Teshie, a coastal town connected to Accra in Ghana is typical of many impoverished areas where poor sanitation practices (Berendes et al., 2018, 2020) affect the local quality of life, and contribute to various local health problems. The lack of any effective waste disposal, along with poverty related attitudes and actions, presents a complex problem (Oteng-Ababio, 2011). While research has often focused on this problem in general terms, (Cobbinah, Addaney, & Agyeman, 2017; Oteng-Ababio, 2011; Yirenya-tawiah, Nii, Kotei, Annang, & Yirenya-tawiah, 2020), there has generally been a lack of contextualized geographic data that can help explain the heterogeneity of the problem at a granular geographic scale, along with perceived causations and solutions. Acquiring this level of granular insight is vital in terms of how it can then inform effective intervention (Okami & Kohtake, 2017). In this paper we use a spatial video geonarrative to leverage three different but connected data streams that can be used to not only locate problems (and then map then), but also understand their importance through expert or local commentary, with supporting visuals.
Figure 12 provides an overview of the Teshie Trash Complex as pieced together from the spatial video and narratives. Three example neighborhoods are shown, as well as the links between each. Neighborhood A, which is low income, has no official trash removal services. As a result, residents tend to dump illegally, either in the drains, or on places with little oversight, or they dispose using methods such as burning. Each of these presents potential negative health consequences, from the breeding potential of discarded plastic containers to organic matter (including feces) causing enteric disease outbreaks. With a particular proximity focus on the latter are homes close to dump sites, or food vendors who locate close to the drain leading to contamination through water or flies. At greatest risk are children who play in and around (and sometimes within) the dumped material. Finally, burning of trash could also lead to particulate matter or chemical exposure for those living nearby or downwind.
Temporal variation occurs with more dumping occurring during the rains (due to the perception of drain water being able to wash away larger items). While localized flooding may occur, the general perception is that the risks caused by dumping are faced by others away from the community. However, as these actions are because of severe poverty, there is little concern over these displaced consequences.
Neighborhood B, unlike A, is middle income, and therefore has regular trash disposal paid for by residents. In addition, local infrastructure is both better and well maintained, the most obvious example being covered drains. As a result, many of the health risks in Neighborhood A will not occur around the drains because there will be less mosquito breeding, less clogging and flooding, with less food contamination (for example) from flies moving from human waste to vendors food. As a result, food vendors, community children, and residences close to drains are all relatively safer. In addition, there is social capital within the community to deal with any emergent problems – for example if a trash problem did occur, it is more likely the residents would band together to find a solution. There is, however, a potential spillover effect if Neighborhood A borders Neighborhood B based on mosquito flight range (Ejerctto & Urbino, 1951), and, though less likely, if any of the drainage from A is connected to B.
Neighborhood C has a similar situation to A. The same economic pressures lead to a trash problem. However, the situation is arguably worsened because of two factors. Firstly, this community is down drain of Neighborhood A, meaning that trash dumped there flows into B, may clog the channel, and cause localized flooding into the homes. In addition to this flood risk, there will be more containers for mosquito breeding, and arguably more fecal content (increasing the risk of enteric disease). The mosquito risk will extend into the dry season because of water pooling in the discarded containers, or because of localized clogs. Geographic risk will be greater around the drain, and where trash and mud accumulate due to flooding. While food vendors and children will again be at risk, arguably these risks will be even more elevated than for A. The second contributing factor is that C is also closer to the coast, meaning that incoming tides are more likely to prevent downflow, increasing the chance of trash clogging and flooding. In other words, even though the situations of A and C are similar, the site of C leads to even greater disparity.
Finally, arguably the environment that suffers most from trash being dumped anywhere in the drainage system is the coast. The estuary and beaches are thick with trash posing multiple health problems for those who reside there, especially children. The scale of the deposits exceeds any local solution and would need governmental assistance to be removed. The smell is intense and the water in both the drain and the surrounding sea is likely to be heavily polluted (Curtis, Squires, et al., 2019); making the area extremely unpleasant for local residents. Finally, and with implications for Neighborhoods A, B and C, fish stocks are contaminated with the potential to cause sickness.
While Fig. 12 provides a summary of the overall cycle, it should be remembered that the SVG underlying this provides local detail in the form of maps, images and context that can also be used to understand the specific problem (why it exists and where) but also possible solutions. For example, the map in Fig. 11 could be used to target specific interventions.
What is evident is that, unlike as stated in some of the narratives, this is not just a local problem caused by local behavioral situations. While there are general initiatives aimed at the repurposing of plastic waste (Agyeman et al., 2019; Appiah et al., 2017; Debrah et al., 2021), the overall lack of a Ghanaian governmental desire to control the use of plastics limits the effectiveness of any local initiative.
There is also limited scope in thinking education will lead to a change in behavior. As suggested by some, it is unrealistic to believe that lower income communities will organize periodic clean up exercises as developed in some of their higher income neighbors, partly because of the complex struggles associated with poverty, and partly because of the perception the impact is felt elsewhere. Simply put, for those struggling financially, more emphasis is on daily survival and expending time and energy on environmental cleanup is seen as a luxury. This situation is compounded by there also being fewer official trash removal services in these areas, again because of the inability of residents to pay for those services.
Yet what is clear in the SVGs, and can be seen in Fig. 12, is that the problems extend beyond any one neighborhood and require broader thinking and intervention. Guaranteeing funding for regular trash removal will reduce the need for dumping, leading to a cleaner environment, less sickness, and fewer lost labor days. It is also imperative to just think about these problems daily as the damage caused, especially the coastal areas, requires considerable attention far exceeding any local neighborhood ability.
While expecting such government intervention to cover drains, improve local waste collection sites and schedule regular (free) pickups, and implement considerable environmental cleanup operations is probably unrealistic, the SVGs also hint at more local options that lead to smaller incremental improvements. One such strategy as we have described previously is sand “winning” from the gutters for local construction (Bempah et al., 2020). With more and temporally updated SVG collection it is entirely possible that other such local strategies can be identified, evaluated, and then scaled up as a multi neighborhood strategy.