Characteristics of the open drains network varied by neighborhood (Table 4). Bukom had the densest drain network, followed by Alajo and Shiabu and finally Old Fadama with the fewest drains per square kilometer. Calculated drain density was consistent with how frequently drains were reported near households in the household survey (Table 3). In Alajo, Bukom, and Shiabu, drain construction was primarily carried out by the city; however, in Old Fadama, all but one drain was ecologically formed or constructed by citizens. Drain size was generally a reflection of construction. Drains built by the city were typically medium in size and deep, while drains that were ecologically formed tend to be wider and shallow. As such, over 50% of the drains present in Alajo, Bukom, and Shiabu were medium in size. Extra-large drains that were originally rivers or lagoons bordered all neighborhoods except Bukom. Drain mapping revealed that, excluding these few extra-large drains that bordered the communities, drains rarely flowed between neighborhoods. Old Fadama had the largest percentage of drainage network with no cover; over half the network was completely uncovered.
Observed drain characteristics by neighborhood
. | Alajo . | Bukom . | Old Fadama . | Shiabu . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Linear meters of drains (m) | 30,679 | 10,652 | 8,393 | 28,999 |
Drain density (m/km2) | 19,263 | 31,715 | 15,706 | 19,205 |
Cover1 (%) | ||||
No cover | 33 | 8 | 55 | 25 |
Cover by citizens | 54 | 80 | 45 | 53 |
Cover by city | 33 | 19 | 0 | 65 |
Construction typea,b (%) | ||||
Ecological | 14 | 0 | 65 | 21 |
Formal by citizens | 19 | 20 | 51 | 9 |
Formal by city | 70 | 80 | 5 | 75 |
Sizea (%) | ||||
Small (<0.5 m across) | 10 | 28 | 6 | 7 |
Medium (0.5–1 m across) | 52 | 57 | 32 | 73 |
Large (1–3 m across) | 25 | 15 | 33 | 10 |
Extra-largec (>3 m across) | 16 | 0 | 30 | 9 |
Water levela,d (%) | ||||
Dry | 13 | 6 | 1 | 10 |
Low | 36 | 53 | 22 | 44 |
Medium | 51 | 28 | 36 | 39 |
High | 1 | 10 | 37 | 7 |
Unable to see | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
. | Alajo . | Bukom . | Old Fadama . | Shiabu . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Linear meters of drains (m) | 30,679 | 10,652 | 8,393 | 28,999 |
Drain density (m/km2) | 19,263 | 31,715 | 15,706 | 19,205 |
Cover1 (%) | ||||
No cover | 33 | 8 | 55 | 25 |
Cover by citizens | 54 | 80 | 45 | 53 |
Cover by city | 33 | 19 | 0 | 65 |
Construction typea,b (%) | ||||
Ecological | 14 | 0 | 65 | 21 |
Formal by citizens | 19 | 20 | 51 | 9 |
Formal by city | 70 | 80 | 5 | 75 |
Sizea (%) | ||||
Small (<0.5 m across) | 10 | 28 | 6 | 7 |
Medium (0.5–1 m across) | 52 | 57 | 32 | 73 |
Large (1–3 m across) | 25 | 15 | 33 | 10 |
Extra-largec (>3 m across) | 16 | 0 | 30 | 9 |
Water levela,d (%) | ||||
Dry | 13 | 6 | 1 | 10 |
Low | 36 | 53 | 22 | 44 |
Medium | 51 | 28 | 36 | 39 |
High | 1 | 10 | 37 | 7 |
Unable to see | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
aAll percentages are based on total drain length.
bEcological drains were dirt lined with no formal planning. Formal drains were cement or stone lined and were intentionally constructed.
cAll extra-large drains were originally rivers or lagoons.
dWater levels recorded were dry, low (mostly dry, small stream, not all contents are suspended in water), medium (contents are suspended in water, bottom of drain covered with water), high (obviously high water level, near top or overflowing), or unable to see.