

33

Figure 4.1: The shaded area in the map is the Ablekuma sub-metro

34

Ablekuma Central Sub-metro: The average distance from the sub-metro to

Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 31km and that from the sub-metro to a nearby

Waste Transfer Station (WTS) is 6km.The average distance from Waste

Transfer Station (WTS) to Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 25km.

35

Figure 4.2: The shaded area in the map is the Ablekuma Central sub-metro

36

Ablekuma South Sub-metro: The average distance from the sub-metro to

Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 33km and from the sub-metro to a nearby Waste

Transfer Station (WTS) is 8km.The average distance from Waste Transfer

Station (WTS) to Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 25km.

37

Figure 4.3: The shaded area in the map is the Ablekuma Central sub-metro

38

Ashiedu Keteke Sub-metro: The average distance from sub-metro to Final

Disposal Site (FDS) is 36km and that from the sub-metro to a nearby Waste

Transfer Station (WTS) is 10km.The average distance from Waste Transfer

Station (WTS) to Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 26km.

39

Figure 4.4: The shaded area in the map is the Ashiedu Keteke sub-metro

40

Ayawaso Central Sub-metro: The average distance from the sub-metro to

Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 26km and that from the sub-metro to a nearby

Waste transfer Station (WTS) is 13km.The average distance from Waste

Transfer Station (WTS) to Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 13km.

41

Figure 4.5: The shaded area in the map is the Ayawaso Central sub-metro

42

Ayawaso East Sub-metro: The average distance from the sub-metro to Final

Disposal Site (FDS) is 28km and that from the sub-metro to a nearby Waste

Transfer Station (WTS) is 15km.The average distance from Waste Transfer

Station (WTS) to Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 13km.

43

Figure 4.6: The shaded area in the map is Ayawaso East sub-metro

44

Ayawaso Central Sub-metro: The average distance from the sub-metro to

Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 26km and that from the sub-metro to a nearby

Waste Transfer Station (WTS) is 13km.The average distance from Waste

Transfer Station (WTS) to Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 13km.

45

Figure 4.7: The shaded area in the map Ayawaso Central sub-metro

46

Ayawaso West Sub-metro: The average distance from the sub-metro to Final

Disposal Site (FDS) is 29km and that from the sub-metro to a nearby Waste

Transfer Station (WTS) is 7km.The average distance from Waste Transfer

Station (WTS) to Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 22km.

47

Figure 4.8: The shaded area in the map is Ayawaso West sub-metro

48

La Sub-metro: The average distance from the sub-metro to Final Disposal Site

(FDS) is 37km and that from the sub-metro to a nearby Waste Transfer Station

(WTS) is 13km.The average distance from Waste Transfer Station (WTS) to

Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 24km.

49

Figure 4.9: The shaded area in the map is the La sub-metro

50

Okaikoi North Sub-metro: The average distance from the sub-metro to Final

Disposal Site (FDS) is 22km and that from the sub-metro to a nearby Waste

Transfer Station (WTS) is 11km.The average distance from Waste Transfer

Station (WTS) to Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 11km.

51

Figure 4.10: The shaded area in the map is the Okaikoi North sub-metro

52

Okaikoi South Sub-metro: The average distance from the sub-metro to Final

Disposal Site (FDS) is 33km and that from the sub-metro to a nearby Waste

Transfer Station (WTS) is 8km.The average distance from Waste Transfer

Station (WTS) to Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 25km.

53

Figure 4.10: The shaded area in the map is Okaikoi South sub-metro

54

Osu Klottey Sub-metro: The average distance from the sub-metro to Waste

Transfer Station (WTS) is 32km and that from the sub-metro to a nearby Waste

Transfer Station (WTS) is 13km.The average distance from Waste Transfer

Station (WTS) to Final Disposal Site (FDS) is 24km

55

Figure 4.11: The shaded area in the map is Osu Klottey sub-metro

56

From the Table 4.1, the La sub-metro has the longest average distance to a final disposal site and Asiedu Keteke has the longest average distance from a waste transfer station to the final disposal site which is 37 km and 26 km respectively.

Okaikoi North has both the shortest average distance to final disposal site and also from the waste transfer station to the final disposal and also from the waste transfer station to the final disposal site is 22 km and 11 km respectively.

Comparatively, all the sub-metros have shorter average distance from the sub- metro to a nearby transfer stations. However, Osu Klottey sub-metro has the longest average distance to a nearby waste transfer station.

57

Sub-Metro Av. Dist. to Av. Dist. to nearby Av. Dist. from Final Disposal Transfer Station Transfer Station to Site Final Disposal Site Ablekuma 28 km 8 km 20 km North Ablekuma 33 km 8 km 25 km South Ablekuma 31 km 6 km 25 km Central Ashiedu 36 km 10 km 26 km Keteke Ayawaso 26 km 13 km 13 km Central Ayawaso East 28 km 15 km 13 km

Ayawaso 29 km 7 km 22 km West La 37 km 13 km 24 km

Okaikoi 22 km 11 km 11 km North Okaikoi 32 km 11 km 21 km South Osu Klottey 32 km 16 km 16 km

Table 4.1: The average distances to final disposal site, nearby transfer Stations and transfer stations to final disposal site.

58

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 DISCUSSION

5.1 General discussion on all the Sub-metro

There were 101 communal container sites identified during the time the coordinates were taken in the whole Accra Metropolis. These communal containers are placed to support the management of solid waste generated in the communities. Through the survey work, it was realised that these containers are placed to serve mainly the markets, communities and institutions upon request.

However, the household are supposed to register with private waste companies to lift their bins on an agreed day.

Waste transfer stations are usually established to ensure effective collection and also help in reducing the cost of operations. It is generally less expensive to deliver collected municipal solid waste (MSW) to transfer stations where it can be consolidated into large loads that can be transported by trailer trucks, rail cars, or barges to large-scale management facilities than transporting the same amount of MSW in substantially smaller vehicles. The latter increases fuel consumption and number of trips needed to transfer waste to final disposal

(Bartone et al., 1990). To establish the construction of waste transfer station distance is very important. In view of that, the sub-metro boundary obtained from the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (A.M.A), with the help of ArcGIS software various buffers (3 km, 6 km and 9 km) were created from the external

59 boundary of the merged sub-metro as shown in Figure B 3 (Appendix). These were done to inform decision or policy makers as to the acceptance of the concept of waste transfer stations. Technically it has been established that ideally transfer stations are considered when the source of waste generation is 6 km from the final disposal site, which then makes it economically more viable

(US EPA, 1995).

However, from the categorisation made on the maps it was realised that most of our current dumping sites are within the 6 km range except the compost and recycle plant being constructed by Zoomlion Ghana Ltd at Adjei Kotoku that was beyond 6 km. But most of the dump sites currently being used are full and looking at the rate at which Accra is developing there is the greater tendency that landfill or dump sites to be acquired will go beyond the 6 km. This then gives as the wake up call to consider the waste transfer station concept to enable us manage our solid waste effectively.

The data obtained from both container sites and final disposal sites including digitized date of population density, land use, traffic situation and natural condition enabled in the determination of the waste transfer stations with the help of Geographic Information System (GIS). Geographical Information

System (Heywood et al., 1988) is mainly emphasized in planning an effective solid waste management system.

60

From Figure 4.1 as shown in the map four suitable waste transfer stations were located with the help of the GIS. These transfer stations from the map will be located around:

a. Ablekuman and Amomola(Transfer station 1)

b. Oblogo and Weija (Transfer station 2)

c. Ashongman and Agbogba (Transfer station 3)

d. Ashaley Botwe and Ogbodzo (Transfer station 4)

Assessing the location of the various proposed transfer stations identified with the help of the GIS, they are all placed at vantage points. The establishment of these transfer stations at the proposed locations will go a long way to help salvage some of the challenges we have in the collection and transportation of solid waste in the capital city. The main criteria used to decide the feasibility of incorporating a transfer station into a waste management system has traditionally been the minimization of the economic costs of transport to and from the station, since it is cheaper to transport large amounts of waste over long distances in large loads than in small ones (Tchobanoglous et al., 1993).

The average distance that a truck needs to travel between all the sub-metro to the final disposal sites ranges between 22-37km and the average distance a truck needs to travel to a nearby transfer station ranges between 6-15km from Table

4.1. This then shows a drastic reduction in distance that a truck has to travel to

61 dispose waste, because the truck needs not to travel between 22-37km to dispose waste but rather 6-15km.

Also, we could observe from the map shown in Fig. 4.1 that all the transfer stations are located outside the jurisdiction of the Accra Metropolitan

Assembly, which then place the establishment of these transfer stations in an advantageous position because most of these places are not so much developed.

From Table 4.1 La sub-metro has the longest average distance to the final disposal site whiles Okaikoi North has the shortest Average distance to the final disposal sites. This could be due to the location of the sub-metro and also the distance of the location container sites within the sub-metros.

Ablekuma Central Sub-metro from Table 4.1 has the shortest average distance to a nearby waste transfer station and Ayawaso East sub-metro has the longest average distance to a nearby waste transfer station. This could be due to the location of container site in relation to final disposal sites.

From Table 4.1 Okaikoi North has the shortest average distance from transfer station to the final disposal site and Ashiedu Keteke has the longest average distance from waste transfer station to the final disposal site. This depends largely upon the distances between the various container sites in the sub-metro in relation to the final disposal sites.

62

The identified waste transfer stations were all within the 3 km buffer which implies that their establishment would help solve the challenge with rate of waste collection due to distance landfills.

5.2 Ablekuma North Sub-metro

This Sub-metro has 6 communal container sites when the coordinates were taken. After the analysis and assessing the locations of the transfer stations they could assess all depending on the traffic situation. But the most ideal transfer station will be the one between Oblogo and Weija.

From the Table 4.1 the average distance from the sub-metro to final disposal site is 28km and the average distance from the sub-metro to a nearby transfer station is 8km. This then indicates that averagely when a transfer station is established the haulage distance by a truck in the Ablekuma sub-metro will be reduced compared to the distance to be made by an individual truck to the final disposal site. Hence, the implementation of these stations will then increase the rate of collection because a truck needs to travel only for a short distance to dispose of its waste. A large fraction of the waste management budget in developing countries goes to transportation. Therefore an important focus is to keep costs of transportation low when planning for a sustainable waste management. (Rothenberger & Enayetullah, 2006).

However, the average distance from transfer station to the final disposal site within the Ablekuma North Sub- metro is 20km.This distance will be travelled

63 by trailers which will be having a capacity of 30 tons or more. When this happens there will be reduction in operational cost and also leads to efficient management of our landfill site, because queues from individual trucks are reduced or avoided. To face the current and future problems in waste management developing countries have to implement more recycling and make waste management transports more efficient. Waste transportation is often a major part of the waste management budget. (Zurbrugg, C, I, Maqsood,&

Enayetullah, 2005).

5.3 Ablekuma South Sub-metro

The Ablekuma South Sub-metro has 18 communal container sites and they can service the transfer station between Oblogo and Weija . The average distance to the final disposal site in the Ablekuma South sub-metro is 33km and the average distance from the sub-metro to a nearby transfer station is 8km from the from Table 4.1. Comparatively, a truck travelling a distance of 33 km to the final disposal site amiss the traffic situation in Accra will obviously affect the rate of collection. Hence, the establishment of the transfer station which will then reduce the distance averagely by 8km. It is generally less expensive to deliver collected municipal solid waste (MSW) to transfer stations where it can be consolidated into large loads that can be transported by trailer trucks, rail cars, or barges to large-scale management facilities than transporting the same amount of MSW in substantially smaller vehicles. The latter increases fuel

64 consumption and number of trips needed to transfer waste to final disposal

(Bartone et al., 1990).

From Table 4.1 the average distance from the transfer station to final disposal site is 25km, compared to an average distance of 33km, which an individual truck must travel to dispose waste. However, when it happens this way there will be improvement in the collection of waste, reduction in operational cost and also reduce pollution into the environment. Transfer stations have environmental advantages. Since the use of transfer stations enables a reduction in the number of vehicles traveling to the treatment centre, it results in a reduction of road traffic and air pollution (Boulanger, 1999)

5.4 Ablekuma Central Sub-metro

Ablekuma Central has 29 communal containers and they can easily assess all the four proposed transfer stations considering the traffic situation. However, for closeness they can easily assess the transfer station around Weija and

Oblogo, and the one at Ablekuma and Amomola from Figure 4.3.

The average distance to the final disposal sites is 31km and the average distance to nearby transfer station is 6km.This then implies that when this station is built then a truck needs to travel for 6km to dispose its waste, unlike travelling a distance of 31km.

65

From table 4.1 the average distance from transfer station to final disposal site is

25km, compared to 31km of average distance a truck must travel for each trip of waste to be disposed. However the average distance of 25km to be travelled would be done by a long trailer which will be conveying over 30 tons of waste to the final disposal site. The main criteria used to decide the feasibility of incorporating a transfer station into a waste management system has traditionally been the minimization of the economic costs of transport to and from the station, since it is cheaper to transport large amounts of waste over long distances in large loads than in small ones (Tchobanoglous et al., 1993).

Furthermore, from Figure 4.1 the sub-metro is very close to a railway line and the consideration of transporting the waste by rail instead of trailers could also be considered.

5.5 Asiedu Keteke Sub-metro

There were 4 communal container sites at the time the coordinates were taken.

The Sub-metro can service all the proposed four waste transfer stations depending on the traffic situation. But the closest one that could be more convenient is the transfer station around Oblogo and Weija. Asiedu Keteke

Sub-metro, has the second highest average distance to the final disposal site that is 36km, but one of the lowest average distance to nearby transfer station from

Table 4.1. It has an average distance of 10 km to a nearby transfer station and the average distance from the transfer station to the final disposal site is 26km.

66

This then means that the distance to be travelled by a truck to disposed waste at the final disposal waste would be reduced when the proposed transfer stations are established. Furthermore, there are few container sites because we have more compaction trucks stationed at vantage points in the central business centres which collect the waste. However, all these trucks will also be utilising these transfer stations.

5.6 Ayawaso Central Sub-metro

This sub-metro has 7 communal containers at the time coordinates were taken.

It stands a position of utilising all the proposed transfer stations depending on the traffic situation.

This has an average distance of 26km from the sub-metro to the final disposal site, which is one of the lowest and has an average distance of 13km to nearby transfer station which is one of the highest. This then implies that most of the transfer stations are farther away from the communal container sites.

The average distance from transfer station to final disposal site is 13km this then depicts that the average distance to nearby transfer station and that from transfer stations to the final disposal site are the same. It however indicates that the establishment of the transfer station will benefit the sub-metro enormously, because the trailer will also travel a shorter distance thereby less fuel consumption, cost of maintenance, and wear and tear. The main criteria used to

67 decide the feasibility of incorporating a transfer station into a waste management system has traditionally been the minimization of the economic costs of transport to and from the station, since it is cheaper to transport large amounts of waste over long distances in large loads than in small ones

(Tchobanoglous et al., 1993).

5.7 Ayawaso East Sub-metro

The Ayawaso East Sub- metro has 11 communal containers at the time the coordinates were taken. The sub-metro can service all proposed transfer stations, but the transfer station around Ashaley Botwe and Ogbodzo ,and that one around Ashongman and Agbogba are more closer.

The average distance to final disposal site from the analysis in Table 4.1is 28km and the average distance from the sub-metro to a nearby transfer station is

15km. Comparatively, the average distance for a truck to convey a trip of waste to the transfer station is shorter, hence the truck can go for more trips to ease the city of filth unlike travelling a distance of 28km per trip to the final disposal site. However, the average distance from transfer station to the final disposal site is 13km which is shorter than carrying waste to the transfer station.

5.8 Ayawaso West Sub-metro

This Sub-metro has 10 communal containers when the exercise was carried out.

They can assess all the four proposed transfer stations depending on the traffic

68 situation. For proximity they can assess the one around Ashaley Botwe and

Ogbodzo, and also the one around Ashongman and Agbogba.

This Sub-metro is a well planned residential area and has its houses registered their waste are collected by private waste companies on an agreed day. The compactor trucks which most of do the house to house collection will also be utilise the transfer stations, of which they are going to benefit greatly because the distance they used to travel will be reduced, hence they can serve their customers effectively.

From the analysis the average distance from the sub-metro to the final disposal site is 29km and to a nearby transfer station is 7km. This then means that if the transfer station concept is accepted a truck in this sub-metro needs to travel an average distance of 7km to dispose of its waste. It means that trucks will improve upon it rate of lifting waste, hence the city will be clean.

From table 4.1 the average distance from a transfer station to a final disposal site is 22km. Here, a trailer with a capacity of 30 tons will be conveying the waste to the final disposal site instead of an individual truck travelling this distance for each waste it lifts The main criteria used to decide the feasibility of incorporating a transfer station into a waste management system has traditionally been the minimization of the economic costs of transport to and from the station, since it is cheaper to transport large amounts of waste over long distances in large loads than in small ones (Tchobanoglous et al., 1993).

69

5.9 La Sub-metro

The La Sub-metro has 4 communal containers at the time of the exercise. There are few communal containers because most of the houses there are registered with private waste companies, which come for their waste on an agreed day.

However, all these compaction trucks which do the house to house collections will also assess the transfer station which will improve their rate of collection because shorter distance would be travelled.

From the map the Sub-metro can assess all the four proposed transfer stations depending on the traffic situation. However, for proximity the ones around

Ashongman and Agbogba will be more convenient.

This Sub-metro has the highest average distance for a truck to travel to the final disposal site which is 37km. The average distance to nearby transfer station is

13km and when compared to the average distance that a truck have to travel just to dump then the establishment of the transfer station will improve waste collection in the city tremendously The proposed model can be used as a decision support tool by the municipal authorities for efficient management of the daily operations for moving solid wastes, load balancing within vehicles, managing fuel consumption and generating work schedules for the workers and vehicles (Ghason,2005).

However, the average distance from transfer station to final disposal is 24km compared to a truck travelling a distance of 37km to dispose of about 6 tons of

70 waste and a trailer travelling 24km to dispose of about 30 tons of waste. This then obviously tells us the establishment of the transfer station concept will go a long way to help in the efficient management of solid waste in Accra.

5.10 Okaikoi North Sub-metro

This sub-metro has Sub-metro 5 communal containers during the time when coordinates were taken. The Sub-metro can assess all proposed four transfer stations, but for proximity it could easily assess both the one around

Ashongman and Agbogba, and Ablekuma and Amomola.

Also, from the analysis, the average distance to final disposal site is 22km and the average distance to nearby transfer station is 11km. This then indicates that the distance for a truck to travel to a transfer station is shorter than when the truck has to travel to a final disposal site. This then means a truck can go for more trips which will bring efficiency in the collection of waste, because the haulage distance would be reduced.

The average distance from transfer station to final disposal site from the Table

4.1 is 11km and this distance will be travelled by a trailer which will be carrying about 30 tons. This will then reduce cost, pollution into the environment, avoid queuing at the final disposal sites improve operations and management of the final disposal sites. Transfer stations have environmental advantages. Since the use of transfer stations enables a reduction in the number of vehicles traveling

71 to the treatment center, it results in a reduction of road traffic and air pollution

(Boulanger, 1999).

5.11 Okaikoi South Sub-metro

The Okaikoi South Sub-metro has 8 communal containers when the coordinate were taken. This is an industrial area with few residential structure and these industries have arranged with private waste companies who have been picking their waste. The Sub-metro can assess all the proposed four waste transfer stations depending on the traffic situation. However, they can easily assess the transfer stations around Weija and Oblogo.

Okaikoi South has one of the highest average distances that a truck has to travel to dispose of waste. From the Table 4.1 it has 32km being the average distance a truck has to cover to dispose waste at the final disposal site and the average distance to nearby transfer station is 11km. This then shows that a truck needs to travel a shorter distance to dispose of its waste instead of travelling a longer distance, hence improves its rate of collection. It is generally less expensive to deliver collected municipal solid waste (MSW) to transfer stations where it can be consolidated into large loads that can be transported by trailer trucks, rail cars, or barges to large-scale management facilities than transporting the same amount of MSW in substantially smaller vehicles. The latter increases fuel consumption and number of trips needed to transfer waste to final disposal

(Bartone et al., 1990). The average distance from transfer station to final

72 disposal site from the analysis in the sub-metro is 21km which it quiet a distance. Here, a lot of waste is conveyed to the final disposal site at a goal.

5.12 Osu Klottey Sub-metro

This Sub-metro has 4 communal containers when the coordinates were taken.

The Sub-metro can assess all the four proposed transfer stations depending on the traffic situation, but for closeness they can easily assess the one around

Weija and Oblogo.

Osu Klottey Sub-metro is a well planned residential area and has most of its waste being carried by compactor trucks. These trucks will also visit the transfer stations. However, this will then help to improve upon waste collection, because with the concept of the transfer station they will travel a short distance to dispose of their waste. Transfer stations have environmental advantages. Since the use of transfer stations enables a reduction in the number of vehicles traveling to the treatment center, it results in a reduction of road traffic and air pollution (Boulanger, 1999).

The average distance from final disposal site and average distance to nearby transfer station is 32km and 16km respectively. It could be observed from the analysis that the distance a truck has to travel to dispose waste has been reduced by half; hence this truck can go for more trips. For example initially when a truck was making an average of three trips in a day, arithmetically it could then now go for an average of 6 trips, thus the rate of collection is increased.

73

The average distance from transfer station to final disposal site is 16km, but what one has to know is that this distance will be travelled by a truck with a capacity of 30 tons.

5.13 Location of container sites and landfill sites

Now that the coordinates of the various container sites and landfill sites have been located, it will make their identification geographically easy. The map in

Figure 4.1 shows the various locations of the container sites and landfill sites and through the conversion of the coordinate into points it will further make identifying of sites easier.

This work that has been done will go a long way to assist the waste management department of A.M.A and also policy makers as to taking decisions on improving waste management in the Accra Metropolis. Also, this can easily help us to monitor and evaluate the state and position of our container sites and landfill sites.

74

CHAPTER SIX

6.0 CONLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions

I. The Geographical Information System (GIS) was used to identify four (4)

waste transfer stations of which from the analysis can serve all the

various container sites in the Accra Metropolis Assembly.

II. The coordinates of all the communal container sites in the Accra

Metropolis Assembly (AMA) are known through the thesis could help the

Assembly in monitoring of location the communal container sites and

also how to effectively allocate communal containers.

III. The four (4) suitable waste transfer stations identified are all outside the

jurisdiction of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly. This then indicates that,

there is the urgent need to establish waste transfer stations in the

identified places to avoid development catching up with those areas.

IV. It could be concluded from the analysis that, fuel consumption would

reduce, because the distance to travel will be reduced and on the other

hand the final disposal of waste will be done by large capacity trucks or

trailers.

75

6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the research findings and relevant conclusions the following recommendations have been made.

I. A model waste transfer station should be built in at least two of the

identified suitable places to assess the impact on the rate of collection by

the waste collection trucks.

II. Similar work should be done in other densely populated Metropolitan,

Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs) such as the Kumasi,

Takoradi and koforidua.

III. In order to reduce the quantity of solid waste to be transported from the

waste transfer station to the final disposal site, material recovery or

sorting should be done at the station.

76

REFERENCES

1. American Heritage Dictionary of English Language. (2011). Houghton

Mufflin Harcourt publishing

company.http://www.ahdictionary.com[accessed 13 June,2012]

2. Bilitewski, B., Hardle, G., Merek, K., Weissback, A., and Boeddicker, H.,

(1994). Waste Management. Spring-verleg Berlin, Germany.

3. Bӧhmar, G., (1995). Solid Waste and the Hierarchy in Solid Waste

Management System. Diphomarbeit van der Wirtschaft Suniversitӓt

Wien. p. 105.

4. Bovea, M.D., Powell, J.C., Gallardo, A., and Capuz-rizo, S.F., (2007).

The role played by environmental factors in the integration of transfer

station in a municipal solid waste management system. Waste

Management. p. 27,545-553.

5. Bartone, C.R., Bernstein, J., Wright F., (1990). Investments in Solid

Waste Management: opportunities for environmental improvement

policy, Research and external Affairs. p. 21.452-431.

6. Brown, M.D., Vance, T.D. and Reilly, T.C. (1981).Solid Waste Transfer

Fundamental. Ann Arbor, MI, Ann Arbor Science Publisher.

7. Cointreau Sandra, J. (1989). Environmental Management of Urban Solid

Wastes in Developing Countries. A project guide. Urban Development

Paper No. 5, World Bank, Washington D.C. p. 15

77

8. Establishment of waste transfer stations in Accra http://

bentil.blogsport.com/gov-to-construct-waste-transfer.html [accessed

December,2012]

9. Ghana districts. (2006).http://www.ghanadistricts.com.gov.gh.Accra

Mertopolitan, Greater Accra.[accessed 12 November,2011]

10. Ghana web (2010).http;//www.ghanaweb.com[accessed 12

November,2011

11. Greedy, D. (2005).A dangerous business –Health and Safety Issues for

Waste Management Operations, in Waste Management World. p. 34

12. Ghose, M.K., Dikshit, A.K., Sharma, S.K., (2006) A GIS base

transportation model for soild waste disposal. A case study on Asansol

municipality. Journal of Waste Management. 26.1287-1293.

13. Hanna, Öberg., (2011). A GIS-based Study of Sites for Decentralized

Composting and Waste Sorting Stations in Kumasi, Ghana. p. 11

14. Henry, J.G.,Heinke, G.W. Environmental Science and Engineering.

Prentice Hall International, U.S.A. pp. 538-580.

15. Herbert F.L (1992). Soild Waste Handbook. McGraw-Hill Companies.

P.23.2-23.9.

16. Herbert, F., Lund. Recycling Handbook. (2001). 2nd Edition Mc Graw

Hill, U.S.A. pp.23.1-23.11.

78

17. Heywood, I., Cornelius S., Carver, S., (1988). Introduction to

Geographical Information Systems. Addison Wesley Longman, New

York.

18. Johannessen, L. M., and Boyer, G. (1999). Observations of Solid Waste

Landfills in Developing Countries: Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Urban Development Division, Waste Management Anchor Team, the

World Bank.

19. Leon County, (2000) Florida. Leon County Solid Waste Transfer Station: Noise Study Report. (Draft).

20. Lund, Herbert F. (1992). Solid Waste Handbook. McGraw-Hill

Companies.

21. Mc Dougall, F.R., White, P.R., Frank, M., Hindle, P., (2001). Integrated

Solid Waste Management. A Life Cycle Inventory. Blackwell Science

Ltd, 2nd Edition, Oxford. p. 20.1-20.10.

22. National Population Census, (NPC), (2002).

23. Ojdemark, C.H., (2005). A Modern Concept for Waste Collection in

Cities.13th European Water ,Wastewater and Solid Waste Symposium at

IFAT Munich, VKS service GmbH,pp.127-138

24. Pieber, M., (2004). Waste Collection from Urban Household. In Europe

and Australia, Waste Management World. p144

25. Rahman, A., Moten Ashraf, M. Dr.(2007) Privatization of solid waste

management in Pakistan. pp.1-2

79

26. Rolhenberger, S., and Enayetullah, I., (2006). Decentralized composting

for cities of low and middle income countries. A user manual.

Bangladesh,Dueben dorf. Waste Concern,Eawag. p. 24.234-240.

27. Schaper, L.T., (1986) Transfer of Municipal Solid Waste. In the Solid

Waste Handbook. Wiley, New York.

28. Solid Waste Transfer in Illinois: A Citizen’s Handbook on Planning,

siting and Technology.

29. Tchbanoglous, G, Theisen, H, and Vigil, S.A. (1993). Integrated solid

waste management; Engineering Principles and Management issues.

McGraw Hill International Editions, Civil Engineering Series, New York,

U.S.A.

30. Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., and Eliasssen, R., (1977). Solid Waste -

Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill,

Kogakush, Tokyo. pp. 75-80.

31. U.S EPA, (1995). Collection and Transfer: In Decision Maker’s Guide to

Solid Waste Management.2nd Edition, Washington DC

32. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (2000).

Waster Transfer Stations: Involved Citizens Make the Difference,

(EPA530-K-01-003). Washington, DC.

33. Waste Transfer Status. A Manual for Decision Making EPA 530-D-01-

005,2001

80

34. White, P., (1995). Integrated Solid Waste Management. A Life Cycle

Inventory, Black Academic and Professional, Boston. p.85

35. Zurbrugg, .C, (2003). Urban Solid Waste management in Low Income

countries of Asia, how to cope with the garbage Crisis. Duebendorf,

Switzerland.

36. Zurbrugg, C., Schertenleib, R., (1998). Main problems and issues of

Municipal Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries with

emphasis on problems related to disposal by landfill. Presented at the

third Swedish landfill Research Symposia,Lucea,Sweden. p. 25.621-630.

81

APPENDICES Appendix A:

Table 1: Coordinates converted into points of the final disposal sites

NAME LOCATION POINT X POINT Y

Sarbah final Weija -0.336947 5.581922 disposal sites Abokobi final Abokobi -0.185792 5.713836 disposal site Dunkonaa New Bortianor -0.347778 5.537500

Adjein Kotoku Medie -0.354817 5.734405

Table 2: Shows some of the coordinates converted into points of the container sites.

Service_Provider Location POINT_X POINT_Y Zoomlion Gh Ltd Roman Boys School -0.22256673277 5.52904546997 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Korle Bu -0.22651291362 5.53290342751 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Oko Laundry -0.22774129653 5.52851334813 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Nyalander -0.23233905145 5.52639464882 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Brother Lawson -0.23306616826 5.53037193893 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Old Tuesday Market - Main Disposal Site -0.23709596543 5.52985663917 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Mamprobi Sempe No. 13 -0.24018346354 5.53269227198 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Mamprobi Sempe No. 10 -0.24312554190 5.53037238460 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Ojo -0.23958670310 5.52673639750 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Alomo Junction -0.24403579144 5.52514378721 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Chorkor No. 7 -0.24736309395 5.52751830693 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Ato Quarshie -0.25214242530 5.52582198690 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Agege 205 -0.25507800677 5.52812672028 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Karikari -0.26114862148 5.52805660111 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Agege Down-Ebenezer -0.27098350981 5.52662977398 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Pineaple Factory -0.27178392373 5.52861267828 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Glefe -0.27395045578 5.51952941143 Zoomlion Gh Ltd New Mamprobi-Manslalor -0.24793191578 5.53517190961 Jekora Ventures Adawna Market - Waste Collection Depot -0.21741508351 5.56400846900 Jekora Ventures Adabraka Market -0.21268233843 5.55921502451

82

Asadu Royal Government Junior -0.21334877232 5.55355381692 Jekora Ventures Tema Station -0.20261660865 5.54531095392 Jekora Ventures Osu Market -0.18328047621 5.54892190863 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Nii Boye Town SDA Basic School -0.25067066198 5.60897385690 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Achimota Overhead -0.23139801041 5.61768601351 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Kisseman -0.21415776612 5.63685912140 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Mataheko JT School -0.24638577867 5.56157243965 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Mataheko Old Stop -0.24903819431 5.56151261291 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Mataheko First Light -0.24346692055 5.56622842496 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Makor Junction -0.24943620416 5.55706990868 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Russia -0.25385080317 5.55566778615 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Mataheko Akwebu street -0.25400649133 5.55889879705 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Russia Gbemgbete -0.24992122307 5.55389338259 Zoomlion Gh Ltd New Russia -0.25550769759 5.55188398300 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Russia Asoaba -0.25421471414 5.55220923384 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Sukura Labero -0.24762569935 5.55242096641 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Sukura Borla Junction -0.24784221304 5.54799609417 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Sukura Soko Junction -0.24797196798 5.54253764556 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Riyadh Islamic Primary School -0.25320280067 5.54256690619 Zoomlion Gh Ltd New Mamprobi Banana Inn -0.25239739519 5.53805876646 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Salvation Army Mamprobi Sempe -0.24226890347 5.53944305988 Meskworld Ashiedu Keteke Slaughter House -0.21377091334 5.52969488422 Meskworld kpamaaje Jamestown -0.21345333111 5.53262873766 Meskworld Agbogbloshie Lorry Station -0.21985739723 5.54970037530 Meskworld Agbogbloshie market main road -0.22047144368 5.54732838373 Meskworld Agbogbloshie Market Main Road -0.22027918743 5.54714779703 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Elf Back La -0.14951782769 5.57034000851 Asadu Royal Cat Bar La -0.14981628569 5.55698517440 Ecobrigade New Gallery -0.15668199392 5.55395043857 Asadu Royal 37 Station -0.17941737247 5.58597519204 Zoomlion Gh Ltd La Wireless -0.16101244242 5.57063724119 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Pigfarm Ebony -0.20193032517 5.59723143037 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Kotobabi Town -0.20875182414 5.59270998553 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Alajo Community Market -0.21782191588 5.58897104413 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Alajo Presby -0.21512718070 5.58787595407 Zoomlion Gh Ltd New Town Experimental -0.20996419416 5.58302572381 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Kokomlemle Olympics Road -0.21561212474 5.57305801287 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Malam Atta Market -0.20760759026 5.57732583403 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Malam Atta Market -0.20837488464 5.57745877588 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Junior Cinema -0.20007020462 5.57690968840 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Nima Down No. 3 -0.20397790539 5.57904921598 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Nima Down No. 2 -0.20242590862 5.58211039193 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Nima Down No.1 -0.20075748376 5.58439633556 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Gorillas/Chiefkados -0.19850275854 5.58115686468

83

Zoomlion Gh Ltd Maamobi Junction -0.19670065744 5.58563177252 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Polyclinic -0.19919688709 5.58734425095 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Chris Cafe/Adansima -0.19810968213 5.59375014810 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Maamobi Market -0.19529632826 5.59051960847 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Kawukudi -0.19017752305 5.59011288282 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Kwaotsuru No. 14 -0.20677332173 5.58768006886 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Frankie's -0.19916493246 5.57519132842 Zoomlion Gh Ltd 37 Millitary Hospital -0.18318230941 5.58827576766 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Spanner Junction Shopping Mall -0.17593992783 5.61738982142 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Shiashie Lorry Station -0.17640013014 5.62359988790 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Shiashie Old Township -0.17008167994 5.62501905577 Zoomlion Gh Ltd La Bawalashie Primary School -0.16800222108 5.64094045062 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Mpeasem -0.16174647839 5.64564990412 Zoomlion Gh Ltd IRS Okponglo -0.17810782214 5.64020875063 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Tesano Police Barracks -0.22553251371 5.60198957316 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Tesano Zongo -0.22466657055 5.59989300873 Zoomlion Gh Ltd Santana Market -0.22419091216 5.60420271121

84

Appendix B:

Figure B1: Shows points displayed in ArcGIS

85

Figure B2: Shows the external boundary of the merged sub-metros

Figure B3: The 5, 10 and 15 miles buffer created from the external merged boundary of the sub-metro.

86

87