Content uploaded by Emmanuel Kwame Nti
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emmanuel Kwame Nti on Jun 22, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
Available online 15 June 2023
2665-9727/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
The impact of artisanal gold mining on the sustainability of Ghana’s river
basins: The case of the Pra basin
Emmanuel Kwame Nti
a
,
b
,
*
, Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic
a
,
c
, Dzigbodi Adzo Doke
a
,
b
,
Camillus Abawiera Wongnaa
d
, Eunice Efua Attafuah
e
, Michael Amoah Gyan
f
a
West African Centre for Water, Irrigation and Sustainable Agriculture (WACWISA) Government of Ghana and World Bank through the African Centre’s of Excellence
for Development Impact (ACE Impact) Initiative, University for Development Studies (UDS), Tamale, Ghana
b
Department of Environment and Sustainability Sciences, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, University for Development Studies (UDS), Tamale, Ghana
c
Department of Agricultural Mechanisation and Irrigation Technology, University for Development Studies (UDS), Tamale, Ghana
d
Department of Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness and Extension, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana
e
Regional Water and Environmental Sanitation Centre Kumasi (RWESCK) World Bank Africa Centre’s of Excellence Project, Department of Civil Engineering, Kwame
Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana
f
Department of History, University of Cape Coast (UCC), Cape Coast, Ghana
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Pra river basin
Water pollution
Illegal mining
Sustainability
Environmental impact
Water security
ABSTRACT
The study examined the critical factors inuencing the sustainability of the Pra river basin in Ghana, with a focus
on water pollution incidents caused by illegal mining (galamsey) activities. The study followed a quantitative
research approach using data collected from 156 respondents in the Amansie Central district of Ghana. Gener-
ally, Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT), Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a multi-
criteria technique in two stages of discrete and continuous sustainability analysis and descriptive statistics
were the methods of analysis. The study revealed that licensing procedures that do not address environmental
impacts, government ban on illegal mining (galamsey) activities as well as poor capacity and nancial con-
straints greatly inuence the sustainability of the Pra river basin. Also, self-cleansing capacity of the river basin
as well as protection of the ecological status of water in the basin were respondents’ lowest priority. The results
revealed that all criteria are currently within a sustainable range with a maximum score indicating a weak
sustainability level of the basin due to the pollution incidents. Building on this empirical understanding calls for
defensive strategies to be employed. The study therefore recommends amongst other things that revisiting the
ban on illegal mining (galamsey) activities, and at this time, within the buffer zones of the basin area is critical
for implementation. This, however, calls for a strong collaboration between government, civil society organi-
zations and local communities towards addressing the environmental, economic and human aspects of water
security, sustainability and management for the basin.
1. Introduction
Globally, most river basins suffer from pollution which begun in the
industrial revolution time (Xia et al., 2021; Yasmin et al., 2023). Diverse
anthropogenic activities including discharges of waste from industrial
and domestic activities, settlement development, improper agricultural
activities and illegal gold mining (galamsey
1
) activities in waterbodies
and river courses especially in some developing countries are some of
the sources of river basin pollution. The vital role played by river basins,
necessitates the call for their sustainable management in order to ensure
the achievement of United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal
(SDG) 6 - “Clean water and sanitation”. This paper focuses on the impact
of illegal gold mining (galamsey) activities on river basins. It is argued
that water pollution incidents in river basins may not only hinder the
achievement of the SDG 6 in some developing countries but also serve as
a risk to the livelihoods of the people who depend on water. Generally,
* Corresponding author. West African Centre for Water, Irrigation and Sustainable Agriculture (WACWISA) Government of Ghana and World Bank through the
African Centre’s of Excellence for Development Impact (ACE Impact) initiative, University for Development Studies (UDS), Tamale, Ghana.
E-mail address: kwame.nti@yahoo.com (E.K. Nti).
1
Galamsey was coined from the words (gathering and selling). It is the traditional method of mining with the use of simple tools like cutlasses and hoes even before
the colonial period in Ghana. However, the name has come to be associated with a form of illegal, informal or small-scale mining apparently.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/environmental-and-sustainability-indicators
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2023.100264
Received 15 February 2023; Received in revised form 7 June 2023; Accepted 14 June 2023
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
2
while others envision the importation of water, others also wonder the
willingness of states that have protected their water resources against
pollution of heavy metal to supply clean water to vulnerable countries
whose fresh water supplies have been affected with much pollution in-
cidents especially in developing countries. It is therefore important to
build strategies to protect the valuable resource against pollution as a
result of illegal gold mining (galamsey) activities in waterbodies and
water courses for the general benet of all citizens. Srinivas et al. (2018)
reported that in India and China, water bodies are extremely polluted.
This puts most of the river basins under constant threat and subse-
quently affect the supply of freshwaters (Srinivas et al., 2018). Accord-
ing to Xia et al. (2021) the water quality in the Yangtze River which is
the third largest river in the world and the largest river in China has
decreased due to increased anthropogenic pollution especially in its
tributaries. In Surabaya, Sulistyaningsih et al. (2021) noted the heavy
pollution that is worsening the quality of drinking water in the Surabaya
River. Also, the Citarum river pollution has been recorded as amongst
the rst ten in terms of being the spotlight of most polluted rivers in the
world (Sulistyaningsih et al., 2021). In Europe, an assessment done in
the year 2000 on Danube River Basin which is the second largest basin
revealed that, the basin is confronted with high pollution (Vigiak et al.,
2016).
In Africa, water bodies are also at risk of waste and industrial
pollution. Currently, the most disturbing challenge to water bodies in
the Sub-Saharan Africa has to do with mining. Although corporate
mining has been practiced for several years in Africa, in countries like
Ghana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, ASM mining (either on a small-
scale or artisanal) has proliferated over time. Presently, in Ghana,
there has been considerable evidence to prove that ASM has become the
major cause of pollution of river basins especially in the South-western
part of the country. Ghana being the largest producer of gold in Africa,
citizens have sought to benet directly from gold trading and hence have
involved themselves in mining activities (especially illegal and small
scale), resulting in the use of the term ASM, becoming rampant in the
country. According to Kumah (2022), the term ASM does not practically
satisfy the mining codes in the Ghanaian context, however, ‘small-scale
mining’ is used to describe the board spectrum of activities in the
country. Consequently, in this paper, ASM will be used to refer to all
those informal, illegal and/or the unauthorized small-scale mining ac-
tivities, (referred to as galamsey) in Ghana.
Ghana being the largest producer of gold in Africa experienced a GDP
decline from 5.4% to 3.2% in 2021 according to the World Bank. The
mining sector has gradually seen a signicant growth over the few years
even with the slowdown in growth, the recovery in gold exports sup-
ported extractives growth. The crucial role of artisanal and small-scale
mining (ASM) to a socioeconomic development in terms of employ-
ment (Asori et al., 2022) and income (Arthur-Holmes et al., 2022) are
well known (Clifford, 2022; Eduful et al., 2020). ASM widely serves as
livelihoods for Ghanaians who physically engage in informal small-scale
mining, and also increases and contributes to the economic importance
of the mineral state. In fact, ASM is said to have the potential of alle-
viating poverty in Ghana since over 1 million of rural people are
employed in this sector. In 2018, it was estimated that ASM accounted
for over 43% of Ghana’s total gold production (Adu-Baffour et al.,
2021). In spite of these signicant socio-economic contributions, ASM
has become a threat to water basins especially in the South-western part
of Ghana. A large number of its activities are informal, illegal and haz-
ardous, hence detrimental to the ecosystem at large.
The recent increase in ASM activities in Ghana can be linked to the
higher rate of unemployment amongst the young in the rural areas,
cumbersome and costly registration, lack of lands, corruption and
foreign national (Chinese) engagements. According to Tschakert (2009),
as at 2009, the large majority of Ghanaian artisanal miners worked
without an ofcial license illegally. Due to encroachment on corporate
lands, constant use of toxic chemicals like mercury in the gold extraction
processes, and the social and environmental disruption caused by their
illegal mining activity, these miners are mostly criminalized. Although it
is evident that the actions of these miners are threatening the lives of the
various water bodies (like River Pra), it has also become a source of
livelihood for most rural families. As a matter of fact, ASM has become
subsistence and the most important non-farming activity replacing
farming itself as the dominant form of work for the rural population in
Ghana. The shift to mining activities from farming is threatening as it
affects crop production (Wongnaa et al., 2021).
The extent to which ASM is growing rapidly can be halted, hence,
there is a growing demand for government to formalize and implement
effective regulations to address the various social, health and environ-
mental issues emanating from ‘galamsey’ rather than criminalizing the
venture (Kumah, 2022). Often, formalization in this case implies legal-
ization, and the granting of licenses to miners in specic areas. However,
while formalizing has been promoted as an effective governance tool to
curb ASM activities, the challenge has always been how these policies or
measures are to be conceived and institutionalized to gain wide accep-
tance from the local miners (Hilson and Maconachie, 2017). For
example, ndings revealed that despite ASM formalization showing
considerable promise at rst, the drive to formalize ASM in
Mozambique, which spans over three decades, has lost its momentum
(Hilson et al., 2021). The formalization tools would have served as
double-edged sword that will combat mining activities that pollute
waterbodies, degrade lands and threaten the ecosystem entirely, and at
the same time protect the interest of the miners since their livelihoods
depend on it. However, documentation of ASM practices from several
settings have shown that the underpinning factors for informal mining
practices are more nuanced and can be a hindrance to any formalization
approach centered on legalization and formal titles (Kumah, 2022). For
instance, informal access to land through ancestral lineage is regarded as
legitimate to the miners rather than formal mining license (Kumah,
2022). Thus, mining license alone would not be enough for these local
miners in Ghana.
To begin mining operations in Ghana, the licensing process requires
that prospective miners must obtain licenses and permits from various
institutions (Adu-Baffour et al., 2021) such as the Minerals Commission,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Water Resources
Commission (Hilson et al., 2022). The different types of licenses that
miners can obtain include rst, rights for mineral reconnaissance,
exploration, and mining, environmental permits, operation permit and
water use permits. According to Adu-Baffour et al. (2021) small-scale
miners are required to obtain a small-scale mining license to engage in
activities on a concession area up to 25 acres, which also allows them to
conduct reconnaissance and prospecting. Environmental permits are
issued by the EPA after screening, reviewing, and approving a proposed
project through an environmental assessment process (Adu-Baffour
et al., 2021). An operating permit from the Minerals Commission
(inspectorate division) is required to exploit land for minerals. Addi-
tionally, a water use permit from the Water Resources Commission
(WRC) is now being enforced as a legal requirement, which was previ-
ously rarely enforced (Hilson et al., 2022). There are bottlenecks in the
process of licensing. The process of licensing for small-scale mining in
the country has signicant barriers in terms of costs and bureaucracy
(Hilson et al., 2020, 2022; Prescott et al., 2022), obtaining technical
support and accessing capital (Martinez et al., 2021). As noted by Hilson
et al. (2022), the involvement of both the EPA and WRC has made the
application process for Small-Scale Mining Licenses a cross-ministerial
undertaking in Ghana.
In 2017, the Government of Ghana begun to address ASM activities
after a media campaign #StopGalamsey discourse was initiated. After
further analysis, it was evident that the media’s reportage was one-
sided. According to Sojkov´
a (2022), the framing of illegal artisanal
and small-scale gold mining in the Ghanaian media during the #Stop-
Galamsey campaign ranged from environmental menace, criminal ac-
tivity, complex menace and corruption, and collusion. In this media
campaign, ‘galamsey’ was presented with a focus on the pollution of the
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
3
water resources and not holistically. This led to the miners being crim-
inalized, marginalized and dehumanized. ‘Galamsey’ activities have a
long history, particularly in Ghana and it was the traditional method of
mining (gathering and selling) even before and during the colonial
period (Baddianaah et al., 2022) with the use of simple tools like cut-
lasses and hoes. Now the informal mining activity is carried out every-
where in most parts of the country (Forkuor et al., 2020; Osei et al.,
2021) and these miners make use of machinery like excavators which
has led to the increase in pollution and the cause for alarm.
The effect of ASM is clearly visible at the sight of the various
waterbodies like Pra River and Ankobra River basins in Ghana. In
responding to public concerns about ASM and sustainability measures in
the Pra River Basin and the various river bodies in general, a ban was
placed on illegal mining activities in March 2017 (Darko et al., 2021),
and military sweeps in the form of Operation Halt and Operation
Vanguard were carried out. Subsequently, the ban was lifted and com-
munity mining was introduced, yet the sustainability of water bodies
like Pra River Basin is still threatened. There is therefore the need for an
immediate attention that guarantee water-related activities through a
healthy environment as well as integrated river basin management
strategy based on connecting ecology, economics and public participa-
tion (L´
opez-Gunn et al., 2016).
Therefore, in this paper, beneciaries in the catchment area of the
Pra basin were selected for the study in southwestern Ghana with in-
terest and motivation in the sustainability of the Pra basin. These ben-
eciaries were selected because basin management is a fundamental
aspect of sustainability hence, water users should not only be passive
beneciaries of the advantages alone but be active contributors and at
the same time strengthening their local participation to improve water
management (Mitchell, 2006; Nti et al., 2019). These beneciaries
residing within the basin area as argued by Ofosu and Sarpong (2022)
who are known to be the champions of water pollution could rather be
caretakers of water bodies and the environment. In that regard, this
study was guided by the following research questions.
i. What are the critical factors inuencing the sustainability of the Pra
river basin?
ii. What strategies can be built for the identied river basin sustain-
ability factors to address water pollution incidents caused by illegal
gold mining (galamsey) activities relevant to the fundamental con-
cepts of water security and digital transformation in sustainable
water management?
Apart from studies on pollution (Attiogbe et al., 2020b; Bessah et al.,
2021; Duncan et al., 2018a, Duncan et al., 2018b; Aryee et al., 2003;
Kuma and Younger, 2004), accurate understanding of the factors that
inuence the basin’s sustainability for enhanced water security is
limited. For this, further research on river basin sustainability inu-
encing factors is essential. This study, therefore, bridges this relevant
gap and helps gain clearer insights to the water security and sustain-
ability issues in one of the signicant basins in Ghana which is the Pra
River Basin. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section two
focuses on the methodology. In section three, the results are presented
and discussed. Finally, conclusion and recommendations are made in
section four.
2. Methodology
2.1. Study area
The Pra basin in Ghana is the study area. It covers an area of 23,256
km
2
in the forest zone of Ghana (Awotwi et al., 2018). The basin takes its
source from the highlands of eastern Ghana, particularly the Kwahu
Plateau, and runs southwards with River Ofn, Birim, Anum, and Oda as
its major tributaries (Awotwi et al., 2021). The Pra River Basin is an
essential source of water for local communities and plays a vital role in
the ecological balance of the surrounding area. The Basin has the only
notable natural freshwater lake in Ghana, Lake Bosomtwe as part of its
river network (Awotwi et al., 2021), with exceptional mix of tourist
attractions like national parks and cultural heritage sites (Water Re-
sources Commission [WRC], 2012). The justication therefore is that
the importance of the Pra basin cannot be overlooked as it is shared by
ve of the 16 regions in Ghana, and covers 43 administrative districts,
with 21 of them in Ashanti, 11 in Eastern, 7 in the Central, 3 in the
Western and 1 in the Western North region respectively. More note-
worthy, River Pra has the following tributaries, River Ofn, Birim,
Anum and Oda (Awotwi et al., 2021) which spread through 55% of
Ashanti Region, accounting for about 68% of its population, 23% of
Eastern Region, 15% of Central Region and 7% of both Western and
Western North Regions of Ghana.
Further, the Basin is recognized as a global biodiversity hotspot due
to a high presence of endemic species. Also, Ashanti region forms more
than half of the Pra River Basin and the Region is the second largest
producer of cocoa beans in Ghana. Again, the Pra River Basin is an area
with substantial active ASM activities affecting waterbodies amongst
others makes the Basin an ideal case study and offer clues about how the
media zoomed in on waterbodies and stimulated it been singled out.
Currently, the Pra basin is in a critical condition as it is highly pollution
(Ampomah, 2017). That is, generally the rules and regulations govern-
ing mining are not adhered to (Awotwi et al., 2021). Fig. 1 presents a
map of the study area.
The study was conducted in the Amansie Central District of Ashanti
Region of Ghana. The selection of the Amansie Central District, with
Jacobu as the district capital is based on the dominance of mining ac-
tivities and the hot-spots of ’galamsey’ activities causing severe water
pollution in the major Oda tributaries of the Pra Basin in the district. The
Amansie Central District covers an area of approximately 710 sq. kilo-
meters (275.4 sq. miles) and constitutes 2.5% of the total land area of
Ashanti Region. The population of the district is 93,052 as of 2021
(Ghana Statistical Service, 2021). The district is located in the forest
dissected plateau region, characterized by an undulating shape with an
average height between 150 and 300 m above sea level. The majority of
households in the district have their source of drinking water from
mechanized boreholes, constituting 71.1%. Also, public taps or stand-
pipes constitute about 12.7%, with rivers or streams constituting 4.4%,
protected wells about 3.8% with the use of sachet water representing
0.5% (Ghana Statistical Service, 2010) are all used as sources of drinking
water, but to a large extent, quite a large number of inhabitants still
depend on unprotected water sources.
2.2. Sample size determination
The study used primary data collected through a cross-sectional
survey. The sample size for the entire ve (5) regions of the Pra basin
was calculated to be 400. This was done by using the Yamane formula
(Yamane, 1973) presented in Equation (1) which assumed a 95% con-
dence level and 5% margin of error with a total population of 14,167,
443 for the entire ve regions. Amongst the regions, Ashanti region was
selected for the study. The sample size using the Region’s total popu-
lation of 5,440,463 (Ghana Statistical Service, 2021), was calculated to
be 154 using Equation (2).
However, the sample size for the selected District within Ashanti
Region, Amansie Central District, having a total population of 93,052
(Ghana Statistical Service, 2021) was calculated to be 7 following
Equation (2) which is not statistically appropriate to achieve a specied
level of response for policy. To correct this, Salkind et al. (2001) rec-
ommended oversampling. To improve the statistical power and account
for low response rate and uncooperative subjects, this study puts the
sample size at 156 to reect the region and correct all probable anom-
alies that might occur. This suggest that observing more data above 156
sample size for the selected district will end with repetitive responses
and that no new observations could be established (Corbetta, 2007;
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
4
Delgado and Romero, 2016) that would lead to the discovery of more
information related to the research questions (Lowe et al., 2018).
n=N
1+N(
α
)2(1)
Where.
n =the sample size; N =the sample frame (entire regions) for the
study and
α
=the condence interval (acceptable margin of error =0.05
(error researcher is willing to accept)).
n1=SD1X SS1
N(2)
Where.
n1 =the sample drawn for the study; SD1 =the total population of
the selected Region (Ashanti); SS1 =sample size for the study and N =
the total population of all the Regions the basin cover.
2.3. River basin sustainability analytical framework
Sustainability strategies for river basin management have been
developed using various methods (Podimata and Yannopoulos, 2013;
Srinivas et al., 2018), including SWOT (Strengths-Weaknesse-
s-Opportunities-Threats) and AHP (analytic hierarchy process) (Bakal´
ar
et al., 2021). The most commonly used method is a hybridized SWOT
and fuzzy AHP, which has been employed in assessments of the sus-
tainability of the Indian Ganges River basin and Horn´
ad River basin in
Eastern Part of Slovakia (Bakal´
ar et al., 2021; Srinivas et al., 2018). This
research aims to nd the best solutions for river basin sustainability is-
sues by combining three models: hybridized SWOT, improved fuzzy, and
analytical hierarchy process. The SWOT model employs a combination
of internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) and external factors (op-
portunities and threats) in order to achieve the best possible results for
the sustainability of the basin (Belay et al., 2010; Bunting et al., 2016;
Srinivas et al., 2018). The SWOT question-answer protocol was struc-
tured for respondents to choose between the indicators as presented in
Table 1.
In determining the relative importance of the individual criteria in
Fig. 1. A map of Ghana showing Pra basin’s coverage regions and the study area.
Table 1
Modied fuzzy scale approach to evaluate negative and positive indicators.
Rating/
Reciprocal
Description of linguistic representation of indicators
1–1 Indicators i and j are equal
2 - 1/2 Indicator i relative to determinant j is between equal and weak
3 - 1/3 Indicator i relative to determinant j is weak
4 - 1/4 Indicator i relative to determinant j is between weak and strong
5 - 1/5 Indicator i relative to determinant j is strong
6 - 1/6 Indicator i relative to determinant j is between strong and very
strong
7 - 1/7 Indicator i relative to determinant j is very strong
8 - 1/8 Indicator i relative to determinant j is between very strong and
absolute
9 - 1/9 Indicator i relative to determinant j is absolute
Based on Srinivas et al. (2018) and Bakal´
ar et al. (2021).
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
5
relation to the comparative indicators, a key rating system as presented
in Table 2 was used to quantify the nal value of the weights to reect
the interactions between the criteria (Bakal´
ar et al., 2021).
The study follows the steps outlined in Fig. 2.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Descriptive analysis of the study respondents
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of respondents. Among the
ve regions that the Pra basin serves, only the Ashanti region was
selected. The pooled sample for the gender of the respondents in Table 3
shows that 40% of the respondents were males, while 60% were females.
Thus, the majority of the respondents were females, but with active male
involvement. This corroborates the continuous involvement of com-
munity women and men in water issues (Lockwood et al., 2003; Nti
et al., 2021) particularly those that have ASM and sustainability issues.
The result of this study, however, conrms with a report by USAID
(2020) which indicated that women make up 50% of the ASM labour
force and appear to show much interest in ASM activities, just as men.
From Table 3, the pooled sample for the household head status of the
respondents shows that 48% of the responses came from household
heads with the remaining 52% coming from relations of the household
head be it a son or daughter. The majority of the respondents were not
household heads. This was due to the technical nature of the questions
that required an appreciable level of education and due to that, most
household heads referred the responses to their immediate relatives
whose educational level was higher. This further explains why the re-
spondents who took part in the study survey were able to answer tech-
nical questions relating to water physiochemical characteristics. The
justication therefore is that due to the media campaign #StopGalamsey
discourse and education on the effects of illegal mining (galamsey) ac-
tivities on water quality and the need to have safe water after the media
reportage, respondents were competent enough to answer questions on
physiochemical characteristics. Also, training of those administering the
questionnaire in the eld to explain the questions into the target lan-
guage taking into cognizance respondents’ educational level was a
strategy employed.
From the pooled sample in Table 3, the majority of the respondents
(70%) were within the age bracket of 31–45 years while 11% were
within the age bracket of 15–30 years and 19% were also within the age
bracket of 46 years and above. Therefore, the study participants are
within a youthful age group of 31–45, depicting youth’s importance in
water security issues and pollution incidents caused by illegal mining
(galamsey) activities. The nding of the current study conrms the
earlier ndings by Osei et al. (2021).
The results in Table 3 shows that 45% of the study respondents were
single, whiles 52% were married and also represent the majority. The
respondents who were widowed represent 1%. The remaining 2% of the
respondents were divorced. The study is suggesting that married re-
spondents as the majority group will have more responsibility to bear in
water security issues and pollution incidents caused by illegal mining
(galamsey) activities than single, divorced or widowed respondents.
This conrms strong female engagement in illegal mining (galamsey)
activities in Ghana, as they struggle to care for their families through
gainful employment within the sector to improve their economic situ-
ations (Zolnikov, 2020). This is consistent to the ndings of Hausermann
et al. (2020) which revealed that marriage and its associated re-
sponsibilities, drive married local people to join illegal mining (gal-
amsey) activities to cater for their family needs.
On religion of the study participants following the pooled sample in
Table 3, majority of the respondents representing 70% are Christians.
This is followed by Muslims who represent 25% and 5% representing
other religions in the study area.
Results from Table 3 depict that majority of the respondents (75%)
had formal education up to college/university level while 14% had up to
postgraduate level. About 8% had up to secondary/high school level and
1% had up to middle/junior high, primary and no formal education,
respectively.
3.2. Factors of SWOT group and respondents attribute
The study presents the factors that impact the sustainability of a river
basin using a combination of the SWOT model and an improved fuzzy
AHP method. The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
pertaining to the Pra River Basin were identied based on pollution
incidents caused by illegal mining activities, the Pra basin’s Integrated
Water Resource Management Plan as well as literature and expert
opinions form the inclusion criteria in choosing the factors. These factors
were carefully selected by conducting extensive research of the river
basin, its management plan and secondary sources. In addition, an
exclusion criteria was adopted where some factors that do not reect the
current state of the basin in the context of the water pollution incidents
caused by illegal mining (galamsey) activities were rejected. This paved
way for the selection of the nal SWOT factors and for further analysis
using the AHP. The criteria selected for the study were classied into
four categories, viz. Social (S
1
), Economic (EC
2
), Environmental (EN
3
),
and Technical (T
4
). The study of the Oda tributary of the Pra River Basin
resulted in a total of 16 factors which were then organized using the
SWOT matrix (Table 4) to formulate strategies for the sustainability of
the basin. The SWOT analysis of the Pra River Basin identied four
factors as internal strengths, which include the excellent natural char-
acteristics of the basin and a focus on improving its ecosystem. It is
important to establish a strategy for addressing the problem of water
pollution caused by illegal mining activities in the basin.
The factors of strengths were identied and listed in Table 4, and
their weights were quantied numerically. The analysis also found four
factors as internal weaknesses, which were due to human factors such as
lack of capacity, nances, and overexploitation. These weaknesses were
identied and listed in Table 4 as characteristics of the present surface
water environment in the Pra basin.
Similarly, to the factors of strength, the weights of the internal
weaknesses were quantied. The study also identied four external
opportunities that can help in managing the basin against illegal mining
activities. These opportunities are primarily related to the use of
advanced technology and increasing public and political concerns.
These opportunities were identied and listed in Table 4. The study also
found four factors as threats, which were primarily caused by the
licensing of small-scale mining, discharge of pollutants, climate change
as well as land use planning. These threats were identied and listed in
Table 4.
Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics of the socio-demographic
attributes of the respondents who answered the questionnaire,
including their gender, household head status, age group, marital status,
religion, and education with the SWOT factors. For the SWOT factors,
female gender recorded the highest (185) for SEC
2
- perennial fresh
water supply and irrigation potential for strength or Group S, (163) for
OT
4
- strong collaboration among the regulatory agencies for opportu-
nities or Group O. Also, for threats or Group T, female gender recorded
highest (164) for TEN
3
- global warming and climate change impact. It is
important to note that the respondents attribute and SWOT help to
Table 2
Evaluation of negative and positive points.
Points Criteria
0.00–0.20 Meets signicantly below average
0.20–0.40 Meets below average
0.40–0.60 Meets at an average
0.60–0.80 Meets above average
0.80–1.00 Meets signicantly above average
Based on Bakal´
ar et al. (2021)
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
6
identify patterns and relationships between the characteristics of the
population and the SWOT factors to support the development of targeted
strategies to address them.
3.3. Discrete and continuous sustainability analysis of river basin
sustainability
Using responses from the questionnaire to identify the factors that
impact the sustainability of the basin, both discrete and continuous
sustainability analysis were carried out. The discrete sustainability
analysis (DSA) was performed rst, followed by the continuous sus-
tainability analysis (CSA) to rene the results of the DSA and provide a
better understanding of the critical factors that affect the sustainability
of the river basin. Using the questionnaire, the sample beneciaries
selected for the study were asked to make a pairwise comparison be-
tween two indicators, choosing which indicator they preferred over the
other as part of the discrete sustainability analysis. In the question-
answer protocol, for example, which one of the preference options,
SS
1
: self-cleansing capacity of the river basin OR SE
2
: perennial fresh
water supply and irrigation potential, has more strength? Thus, the
SWOT question-answer protocol was structured for respondents to
choose between whether an indicator i is preferred over the determinant
j or an indicator SS
1
is preferred over the determinant SE
2
.
In order to rene the results and provide alternatives that reect the
relative signicance of the parameters as part of the continuous sus-
tainability analysis using the questionnaire, the respondents’ level of
preference was determined by using Saaty’s 1–9 point scale analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) for ranking namely: ‘equal,’ ‘between equal and
weak,’ ‘weak,’ ‘between weak and strong,’ ‘strong,’ ‘between strong and
very strong,’ ‘very strong,’ ‘between very strong and absolute,’ and
Fig. 2. Fuzzy based Hybridized Strength-Weakness-Opportunities and Threats model (FH-SWOT) with Analytical Hierarchy Process for River Basin Sustainabil-
ity Analysis.
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
7
‘absolute,’. This was done after the discrete choices of either the indi-
cator i is preferred over the determinant j before the continuous choices
of using Saaty’s 1–9 point scale analytical hierarchy process. It is
assumed that the factors inuencing the sustainability of a river basin
can vary at different stages and can be inuenced by different factors at
each stage.
The discrete sustainability analysis began by evaluating the rst of
the four factors that represent the strengths (S group) of the basin using
the judgments of the beneciaries within the catchment area of the
basin. This approach of considering the opinions of beneciaries within
the catchment area differs from traditional methods where the decision-
makers are typically experts in basin or water resources management
(Bakal´
ar et al., 2021; Marques et al., 2015; Srinivas et al., 2018). This
approach is important because it increases the legitimacy of the bene-
ciaries’ role as a decision-making stakeholder in the water sector and
ensures that the decisions made are sustainable in the long-term
(Bakal´
ar et al., 2021; Marques et al., 2015; Srinivas et al., 2018).
For the discrete sustainability analysis, the rst of the four (4) factors
representing the S group or strength were analysed using the judgments
of the beneciaries within the catchment area of the basin. Considering
the judgment of beneciaries within the catchment area of the basin in
assessment like this nature are in contrast with most approaches where
the appropriate decision-makers could be experts in basin management
or water resources management (Bakal´
ar et al., 2021; Marques et al.,
2015; Srinivas et al., 2018). More importantly, the preference of bene-
ciaries’ residing within the catchment area of the basin for long term
sustainability decisions by offering judgment for river basin sustain-
ability is equally meant to increase the legitimacy of water or basin
management beneciaries as another important decision stakeholder
with responsibilities in the water sector (Mitchell, 2006; Nti et al.,
2019).
Following the SWOT question-answer protocol, the values and pri-
ority to the factors used in the SWOT as presented in Table 6 are re-
sponses to the questionnaire-based pair-wise comparison. For example,
for strength, when respondents were asked to do a pairwise comparison
by responding to which one of the preference options, SS
1
: self-cleansing
capacity of the river basin OR SE
2
: perennial fresh water supply and
irrigation potential, has more strength and gave 126 for SS
1
: self-
cleansing capacity of the river basin and 30 for SE
2
: perennial fresh
water supply and irrigation potential as shown in Table 6. Thus, the
strength factor for the SS
1
: self-cleansing capacity of the river basin
were: 126 >30 perennial fresh water supply and irrigation potential
(SE
2
), 89 >67 ecological status of water in the basin (SEN
3
), 99 >57
keeping the values of pH, soluble substances and nitrates to the national
water quality standards (ST
4
). From Table 6, the total for SS
1
: self-
cleansing capacity of the river basin was 126 +89+99 =314. Howev-
er, the Geometric mean (GMi) that is Si ^
1/4
(314^
1/4
) gave 4.21. The
criterion weight (CWi)gave 0.27 and that is GMi/sum of the mean
(4.21/15.59).
Also, SEC
2
- perennial fresh water supply and irrigation potential
when compared to SEN
3
– the ecological status of water in the basin gave
84 for SEC
2
- perennial fresh water supply and irrigation potential and
72 for SEN
3
– the ecological status of water in the basin. Thus, SEC
2
-
perennial fresh water supply and irrigation potential were 84 >72
ecological status of water in the basin (SEN
3
) and 87 >69 keeping the
values of pH, soluble substances and nitrates to the national water
quality standards (ST
4
). The total for SEC
2
- perennial fresh water supply
and irrigation potential was 30 +84+87 =201 (Table 6). However, the
Geometric mean (GMi) that is Si ^
1/4
(201^
1/4
) gave 3.77. The criterion
weight (CWi)gave 0.24 and that is GMi/sum of the mean (3.77/15.59).
On strength, when SEN
3
– the ecological status of water in the basin
was compared to ST
4
- keeping the values of pH, soluble substances and
nitrates to the national water quality standards gave 91 for SEN
3
– the
ecological status of water in the basin and 65 for ST
4
- keeping the values
of pH, soluble substances and nitrates to the national water quality
standards. Thus, SEN
3
– the ecological status of water in the basin were
91 >65 keeping the values of pH, soluble substances and nitrates to the
national water quality standards (ST
4
). The total for SEN
3
– the
ecological status of water in the basin was 67 +72+91 =230. However,
the Geometric mean (GMi) that is Si ^
1/4
(230^
1/4
) gave 3.89. The cri-
terion weight (CWi)gave 0.25 and that is GMi/sum of the mean (3.89/
Table 3
Descriptive statistics of the study respondents.
Variable Pooled sample
Frequency Percentage (%)
Region/District
Ashanti/Amansie Central 156 100
Total 156 100
Gender of beneciaries
Male 63 40
Female 93 60
Total 156 100
Household head status
Yes 75 48
No 81 52
Total 156 100
Age group of beneciaries
15–30 17 11
31–45 109 70
46 and above 30 19
Total 156 100
Marital Status
Single 70 45
Married 82 52
Divorced 3 2
Widowed 1 1
Total 156 100
Religion
Christianity 110 70
Muslim 39 25
Other 7 5
Total 156 100
Education
No Formal Education 1 1
Primary School 1 1
Middle/Junior High 1 1
Senior Sec/High 12 8
College/University 118 75
Postgraduate 23 14
Total 156 100
Source: Field Survey, 2022
Table 4
Factors of SWOT groups of Pra river basin.
Strength - S Weaknesses - W
SS
1
Self-cleansing capacity of the river
basin
WS
1
Water quality
degradation due to
pollution incidence
SEC
2
Perennial fresh water supply and
irrigation potential
WEC
2
Poor capacity and
nancial constraints
SEN
3
The ecological status of water in the
basin
WEN
3
The chemical status of
surface water in the basin
ST
4
Keeping the values of pH, soluble
substances and nitrates to the
national water quality standards
WT
4
Above-limit nitrite,
bacteria and zinc
discharges
Opportunities - O Threats - T
OS
1
The ban on ‘galamsey’ activities
by government to reduce
pollution
TS
1
Licensing procedures that do
not address environmental
impacts
OEC
2
The use of drones and speed
boats to monitor water bodies
against ‘galamsey’
TEC
2
Rapid urbanization along the
basin area
OEN
3
Education from primary to
tertiary level on river importance
and its exploitation
TEN
3
Global warming and climate
change impact
OT
4
Strong collaboration amongst the
regulatory agencies
TT
4
Extinction of aquatic life due
to heavy metal discharge
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
8
Table 5
Respondents attributes and SWOT factors.
Attributes Strength (S) Weakness (W)
SS
1
SEC
2
SEN
3
ST
4
Total WS
1
WEC
2
WEN
3
WT
4
Total
Gender of beneciaries
Male 64 112 100 102 378 68 104 88 118 378
Female 112 185 104 157 558 50 157 160 191 558
Total 176 297 204 259 936 118 261 248 309 936
Household head status
Yes 76 154 91 129 450 48 117 118 167 450
No 100 143 113 130 486 70 144 130 142 486
Total 176 297 204 259 936 118 261 248 309 936
Age group of beneciaries
15–30 25 33 27 17 102 12 35 30 25 102
31–45 111 206 136 201 654 82 174 167 231 654
46 and above 40 58 41 41 180 24 52 51 53 180
Total 176 297 204 259 936 118 261 248 309 936
Marital Status
Single 80 126 100 114 420 63 110 118 129 420
Married 91 164 99 138 492 53 141 126 172 492
Divorced 3 5 4 6 18 1 8 3 6 18
Widowed 2 2 1 1 6 1 2 1 2 6
Total 176 297 204 259 936 118 261 248 309 936
Religion
Christianity 125 202 143 190 660 78 186 176 220 660
Muslim 43 77 56 58 234 35 64 61 74 234
Other 8 18 5 11 42 5 11 11 15 42
Total 176 297 204 259 936 118 261 248 309 936
Education
No Formal Education 1 2 1 2 6 0 2 1 3 6
Primary School 2 2 1 1 6 1 2 1 2 6
Middle/Junior High 2 1 0 3 6 0 2 2 2 6
Senior Sec/High 19 24 13 16 72 4 24 25 19 72
College/University 129 222 163 194 708 104 194 183 227 708
Postgraduate 23 46 26 43 138 9 37 36 56 138
Total 176 297 204 259 936 118 261 248 309 936
Attributes Opportunities (O) Threats (T)
OS
1
OEC
2
OEN
3
OT
4
Total TS
1
TEC
2
TEN
3
TT
4
Total
Gender of beneciaries
Male 108 79 121 70 378 104 63 110 101 378
Female 150 102 143 163 558 133 109 164 152 558
Total 258 181 264 233 936 237 172 274 253 936
Household head status
Yes 129 98 116 107 450 118 75 120 137 450
No 129 83 148 126 486 119 97 154 116 486
Total 258 181 264 233 936 237 172 274 253 936
Age group of beneciaries
15–30 23 16 30 33 102 26 23 30 23 102
31–45 181 122 190 161 654 165 103 194 192 654
46 and above 54 43 44 39 180 46 46 50 38 180
Total 258 181 264 233 936 237 172 274 253 936
Marital Status
Single 112 71 123 114 420 111 88 107 114 420
Married 140 106 135 111 492 123 79 157 133 492
Divorced 3 3 6 6 18 0 3 9 6 18
Widowed 3 1 0 2 6 3 2 1 0 6
Total 258 181 264 233 936 237 172 274 253 936
Religion
Christianity 170 115 200 175 660 168 112 201 179 660
Muslim 73 52 57 52 234 60 47 64 63 234
Other 15 14 7 6 42 9 13 9 11 42
Total 258 181 264 233 936 237 172 274 253 936
Education
No Formal Education 1 0 2 3 6 1 0 3 2 6
Primary School 3 1 0 2 6 3 2 1 0 6
Middle/Junior High 1 1 3 1 6 1 2 2 1 6
Senior Sec/High 8 11 24 29 72 20 15 24 13 72
College/University 210 151 191 156 708 183 127 211 187 708
Postgraduate 35 17 44 42 138 29 26 33 50 138
Total 258 181 264 233 936 237 172 274 253 936
Strength - SS
1
- Self-cleansing capacity of the river basin; SEC
2
- Perennial fresh water supply and irrigation potential; SEN
3
– The ecological status of water in the basin;
ST
4
- Keeping the values of pH, soluble substances and nitrates to the national water quality standards.
Weaknesses - WS
1
–Water quality degradation due to pollution incidence; WEC
2
- Poor capacity and nancial constraints; WEN
3
- The chemical status of surface water
in the basin; WT
4
- Above-limit nitrite, bacteria and zinc discharges.
Opportunities - OS
1
- The ban on ‘galamsey’ activities by government to reduce pollution; OEC
2
- The use of drones and speed boats to monitor water bodies against
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
9
15.59). Finally on strength, the total for ST
4
- keeping the values of pH,
soluble substances and nitrates to the national water quality standards
was 57 +69+65 =191 with a Geometric mean of 3.72 and criterion
weight of 0.24 (Table 6). The same procedure was followed for the value
and priority to the factors for weaknesses, opportunities and threats
respectively as presented in Table 6.
According to Table 6, self-cleansing capacity of the river basin (SS
1
)
accounts for 27% of the decision of factors that inuence river basin
sustainability. Similarly, perennial fresh water supply and irrigation
potential (SEC
2
) and keeping the values of pH, soluble substances and
nitrates to the national water quality standards (ST
4
) represent 24%
respectively. The ecological status of water in the basin (SEN
3
) repre-
sents 25%. The study found that self-cleansing capacity of the river basin
(SS
1
) has the highest priority, which conrms the ndings of Bakal´
ar
et al. (2021) that self-cleansing capacity is the most important factor in
deciding on the quality of water in a specic category of water pollution
sources. The factors of SEN
3
, SEC
2
, and ST
4
rank second, third, and forth
respectively in the discrete factors of the strengths group.
The next category of the SWOT analysis is Group W, or weaknesses,
as shown in Table 6. This group revealed that water quality degradation
due to pollution incidence (WS
1
) is the most signicant factor, ac-
counting for 28% of the factors that affect river basin sustainability.
Other weaknesses include poor capacity and nancial constraints
(WEC
2
) at 24%, the chemical status of surface water in the basin (WEN
3
)
at 25%, and above-limit nitrite, bacteria, and zinc discharges (WT
4
) at
23%. Overall, water quality degradation due to pollution incidence
(WS
1
) is the top priority. This weakness supports the ndings of Quarm
et al. (2022) that water pollution and its associated degradation is the
major impact of illegal mining activities. This is also supported by the
research of Kazapoe et al. (2021), Wireko-Gyebi et al. (2022) and
Gonz´
alez-Valoys et al. (2022), which highlighted the use of mercury and
cyanide in mining as a major contributor to water pollution and
degradation. The other factors of WEN
3
, WEC
2
, and WT
4
are ranked
second to fourth among the weaknesses.
For opportunities or Group O, the values of the factors that affect
river basin sustainability were recorded at 25% each, as shown in
Table 5. Factors OS
1,
OEC
2,
OEN
3
and OT
4
all have the highest priority
respectively. For example, as reported by Quarm et al. (2022), there is a
growing demand to stop illegal mining activities due to their negative
environmental and health effects, even though the miners themselves
are opposed to this because it is their source of income. Additionally,
Quarm et al. (2022) conrms that using drones, satellite images, and
speed boats to monitor water bodies against illegal mining (OEC
2
) can
be leveraged as an opportunity. Educational programs on the impor-
tance of rivers and the dangers of over-exploitation (OEN
3
) as well as
collaboration between regulatory agencies (OT
4
) are all strongly
emphasized in the literature. For example, Quarm et al. (2022) sug-
gested a strong collaboration between relevant authorities to provide
public education and training to illegal miners on the negative effects of
their activities, in order to reduce environmental contamination and
over-exploitation through education and public campaigns.
The T group or the threats group is the last of the SWOT groups, as
shown in Table 6, the discrete factors of threats reveal that licensing
procedures that do not address environmental impacts account for 26%.
The study also revealed that rapid urbanization along the basin area
(TEC
2
) and extinction of aquatic life due to heavy metal discharge (TT
4
)
account for 25% respectively. Global warming and climate change im-
pacts (TEN
3
) recorded 24%. Overall, licensing procedures that do not
address environmental impacts (TS
1
) has the highest priority. This is
emphasized in the literature, as in Ghana the Minerals Commission and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the main institutions
that gives authorization in the form of licenses and permits (mineral
rights and environmental permit) to miners (Adu-Baffour et al., 2021).
For example, Adu-Baffour et al. (2021) further noted that acquiring an
environmental permit also requires an applicant to develop a manage-
ment and/or nancial plan for reclamation and abandonment, but
arguably, how is that enforced to address the negative impacts? Ac-
cording to Asori et al. (2022), Ghana is currently suffering from weak
law enforcement inefciencies. It appears that the EPA’s presence in the
regulatory framework is purely cosmetic, and involving it in this pro-
cess, the procedure for obtaining a license becomes cross-ministerial as
the ndings point to people saying that the license does not address,
comprehensively, environmental issues. In policy context as noted by
Hilson et al. (2022), even though the EPA was not established when the
Small-Scale Gold Mining Law was enacted and it is not responsible for
monitoring or regulating the sector, it still has a signicant role in
granting licenses to ASM operations. Starting in 2001, the EPA’s Form
SMM1, which is the ’Application for Environmental Permit to Undertake
Small/Medium Scale Mining’, has been a requirement for those seeking
a Small-Scale Mining License. Thus, the current system of institutions,
policies, and regulations have created obstacles that prevent operators
in the sector from becoming legalized and accessing important support
services (Hilson et al., 2022). The other discrete factors of TEC
2
, TT
4
,
and TEN
3
are ranked second to forth among the threats group.
In the discrete sustainability analysis, when comparing the indicator
i to the determinant j, the factor with the highest priority in each of the
SWOT group is selected as a representative of that group, as shown in
Table 6. For the discrete sustainability factors, the group of weaknesses
ranked rst place with a value of 28% (∝i=0.28), the group of strengths
ranked second place with a value of 27% (∝i=0.27), the group of
threats ranked third place with a value of 26% (∝i=0.26), and the
group of opportunities ranked fourth with a value of 25% (∝i=0.25), as
presented in Fig. 3.
Additionally, to further understand and simplify the robustness of
the critical factors inuencing river basin sustainability, the continuous
sustainability analysis (CSA) was used to rene the results of the discrete
analysis. Choices were made by beneciaries for the continuous decision
using Saaty’s 1–9 point scale analytical hierarchy process. Table 7 pre-
sent the differences in preferences for river basin sustainability using
Saaty’s 1–9 point scale fuzzy-based analytical hierarchy process (AHP).
The choices of the respondents following the Saaty’s 1–9 point scale are
shown in Table 8 to form the matrix.
In the matrix, diagonal elements are equal to 1 and the lower triangle
values are found by taking the reciprocal of the corresponding value in
‘galamsey’; OEN
3
- Education from primary to tertiary level on river importance and unnecessary exploitation; OT
4
- Strong collaboration among the regulatory
agencies.
Threats - TS
1
- Licensing procedures that do not address environmental impacts; TEC
2
– Rapid urbanization along the basin area; TEN
3
- Global warming and climate
change impact; TT
4
- Extinction of aquatic life due to heavy metal discharge.
GMi=Geometric mean Si∧1/4(314∧1/4);CWi=Criterion Weight (Normalization)–GMi/sum (4.21 /15.59)
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
10
the upper triangle, and for example (aij =1
aji). In Table 7, the highest
priority for comparing the self-cleansing capacity of the river basin to
perennial water supply and irrigation potential was 43, which corre-
sponds to a strong rating on Saaty’s 1–9 point scale. This process was
used to convert the responses of the beneciaries in Table 7 into the
matrix form shown in Table 8 representing the continuous factors of
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT).
On strength, Table 8 shows that self-cleansing capacity of the river
basin (SS
1
) and the ecological status of water in the basin (SEN
3
) were
the strongest factors, each with 40% importance. Also, the other
continuous factors of SEC
2,
and ST
4
respectively ranked second to third
of the strength group. The majority of beneciaries considered self-
cleansing capacity of the river basin (SS
1
) to be the most important
which aligns with the ndings of Bakal´
ar et al. (2021) in the Horn´
ad
river basin as well as the criteria used by the European Environmental
Agency (2021) to assess the quality of surface water ecosystems based on
water quality and habitat degradation.
Table 8 on weakness revealed that poor capacity and nancial con-
straints (WEC
2
) accounted for 46% and recorded the highest priority.
Also, factors WS
1
had 31%, WEN
3
had 14% and WT
4
had 9% ranking
second to fourth, respectively. The majority of beneciaries considered
poor capacity and nancial constraints as the main weakness. This aligns
with the World Bank’s statement (2020) that key issues that impeded
adequate implementation are the lack of adequate resources and weak
institutional capacity. This is also in line with literature that poor ca-
pacity and nancial constraints have contributed to illegal activities,
particularly mining activities that remain largely uncontrolled simply
because government institutions lack the capacity to enforce the rele-
vant laws of their states (Wireko-Gyebi et al., 2022). The ndings reect
the need to promote ASM project like planetGOLD that supports
addressing nancial constraints through access to nance by releasing
capital ows to transform ASM and capacity building through techno-
logical innovation by reducing the use of mercury in artisanal and
small-scale gold mining is important.
For opportunities as the third SWOT group following the continuous
sustainability factors, factor OS
1
, the ban on ‘galamsey’ activities by
government to reduce pollution has the highest priority (Table 8). Also,
the other continuous factors of OEC
2
, OEN
3
and OT
4
respectively ranked
second to fourth of the opportunities group. The majority of bene-
ciaries considered the ban on ‘galamsey’ activities by government to
reduce pollution (OS
1
) as the main opportunity. This aligns with liter-
ature, as reported by Darko et al. (2021), the ban stopped both legal and
the illegal artisanal small-scale miners from carrying out any such ac-
tivity which helped improve the quality of the water following a com-
parison of the quality status of the Pra Basin in 2013 and 2018 where the
quality improvement is attributable to the ban.
Table 8 shows that the continuous factors of the last group of SWOT,
the threats group, revealed that licensing procedures that do not address
Table 6
Geometric mean and criterion weight of discrete factors of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
Strength Factor SS
1
SEC
2
SEN
3
ST
4
Si GMi CWi Weaknesses Factor WS
1
WEC
2
WEN
3
WT
4
Si GMi CWi
SS
1
126 89 99 314 4.21 0.27* WS
1
126 111 113 350 4.33 0.28*
SEC
2
30 84 87 201 3.77 0.24 WEC
2
30 76 97 203 3.77 0.24
SEN
3
67 72 91 230 3.89 0.25 WEN
3
45 80 99 224 3.87 0.25
ST
4
57 69 65 191 3.72 0.24 WT
4
43 59 57 159 3.55 0.23
Sum 15.59 1.00 Sum 15.52 1.00
Opportunities Factor OS
1
OEC
2
OEN
3
OT
4
Si GMi CWi Threats Factor TS
1
TEC
2
TEN
3
TT
4
Si GMi CWi
OS
1
97 76 75 248 3.97 0.25* TS
1
102 100 77 279 4.07 0.26*
OEC
2
59 94 96 249 3.97 0.25* TEC
2
54 97 97 248 3.97 0.25
OEN
3
80 62 94 236 3.92 0.25* TEN
3
56 59 79 194 3.73 0.24
OT
4
81 60 62 203 3.77 0.25* TT
4
79 59 77 215 3.83 0.25
Sum 15.63 1.00 Sum 15.60 1.00
Strength - SS
1
- Self-cleansing capacity of the river basin; SEC
2
- Perennial fresh water supply and irrigation potential; SEN
3
– The ecological status of water in the basin; ST
4
- Keeping the values of pH, soluble substances
and nitrates to the national water quality standards; Weaknesses - WS
1
–Water quality degradation due to pollution incidence; WEC
2
- Poor capacity and nancial constraints; WEN
3
- The chemical status of surface water
in the basin; WT
4
- Above-limit nitrite, bacteria and zinc discharges.
Opportunities - OS
1
- The ban on ‘galamsey’ activities by government to reduce pollution; OEC
2
- The use of drones and speed boats to monitor water bodies against ‘galamsey’; OEN
3
- Education from primary to tertiary
level on river importance and unnecessary exploitation; OT
4
- Strong collaboration among the regulatory agencies and.
Threats - TS
1
- Licensing procedures that do not address environmental impacts; TEC
2
– Rapid urbanization along the basin area; TEN
3
- Global warming and climate change impact; TT
4
- Extinction of aquatic life due to
heavy metal discharge.
Fig. 3. Discrete representation of SWOT positive factors based on weight.
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
11
Table 7
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats difference of preference for river basin sustainability.
Strength (1)
Equal
(2) Between
Equal and
Weak
(3)
Weak
(4) Between
Weak and
Strong
(5)
Strong
(6) Between
Strong and Very
Strong
(7) Very
Strong
(8) Between
Very Strong and
Absolute
(9)
Absolute
Total
Self-cleansing capacity of the river basin
Perennial water supply and
irrigation potential
35 22 6 17 43 10 4 8 11 156
The ecological status of water in
the basin
35 16 7 19 32 18 8 7 14 156
Keeping the values of pH, soluble
substances and nitrates to the
national water quality
standards
30 10 6 20 39 18 18 4 11 156
Perennial fresh water supply and irrigation potential
The ecological status of water in
the basin
31 18 7 19 35 12 16 11 7 156
Keeping the values of pH, soluble
substances and nitrates to the
national water quality
standards
32 6 4 20 49 10 22 12 1 156
The ecological status of water in the basin
Keeping the values of pH, soluble
substances and nitrates to the
national water quality
standards
35 7 4 10 55 21 9 6 9 156
Total 198 79 34 105 253 89 77 48 53 936
Weakness
Water quality degradation due to pollution
Poor capacity and nancial
constraints
35 3 15 10 33 19 23 6 12 156
The chemical status of surface
water (basin)
45 15 5 13 38 11 14 0 15 156
Above-limit nitrite, bacteria &
zinc discharges
36 8 16 9 56 3 4 14 10 156
Poor capacity and nancial constraints
The chemical status of surface
water (basin)
39 11 14 23 45 2 7 9 6 156
Above-limit nitrite, bacteria &
zinc discharges
42 3 23 22 33 15 7 5 6 156
The chemical status of surface water (basin)
Poor capacity and nancial
constraints
31 14 19 19 50 3 5 5 10 156
Total 228 54 92 96 255 53 60 39 59 936
Opportunities (1)
Equal
(2) Between
Equal and
Weak
(3)
Weak
(4) Between
Weak and
Strong
(5)
Strong
(6) Between
Strong and Very
Strong
(7) Very
Strong
(8) Between
Very Strong and
Absolute
(9)
Absolute
Total
The ban on ‘galamsey’ activities by government
The use of drones and speed boats
to monitor water bodies against
‘galamsey’ by the MLNR
32 10 5 3 48 9 18 10 21 156
Education from primary to
tertiary level on river
importance and unnecessary
exploitation
27 11 4 1 44 15 25 7 22 156
Strong collaboration among
regulatory agencies
31 7 2 11 43 13 14 11 24 156
The use of drones and speed boats to monitor water bodies against ‘galamsey’ by the MLNR
Education from primary to
tertiary level on river
importance and unnecessary
exploitation
30 1 7 14 43 19 11 22 9 156
Strong collaboration among
regulatory agencies
26 12 3 7 44 20 19 4 21 156
Education from primary to tertiary level on river importance and unnecessary exploitation
Strong collaboration among
regulatory agencies
31 7 2 11 43 13 14 11 24 156
Total 177 48 23 47 265 89 101 65 121 936
Threats
Licensing procedures that do not address environmental impacts of ‘galamsey’ by Minerals Commission (MC)
Rapid urbanization along the
basin area
29 6 8 11 57 17 4 15 9 156
Global warming and climate
change impact
20 9 2 21 61 10 6 15 12 156
(continued on next page)
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
12
environmental impacts (TS
1
) has the highest priority. The continuous
factors of TEC
2
, TEN
3
, and TT
4
ranked second to fourth, respectively.
The majority of beneciaries considered licensing procedures that do
not address environmental impacts (TS
1
) as the main threat. Afriyie
et al. (2016) revealed that licensing process was riddled with bureau-
cratic complexities and caused many miners to continue to engage in
illegal mining (galamsey) activities.
Finally, following the same discrete procedure of selecting positive
factors, each group of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
with the highest percentage amongst the factors were selected as contin-
uous positive factors that inuence sustainability of the river basin as
presented in Fig. 4. For the continuous sustainability factors, the group of
both opportunities and threats ranked rst place respectively with a value
of 57% (∝i=0.57), the group of weaknesses ranked second place with a
value of 46% (∝i=0.46), and the group of strengths ranked third place
with a value of 40% (∝i=0.40)for both SS
1
and and SEN
3
respectively.
3.4. Overall critical factors inuencing the river basin sustainability
To determine the critical factors inuencing sustainability of river
basin, the global priorities of the factors are calculated where the weight
of each group of SWOT was multiplied by the local priority of each of the
group of SWOT factors. Referring to the denition of river basin sus-
tainability based on the Brundtland Report as “the development of water
resources in a river basin to meet the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, the
overall factors inuencing the sustainability of Pra river basin taking
into cognizance the priority weight of the factors in each of the di-
mensions - Social (S
1
), Economic (EC
2
), Environment (EN
3
), and Tech-
nical (T
4
) is shown in Fig. 5.
According to Fig. 5, the top ranked factors inuencing the sustain-
ability of a river basin are TS
1
and OS
1
, which are part of the threat and
opportunity groups, respectively. TS
1
, which is "licensing procedures
that do not address environmental impacts," and OS
1
, "the ban on ’gal-
amsey’ activities by government to reduce pollution," have the biggest
impact on decisions that affect the sustainability of a river basin.
According to Fig. 5, the second most important factor inuencing the
sustainability of a river basin is WEC
2
, which belongs to the group of
weakness. WEC
2
is "poor capacity and nancial constraints." Addressing
these constraints have a signicant impact on decisions that affect the
sustainability of a river basin. This is supported by a study done by
Triweko (2021) in Indonesia which showed that human resource vari-
ability, capacity and nancial constraints act as barriers to resolving
water security issues at the river basin level, particularly among provin-
cial and regency/city government authorities. Triweko (2021) also notes
that adequate nancial resources are needed to implement protection
measures to mitigate environmental drawbacks. Therefore, strong ca-
pacity and nancial support is essential for maintaining the sustainability
of water resources management in a river basin, which is the re-
sponsibility of the central, provincial, and local governments (Triweko,
2021). However, supporting the suite of ASM projects like planetGOLD
and the Ghana Land Restoration and Small-Scale Mining (GLRSSMP)
Project which were earlier proposed as the Ghana ASM Formalization
Project (GASMFP) is critical in building capacities and providing access to
nancial support by releasing capital ows to transform ASM.
The third most important factors inuencing the sustainability of a
river basin, as shown in Fig. 5, are SEN
3
and SS
1
. SEN
3
is "the ecological
status of water in the basin" and SS
1
is "the self-cleansing capacity of the
river basin". These results suggest that preventing all forms of water
pollution will improve the self-cleansing capacity of the basin and its
ecological integrity will have a signicant impact on decisions that
affect the sustainability of a river basin. This is consistent with the
ndings of Lee et al. (2008) who reported that ecosystems are crucial for
maintaining balance and acting as a self-cleansing mechanism that offers
both short-term and long-term methods to enhance water quality and
conserve water resources. It is worth noting that ineffective imple-
mentation of pollution control programs, such as those related to illegal
mining (galamsey) activities can lead to water pollution incidents and a
decline in the ecological functions and integrity of the basin (Bassi,
2016, 2021; Bassi et al., 2014). As Baten et al. (2021) highlighted, water
is a cross-cutting resource due to its social and ecological importance.
However, the river basin sustainability score for each of the factors or
criteria, as shown in Fig. 5, ranges from 0 to 100, with a maximum score
of 0.3249, which is considered to be at a weak level according to Saaty’s
1–9 point scale analytical hierarch process model. This highlights the
need to show how communities can increase and mobilize their social
capital and put an end to water pollution incidents caused by ’galamsey’
activities that threaten the water security of the population.
3.5. Determining SWOT strategy for river basin sustainability
To determine the appropriate strategy for the basin’s sustainability,
the SWOT analysis vectors are being considered to nd the best strategy
Table 7 (continued )
Opportunities (1)
Equal
(2) Between
Equal and
Weak
(3)
Weak
(4) Between
Weak and
Strong
(5)
Strong
(6) Between
Strong and Very
Strong
(7) Very
Strong
(8) Between
Very Strong and
Absolute
(9)
Absolute
Total
Aquatic life extinction by heavy
metal discharge
22 4 11 11 46 10 20 15 17 156
Rapid urbanization along the river area
Global warming and climate
change impact
31 3 13 12 46 17 12 16 6 156
Aquatic life extinction by heavy
metal discharge
24 6 13 11 50 16 22 9 5 156
Global warming and climate change impact
Aquatic life extinction by heavy
metal discharge
28 2 6 26 58 16 8 7 5 156
Total 154 30 53 92 318 86 72 77 54 936
GMi=Geometric mean 4
1
√∗5∗1∗5 or Si∧1/4(25.00∧1/4);CWi=Criterion Weight (Normalization)–GMi/sum (2.24 /5.60)
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
13
for sustainability in the basin. According to Table 9, the internal
strengths recorded a score of 1.80 and internal weaknesses recorded a
score of 2.23. The external opportunities and threats also recorded same
scores of 2.40 respectively. This suggests relatively stronger internal
strengths compared to its internal weaknesses, but both internal and
external opportunities and threats are perceived to be stronger than the
internal strengths. Thus, according to the data, internal strengths are
slightly weaker than internal weaknesses, but both external opportu-
nities and threats are stronger than internal strengths.
This suggests that while it may be benecial to take advantage of
external opportunities, internal weaknesses should also be addressed.
These ndings contrast with a previous study of another river basin,
which found that strengths outweigh weaknesses and threats outweigh
opportunities (Bakal´
ar et al., 2021). Therefore, a strategy that focuses on
defending against the high level of threats in the Pra basin is necessary to
address pollution caused by illegal mining (galamsey) activities.
Possible strategies relevant to the fundamental concepts of water secu-
rity and digital transformation in sustainable water management are as
follows.
1. Activating a ban on illegal mining (galamsey) activities particularly
within the buffer zones.
2. Addressing cumbersome licensing procedures to include a compre-
hensive education and awareness campaign.
3. Educate the public on the negative effects of illegal mining and the
benets of self-cleansing basins.
4. Introducing visual inspections with powerful closed-circuit televi-
sion (CCTV) cameras in designated (buffer) security zones.
5. Improve incident management and trace sources whiles imple-
menting stricter penalties for those caught engaging in illegal mining
in and around the buffer zone.
Table 8
Geometric mean and criterion weight of continuous factors of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
Strength Factor SS
1
SEC
2
SEN
3
ST
4
Si GMi CWi Weaknesses Factor WS
1
WEC
2
WEN
3
WT
4
Si GMi CWi
SS
1
1 5 1 5 25.00 2.24 0.40* WS
1
1 1 1 5 5.00 1.50 0.31
SEC
2
1/5 1 1/5 5 0.20 0.67 0.12 WEC
2
1 1 5 5 25.00 2.24 0.46*
SEN
3
1 5 1 5 25.00 2.24 0.40* WEN
3
1 1/5 1 1 0.20 0.67 0.14
ST
4
1/5 1 1/5 1 0.04 0.45 0.08 WT
4
1/5 1/5 1 1 0.04 0.45 0.09
Sum 5.60 1.00 Sum 4.86 1.00
Opportunities Factor OS
1
OEC
2
OEN
3
OT
4
Si GMi CWi Threats Factor TS
1
TEC
2
TEN
3
TT
4
Si GMi CWi
OS
1
1 5 5 5 125.00 3.34 0.57* TS
1
1 5 5 5 125.00 3.34 0.57*
OEC
2
1/5 1 5 5 5.00 1.50 0.26 TEC
2
1/5 1 5 5 5.00 1.50 0.26
OEN
3
1/5 1/5 1 5 0.20 0.67 0.12 TEN
3
1/5 1/5 1 5 0.20 0.67 0.12
OT
4
1/5 1/5 1/5 1 0.01 0.32 0.05 TT
4
1/5 1/5 1/5 1 0.01 0.32 0.05
Sum 5.83 1.00 Sum 5.83 1.00
Strength - SS
1
- Self-cleansing capacity of the river basin; SEC
2
- Perennial fresh water supply and irrigation potential; SEN
3
– The ecological status of water in the basin; ST
4
- Keeping the values of pH, soluble substances
and nitrates to the national water quality standards; Weaknesses - WS
1
– Water quality degradation due to pollution incidence; WEC
2
- Poor capacity and nancial constraints; WEN
3
- The chemical status of surface water
in the basin; WT
4
- Above-limit nitrite, bacteria and zinc discharges; Opportunities - OS
1
- The ban on ‘galamsey’ activities by government to reduce pollution; OEC
2
- The use of drones and speed boats to monitor water
bodies against ‘galamsey’; OEN
3
- Education from primary to tertiary level on river importance and unnecessary exploitation; OT
4
- Strong collaboration among the regulatory agencies and.
Threats - TS
1
- Licensing procedures that do not address environmental impacts; TEC
2
– Rapid urbanization along the basin area; TEN
3
- Global warming and climate change impact; TT
4
- Extinction of aquatic life due to
heavy metal discharge.
Fig. 4. Continuous representation of SWOT positive factors based weights.
Fig. 5. Weight of discrete and continuous river basin sustainability factors.
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
14
6. Enhancing the ecological status of the basin by integrated model
system powered by articial intelligence.
7. Reviving ecological integrity by imposing strict regulations on illegal
mining (galamsey) activities.
4. Conclusion and recommendations
In conclusion, this study examined ASM and determined critical
factors inuencing the sustainability of the Pra River Basin as well as
developed strategies to address water pollution incidents caused by
artisanal gold mining (galamsey) activities in Ghana. Using SWOT and
AHP analysis, key sustainability factors were identied among a sample
of 156 participants in the Amansie Central district. In addressing the
research question of ‘‘what critical factors inuence the sustainability of
the Pra River Basin,’’ the study found licensing procedure that do not
address environmental impacts, the ban on illegal mining (galamsey)
activities by government to reduce pollution and poor capacity and
nancial constraints as critical factors inuencing the sustainability of
the Pra River Basin. These ndings underscore the need for a more
comprehensive and integrated approach to water management that
addresses both economic and human aspects of water security and
sustainability. The study also emphasizes the importance of proper
licensing procedures and highlights the growing demand for govern-
ment to formalize and implement effective regulations to address the
various social, health and environmental issues emanating from ‘gal-
amsey’. Also, addressing nancial and capacity constraints in ensuring
sustainable management of the Pra basin, there is the need to support
the suite of ASM projects like planetGOLD, the Ghana Land Restoration
and Small-Scale Mining (GLRSSMP) Project which were earlier proposed
as the Ghana ASM Formalization Project (GASMFP). The GLRSSMP was
launched in February-2022 with the objective of formalizing the ASM
sector, promoting sustainable ASM practices and building institutional
capacity of institutions to manage ASM operations. Also, the planet-
GOLD project that supports addressing nancial constraints through
access to nance by releasing capital ows to transform ASM and ca-
pacity building through technological innovation by reducing the use of
mercury in artisanal and small-scale gold mining is important. The study
therefore recommends that revisiting the ban on illegal mining (gal-
amsey) activities, and at this time, within the buffer zones of the basin
area is critical for implementation. Also, introducing visual inspections
with powerful CCTV cameras in designated (buffer) security zones,
enhancing the ecological status of the basin by integrated model system
powered by articial intelligence are all strategies that must be built for
the identied river basin sustainability factors to address water pollu-
tion incidents caused by artisanal gold mining activities which are
fundamental concepts of water security and digital transformation in
sustainable water management. It is again recommended that govern-
ment, civil society organizations, and local communities collaborate in
implementing strategies to promote sustainability in the Pra basin. The
results of this study can serve as a useful tool for policymakers, stake-
holders, and community groups to develop effective strategies for
ensuring the sustainable use of the Pra river basin. It is also important to
consider the social and economic impacts of (galamsey) activities by
developing alternative livelihood options for the communities that
depend on them. This will not only reduce pressure on the river basin but
also ensure sustainability for the river basin. Also, investing in capacity
building of local communities and stakeholders to understand the
importance of sustainable water management whiles promoting
community-based approaches to sustainable water management is also
essential. It is important to note that the study was limited to the district
of Amansie Central, and further research should be conducted to assess
the sustainability factors and their impact on the entire Pra river basin.
Additionally, further research should also investigate the effectiveness
of the ban on illegal mining (galamsey) activities in reducing pollution
and its impact on local communities who depend on these activities for
their livelihoods. Overall, by involving local communities in the process,
we can ensure the long-term health and well-being of the Pra basin and
its surrounding communities.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This study was made possible through support provided by the West
African Centre for Water, Irrigation and Sustainable Agriculture
(WACWISA), University for Development Studies, Ghana with funding
support from the Government of Ghana and World Bank through the
African Centre’s of Excellence for Development Impact (ACE Impact)
initiative.
Table 9
SWOT analysis of the Pra river basin.
Strengths ∝i Point Sum Weaknesses ∝i Points Sum
Self-cleansing capacity of the river basin 0.40 2 0.80 Water quality degradation due to pollution
incidence
0.31 2 0.62
Perennial fresh water supply and irrigation potential 0.12 1 0.12 Poor capacity and nancial constraints 0.46 3 1.38
The ecological status of water in the basin 0.40 2 0.80 The chemical status of surface water in the basin 0.14 1 0.14
Keeping the values of pH, soluble substances and nitrates to the national
water quality standards
0.08 1 0.08 Above-limit nitrite, bacteria and zinc discharges 0.09 1 0.09
SUM 1.80 SUM 2.23
Opportunities ∝i Points Sum Threats ∝i Points Sum
The ban on ‘galamsey’ activities by government to reduce pollution 0.57 3 1.71 Licensing procedures that do not address
environmental impacts
0.57 3 1.71
The use of drones and speed boats to monitor water bodies against
‘galamsey’
0.26 2 0.52 Rapid urbanization along the basin area 0.26 2 0.52
Education from primary to the tertiary level on river importance and
unnecessary exploitation
0.12 1 0.12 Global warming and climate change impact 0.12 1 0.12
Strong collaboration among the regulatory agencies 0.05 1 0.05 Extinction of aquatic life due to heavy metal
discharge
0.05 1 0.05
SUM 2.40 SUM 2.40
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
15
References
Adu-Baffour, F., Daum, T., Birner, R., 2021. Governance challenges of small-scale gold
mining in Ghana: insights from a process net-map study. Land Use Pol. 102, 105271
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105271.
Afriyie, K., Ganle, J.K., Adomako, J.A.A., 2016. The good in evil: a discourse analysis of
the galamsey industry in Ghana. Oxf. Dev. Stud. 44 (4), 493–508. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13600818.2016.1217984.
Ampomah, B., 2017. 60% of Ghana’s water bodies polluted—water Resources
Commission. In: Executive Secretary of the Commission at a Workshop in Ho. Source:
GNA. May 13, 2017.
Arthur-Holmes, F., Abrefa Busia, K., Vazquez-Brust, D.A., Yakovleva, N., 2022. Graduate
unemployment, artisanal and small-scale mining, and rural transformation in Ghana:
what does the ‘educated’ youth involvement offer? J. Rural Stud. 95, 125–139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.08.002.
Aryee, B.N.A., Ntibery, B.K., Atorkui, E., 2003. Trends in the small-scale mining of
precious minerals in Ghana: a perspective on its environmental impact. J. Clean.
Prod. 11 (2), 131–140.
Asori, M., Mpobi, R.K.J., Morgan, A.K., Apoanaba, T.A., Katey, D., Ampofo, S.T.,
Julius, O., Appiah, D.O., 2022. Is Illegal Mining Socio-Politically Entrenched? an
Opinion Piece of the Interaction between Formal Politics and Chief Dominance in
Mineral Governance, and its Inuence on Fighting Galamsey in Ghana. GeoJournal.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10725-1.
Attiogbe, F.K., Mohammed, A.R., Kingslove, Q., 2020. Assessing the potential health
impact of selected heavy metals that pollute lake amponsah in Bibiani, Western
North region, Ghana. Sci. Afric. 9, e00531 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.
e00531.
Awotwi, A., Anornu, G.K., Quaye-Ballard, J.A., Annor, T., Nti, I.K., Odai, S.N., Arhin, E.,
Gyam, C., 2021. Impact of post-reclamation of soil by large-scale, small-scale and
illegal mining on water balance components and sediment yield: Pra River Basin case
study. Soil Tillage Res. 211, 105026.
Awotwi, A., Anornu, G.K., Quaye-Ballard, J.A., Annor, T., 2018. Monitoring land use and
land cover changes due to extensive gold mining, urban expansion, and agriculture
in the Pra River Basin of Ghana, 1986–2025. Land Degrad. Dev. 29 (10), 3331–3343.
Baddianaah, I., Baatuuwie, B.N., Adongo, R., 2022. Socio-demographic factors affecting
artisanal and small-scale mining (galamsey) operations in Ghana. Heliyon 8 (3),
e09039.
Bakal´
ar, T., Pavolov´
a, H., Tokarˇ
cík, A., 2021. Analysis and model of River Basin
sustainable management by SWOT and AHP methods. Water 13 (17), 2427.
Bassi, N., 2016. Implications of institutional vacuum in wetland conservation for water
management. IIM Kozhikode Soc.Manag.Rev. 5 (1), 41–50. https://doi.org/
10.1177/2277975215617365.
Bassi, N., 2021. Water Quality Index: A Tool for Wetland Restoration, pp. 99–110.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54612-4_8.
Bassi, N., Kumar, M.D., Sharma, A., Pardha-Saradhi, P., 2014. Status of wetlands in India:
a review of extent, ecosystem benets, threats and management strategies.
J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud. 2, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2014.07.001.
Baten, M.A., Lisa, K.S., Chowdhury, A.S., 2021. Water Supply of Dhaka City: Present
Context and Future Scenarios, pp. 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
54612-4_26.
Belay, A.A., Semakula, H.M., Wambura, G.J., Jan, L., 2010. SWOT analysis and
challenges of Nile Basin Initiative: an integrated water resource management
perspective. Chin. J.Popul. Resourc. Environ. 8 (1), 8–17.
Bessah, E., Raji, A.O., Taiwo, O.J., Agodzo, S.K., Ololade, O.O., Strapasson, A.,
Donkor, E., 2021. Assessment of surface waters and pollution impacts in Southern
Ghana. Nord. Hydrol 52 (6), 1423–1435. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2021.051.
Bunting, S.W., Luo, S., Cai, K., Kundu, N., Lund, S., Mishra, R., Ray, D., Smith, K.G.,
Sugden, F., 2016. Integrated action planning for biodiversity conservation and
sustainable use of highland aquatic resources: evaluating outcomes for the Beijiang
River, China. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 59 (9), 1580–1609.
Clifford, M.J., 2022. Artisanal and small-scale mining and the sustainable development
goals: why nobody cares. Environ. Sci. Pol. 137, 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsci.2022.08.024.
Corbetta, P., 2007. Metodología y t´
ecnicas de investigaci´
on social. McGrawHill.
Interamericana de Espa˜
na, SAU.
Darko, H.F., Karikari, A.Y., Duah, A.A., Akurugu, B.A., Mante, V., Teye, F.O., 2021. Effect
of small-scale illegal mining on surface water and sediment quality in Ghana. Int. J.
River Basin Manag. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2021.2002345.
Delgado, A., Romero, I., 2016. Environmental conict analysis using an integrated grey
clustering and entropy-weight method: a case study of a mining project in Peru.
Environ. Model. Software 77, 108–121.
Duncan, A.E., de Vries, N., Nyarko, K.B., 2018a. Assessment of heavy metal pollution in
the sediments of the river Pra and its tributaries. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 229 (8), 272.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-018-3899-6.
Duncan, A.E., de Vries, N., Nyarko, K.B., 2018b. Assessment of heavy metal pollution in
the main Pra River and its tributaries in the Pra Basin of Ghana. Environ.
Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 10, 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enmm.2018.06.003.
Eduful, M., Alsharif, K., Eduful, A., Acheampong, M., Eduful, J., Mazumder, L., 2020. The
illegal artisanal and small-scale mining (galamsey) ‘menace’ in Ghana: is military-
style approach the answer? Resou. The Illegal Artisanal and Small-scale mining
(GEduful, M., Alsharif, K., Eduful, A., Acheampong, M., Eduful, J., & Mazumder, L.
(2020). Resour. Pol. 68, 101732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101732.
European Environmental Agency, 2021. No title. Ecological status of surface waters in
europe. https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/ecological-status-of-surface-waters.
Forkuor, G., Ullmann, T., Griesbeck, M., 2020. Mapping and monitoring small-scale
mining activities in Ghana using Sentinel-1 Time Series (2015–2019). Rem. Sens. 12
(6), 911.
Ghana Statistical Service, 2010. 2010 National Housing and Population Census;
Population by District and Sex.
Ghana Statistical Service, 2021. 2021 Population and Housing Census, General Report,
Volume 3A. Population of Regions and Districts.
Gonz´
alez-Valoys, A.C., Arrocha, J., Monteza-Destro, T., Vargas-Lombardo, M., Esbrí, J.
M., Garcia-Ordiales, E., Jim´
enez-Ballesta, R., García-Navarro, F.J., Higueras, P.,
2022. Environmental challenges related to cyanidation in Central American gold
mining; the Remance mine (Panama). J. Environ. Manag. 302, 113979 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113979.
Hausermann, H., Adomako, J., Robles, M., 2020. Fried eggs and all-women gangs: the
geopolitics of Chinese gold mining in Ghana, bodily vulnerability, and resistance.
Hum. Geogr. 13 (1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942778620910900.
Hilson, G., Bartels, E., Hu, Y., 2022. Brick by brick, block by block: building a sustainable
formalization strategy for small-scale gold mining in Ghana. Environ. Sci. Pol. 135,
207–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.04.006.
Hilson, G., Hu, Y., Kumah, C., 2020. Locating female ‘voices’ in the minamata convention
on mercury in sub-saharan Africa: the case of Ghana. Environ. Sci. Pol. 107,
123–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.02.003.
Hilson, G., Maconachie, R., 2017. Formalising artisanal and small-scale mining: insights,
contestations and clarications. Area 49 (4), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/
area.12328.
Hilson, G., Mondlane, S., Hilson, A., Arnall, A., Laing, T., 2021. Formalizing artisanal and
small-scale mining in Mozambique: concerns, priorities and challenges. Resour. Pol.
71, 102001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102001.
Kazapoe, R.W., Amuah, E.E.Y., Dankwa, P., Ibrahim, K., Mville, B.N., Abubakari, S.,
Bawa, N., 2021. Compositional and source patterns of potentially toxic elements
(PTEs) in soils in southwestern Ghana using robust compositional contamination
index (RCCI) and k-means cluster analysis. Environ. Challeng. 5, 100248 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100248.
Kuma, J.S., Younger, P.L., 2004. Water quality trends in the Tarkwa gold-mining district,
Ghana. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 63 (2), 119–132.
Kumah, R., 2022. Artisanal and small-scale mining formalization challenges in Ghana:
explaining grassroots perspectives. Resour. Pol. 79, 102978 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102978.
Lee, D.-I., Choi, J.-M., Lee, Y.-G., Lee, M.-O., Lee, W.-C., Kim, J.-K., 2008. Coastal
environmental assessment and management by ecological simulation in Yeoja Bay,
Korea. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 80 (4), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecss.2008.08.022.
Lockwood, H., Bakalian, A., Wakeman, W., 2003. Assessing sustainability in rural water
supply: the role of follow-up support to communities. Literat. Rev. Desk Rev.Rural
Water Suppl. Sanitation Project Docum.
L´
opez-Gunn, E., Ballesteros, M., De Stefano, L., Garrido, A., Hern´
andez-Mora, N.,
Willaarts, B.A., 2016. Water security or water ‘securities’? Increasing complexity in
balancing of multiple goals in Spain. In: Handbook on Water Security. Edward Elgar
Publishing, pp. 257–279. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782548010.00024.
Lowe, A., Norris, A.C., Farris, A.J., Babbage, D.R., 2018. Quantifying thematic saturation
in qualitative data analysis. Field Methods 30 (3), 191–207. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1525822X17749386.
Marques, R.C., da Cruz, N.F., Pires, J., 2015. Measuring the sustainability of urban water
services. Environ. Sci. Pol. 54, 142–151.
Martinez, G., Smith, N.M., Malone, A., 2021. Formalization is just the beginning:
analyzing post-formalization successes and challenges in Peru’s small-scale gold
mining sector. Resour. Pol. 74, 102390 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2021.102390.
Mitchell, V.G., 2006. Applying integrated urban water management concepts: a review of
Australian experience. Environ. Manag. 37 (5), 589–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00267-004-0252-1.
Nti, E.K., Wongnaa, C.A., Edusah, N.S.E., Awunyo-Vitor, D., Kyei, V.B., 2021. Towards
nancial sustainability: beneciaries’ perception and performance of community
water supply services in Ghana. Chall. Sustain. 9 (1) https://doi.org/10.12924/
cis2021.09010045.
Nti, E.K., Wongnaa, C.A., Edusah, N.S.E., Bakang, J.-E.A., 2019. Assessment of the
sustainability of community-managed water supply services in Ghana. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 1–24.
Ofosu, G., Sarpong, D., 2022. Beyond the doom: sustainable water management practices
of small-scale mining operations. Resour. Pol. 77, 102649 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resourpol.2022.102649.
Osei, L., Yeboah, T., Kumi, E., Antoh, E.F., 2021. Government’s ban on Artisanal and
Small-Scale Mining, youth livelihoods and imagined futures in Ghana. Resour. Pol.
71, 102008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102008.
Podimata, M.V., Yannopoulos, P.C., 2013. Evaluating challenges and priorities of a trans-
regional river basin in Greece by using a hybrid SWOT scheme and a stakeholders’
competency overview. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 11 (1), 93–110.
Prescott, G.W., Baird, M., Geenen, S., Nkuba, B., Phelps, J., Webb, E.L., 2022.
Formalizing artisanal and small-scale gold mining: a grand challenge of the
Minamata Convention. One Earth 5 (3), 242–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
oneear.2022.02.005.
Quarm, J.A., Anning, A.K., Fei-Baffoe, B., Siaw, V.F., Amuah, E.E.Y., 2022. Perception of
the environmental, socio-economic and health impacts of artisanal gold mining in
the Amansie West District, Ghana. Environ. Challeng. 9, 100653 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envc.2022.100653.
E.K. Nti et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 19 (2023) 100264
16
Salkind, N.J., Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W., Higgins, C.C., 2001. “Organizational research:
determining appropriate sample size in survey research”. Inf. Technol. Learn.
Perform J. 19 (1), 43–50.
Sojkov´
a, I., 2022. Framing illegal artisanal and small-scale gold mining in the Ghanaian
media during the #StopGalamsey campaign. J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 60 (3), 371–396.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X22000222.
Srinivas, R., Singh, A.P., Dhadse, K., Garg, C., Deshmukh, A., 2018. Sustainable
management of a river basin by integrating an improved fuzzy based hybridized
SWOT model and geo-statistical weighted thematic overlay analysis. J. Hydrol. 563,
92–105.
Sulistyaningsih, T., Sunarto, Saiman, Suhariyanti, Oktaviari, V., 2021. Articial
intelligence and decision support system to determine policies for controlling river
pollution from industrial sectors. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 717 (1), 012026
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/717/1/012026.
Triweko, R.W., 2021. A framework for implementing integrated water resources
management at River Basin level in Indonesia, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-54612-4_9.
Tschakert, P., 2009. Digging deep for justice: a radical Re-imagination of the artisanal
gold mining sector in Ghana. Antipode 41 (4), 706–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8330.2009.00695.x.
USAID, 2020. Artisanal and small-scale mining: USAID activities and approaches. http
s://www.land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/USAID-ASM-Issue-Brief-Jan
-2020.pdf.
Vigiak, O., Malag´
o, A., Bouraoui, F., Grizzetti, B., Weissteiner, C.J., Pastori, M., 2016.
Impact of current riparian land on sediment retention in the Danube River Basin.
Sustain. Water Qual. Ecol. 8, 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swaqe.2016.08.001.
Wireko-Gyebi, R.S., Asibey, M.O., Baah-Ennumh, T.Y., 2022. Planning for the effective
and sustainable management of Ghana’s artisanal small-scale gold mining industry.
Resour. Pol. 76, 102576 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102576.
Wongnaa, C.A., Nti, E.K., Acheampong, P.P., Bannor, R.K., Babu, S.C., 2021. The shift
from crop production to mining activities in arable lands: evidence from Ghana. In:
31st International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) >2021
Conference. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.314946.
World Bank, 2020. Country Environmental Analysis: Ghana. World Bank, Washington,
DC. ©, April, 202. https://www.sprep.org/att/IRC/eCOPIES/Countries/Vanuatu/38.
pdf.
Xia, J., Li, Z., Zeng, S., Zou, L., She, D., Cheng, D., 2021. Perspectives on eco-water
security and sustainable development in the Yangtze River Basin. Geosci. Lett. 8 (1),
18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-021-00187-7.
Yamane, T., 1973. Statistics: an Introduction Analysis. Harper & Row.
Yasmin, F., Hossain, T., Shahrukh, S., Hossain, M.E., Sultana, G.N.N., 2023. Evaluation of
seasonal changes in physicochemical and bacteriological parameters of Gomti River
in Bangladesh. Environ.Sustain. Indicat. 17, 100224 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indic.2023.100224.
Zolnikov, T.R., 2020. Effects of the government’s ban in Ghana on women in artisanal
and small-scale gold mining. Resour. Pol. 65, 101561 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2019.101561.
E.K. Nti et al.
