Aap Risk Mapping in Ghana

1 | P a g e
FLOOD AND DROUGHT

RISK MAPPING IN
GHANA
5 AAP PILOT DISTRICTS

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 26: Rainfall pattern over the past 5 years ........................................................ 58
Figure 28: Colour of the soil .......................................................................................... 60
Figure 29: Building materials ........................................................................................ 61
Figure 31: Safe haven ..................................................................................................... 63
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 44: Cause of flooding .......................................................................................... 75
11 | P a g e

Figure 49: Safe havens in locality .................................................................................. 80
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 58: Cause of flooding .......................................................................................... 89
Figure 60: Duration of flood disaster ............................................................................ 91
Figure 63: Safe havens .................................................................................................... 94
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)
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)
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)
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

Factor Weighting Factor
Hazard mapping
Climate Indicator 0.4
Vegetation Index 0.4
Soil Indicator 0.2

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

Safe havens
Table 10: Fanteakwa Safe havens

Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Dansor (school) 4 13.3 13.3 13.3
Zion (church) 2 6.7 6.7 20.0
Bosuso (church) 5 16.7 16.7 36.7
Ahomahomaso (school) 5 16.7 16.7 53.3
Manee, Timily (church) 3 10.0 10.0 63.3
Akrumuso (church) 3 10.0 10.0 73.3
Nsutam (church) 3 10.0 10.0 83.3
Nkankanma (church) 3 10.0 10.0 93.3
Adakope Odortom
(school)
2 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0

48 | P a g e

Safe Havens

Figure 15: Safe Havens in locality

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



57 | P a g e

7.2 Sissala East District Risk Assessment

7.2.1 Sissala East District Flood Risk Assessment

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



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


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


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


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.


74 | P a g e


75 | P a g e

8.2 West Mamprusi District Risk Assessment

8.2.1 West Mamprusi District Flood Risk Assessment

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


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



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


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


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


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



89 | P a g e

9.2 Keta Municipal Risk Assessment
9.2.1 Keta Municipal Flood Risk Assessment

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


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


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


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


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



108 | P a g e

10.2 Aowin Suaman District Risk Assessment

10.2.1 Aowin Suaman District Flood Risk Assessment:


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?


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


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


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


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


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

Aap Risk Mapping in Ghana

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Aap Risk Mapping in Ghana

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1 | P a g e

FLOOD AND DROUGHT

Anda mungkin juga menyukai