FLOOD and DROUGHT risk mapping in GHANA5-AAP Pilot Districts EPA 2012 Wide-ranging FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK MAPPING IN GHANA Starting with the Five African Adaptation Programme (AAP) Pilot Districts (i.e. Aowin suaman, keta, west mamprusi, sissala east, and fanteakwa districts) for community flood and drought disaster risk reduction.
FLOOD and DROUGHT risk mapping in GHANA5-AAP Pilot Districts EPA 2012 Wide-ranging FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK MAPPING IN GHANA Starting with the Five African Adaptation Programme (AAP) Pilot Districts (i.e. Aowin suaman, keta, west mamprusi, sissala east, and fanteakwa districts) for community flood and drought disaster risk reduction.
FLOOD and DROUGHT risk mapping in GHANA5-AAP Pilot Districts EPA 2012 Wide-ranging FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK MAPPING IN GHANA Starting with the Five African Adaptation Programme (AAP) Pilot Districts (i.e. Aowin suaman, keta, west mamprusi, sissala east, and fanteakwa districts) for community flood and drought disaster risk reduction.
Wide-ranging Flood and Drought Risk Mapping in Ghana Starting with the Five African Adaptation Programme (AAP) Pilot Districts (i.e. Aowin Suaman, Keta, West Mamprusi, Sissala East, and Fanteakwa Districts) for Community Flood and Drought Disaster Risk Reduction.
2012
2 | P a g e
FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK MAPPING IN GHANA- 5-AAP PILOT DISTRICTS
EPA 2012
3 | P a g e
Research Team:
Mr. Philip Yaw Oduro Amoako Dr. Kingsford A. Asamoah Mr. Philip Prince Mantey Ing. Valence Wise Ametefe Mr. Victor Owusu Addabor Mr. Kafui Agbleze
Other Contributors:
Ms. Shoko Takemoto Mr. Antwi-Boasiako Amoah Mr. Winfred Nelson Mr. Bram Miller Ms. Kareff Rafisura Ms. Lydia Akoi Ms. Akua Amoa Okyere-Nyako Mr. Elikplim D. Agbitor Mr. Divinus Oppong-Tawiah Mr. Frank Dankwah Ms. Rejoyce Anum
Sponsored by:
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Japan Development Official Assistance Africa Adaptation Programme (AAP) National Disaster Management Organization (NADMO)
4 | P a g e
Acknowledgements
The project team is very grateful to the District Chief Executives of the various project districts namely; Hon. Ofori Larbi, Hon. Abbass Fuseni, Hon. Alidzata Sulemanah, Hon. Sylvester Tornyevah, Hon. Yussifu Adams and their Co-ordinators, Planning Officers, and Assembly Members who offered their invaluable time, perspectives and contributions. The team is indebted to Nana Asare Baffour of Begoro, Nana Ebbah Kojo II of Enchi, Togbui James Ocloo, and Togbui Gamor II of Keta, personnel of NADMO, and other associated organizations in the five AAP Pilot Districts for their warm reception and keenness to share their knowledge and experiences during the risk mapping workshops. The team appreciates the unflinching support given by Mr. Kofi Portuphy, National Coordinator of NADMO, Mr Ebenezer Dosoo, and Hon. Sylvester Azantilow, both Deputy National Coordinators of NADMO, the Country Representative and staff of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Africa Adaptation Programme (AAP) in Accra.
5 | P a g e
Contents Research Team: ............................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... 8 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... 9 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 13 Abbreviations/Acronyms ............................................................................................................... 15 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 16 2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 18 3.0 STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................................... 18 4.0 DATA .................................................................................................................................. 20 4.1 Climatic and Environmental Data .................................................................................. 20 4.2 Flood Mapping Data ...................................................................................................... 20 4.2.1 Soil texture ............................................................................................................ 20 4.2.2 Rainfall ................................................................................................................... 21 4.2.3 Altitude (Elevation) ................................................................................................ 21 4.2.4 Slope ...................................................................................................................... 22 4.2.5 Flow accumulation areas ....................................................................................... 22 4.2.6 Land use ................................................................................................................. 23 4.2.7 Proximity to Water bodies..................................................................................... 23 4.3 Drought Risk Mapping Data .......................................................................................... 24 4.3.1 Vegetation Indicator .............................................................................................. 24 4.3.2 Climatic Indicator ................................................................................................... 24 4.3.3 Soil indicator .......................................................................................................... 25 4.3.4 Drainage ................................................................................................................ 28 4.3.5 Soil texture ............................................................................................................ 29 4.3.6 Organic matter ...................................................................................................... 30 4.3.7 Land use ................................................................................................................. 31 4.3.8 Proximity to Water bodies..................................................................................... 32 5.0 GIS Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 32 5.1 Hazard and Risk Mapping .............................................................................................. 32 5.2 Data used for Flood/Drought Risk Mapping .................................................................. 33 5.3 Models and Risk Maps ................................................................................................... 34 5.4 Factors and their Weightings for Flood/Drought Risk Mapping ................................... 37 6.0 FANTEAKWA DISTRICT FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK ANALYSIS ........................................ 39 6 | P a g e
6.1 Fanteakwa District Location and Size ............................................................................ 39 6.2 Fanteakwa District Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 41 6.2.1 Fanteakwa Flood Risk Assessment ........................................................................ 41 6.2.2 Fanteakwa flood mitigation measures .................................................................. 49 6.2.3 Fanteakwa Flood Risk Map .................................................................................... 50 6.2.4 Fanteakwa Drought Risk Assessment .................................................................... 51 6.2.5 Fanteakwa drought mitigation measures ............................................................. 53 6.2.6 Fanteakwa Drought Risk Map ............................................................................... 54 7.0 SISSALA EAST DISTRICT FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK ANALYSIS ....................................... 55 7.1 Sissala East District Location and Size ........................................................................... 55 7.2 Sissala East District Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 57 7.2.1 Sissala East District Flood Risk Assessment ........................................................... 57 7.2.2 Sissala East District flood mitigation measures ..................................................... 64 7.2.3 Sissala East District Flood Risk Map ....................................................................... 65 7.2.4 Sissala East District Drought Risk Assessment ....................................................... 66 7.2.5 Sissala East drought mitigation measures ............................................................. 71 7.2.6 Sissala East District Drought Risk Map .................................................................. 72 8.0 WEST MAMPRUSI DISTRICT FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK ANALYSIS ................................ 73 8.1 West Mamprusi District Location and Size .................................................................... 73 8.2 West Mamprusi District Risk Assessment ..................................................................... 75 8.2.1 West Mamprusi District Flood Risk Assessment ................................................... 75 8.2.2 West Mamprusi District Flood Mitigation Measures ............................................ 81 8.2.3 West Mamprusi District Flood Risk Map ............................................................... 82 8.2.4 West Mamprusi District Drought Risk Assessment ............................................... 83 8.2.5 West Mamprusi drought mitigation measures ..................................................... 85 8.2.6 West Mamprusi District Drought Risk Map ........................................................... 86 9.0 KETA MUNICIPALITY FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK ANALYSIS ............................................ 87 9.1 Keta Municipal Location and Size: ................................................................................. 87 9.2 Keta Municipal Risk Assessment ................................................................................... 89 9.2.1 Keta Municipal Flood Risk Assessment ................................................................. 89 9.2.2 Keta Municipal Flood Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 98 9.2.3 Keta Municipal Flood Risk Map ............................................................................. 99 9.2.4 Keta Municipal Drought Risk Assessment ........................................................... 100 9.2.5 Keta Municipal Drought mitigation measures .................................................... 104 9.2.6 Keta Municipal Drought Risk Map ....................................................................... 105 7 | P a g e
10.0 AOWIN SUAMAN DISTRICT FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK ANALYSIS ............................... 106 10.1 Aowin Suaman District Location and Size: .................................................................. 106 10.2 Aowin Suaman District Risk Assessment ..................................................................... 108 10.2.1 Aowin Suaman District Flood Risk Assessment: .................................................. 108 10.2.2 Aowin Suaman District flood mitigation measures ............................................. 113 10.2.3 Aowin Suaman District Flood Risk Map ............................................................... 114 10.2.4 Aowin Suaman District Drought Risk Assessment ............................................... 115 10.2.5 Aowin Suaman District drought mitigation measures ........................................ 117 10.2.6 Aowin Suaman District Drought Risk Map .......................................................... 118 11.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 119 12.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 120 13.0 ANNEX I: DATA SOURCE AND RESOLUTIONS .................................................................. 122 13.1 Flood Mapping Data .................................................................................................... 122 13.2 Drought Mapping Data ................................................................................................ 122
8 | P a g e
List of Tables Table 1: Basic Statistics on the 5-AAP Pilot Districts ................................................. 19 Table 2: Soil texture categories index ........................................................................... 21 Table 3: Rainfall index (flood) ....................................................................................... 21 Table 4: Altitude index (flood) ....................................................................................... 22 Table 5: Slope gradient characteristics index (flood) .................................................. 22 Table 6: Flow accumulation areas index (flood) .......................................................... 23 Table 7: Land use index (flood) ..................................................................................... 23 Table 8: Factors and weightings for flood risk mapping ............................................ 37 Table 9: Factors and weightings for drought risk mapping ....................................... 37 Table 10: Fanteakwa Safe havens ................................................................................. 47 Table 11: Sickness during drought ................................................................................ 84
9 | P a g e
List of Figures
Figure 1: Contributions to GDP by Sector (1998-2005) .............................................. 16 Figure 2: Map of Ghana Showing the AAP Pilot Districts ......................................... 18 Figure 3: Flood and Drought Risk Mapping Methodology Flow Chart .................... 34 Figure 4: Flood Risk Model ........................................................................................... 35 Figure 5: Drought Risk Model ....................................................................................... 36 Figure 6: Workshop Participants at Fanteakwa District-Begoro .............................. 39 Figure 7: Validation Workshop ..................................................................................... 40 Figure 8: GPS Training .................................................................................................. 40 Figure 9: Cause of flooding ............................................................................................ 41 Figure 10: Type of rainfall ............................................................................................. 42 Figure 11: Predominant soil type .................................................................................. 43 Figure 12: Colour of soil ................................................................................................. 44 Figure 13: Vulnerable Sectors ....................................................................................... 45 Figure 14: Flood prone areas ......................................................................................... 46 Figure 15: Safe Havens in locality ................................................................................. 48 Figure 16: Flood mitigation measures........................................................................... 49 Figure 17: Fanteakwa District flood risk map ............................................................. 50 Figure 18: Sell or pledge assets ...................................................................................... 51 Figure 19: Sickness during drought period .................................................................. 52 Figure 20: Drought mitigation measures ...................................................................... 53 Figure 21: Fanteakwa District drought risk map ........................................................ 54 Figure 22: Workshop Participants at Tumu ................................................................ 55 10 | P a g e
Figure 23: Validation Workshop ................................................................................... 56 Figure 24: GPS Training ................................................................................................ 56 Figure 25: Type of rainfall ............................................................................................. 57 Figure 26: Rainfall pattern over the past 5 years ........................................................ 58 Figure 27: Predominant soil type .................................................................................. 59 Figure 28: Colour of the soil .......................................................................................... 60 Figure 29: Building materials ........................................................................................ 61 Figure 30: Flood prone areas ......................................................................................... 62 Figure 31: Safe haven ..................................................................................................... 63 Figure 32: Flood mitigation measures........................................................................... 64 Figure 33: Sissala East District flood risk map ............................................................ 65 Figure 34: Duration of drought ..................................................................................... 66 Figure 35: Sell or pledge assets ...................................................................................... 67 Figure 36: Dispersion of family members during drought ......................................... 68 Figure 37: Sectors most vulnerable to drought ............................................................ 69 Figure 38: Sickness during drought period .................................................................. 70 Figure 39: Sissala East drought mitigation measures ................................................. 71 Figure 40: Sissala East drought risk map ..................................................................... 72 Figure 41: Workshop Participants at West Mamprusi District-Walewale ............... 73 Figure 42: Validation Workshop ................................................................................... 73 Figure 43: GPS Training ................................................................................................ 74 Figure 44: Cause of flooding .......................................................................................... 75 Figure 45: Type of rainfall ............................................................................................. 76 Figure 46: Predominant soil type .................................................................................. 77 11 | P a g e
Figure 47: Colour of soil ................................................................................................. 78 Figure 48: Flood prone areas ......................................................................................... 79 Figure 49: Safe havens in locality .................................................................................. 80 Figure 50: Flood mitigation measures........................................................................... 81 Figure 51: West Mamprusi District Flood Risk Map .................................................. 82 Figure 52: Frequency of drought................................................................................... 83 Figure 53: Drought mitigation ....................................................................................... 85 Figure 54: West Mamprusi District Drought Risk Map ............................................. 86 Figure 55: Workshop Participants at Keta Municipal Assembly .............................. 87 Figure 56: Validation Workshop ................................................................................... 88 Figure 57: GPS Training ................................................................................................ 88 Figure 58: Cause of flooding .......................................................................................... 89 Figure 59: Type of rainfall ............................................................................................. 90 Figure 60: Duration of flood disaster ............................................................................ 91 Figure 61: Predominant soil type .................................................................................. 92 Figure 62: Colour of soil ................................................................................................. 93 Figure 63: Safe havens .................................................................................................... 94 Figure 64: Flood prone areas ......................................................................................... 95 Figure 65: Safe Haven .................................................................................................... 96 Figure 66: Flood Evacuation Plan ................................................................................. 97 Figure 67: Flood mitigation............................................................................................ 98 Figure 68: Keta Municipal Flood Risk Map................................................................. 99 Figure 69: Frequency of drought................................................................................. 100 Figure 70: Sell or Pledge Assets ................................................................................... 101 12 | P a g e
Figure 71: Evacuation................................................................................................... 102 Figure 72: Sectors most vulnerable to drought .......................................................... 103 Figure 73: Keta Municipal Drought mitigation measures ........................................ 104 Figure 74: Keta Municipal Drought Risk Map .......................................................... 105 Figure 75: Workshop Participants at Aowin Suaman District-Enchi ..................... 106 Figure 76: Validation Workshop ................................................................................. 107 Figure 77: GPS Training .............................................................................................. 107 Figure 78: Cause of flooding ........................................................................................ 108 Figure 79: Predominant soil type ................................................................................ 109 Figure 80: Colour of soil ............................................................................................... 110 Figure 81: Flood prone areas ....................................................................................... 111 Figure 82: Safe havens in locality ................................................................................ 112 Figure 83: Flood mitigation measures......................................................................... 113 Figure 84: Aowin Suaman District Flood Risk Map ................................................. 114 Figure 85: Sell or pledge assets .................................................................................... 115 Figure 86: Duration of Drought................................................................................... 116 Figure 87: Drought mitigation measures .................................................................... 117 Figure 88: Aowin Suaman District Drought Risk Map ............................................. 118 13 | P a g e
Executive Summary
In Ghana, rain-fed agriculture constitutes about 40% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) therefore flood and drought induced mostly by Climate Change and variability has a significant impact on the economy 1 . This is evident from the negative impacts of flood and drought on the socio-economic lifestyle of the citizenry in some parts of the country particularly in the Upper East, Upper West, and the Northern Region. Since 2007, floods in these three Northern regions of the country have been very unpredictable and severe, resulting in many deaths, destruction to the ecology, critical infrastructure, agriculture and other properties as well as causing disruptions to the socio-economic system. A case in point was in August, 2007, when floods in the Northern parts of the country alone affected about 350,000 people with 49 casualties; causing an estimated damage of over 130 million United States Dollars (US$), not including long term losses. Consequently, the drought and flood-prone areas in Ghana have to be mapped more adequately and systematically for a more effective disaster risk reduction and Climate Change Adaptation.
Communities for that reason must know about flood and drought related disasters and what capacities they have to enable them prepare, manage and adapt to the risks associated with these hazards. A risk mapping project is therefore necessary for the identification and assessment of the risk prone areas in the country. This initial risk mapping project aims at equipping the five African Adaptation Project (AAP) Pilot Districts (Aowin Suaman, Keta, West Mamprusi, Sissala East and Fanteakwa Districts), with flood and drought risk maps as a planning tool for effective community flood and drought Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation.
The risk-mapping project will improve the capacity of communities to prepare and respond to flood and drought hazards by identifying the high-risk areas for risk reduction. It will also make it possible for both private and public sector to integrate disaster risk considerations into their development policies, planning, and programming at all levels
1 (Report 1996-2000) 14 | P a g e
with special emphasis on disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and vulnerability reduction.
The project used GIS analysis involving the application of geostatistical techniques in the development and modelling of flood and drought risk maps through the combination of climatic, environmental and other ancillary data layers in multi- criteria evaluation. Ratings and classification for each factor/layer were ranked from low to very high based on degree of vulnerability. Subsequently, every layer was re-classified based on these ranks, multiplied by their standard weight, and then added to other layers to obtain the output risk maps. The output risk maps for flood and drought for the respective districts are symbolized with a green-yellow- orange-red colour scheme indicating no-risk, low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk areas. The selection and weighting of different factors for hazard and risk maps were informed by literature and expert input from the NADMO Research team. The accuracy of hot spots in the risk maps were validated by stakeholders workshop undertaken in the five (5) AAP beneficiary districts.
This study forms the basis of the NADMO/UNDP-AAP effort to implement effective Disaster Risk Reduction strategies in order to build the resilience of the various disaster- affected communities in Ghana and would ultimately serve as the basis for replication in other districts. The Africa Adaptation Programme (AAP) Ghana is a programme to develop capacity and financing options for mainstreaming climate change adaptation in Ghana. A key element of AAP Ghana has been a series of activities that have been aimed at developing the capacity of districts in Ghana to mainstream climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) into their District Development Planning processes. This work has ultimately focused on five AAP pilot districts (Aowin Suaman, Keta, Sisalla East, West Mamprusi and Fanteakwa Districts).
15 | P a g e
Abbreviations/Acronyms AAP African Adaptation Programme C- Clay CERSGIS Center for Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems Cl- Clay loam CS- Coarse Sand Csl Coarse sandy loam DEM- Digital Elevation Model DI- De Martonne aridity Index ETP- Annual Evapotranspiration FAO-Food and Agricultural Organization FI- FAO aridity index FS- Fine sand FSL Fine Sandy Loam GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographic Information System GPS- Global Positioning System GSS Ghana Statistical Service L- Loam NADMO-National Disaster Management Organization NDVI- Normalised Difference Vegetation Index P- Annual Precipitation S- Sand SI Silt Sic Silty Clay Sil- Silty loam SL- Sandy loam T- Annual mean temperature TM- Thematic Mapper
16 | P a g e
1.0 INTRODUCTION The Ghanaian economy is largely dependent on rain-fed agriculture which constitutes approximately 40% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 2
Figure 1: Contributions to GDP by Sector (1998-2005)
However, vulnerability and adaptation assessment carried out in the agricultural sector of Ghana 3 pointed out that Climate Change and variability adversely affects rainfall, temperature and water availability for agricultural production thereby creating food insecurity and making the Ghanaian economy extremely vulnerable. The report indicated that maize production will decrease in yield by 7% by 2020, cassava and cocoyam will decrease in yield by 43% and 53% respectively by 2080 and cocoa production will not be possible at all in Ghana given the envisaged changes in temperature of about 4.5 o C by the year 2080. The report further stated that Climate Change and variability also contributes to water stress and water insecurity, which increases exposure to climate disasters such as floods and drought. In August, 2007, floods in the Northern parts of the country alone
2 (Report 1996-2000) 3 (DRR Forum 2009) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Agric 40.6 40.5 39.6 39.6 39.5 39.8 40.4 40.6 Service 32.1 31.9 32.7 33 33 33.4 32.4 27.1 Industry 27.4 27.6 27.8 27.4 27.5 27.4 27.2 32.3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 P e r c e n t a g e
Contribution to GDP by Sector 17 | P a g e
affected about 350,000 people with 49 casualties causing an estimated damage of over 130 million United States Dollars (US$), not including long term losses. Thousands of homes, buildings, and agriculture produce, particularly, food stock, livestock and farms were also destroyed.
To make the Ghanaian economy resilient to water and food insecurities due to Climate Change and variability, communities must know the flood and drought affected areas in their communities and what capacities they have to manage these disasters. The Ghana risk-mapping project seeks to equip every district in Ghana, with access to flood and drought risk maps showing areas at risk and safe havens as a planning tool for effective community flood and drought Disaster Risk Reduction. Even though long-term climate projections ensures that surveillance systems are able to detect changing patterns of this phenomena, yet Disaster Risk Reduction, which ensures reducing vulnerabilities and increasing capacities in general, will help populations cope with the effects of Climate Change and variability.
The Flood and Drought Risk maps were the product of lengthy and complex analytical processes by the research team expressing a model of risk reality. The beneficiary communities and stakeholders expressed how well these map(s) expresses this risk reality at validation workshops held in each of the five AAP Pilot Districts mapped.
18 | P a g e
2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The methodology adopted for the study included a tabletop analysis of the five study areas, GIS-based preliminary flood and drought risk mapping, field verification of the developed preliminary flood and drought maps, vulnerability assessment and stakeholders validation workshop. GIS layers on climate, land use, vegetation, soil and topography were combined in a multi-criteria analysis to produce the specific flood and drought risk maps. The risk maps were colour coded green-yellow-red indicating low- moderate-high risk areas respectively. 3.0 STUDY AREA This initial phase of the Ghana risk mapping project covered only the 5 AAP pilot districts of West Mamprusi in the Northern Region, Sissala East District of the Upper West Region, Aowin Suaman District of the Western Region, Fanteakwa in the Eastern Region and Keta in the Volta Region (see Fig. 3 and Table 1).
Figure 2: Map of Ghana Showing the AAP Pilot Districts
19 | P a g e
Table 1: Basic Statistics on the 5-AAP Pilot Districts 4
DISTRICT/MUNICIPAL REGION CAPITAL AREA (Sq km) POPULATION SISALA EAST UPPER WEST TUMU 4744 51,182 WEST MAMPRUSI NORTHERN WALEWALE 5013 117,821 AOWIN SUAMAN WESTERN ENCHI 2,638 119,128 FANTEAKWA EASTERN BEGORO 1150 132,488 KETA VOLTA KETA 1,086 133,661
4 (GSS 2005) 20 | P a g e
4.0 DATA Data for the study came from secondary sources consisting of climatic and environmental data sets as well as ancillary and derived data sets from the processing of the data layers. 4.1 Climatic and Environmental Data Climate related data was obtained from the Ghana Meteorological Agency, which holds historical data sets from their weather monitoring stations from as far back as the 1960s. Historical data on temperature, rainfall and relative humidity were of importance in developing the risk maps.
Environmental data relating to the boundaries of the pilot districts, location of settlements, drainage, and altitude were also obtained from CERSGIS. Derived data sets such as slope, proximity of settlements to water bodies/watersheds and altitude for example was obtained from GIS analysis. Additionally, data on land use information as well as the vegetation index were derived from satellite image analysis. 4.2 Flood Mapping Data Data used in the flood mapping included soil texture, rainfall, altitude, slope, flow accumulation areas, land use, and proximity to water bodies. 4.2.1 Soil texture Soil texture is related to erodibility, water retention capacity, crusting and aggregate stability. The amount of available water is related to both texture and structure. Soils high in silt (silt loam) tend to have higher available water holding capacity. On the contrary sandy soils have the least available water holding capacity. Sandy soils tend to be more prone to drought than clayey soils because they retain less water at field capacity and the water retained is consumed more rapidly by the growing plants. The soil textural classes are grouped according to their water holding capacity as in Table 2.
21 | P a g e
Table 2: Soil texture categories index
Class Description Texture Index 1 heavy textured C, SiC, 3 2 medium textured cSL, SL, CL, SC, SiL, SiCL, L 2 3 light textured Si, , S, fS, cS, fSL 1
The texture symbols in Table 2 mean the following: C means clay, SiC means silty clay, cSL means coarse sandy loam, SL means sandy loam, CL means clay loam, SiL means silty loam, L means loam, Si means silt, S means sand, fS means fine sand, cS means coarse sand and fSL means fine sandy loam.
4.2.2 Rainfall The rainfall pattern influences the vulnerability of areas to flooding. Places with very high annual rainfall rates, given other underlying environmental factors, may be prone to either slow unset, rapid unset floods or river floods.
Table 3: Rainfall index (flood)
Class Description Annual Rainfall Index 1 High n/a 3 2 Medium n/a 2 3 Low n/a 1
4.2.3 Altitude (Elevation) The elevation of a place above sea level affects its susceptibility to flooding with low- lying areas at more risk as against highland areas, which are virtually safe from the hazard. 22 | P a g e
Table 4: Altitude index (flood)
Class Description Elevation Index 1 very high <200 1 2 gentle 200-500 2 3 Low lying >500 3 4.2.4 Slope Slope angle and general topography are undoubtedly important determinants of water flow. Flooding becomes acute when slope angle is below a critical value and then decreases logarithmically. The probability of flooding increases with increasing rainfall for the same slope class. The slope class of zero 4 is depicted with an index of three showing such soils are very prone to erosion and drought hazards. Gentle slopes with the slope percentage of 4 16 have the index weight of two indicating they are relatively more prone to drought hazards compared to slopes greater than 16% that have the index weight of one, indicating very low susceptibility.
Table 5: Slope gradient characteristics index (flood)
Class Description Slope % Index 1 very gentle to flat <4 3 2 gentle 4 16 2 3 steep >16 1
4.2.5 Flow accumulation areas Flow accumulation areas are derived from the topography of an area and show the likely areas for the accumulation of overland flow. This layer factors in the slope and the flow direction to the lowest slopes and accounts for the slopes with the highest inflow.
23 | P a g e
Table 6: Flow accumulation areas index (flood)
Class Description Flow Acc Index 1 high 3 2 medium 2 3 low 1
4.2.6 Land use Land use characteristics influence the susceptibility of a place to the effects of drought hazard. Land use data was derived from the processing of 2010 landsat TM image of the country obtained from the Centre for Remote Sensing and GIS (CERSGIS) at the University of Ghana. The different classes of broad land use categories and their associated ranks are given in table 7.
Table 7: Land use index (flood)
Class Description Index 1 Water Body 1 2 Closed Forest 2 3 Open Forest 3 4 Dense Herbaceous Cover 4 5 Grassland 5 6 Built up areas/Bare Soil 6
4.2.7 Proximity to Water bodies The proximity to water bodies within their environments is an indication of how vulnerable places will be to river flood, as places near to rivers would experience the proximal effects of flooding than those farther away. Table 8 details the classes and ranks for the proximity layer as used in the model.
24 | P a g e
Table 8: Proximity to water index (flood) Class Description Proximity Index 1 Very Close Up to 300m 1 2 Near 300-600 2 3 Very Far 600-1000 3 4 Distant >1000 4
4.3 Drought Risk Mapping Data The data used for the drought mapping include vegetation indicator, climatic indicator, soil indicators, land use and proximity to water bodies. 4.3.1 Vegetation I ndicator The basic data used for this indicator was an average Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) land cover map of Ghana for the last 9 years obtained from the analysis of satellite images. The NDVI gives a measure of the vegetative cover on the land surface over wide areas. Dense vegetation shows up very strongly in the imagery, and areas with little or no vegetation are also clearly identified. NDVI also identifies water and ice. Vegetation differs from other land surfaces because it tends to absorb strongly the red wavelengths of sunlight and reflect in the near-infrared wavelengths. Therefore, higher photosynthetic activity will result in lower reflectance in the red channel and higher reflectance in the near infrared channel. The NDVI is a measure of the difference in reflectance between these wavelength ranges. NDVI takes values between -1 and 1, with values 0.5 indicating dense vegetation and values <0 indicating no vegetation. NDVI has proved to have an extremely wide (and growing) range of applications. It is used to monitor vegetation conditions and therefore provide early warning on droughts and famines. 4.3.2 Climatic I ndicator Modelling of climate indicators involved six data layers namely temperature, rainfall, relative humidity, evapotranspiration. A surface grid for each of these layers was generated using an Inverse Distance Weighting interpolation of the mean annual recorded 25 | P a g e
data for the weather stations in the country. FAO aridity index and the De Martonne Aridity Index, which provide a measure of the degree of dryness in an area, were derived from these layers as input into the model.
The De Martonne aridity map was produced using the following equation.
DI = P/ (T+ 10)
Where DI is the De Martonne aridity index, P is the annual precipitation (mm) and T is the annual mean temperature (C). The FAO aridity map was also produced using the following equation.
FI = P/ETP
Where FI is the FAO aridity index, P is the annual precipitation (mm) and ETP is the annual evapotranspiration (mm).
A composite climate indicator map was produced by combining the layers on rainfall, relative humidity, DI and FI. 4.3.3 Soil indicator Various soil characteristics were modelled under the soil indicator such as parent material, soil texture, soil depth, gradient, rock fragments and drainage. Map data on these soil characteristics were entered into a GIS spatial modeller to produce maps for each of the soil characteristics as separate layers.
4.3.1.1 Parent Material Soils derived from different parent materials react differently to soil erosion, vegetation and desertification. Table 9 shows the description of parent materials. From the table soils that have an index of 1 as their parent materials are considered as good soils that are less prone to erosion, have healthy vegetation growth and less prone to drought. Soils 26 | P a g e
with an index of 2 are moderately good soils whiles areas with an index of 3 as their parent materials are considered as poor soils meaning they are easily prone to erosion, have poor vegetation growth and such soils are very much prone to drought hazard.
Table 9: Parent materials index (drought) Classes Description Parent material Index 1 Good Shale, Schist, basic, ultra basicconglomerate, unconsolidated 1 2 Moderate Limestone, marble, granite, gneiss, Sandstone, Siltstone 2 3 Poor Tertiary sands, coastal sand, lagoon deposit, alluvial deposit 3
4.3.2.1 Rock fragments
Rock fragments have a great but variable effect on runoff and soil erosion (Poesen et al, 1995), soil moisture conservation and biomass production. Generally, runoff and sediment loss are greater over stony soil surfaces than stone free soils. Interior sediment loss increases with increasing rock fragment percentage of up to about 20%. Beyond this value, the limited space between fragments prevents the development of scour holes that limit soil loss. For sheet and rill erosion, however, the rock fragment cover always reduces sediment production in an exponential way. Rock fragments on the soil surface and within 50cm from soil surfaces are defined in three classes.
Table 10: Rock fragments index (drought) Class Rock Fragment Cover (%) Index 1 <20 1 2 20 60 2 3 >60 3 27 | P a g e
4.3.3.1 Slope Gradient
Slope angle and general topography are undoubtedly important determinants of soil erosion. Erosion becomes acute when slope angle exceeds a critical value and then increases logarithmically. The probability of appearance of high erosion degree decreases with increasing rainfall for the same slope class. A digital topographic slope gradient map at a scale of 1:50,000 was used in preparing the slope gradient indicator map. The slope class of 0 4 is depicted with an index of 1 showing such soils are less prone to erosion and drought hazards. Gentle slopes with the slope percentage of 4 16 have the index weight of 2 indicating they are less prone to drought hazards compared to slopes greater than 16% that have the index weight.
Table 11: Slope gradient characteristics index (drought) Class Description Slope % Index 1 very gentle to flat <4 1 2 gentle 4 16 2 3 steep >16 3 4.3.4.1 Soil Depth
Soil depth is defined as the depth of the soil profile from the soil surface to the top of the un-weathered parent material. Dry land soils over hilly areas are particularly vulnerable to erosion, especially when their vegetation cover has been degraded. Soils on the Tertiary and Quaternary consolidated formations usually have a restricted effective soil depth due to erosion and limiting sub-surface layers such as the petrocalcic horizon, gravely and stony layer, and/or shallow bedrock. Therefore, the tolerance of these soils to erosion is low under hot and dry climatic conditions and severe soil erosion where rain- fed vegetation can no longer be supported leading to drought. Soil depth is grouped into three classes as deep (>100 cm), moderate (20-100 cm) and shallow (<20 cm) as shown in table 12.
28 | P a g e
Table 12: Soil depth index (drought) Class Description Depth (cm) Index 1 deep >100 1 2 moderate 20-100 2 3 shallow <20 3
4.3.4 Drainage
Drainage conditions are defined based on the depth of hydromorphic features such as iron and manganese mottles or grey colours, and depth of groundwater table. The following drainage classes are distinguished as in Table 13.
Well-drained soil: Soils without any iron and manganese mottles or grey colours at depths greater than 100cm from the soil surface. Such soil types are not wet enough near the soil surface or do not remain wet during the growing period of plants.
Moderately well drained soils: Iron, manganese or grey mottles are present in the soil at depths between 30 and 100cm from the soil surface. Such soils are wet enough near the soil surface or remain wet during the early growing period of plants.
Poor drained soils: mottles of iron and manganese are present in the upper 30cm of the soil, or reducing (grey) colours. A permanent water table usually exists in depths greater than 75cm. In some of these soils, the groundwater reaches the soil surface during the wet periods of the year. Water loss is slow as such the soils are wet at shallow depths for long periods.
29 | P a g e
Table 13: Soil drainage characteristics index (drought) Class Description Index 1 well drained 1 2 moderately well drained 2 3 poor/excessive 3
4.3.5 Soil texture
Soil texture is related to erodibility, water retention capacity, crusting and aggregate stability. The amount of available water is related to both texture and structure. Soils high in silt (silt loam) tend to have higher available water holding capacity. On the contrary sandy soils have the least available water holding capacity. Sandy soils tend to be more prone to drought than clayey soils because they retain less water at field capacity and the water retained is consumed more rapidly by the growing plants. The soil textural classes are grouped according to their water holding capacity as in Table 14.
Table 14: Soil texture categories index (drought) Class Description Texture Index 1 heavy textured C, SiC, 1 2 medium textured cSL, SL, CL, SC, SiL, SiCL, L 2 3 light textured Si, , S, fS, cS, fSL 3
The texture symbols in Table 14 mean the following: C means clay, SiC means silty clay, cSL means coarse sandy loam, SL means sandy loam, CL means clay loam, SiL means silty loam, L means loam, Si means silt, S means sand, fS means fine sand, cS means coarse sand and fSL means fine sandy loam.
30 | P a g e
4.3.6 Organic matter Organic matter affects both the chemical and physical properties of the soil and its overall health. Properties influenced by organic matter include: change of soil colour (brown to black); improvement of soil structure (enhance granulation); increase in moisture holding capacity; high absorption capacity; diversity and activity of soil organisms that are both beneficial and harmful to crop production; and nutrient availability. Soil organic matter also influences the effects of chemical amendments, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Practices that increase soil moisture content can be categorized into three groups: (i) those that increase water infiltration; (ii) those that manage soil evaporation; and (iii) those that increase soil moisture storage capacities. All three are related to soil organic matter. Organic matter influences the physical conditions of a soil in several ways. Plant residues that cover the soil surface protect the soil from sealing and crusting by raindrop impact, thereby enhancing rainwater infiltration and reducing runoff. Surface infiltration depends on a number of factors including aggregation and stability, pore continuity and stability, the existence of cracks, and the soil surface condition. Increased organic matter contributes indirectly to soil porosity (via increased soil faunal activity). Fresh organic matter stimulates the activity of macro-fauna such as earthworms, which create burrows lined with the glue-like secretion from their bodies and are intermittently filled with worm cast material. Increased levels of organic matter and associated soil fauna lead to greater pore spaces with the immediate result that water infiltrates more readily and can be held in the soil (Roth, 1985). The improved pore space is a consequence of the bio-turbating activities of earthworms and other macro-organisms and channels left in the soil by decayed plant roots. The Organic matter content in Ghanaian soils has been grouped into three classes as in Table 15.
31 | P a g e
Table 15: Organic matter categories index (drought) Class Description Organic Mater Content Index 1 high >4.3 1 2 medium 2.2-4.3 2 3 low <2.2 3
On the whole it is worth noting that drought will proceed on landscapes where the soil is not able to provide plants with rooting space and /or water and nutrients. In the semi- and sub humid zones, the land may become irreversibly decertified when the rootable soil depth is not capable of sustaining a certain minimum vegetation cover. There are cases where drought proceeds in deep soils, when the water balance is incapable of meeting the needs of plants. In this case the phenomenon is reversible. 4.3.7 Land use Land use characteristics influence the susceptibility of a place to the effects of droughts hazards. Land use data was derived from the processing of 2010 landsat TM image of the country was obtained from the Centre for Remote Sensing and GIS at the University of Ghana. The different classes of broad land use categories and their associated ranks are given in table 16. Table 16: Land use index (drought) Class Description Index 1 Water Body 1 2 Closed Forest 2 3 Open Forest 3 4 Dense herbaceous cover 4 5 Grassland 5 6 Built up areas/Bare Soil 6
32 | P a g e
4.3.8 Proximity to Water bodies The proximity to water bodies within their environments is an indication of how vulnerable places will be to drought hazard, as places near to rivers would be less affected by drought than those farther away. Table 17 details the classes and ranks for the proximity layer as used in the model. Table 17: Proximity to water index (drought) Class Description Index 1 Up to 300m 1 2 300-600 2 3 600-1000 3 4 >1000 4 5.0 GIS Analysis GIS analysis involved the application of geostatistical techniques in the development and modelling of flood and drought risk maps through the combination of climatic, environmental and other ancillary data layers in multi-criteria evaluation. 5.1 Hazard and Risk Mapping Hazard maps, i.e. a map that highlights areas which have a potential to pose significant threats to drought were prepared by weighting and overlaying the specific environmental and climatic factors. Point based source data were converted into surface grid using the inverse distance interpolation routines available in ArcGIS 9.3. The selection and weighting of different factors for hazard and risk maps were informed by the literature and expert input from NADMO Research team. Ratings and classes for each factor are ranked from low to very high based on degree of vulnerability to the factor. Every layer is then re-classified based on these ranks. Re-classified layers are multiplied by their standard weight and then added to others for providing the output risk maps.
33 | P a g e
Table 18: Data used for Flood/Drought Risk Mapping
Hazard Map Risk Map Flood Rainfall Flood hazard Slope Land use Altitude Proximity to active channels Soil
Flow accumulation areas
Drought Vegetation index drought hazard De Martonne Aridity index Land use FAO Aridity Index Proximity to active channels Soil Indicator
Relative humidity
Rainfall
5.2 Data used for Flood/Drought Risk Mapping The output hazard map then serves as an input factor in risk mapping, by combining them with other environmental factors in producing the risk layers. The final risk maps were then reclassified into high, moderate and low risk areas as three strata for planning control interventions. The final output maps resulting from these classes were represented with a green-yellow-red colour scheme indicating low-medium-high risk areas respectively. The accuracy of hot spots in the risk maps were then assessed by stakeholders workshop undertaken in the beneficiary districts. All data processing and analysis were undertaken with the ArcGIS 9.3 GIS software and semi-automated using the model maker utility. All data used in health hazard/risk mapping is presented in table 18. Figure 3 presents the methodological workflow adopted in the development of the risk maps.
34 | P a g e
Figure 3: Flood and Drought Risk Mapping Methodology Flow Chart
5.3 Models and Risk Maps Models developed for producing the risk maps for flood and drought in the AAP pilot districts are presented in figures 4 and 5 respectively. The output risk maps for flood and drought for the respective districts are symbolized with a green-yellow-orange-red colour scheme indicating no-risk, low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk areas.
35 | P a g e
Figure 4: Flood Risk Model
36 | P a g e
Figure 5: Drought Risk Model
37 | P a g e
5.4 Factors and their Weightings for Flood/Drought Risk Mapping
Table 8: Factors and weightings for flood risk mapping
Factor Weighting Factor Hazard mapping Rainfall 0.1 Flow accumulation areas 0.2 Altitude 0.4 Slope 0.2 Soil 0.1 Risk mapping Flood hazard 0.4 Land use 0.3 Distance to active channels 0.3
Table 9: Factors and weightings for drought risk mapping
Risk mapping Drought hazard 0.4 Proximity to water 0.3 Land use 0.3
38 | P a g e
Red areas depict areas at high risk of flooding/drought on a yearly basis. In longer return period of flood events the likelihood of possible loss of lives, settlements and infrastructure are very high. In the case of drought, possible effects are very high on farm yields. Orange areas indicate areas at moderate risk of flooding/drought. These areas are not necessarily inundated by flood every year. In longer return period of flood events, possible loss of agricultural land and settlements can happen.
Yellow areas are areas at low risk of flooding/drought. A low risk level represents an area that experiences occasional flood/drought without significant loss.
Green areas indicate very low or no risk areas. These means these areas are less likely to experience flooding or drought because of its topographic, geomorphic climatic or environmental condition.
39 | P a g e
6.0 FANTEAKWA DISTRICT FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK ANALYSIS
Figure 6: Workshop Participants at Fanteakwa District-Begoro
6.1 Fanteakwa District Location and Size The District can be located within longitudes 032.5 West and 010 East and latitudes 6 15 North and 6 40 North. It is bordered by the Volta Lake to the North, to the North-West by Kwahu-South District, South-West by the East Akim Municipal, Lower Manya Krobo District to the East and to the South East by the Yilo Krobo District. It is located at the middle of the Eastern Region with the district capital at Begoro. The total land area is 1150 sq.km, which constitutes 7.68% of the total land area within the Eastern Region (i.e.18310 sq.km) of Ghana.
40 | P a g e
Figure 7: Validation Workshop
Figure 8: GPS Training
41 | P a g e
6.2 Fanteakwa District Risk Assessment
6.2.1 Fanteakwa Flood Risk Assessment
Figure 9: Cause of flooding Cause of flooding From the figure above 82.1% of respondents, consider rainfall as the major cause of flooding in the area with 17.9% differing. Rainfall as the major cause of flooding could be because of heavy precipitation in these areas. Other possible contributory factors to flooding may include soil texture, altitude, slope, flow accumulation, land use, and proximity to water bodies.
42 | P a g e
Type of rainfall
Figure 10: Type of rainfall
Even though 6.9% said the pattern of rainfall in the locality is low, yet 31% said the pattern of rainfall is moderate and the majority (62.1 %) supposed that the rainfall pattern has become very severe within the district. This shows that within the past five years there had been a change in the annual rainfall pattern with severe rainfall being the highest, followed by moderate rainfall and low rainfall respectively.
43 | P a g e
Predominant soil type
Figure 11: Predominant soil type
Clayey soil scored the highest of 42.9% followed by loamy soil (35.7%), laterite soil (10.7%), sandy soil (7.1%) and rocky soil (3.6%).Clayey soil has the ability to hold water for a very long time whereas rocky and laterite soil do not also drain very easily. Clayey soils comprise of approximately 0-45% sand, 0-45% silt and 50-100% clay by volume. It is typically not free draining, since water takes long time to infiltrate; therefore, it allows virtually all the water deposit to run-off causing flooding. This suggests why majority of the areas in the Fanteakwa District easily gets flooded. From the analysis it is evident that majority of the areas are vulnerable to flooding mainly due to exposure to clayey soil.
44 | P a g e
Colour of soil
Figure 12: Colour of soil
Brown colour soil recorded a percentage of 70.4% followed by rusty and black colour soil with 14.8%. Depending on the chemical composition, clayey soil can be any shade of yellow to brown to red depending on the dominant mineral. Since the soil colour determines the soil type, the respondents have confirmed, by their overwhelming choice of soil colour brown that, clayey soil is the predominant soil type in Fanteakwa District by their estimation.
45 | P a g e
Vulnerable Sectors
Figure 13: Vulnerable Sectors
From the figure above, 63% of the respondents assert that the Agricultural sector is most vulnerable to flooding in the district. This may imply that, the runoff caused mostly by compacted soil e.g. clayey soil, strips away some vegetation and topsoil thereby adversely impacting plant/crop growth. To be healthy, soils need to be able to breath and water needs to be able to move through it reasonably easy; however, compacted soils do not allow much air to circulate to the root zone and causes runoff which makes the soil more vulnerable.
63 6.5 6.5 0 24 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Sector 46 | P a g e
Flood prone areas
Figure 14: Flood prone areas
Fig. 14 shows some of the flood prone areas in the Fanteakwa district base on the knowledge of the respondents. Dansor in Begoro Township tops the list. Other areas include Zion-Begoro, Nsutam, Zongo-Begoro, Adakope Odortom, Ahomahomaso, Akrumuso, Nayinfong, Nkankanma, Zongo community, Zion, and Bosuso.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Flood Prone Areas in Fanteakwa Flood Prone Areas 47 | P a g e
From the figure above the respondents selected either a nearby school or church as a safe haven. 16.7% of the respondents choose a church in Bosuso and a school at Ahomahomaso. We recommend further research into mapping these safe havens and drawing evacuation plans to build community resilience to flooding.
49 | P a g e
6.2.2 Fanteakwa flood mitigation measures
Figure 16: Flood mitigation measures
Fig. 16 shows that 23.3% of the respondents believe that increase forecasting and early warning system should be the major flood mitigation measure in the district. 20% prefer improved building standards, 16.3% favour not building in flood prone areas, and the rest (13.3%) of the respondents like better either flood retention, insurance schemes or any technical adaptation (e.g. water reservoirs, water transfer, water desalinization etc.) measure as means of building community flood resilience.
50 | P a g e
6.2.3 Fanteakwa Flood Risk Map
Figure 17: Fanteakwa District flood risk map
51 | P a g e
6.2.4 Fanteakwa Drought Risk Assessment
Sell or pledge assets
Figure 18: Sell or pledge assets
Fifty-two percent (52%) said they either sell or pledge their asset and 48% said they do not sell their assets. This suggests that majority of the people find it very difficult to survive during drought.
52 | P a g e
Sickness during drought period
Figure 19: Sickness during drought period
Fig. 19 shows that 54.2% of the respondents get sick during drought as against 45.8% who do not fall sick during drought. From Fig. 18 it could be deduced that Fifty-two percent (52%) out of the 54.2% that fall sick during drought have to either sell or pledge their assets to make ends meet. This may also suggest that majority of the people affected by drought have to either pledge or sell their assets only to use the proceeds for medical treatment. This may invariable lead to the victims not getting the true value for their assets; thereby, depriving them of the purpose for selling or pledging their assets.
53 | P a g e
6.2.5 Fanteakwa drought mitigation measures
Figure 20: Drought mitigation measures
37.9% of respondents are of the view that landscape planning measures to improve water balance (e.g. change of land use, reforestation etc.) is the key to building community resilience to drought. Meanwhile, 23.3% of the respondents prefer construction of dams, 16.7% favour leakage reduction or increasing efficiency of water use (e.g. leakage reduction, efficient irrigation etc.), 10% desire resistant seeds, 6.7% have a preference for increase in water supply, and 3.3% choose construction of bore holes as drought mitigation measures.
54 | P a g e
6.2.6 Fanteakwa Drought Risk Map
Figure 21: Fanteakwa District drought risk map 55 | P a g e
7.0 SISSALA EAST DISTRICT FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK ANALYSIS
Figure 22: Workshop Participants at Tumu
7.1 Sissala East District Location and Size
The Sissala East District is located in the North- Eastern part of the Upper West region of Ghana. The district capital is Tumu. It falls between Longitudes. 1.30 W and Latitude. 10 N and 11 N. The district has a total land size of 4,744 sq km - representing 26% of the total land mass of the Upper West Region. It shares boundary on the North with Burikina Faso, on the East with Kassena Nankana and Builsa Districts, to the South East with West Mamprusi District, South West with Wa East and Nadowli Districts and to the West by Sissala West District. 56 | P a g e
Figure 23: Validation Workshop
Figure 24: GPS Training
57 | P a g e
7.2 Sissala East District Risk Assessment
7.2.1 Sissala East District Flood Risk Assessment
Type of rainfall
Figure 25: Type of rainfall
44.8% said precipitation in the district is moderate, 3.4% said it is low, and 51.7% said it is very severe. From the views expressed, moderate to severe precipitation is the major cause of flooding in the district. Moderate to severe rainfall over a prolonged period has the tendency to overwhelm the ability of soil to hold water thereby causing flooding.
58 | P a g e
Rainfall Pattern over the Past Five Years (2007-2012)
Figure 26: Rainfall pattern over the past 5 years
37.9% said the pattern of rainfall in the locality is low, 13.8% said it is moderate, and 48.3% said it has become very severe within the past five years. The long-term severe shift in precipitation in the Sissala East district is an indication of climate change and variability.
59 | P a g e
Predominant soil type
Figure 27: Predominant soil type
Fig. 27 shows that clayey soil has the lowest of 3.4% followed by sandy soil (27.6%), while laterite soil and loamy soil rank highest at 34.5%. Sandy soil typically comprise approximately 80-100% sand, and 0-10% clay by volume, which makes it light and typically very free draining. Loamy soil, on the other hand, comprise of approximately 25-50% sand, 30-50% silt, and 10-30% clay by volume, which tends to make it somewhat heavier and fairly free draining. Sissala East District should be free draining, given the high ranking of sandy, laterite, and loamy soils; however, due to moderate to severe rainfall among other factors, the districts is vulnerable to flooding.
60 | P a g e
Colour of the soil
Figure 28: Colour of the soil
Fig. 28 shows that brown colour recorded a percentage of 48.3% followed by black (44.8%) and rusty (6.9%)
61 | P a g e
Building materials
Figure 29: Building materials
From the figure, structures built with either bricks or blocks represent 20.7%, those built with mud is 72.4% and mixed structures account for 6.9%. This shows that majority of the structures in the Sissala East district is built with mud. Structures built with mud or clay are very vulnerable during prolong periods of precipitation or during heavy rainfall since they easily collapse.
62 | P a g e
Flood prone areas
Figure 30: Flood prone areas
The figure shows that the flood prone areas are Wellembelle, Zongo, Tumu, Taffiasi, Pina, Wahabu, Santie, Nuarijan, Kong, Nmanduamu, Kulfuo, Zongo, Gwosi, Dimajan, Bugubelle, Banu, Dimbenno-Toridan being the flood prone areas with Tumi recording the highest of 20.7% followed by Dimijan recording 10.3% with the rest recording 6.9% and 3.4% respectively.
63 | P a g e
Safe haven
Figure 31: Safe haven
The respondents chose schools, churches, mosques and a town centre in some strategic locations as safe havens during floods. Some of the locations mention are Nmanduanu, Wellebelle, Basissau, Banu, Bayeviella, Bugubelle and Gwosi.
64 | P a g e
7.2.2 Sissala East District flood mitigation measures
Figure 32: Flood mitigation measures
From the figure, 27.6% of the respondents believe that construction of dams in strategic flood locations is the best means of building community resilience against floods in Sissala East District. 20.7% suggested improved forecasting and early warning system, 17.2% recommended not building in waterways, 10.3% support legislation and enforcement of building standards, and 6.9% opted for technical adaptation measures (e.g. raise dyke-gutter, enlarge reservoirs, and upgrade drainage systems) as a means of flood mitigation.
65 | P a g e
7.2.3 Sissala East District Flood Risk Map
Figure 33: Sissala East District flood risk map
66 | P a g e
7.2.4 Sissala East District Drought Risk Assessment
Duration of drought
Figure 34: Duration of drought
From the figure, 65.5% said drought lasts for 1-2 months and 34.5% said it lasts for 3-6 months. This shows that it takes the community relatively shorter duration to recover from drought.
. 67 | P a g e
Sell or pledge assets
Figure 35: Sell or pledge assets
62.1% said they sell or pledge their asset and 37.9% said they do not sell their assets. This means that even though it takes the community relatively shorter time to recover; 5
yet, majority of the people find it difficult to survive hence they resort to either pledging or selling their assets to fend for themselves.
5 Fig 34 Comments 68 | P a g e
Dispersion of family members during drought
Figure 36: Dispersion of family members during drought
Fig. 36 above shows that 69% of the respondents disperse their family in situations of drought; whereas, 31% of the respondents will not. This implies that most of families in Sissala East District adopt dispersion of family members as coping mechanism to help ease the effect of drought on their households.
69 | P a g e
Sectors most vulnerable to drought
Figure 37: Sectors most vulnerable to drought
The figure shows that 89.7% of respondents understand that the agriculture sector is the most vulnerable to drought with only 10.3% representing the health sector.
70 | P a g e
Sickness during drought period
Figure 38: Sickness during drought period
From the diagram 69% said they get sick during drought and 31% said, they do not get sick. From many views expressed at the workshop, during drought most people rely on untreated water and sometimes share the same water with animals for survival, exposing them to water-borne diseases.
71 | P a g e
7.2.5 Sissala East drought mitigation measures
Figure 39: Sissala East drought mitigation measures
The figure shows that 24.1% of the respondents prefer the construction of boreholes as a means of drought mitigation, with 13.8% suggesting the use of both drought resistant seeds, and improved early warning as a means of mitigating drought. The rest suggested increase in water supply and reservoirs, distillation, water leakage reduction, construction of dam, landscape planning, insurance schemes and legislation as a means of drought mitigation.
72 | P a g e
7.2.6 Sissala East District Drought Risk Map
Figure 40: Sissala East drought risk map 73 | P a g e
8.0 WEST MAMPRUSI DISTRICT FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK ANALYSIS
Figure 41: Workshop Participants at West Mamprusi District-Walewale
8.1 West Mamprusi District Location and Size West Mamprusi District is in the Northern Region of Ghana. The district capital is Walewale. The district is bordered to the north by Builsa, Kassena-Nankana and Bolgatanga districts, in the Upper East Region; to the south west by Gonja, Tolon- Kumbungu and Savelugu district in the Northern Region; to the west by the Sissala and Wa districts; and to the east by East Mamprusi and Gushiegu-Karaga Districts.
Figure 42: Validation Workshop
74 | P a g e
Figure 43: GPS Training
75 | P a g e
8.2 West Mamprusi District Risk Assessment
8.2.1 West Mamprusi District Flood Risk Assessment
Cause of flooding
Figure 44: Cause of flooding
From the figure majority of the respondents believe that rainfall is the major cause of flooding in the West Mamprusi district. Only a few attribute flooding to other causes aside of rainfall.
76 | P a g e
Type of rainfall
Figure 45: Type of rainfall
Forty-eight (48%) said the pattern of rainfall in the district is moderate, 16% said it is low, while 36% said it is severe. This shows that the district experiences mostly moderate to severe rainfall, which makes the district vulnerable to flooding.
77 | P a g e
Predominant soil type
Figure 46: Predominant soil type
Fig. 46 depicts the types of soil in the West Mamprusi district. The Figure shows that, the type of soil that is most prevalent in the district is sandy soil representing 64%, followed by clayey soil representing 20%. The area is also dotted with laterite and loamy soil representing 4%, whereas, rocky soil represent 8% of valid respondents.
78 | P a g e
Colour of Soil
Figure 47: Colour of soil
The figure above shows that 44% of soils in the area have black colour as well as brown colour followed by 12%, which represent the rusty colour of soil. It should be borne in mind that the soil colour determines the soil type. Loamy soil, which ranks high on the list, is black in colour.
79 | P a g e
Flood Prone Areas
Figure 48: Flood prone areas
The flood prone areas within the West Mamprusi district are Kubuori, Nayinfong, Walewale, and Yagaba. Both Kubuori and Walewale recorded the highest percentage of thirty-two followed by Yagaba and Nayinfong respectively.
80 | P a g e
Safe havens in locality
Figure 49: Safe havens in locality
Respondents believed that in situations of flood, schools located in Walewale, Nayinfong, Yagaba and Kubuori are the unequalled locations for safe haven.
81 | P a g e
8.2.2 West Mamprusi District Flood Mitigation Measures
Figure 50: Flood mitigation measures
Fig. 50 shows that 40% of respondents prefer improved forecasting and early warning system as a priority measure of flood mitigation. Eight percent (8%) suggest technical adaptation, enforcement of building standards, or insurance scheme, and 24% recommend construction of dams as means of flood mitigation in the district.
82 | P a g e
8.2.3 West Mamprusi District Flood Risk Map
Figure 51: West Mamprusi District Flood Risk Map
83 | P a g e
8.2.4 West Mamprusi District Drought Risk Assessment
Frequency of drought
Figure 52: Frequency of drought
From Fig. 52, 27.3% of the respondents said drought occurs every 0-1 year, 45.5% claimed it occurs every 1-5 years, whilst 27.3% said it occurs every 5-10 years. From the response, drought occurs, at least, every 1-5 years in the West Mamprusi District.
84 | P a g e
Table 11: Sickness during drought
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 15 60.0 60.0 60.0 no 10 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0
Sickness during Drought From Table 11, 60% of respondents said they get sick during drought and 40% said they do not get sick. During drought, most water sources in the district are dried and the residents rely on sparse and untreated water and sometimes share the same water with animals for their survival.
85 | P a g e
8.2.5 West Mamprusi drought mitigation measures
Figure 53: Drought mitigation
From the figure, twelve percent (12%) of the respondents choose construction of dams, thirty-two percent (32%) want the construction of boreholes, forty percent (40%) prefer increased use of drought resistant seeds, eight percent (8%) choose increase in water supply (reservoir volumes, water transfer, desalinization-purify or distil), and 4% opted for landscape planning and leakages reduction.
86 | P a g e
8.2.6 West Mamprusi District Drought Risk Map
Figure 54: West Mamprusi District Drought Risk Map
87 | P a g e
9.0 KETA MUNICIPALITY FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK ANALYSIS
Figure 55: Workshop Participants at Keta Municipal Assembly
9.1 Keta Municipal Location and Size:
Keta Municipal is one of the 18 administrative districts of the Volta Region with Keta as the capital. The Municipality lies within Longitudes 0.30 E and 1.05 E and Latitudes 5.45 N and 6.005 N. It is located east of the Volta estuary, about 160 km to the east of Accra, off the Accra-Aflao main road. It shares common borders with Akatsi district to the north, Ketu district to the east, South Tongu district to the west and the Gulf of Guinea to the south. Out of the total surface area of 1,086 sq km, water bodies cover approximately 362 sq km (about 30 per cent). The largest of these is Keta Lagoon, which is about 12 km at its widest section and 32km long. The remaining land area is only 724 sq km.
88 | P a g e
Figure 56: Validation Workshop
Figure 57: GPS Training
89 | P a g e
9.2 Keta Municipal Risk Assessment 9.2.1 Keta Municipal Flood Risk Assessment
Cause of Flooding
Figure 58: Cause of flooding
From Fig. 58, 78.3% of the respondents said rainfall is the major cause of flooding in the Keta Municipality while 21.7% said no.
90 | P a g e
Type of Rainfall
Figure 59: Type of rainfall
Thirteen (13%) said the pattern of rainfall in the Keta Municipality is low, 69% said it is moderate and 17.4% said it is severe. This explains that the familiar type of rainfall in Keta Municipality is moderate with intermittent low to severe precipitation.
91 | P a g e
Duration of Flood Disaster
Figure 60: Duration of flood disaster
The figure above shows that 38.5% of the respondents are of the view that flood disaster lingers on for about a week, 30.8% said either 1-6 days or two weeks. This shows that flood disaster in Keta Municipality is usually more of a slow onset other than rapid onset.
92 | P a g e
Predominant Soil Type
Figure 61: Predominant soil type
Sandy soil recorded the highest score of 65.2% followed by clayey soil (21.7%), and laterite soil (13%). Sandy soil has the biggest particles among the three choices; and the bigger the soil particles the better aeration and drainage of soil. It usually comprise of approximately 80-100% sand, 0-10% silt, and 0-10% clay volume with poor water holding capacity due to very low organic content.
93 | P a g e
Colour of Soil
Figure 62: Colour of soil
Brown colour has a percentage of 43.5% followed by rusty colour with 30.45 and black colour of the soil with 26.1%.The colour of soil can say a lot about the conditions in the soil as well as the presence of water and other elements. Brown colour soil is typically loose with poor water holding capacity; whereas, rusty soil colour is compact and tends to prevent water from draining easily.
94 | P a g e
Choice of Safe Havens
Figure 63: Safe havens
Fifty two percent (52%) of respondents prefer school locations as safe haven, followed by mosque (20%), church and park respectively.
95 | P a g e
Flood Prone Areas
Figure 64: Flood prone areas
Respondents scored highest for Horvi and Agorbledokui as flood prone areas in Keta Municipality. Other areas are Keta, Horvi, Fiaxor, Trekume, Vodza, Kedzi, Dzita Anyanui, Woe, Dzelukope, Blemazado, Akplorwutorkor, Agorbledokui, Sakome, Atorkor and Abutiakorkope.
96 | P a g e
Safe Haven in Keta Municipality
Figure 65: Safe Haven
The respondents choose the riverbank in horvi as safe haven. They also choose school locations in Sakome, Keta and Trekume. They recommended that residents in Kedzi, Vodza, Nyikutor, Tregui, and those in Agorbledokui should relocate to safer locations.
97 | P a g e
Flood Evacuation Planning
Figure 66: Flood Evacuation Plan
Fig. 66 shows that majority (66.7%) of the respondents were of the view that flood evacuation is necessary but not planned.
98 | P a g e
9.2.2 Keta Municipal Flood Mitigation Measures
Figure 67: Flood mitigation
Thirty-two percent (32%) of the respondents opted for flood retention as priority mitigation measure in the Keta Municipality. 20% prefer not to build in risky areas, 16% favour increase forecasting and early warning, and 12% want legislation and enforcement of building standards.
99 | P a g e
9.2.3 Keta Municipal Flood Risk Map
Figure 68: Keta Municipal Flood Risk Map
100 | P a g e
9.2.4 Keta Municipal Drought Risk Assessment
Figure 69: Frequency of drought
Fig. 69 shows that 39.1% of the respondents believed that the frequency of drought is 1-5 years, 34.8% said it is 0-1 year, 21.7% said it is 5-10 years, and 4.3% said it is 15-20 years. This shows that there is the probability of drought in every five-year period.
101 | P a g e
Sell or Pledge Assets during Drought
Figure 70: Sell or Pledge Assets
56.5% of the respondents are of the view that residents of Keta Municipality do not sell or pledge their assets during drought; whilst, 43.5% of the respondents think they do.
102 | P a g e
Evacuation
Figure 71: Evacuation
Fig. 71 shows that respondents do not have a clear-cut opinion on evacuation. 21.7% of the respondents are not sure whether the people are likely, moderately, or less likely to evacuate during disaster; whereas, 7.4% were divided on whether people are most likely or not prepared to evacuate. We recommend research study on social vulnerability: - risk perception of evacuation in Keta Municipality.
103 | P a g e
Sectors Most Vulnerable to Drought
Figure 72: Sectors most vulnerable to drought
Agriculture is the most vulnerable sector in the municipality represented by 52.2% followed by the transport sector representing 26.1%, water supply representing 17.4%, and the health sector being the least vulnerable pegged at 4.3%
104 | P a g e
9.2.5 Keta Municipal Drought mitigation measures
Figure 73: Keta Municipal Drought mitigation measures
The respondents are of the view that construction of boreholes should be the primary means to mitigate drought in the Municipality. Other secondary means may include enforcement of building legislation, construction of dams, increased water supply, and awareness creation.
105 | P a g e
9.2.6 Keta Municipal Drought Risk Map
Figure 74: Keta Municipal Drought Risk Map
106 | P a g e
10.0 AOWIN SUAMAN DISTRICT FLOOD AND DROUGHT RISK ANALYSIS
Figure 75: Workshop Participants at Aowin Suaman District-Enchi 10.1 Aowin Suaman District Location and Size: The District is located in the mid-western part of the Western Region of Ghana between latitude five degrees twenty-five minutes and six degrees fourteen minutes North (5 25 N and 6 14 N) and longitude 2 30W and 3 05W. It shares boundaries with Jomoro District to the South,Wasa Amenfi to the East, Juabeso-Bia and Sefwi-Wiawso to the North and the Republic of La Cote Dlvoire to the West. The land size of Aowin Suaman is 2,717 square kilometers which constitutes about 12% of the total land size of the Western Region (i.e. 23,921 square kilometers). The district capital is Enchi.
107 | P a g e
Figure 76: Validation Workshop
Figure 77: GPS Training
108 | P a g e
10.2 Aowin Suaman District Risk Assessment
10.2.1 Aowin Suaman District Flood Risk Assessment:
Figure 78: Cause of flooding
Fig. 78 shows that 95.7% of the valid respondents said that rainfall is the major cause of flooding in the area; whereas, 4.3% said no.
109 | P a g e
What is the predominant soil type in your locality/area?
Figure 79: Predominant soil type
Clayey soil (47.8%) is highest, followed by sandy soil, (26.1 %), loamy soil (21.7%), and laterite soil (4.3%)
110 | P a g e
Colour of soil
Figure 80: Colour of soil
Brown colour had a percentage of 39.1% followed by rusty and black colour of the soil with 26.1%.
111 | P a g e
Flood prone areas
Figure 81: Flood prone areas
Fig. 81 shows the flooded prone areas in Aowin Suaman district. The list include Yiwabra, Omnte, Old Yakase, Ohiamaadwen, Nyankaman, Nakaba, Karlo, Jensui, Damoahkor, Akyemfu, Aduom, Adonikrom, Abotare, with Enchi and Sewum being the areas frequently flooded.
112 | P a g e
Safe havens in locality
Figure 82: Safe havens in locality
Fig. 82 shows that 20.8% of respondents selected school locations, and church premises as safe havens. Some of the areas chosen include Enchi, Jensu, Sewum, Nakaba, Boinso, Denkyira, Ohiamaadwen, Old Yakaso, and Adonikrom
113 | P a g e
10.2.2 Aowin Suaman District flood mitigation measures
Figure 83: Flood mitigation measures
From Fig. 83 above 47.8% of respondents are of the view that not building in flood prone areas is the most important mitigation measure. 21.7% choose increase forecasting, 17.4% choose enforcement of building standards, and 8.7% opted for technical flood protections e.g. raise dyke-gutter, enlarge reservoirs, and upgrade drainage systems.
114 | P a g e
10.2.3 Aowin Suaman District Flood Risk Map
Figure 84: Aowin Suaman District Flood Risk Map 115 | P a g e
10.2.4 Aowin Suaman District Drought Risk Assessment
Sell or Pledge Assets
Figure 85: Sell or pledge assets
77.8% said residents of Aowin Suaman do not have to either sell or pledge their assets during drought.
116 | P a g e
Duration of Drought
Figure 86: Duration of Drought
It is evident from fig. 86 that drought in Aowin Suaman District lasts for either a period of 1-2 months and 3-6 months, or between seven (7) months to one (1) year since 35.3% of respondents said drought occurrence lasts for either 1-2 months or 3-6 months with 29.4% claiming it lasts for 7 months-1 year.
117 | P a g e
10.2.5 Aowin Suaman District drought mitigation measures
Figure 87: Drought mitigation measures
29.2% of respondents prefer improved forecasting and early warning system as the foremost means to build community resilience against drought in the Aowin Suaman District. 12.5% of the respondents favour either drought resistant seeds, or increasing water supply, 16.7% support the construction of boreholes, and 4.2% prefer either the provision of insurance schemes or landscape planning as means of building community resilience
118 | P a g e
10.2.6 Aowin Suaman District Drought Risk Map
Figure 88: Aowin Suaman District Drought Risk Map
119 | P a g e
11.0 CONCLUSION Improving community capacity to prepare and respond to climate-induced phenomena through this risk mapping, will allow them to target the high-risk areas for risk mitigation. This Flood and drought risk mapping also makes it possible for government and non-governmental organizations to identify the risk factors and allocate resources, build infrastructure, and ensure that early warning systems are put in place to guarantee community disaster resilience.
120 | P a g e
12.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Benjamin A. Gyampoh and Winston A. Asante. Mapping and Documenting Indigenous Knowledge in Climate Change Adaptation in Ghana . 2011. A Bryman- Recherche. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 8 for windows . 1999. Amoako, P. Y. O. and S. T. Ampofo. Hazard Mapping in Ghana, UN DP/NADMO, . Accra, 2007. Andrew Shepherd, Charles Jebuni, Ramatu Al-Hassan, Andy McKay, Colin Poulton, Ann Whitehead, and Jonathan Kydd. Economic Growth in Northern Ghana. DFID. Revised Report for DFID Ghana, 2005. Anim-Kwapong, and Frimpong. Vulnerability of Agriculture to climate - impact of climate change on cocoa production. Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment under the Netherlands Climate Change Studies Assistance Programme Phase 2 . 2006. Antonius, R. Interpreting quantitative data with SPSS . 2003. C Acton, RL Miller, D Fullerton, J Maltby . SPSS for social scientists. . 2009. Consult, Sync. Capacity Assessment, Disaster Preparedness of NADMO. Accra, 2008. FAO. Climate change will have major impact on fishing industry, says UN agency. . 2008. UN News Centre. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=27330 (accessed August 23 , 2011). GA Morgan, NL Leech , GW Gloeckner, KC Barrett . SPSS for introductory statistics . 2004. Ghana, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of. First National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). EPA of Ghana, Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology . Accra, 2000. 121 | P a g e
Gyampoh, B. A., S. Amisah, M. Idinoba, and J. Nkem. Using traditional knowledge to cope with climate change in rural Ghana. Unasylva No. 231/232, Vol 60. FAO ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0670e/i0670e14.pdf. 2009. JJ Meulman, WJ Heiser . SPSS categories 11 . 2001. Norusis, Author Marija. SPSS 16. Guide to data analysis. 2008. Nyong, A., F. Adesina, and B. Osman Elasha. The value of indigenous knowledge inclimate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12:787-97. . 2007. Report, Presidential. Ghana Vision 2020 document. 1996-2000. Stott PA, and Kettleborough JA. Origins and estimates of uncertainty in Predictions of twenty-first century temperature rise. Nature 416: 723-726. Mapping and Documenting Indigenous Knowledge in Climate Change Adaptation in Ghana 2011. 2002. UN. Disaster Risk Reduction: Risk and Poverty in a Changing Climate: Invest today for a safer tomorrow. Global Assessment Report, 2009. WRC. An Assessment of Hydraulic Property Rights Creation at Community Level in the Volta Basin: Case Study of Ghana. CP 66 Water Rights in Informal Economies in the Limpopo and Volta Basins. Accra, Ghana, 2008.
122 | P a g e
13.0 ANNEX I: DATA SOURCE AND RESOLUTIONS
13.1 Flood Mapping Data
Feature Data Source/Year Resolution/Scale Soil Soil Research Institute 1:250,000 Rainfall GMet (annual average) District level Altitude/Elevation DEM 1:50,000 Slope DEM 1:50,000 Flow accumulation area DEM 1:50,000 Land use 2010 Landsat TM Image 30m Proximity to water bodies Derived from Spatial Analysis 1:50,000
13.2 Drought Mapping Data
Feature Data Source/Year Resolution/Scale Vegetation Indicator Average NDVI land cover map from 2001 2010 30m Climatic Indicator Temperature GMet (annual average) District level Rainfall GMet (annual average) District level Relative humidity GMet (annual average) District level Evapotranspiration GMet (annual average) District level Soil Indicator Parent material Soil Research Institute 1:250,000 Soil Texture Soil Research Institute 1:250,000 Soil depth Soil Research Institute 1:250,000 Slope gradient Soil Research Institute 1:250,000 Rock fragments Soil Research Institute 1:250,000 Organic matter Soil Research Institute 1:250,000 Drainage Soil Research Institute 1:250,000 Land use 2010 Landsat TM Image 30 meter Proximity to water bodies Derived from Spatial Analysis 1:50,000
Advances in Urban Flood Management (Balkema Proceedings and Monographs in Engineering, Water and Earth Sciences) (R. Ashley, S. Garvin, E. Pasche Etc.)