ARE SOCIAL BENEFITS THE MISSING COMPONENT OF ROAD APPRAISAL - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – ARE SOCIAL BENEFITS THE MISSING COMPONENT OF ROAD APPRAISAL PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 208ff7-MTAxZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

ARE SOCIAL BENEFITS THE MISSING COMPONENT OF ROAD APPRAISAL

Description:

All over the rich' world governments subsidise rural transport. ... money was to be allocated to roads in the whole area on the merits of each case. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:31
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: John953
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: ARE SOCIAL BENEFITS THE MISSING COMPONENT OF ROAD APPRAISAL


1
Social Benefits, Indices The Ghana Feeder Road
Prioritisation
John Hine World Bank
2
Social Benefits Why the Concern ?
  • There is unease with conventional appraisal based
    primarily on transport cost savings to traffic
  • There is a strong desire at both community level
    and national level for better access and mobility
    which is frequently not matched by standard
    measured economic benefits
  • All over the rich world governments subsidise
    rural transport. Should the same happen for
    developing countries ?
  • Isolation is a recognised characteristic of
    poverty
  • There is a feeling that a minimum degree of
    access and mobility is a basic human right
  • International development has moved away from a
    narrow definition of economic development towards
    concern with livelihoods and meeting
    Millennium Development Goals that are very
    health orientated
  • The issue is particularly important when roads
    are impassable to motor traffic.

3
Economic Social Benefits
  • Consumers and producers surplus approaches are
    very economic in their orientation. Yet roads
    provide social benefits including improved
    access to health and education facilities and
    improved social mobility that cannot be easily
    translated into conventional economic benefits.
    Although they may have important long term
    economic consequences. Improved health and
    education and more secure social networks
    increase long term earning capabilities but so
    far the economic forecasting framework does not
    include this.
  • When roads are impassable to motorized traffic we
    know that the quality of health care and
    schooling falls. Drug supply and supervision
    drops. Likewise no NGO, government agency or
    commercial enterprise will establish or support a
    service which cannot guarantee all year round
    access.

4
Does road accessibility affect health (in
Ethiopia)?
5
Indices and Ranking
  • Widely used for feeder road planning there are
    many different approaches
  • e.g. i) cost of improvement /
    population
  • ii) estimated trips / cost
  • Advantages Speed , simplicity, transparency,
    many factors can be incorporated
  • Disadvantages How do we value widely different
    factors ? (adding up apples and pears)
    weightings are not stable cannot easily address
    questions of road standards, timing etc,
    possible double counting

6
Two Indices
  • i) Andhra Pradesh
  • cost effectiveness cost of upgrading/
    population served
  • But no measure of condition change and no
    importance to traffic
  • ii) Airey Taylor
  • 1st for impassable roads
  • rank cost per head of
    establishing basic access
  • 2nd when access is there

  • estimated trips x access change
  • prioritization index
    --------------------------------------------

  • rehabilitation cost per km

7
Ghana -Background
  • DFID and Department of Feeder Roads wanted new
    planning procedure suitable for low volume feeder
    roads including a social dimension.
  • Road program was to be based primarily in
    Northern Ghana in an area of tribal conflict.
    Previously ignored by authorities.
  • Existing procedures used based on producers
    surplus appeared arbitrary and not transparent.
  • Many roads and tracks were impassable for varying
    periods through the year no traffic makes
    consumers surplus approach difficult to use

8
The Requirements
  • Responsive to wishes of road users rather than
    engineers or planners
  • Address poverty and gender issues
  • Equitable between all ethnic communities
  • Suitable for decentralisation decision making
  • Transparent
  • Simple
  • Economically rational
  • Robust based on objective measures
  • Makes engineering sense

9
Approach An Outline of the 1
  • Project covers 9 districts. 50 of total money
    was initially to be issued equally between each
    district. In the second round the remaining money
    was to be allocated to roads in the whole area on
    the merits of each case. The approach is budget
    limited.
  • Community consultation is carried out in each
    district to determine a list of candidate roads
    every road is a wanted road.
  • An engineering assessment is made of each
    candidate road to find the current state of
    accessibility and the costs of improvement
  • For each road traffic counts are carried out and
    census data examined to find adjacent population
    to benefit from the road improvement

10
An Outline of the Approach 2
  • Benefits are estimated from improving each road
    based on transport cost savings and additional
    social benefits of better accessibility (based
    on population)
  • Two indices are constructed of benefits divided
    by costs for accessibility improvements and full
    rehabilitation.
  • An initial priority listing is prepared to spend
    available budget in each district based on the
    technical criteria.
  • Communities are asked to prepare separately their
    own priority listing.
  • The proposed lists are discussed at a public
    hearing.
  • An agreement is reached on which roads to build.
  • More detailed engineering design carried out.

11
Outline of Approach 3
  • Roads constructed for first round.
  • Second round roads are selected amongst the best
    candidate roads on the basis of the index not
    selected in the first round.
  • Poverty weighting comes into play because
    different districts have different poverty
    ratings.

12
Consultation
  • NGOs are selected and training to carry out
    consultation
  • Team and NGOs meet District works Sub Committee
    who oversee process.
  • NGOs carry out interviews with service providers
    to learn about road condition.
  • NGOs contact communities and select
    representative people along with district nurses
    etc, willing to participate in the process.
  • In each Area (10 Areas to District) meetings are
    held to select two candidate roads per Area.
  • Later a District meeting is held to prioritise
    the roads from the 20 roads nominated in the
    District.
  • Finally a public hearing is held to discuss two
    priority lists prepared by public nominations and
    the technical analysis.

13
The Index
  • Benefits are the sum of traffic and social
    benefits per year.
  • The index is total benefits/ construction costs
  • (accessibility improvements and full
    rehabilitation improvements are estimated
    separately)
  • An adjustment is made to engineering costs for
    structures (x 0.5) because these last longer than
    other improvements
  • The index is contained in an easy to use spread
    sheet.

14
The Engineering Assessment
  • Local consulting engineers are selected and
    trained in the procedures.
  • They visit the road using the analysis sheets and
    identify key problems with a chainage.
  • The problems are divided into Access category A,
    B or C.
  • Category A impassable roads, dangerous, road
    under water
  • Category B- access is possible but unreliable
  • Category C- access OK but surface attention
    required for roughness reduction
  • A costing is carried out and condition of road
    assessed in terms of roughness, passability and
    trafficability.

15
Population Traffic
  • Maps are consulted to identify roads and location
    of key facilities including markets health
    centres and hospitals
  • Local consultants selected to carry out two -day
    traffic counts on the roads
  • Counts cover pedestrians, NMTs, and vehicles
  • The Population in the catchment area of the road
    (i.e. adjacent and people living beyond the road
    who would use the road to go to key facilities).

16
Transport Benefits
  • Transport benefits are calculated using fixed
    coefficients to show how change in road condition
    will reduce transport costs for existing traffic.
  • Benefits are given to both motor vehicles,
    pedestrians and NMTs. The assumption is that
    improved roads will encourage some switch of mode
    from walking and NMTs to motor vehicles
  • In periods of the year when the road is deemed
    impassable high transport benefits are given on
    the assumption that traffic has to divert some
    distance, or uses more expensive solutions (such
    as walking or NMTs.)

17
Social Benefits
  • In addition to transport cost savings social
    benefits are given to road improvements to
    represent an improvement in the minimum degree of
    accessibility. The values were based on the
    assumption that 5 return vehicle trips per year
    represents an acceptable level of social trip
    making that may be added to existing traffic
    levels to cover a basic access social benefit
    component. (With 10 people per vehicle the
    weighting is 1 assuming 10 single trips).
  • For roads with an average distance of more than
    10 km from a health centre an health isolation
    weighting of 0.5 is added
  • For roads with an average distance of more than
    10 km from a market a market isolation
    weighting of 0.1 is added
  • For the third of the districts with income levels
    below 325 (given in the Common Fund Allocation
    procedure) a weighting of 0.5 is added.
  • For all of the above the social benefits are
    dependent upon average transport cost savings
    (i.e. motor vehicle change in transport costs per
    km x distance)

18
Experience of the Nanumba Trials
  • The procedure was found to work fairly well with
    a good degree of acceptability
  • For the available first round budget of 900,000
    the Community District ranking for Nanumba would
    have selected 3 roads, 55 km with 8,383
    beneficiaries.
  • In contrast the technical analysis selected 5
    roads, 95 km benefiting 17,650 people.
  • At the public hearing it was agreed by all that
    the technical analysis was a better basis for
    planning.
  • However the community did draw attention to a
    major problem of one road where people were
    walking half a km up to their chest in water (not
    selected in the priority ranking).

19
Documentation
  • The Procedure is well documented
  • 12 separate guides and manuals
  • And one spreadsheet to calculate the index
  • Contact jhine_at_worldbank.org if you want the full
    set.
About PowerShow.com