Social Benefits of Transport Projects

THE WORLD BANK GROUP
WASHINGTON, D.C.
APRIL 2008
TRANSPORT PAPERS
TP-17
Towards the Mainstreaming of an Approach to Include Social Benefits within Road Appraisal
A Case Study from Uganda Jennaro B. Odoki, Farhad Ahmed, Gary Taylor and Sunday A. Okello
TRANSPORT SECTOR BOARD
TOWARDS THE MAINSTREAMING OF AN APPROACH TO INCLUDE SOCIAL BENEFITS WITHIN ROAD APPRAISAL
A Case Study from Uganda
Jennaro B. Odoki, Farhad Ahmed, Gary Taylor and Sunday A. Okello
THE WORLD BANK

Washington, D.C.
TRANSPORT SECTOR BOARD
2008 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org Published April 2008 This volume is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photos by the authors, taken during the field study. This paper has been produced with the financial assistance of a grant from TRISP, a partnership between the UK Department for International Development and the World Bank, for learning and sharing of knowledge in the fields of transport and rural infrastructure services. To order additional copies of this publication, please send an e-mail to the Transport Help Desk transport@worldbank.org Transport publications are available on-line at http://www.worldbank.org/transport/
CONTENTS
Preface .................................................................................................................................v Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. vii Abbreviations and Notes .........................................................................................................ix Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Social benefits and transport planning............................................................................ 5 1.2 ORN 22 & Software Tool .............................................................................................. 6 1.3 Shortcomings ............................................................................................................. 7 1.4 Aim, central question of the study ................................................................................. 7 1.5 Structure of the report................................................................................................. 8 2 STUDY METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Study country and areas .............................................................................................. 9 2.1.1 Study country .................................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Study areas ....................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Methods used ............................................................................................................12 2.2.1 Levels of data collection, survey methods and instruments used ...............................12 2.2.2 Field survey methodology ...................................................................................13 2.2.3 Objectives and summary methodology..................................................................14 2.3 Analysis methods .......................................................................................................14 3 CASE STUDY RESULTS ................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................15 3.2 Community (micro) level findings .................................................................................15 3.2.1 Social benefits ...................................................................................................15 3.2.2 Social costs.......................................................................................................16 3.2.3 Comparison of economic, social and environmental benefits/costs.............................17 3.2.4 Comparison of different types of social benefits and costs ........................................19 3.3 District (meso) level findings .......................................................................................20 3.4 National (macro) level findings.....................................................................................21 3.5 Comparison of Macro, Meso and Micro Levels .................................................................22 4 A WORKED EXAMPLE ON HOW TO INCORPORATE SOCIAL BENEFITS IN ROAD PLANNING ...................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................25 4.2 Steps .......................................................................................................................25 5 USING SOCIAL BENEFITS AND COSTS WITHIN HDM-4 .................................................. 33 5.1 HDM-4 Multi-criteria Analytical Framework.....................................................................33 5.2 Limitations of HDM-4 ..................................................................................................35 5.3 Social Benefits Software Tool .......................................................................................35 5.4 Using the findings of the present study .........................................................................37 6 CONCLUSIONS AND THE WAY FORWARD....................................................................... 39 6.1 Main conclusions........................................................................................................39 6.2 Way forward .............................................................................................................39
iii
iv
CONTENTS
APPENDICES Appendix I: Community Level Questionnaire .............................................................................41 Appendix II: District and National Level Questionnaire................................................................47 Appendix III: Detailed Data Collection Procedure .......................................................................51 Appendix IV: Findings from the Use of the Methodology .............................................................53 Appendix V: Data Analysis Results...........................................................................................53 Appendix VI: Benefits and Costs Identified by the Communities in Acholi and Bugisu Sub-regions in Uganda...........................................................57 Appendix VII: Step by Step Procedure for the Calculation of Weights...........................................59 Appendix VIII: Step by Step Procedure for Converting Qualitative Attribute Data into Scores ...........61 Appendix IX: Step by Step Procedure for Converting Quantitative Attribute Data into Scores ...........63 Appendix X: Calculations of Overall Scores ...............................................................................65 References .......................................................................................................................66
PREFACE
For some time it has been recognized that conventional transport planning approaches, based on transport user cost savings, cannot easily work for low volume rural road investments, - particularly when modal change is forecast or there is a high chance of road closure. Our current engineering and economic models cannot adequately capture the benefits to rural communities if improving road access leads to better schooling, better health care, or the provision of other services such as piped water supply, the provision of electricity, a newly established market or better emergency food distribution. Similarly, the costs of a change in accident rates or of greater risks in HIV/AIDS are also difficult to incorporate within the conventional models. This report builds on earlier work undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory and others (Overseas Road Note 22: A guide to Pro Poor Transport Appraisal, 2004) to investigate how social benefits might be included within road appraisal. The approach uses Multi-Criteria Analysis to investigate how different groups (Communities, District officials and National officials) in Uganda would comparatively assess how the different social costs and benefits of road projects compare with economic and environmental costs and benefits. The most useful and interesting findings of this work are firstly, the high relative importance attached to social benefits of roads that are identified by communitiesmuch more so than by National officials (who valued the economic benefits much more highly)and secondly, the nature and composition of social benefits identified. Access to health care, better water supply and access to educational facilities are the dominant social benefits identified. If we are to seriously take into account community wishes and preferences then the results clearly demonstrate the need, when assessing rural road interventions, to move beyond the pure economic/engineering approaches, or the simple cost effective ranking procedures of the past. Although the approach is relatively complex, it does show a way forward for incorporating social benefits into rural road infrastructure appraisal. This includes using it in conjunction with existing road user planning models such as HDM-4 and RED. Additional studies are required in other countries to see how the findings compare and to validate the overall approach. Further work is also required in order to make the approach more user friendly before it can be fully adopted on a wider scale. John Hine Senior Rural Transport Specialist Energy, Transport and Water Department The World Bank
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are especially grateful to Eric Stannard and the following persons for their substantial input in organizing the field studies: Concy Aciro for Acholi Sub-region, John Simon Otemo and Esther Kagusuma for Bugisu Sub-region, and James Olanya and Betty Kasimbazi for the central government ministries. Many other have also made significant contributions to the successful completion of the field studies at the District and Community levels. The names of the key individuals are given in Appendix III. Finally, we are greatly indebted to all those who participated in the field studies. Thanks also go to the peer reviewers, Rodrigo Archondo-Callao, Simon Ellis and Arnaud Desmarchalier for their valuable comments.
vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTES

AHP CBA FG FGD GoU HDM IDP IRI LRA MCA MDG MDGs MOWT NPV ORN RED VCR VT Analytical Hierarchy Process Cost Benefit Analysis Focus group Focus group discussion Government of Uganda Highway Development and Management Model Internally Displaced Persons International Roughness Index Lords Resistance Army Multi-criteria Analysis Millennium Development Goal Millennium Development Goals Ministry of Works and Transport Net Present Value Overseas Road Note Road Economic Decision Model Volume-capacity ratio Value Tree
The Case Study was conducted in two sub-regions of Uganda namely, Acholi and Bugisu. These are located in Northern and Eastern Uganda, respectively. Acholi Sub-region (also known as Acholiland) is divided into four districts: Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum and Pader. Bugisu Sub-region is divided into three districts: Manapwa, Mbale and Sironko. The field studies were carried out in four districts: Amuru, Gulu, Mbale and Sironko. These districts are highlighted in the map of Uganda on the following page.
ix
xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Context Developing countries dedicate a considerable share of total infrastructure investment to roads. The adoption in 2000 of the Millennium Development Goals and an increasing emphasis on justifying road investments in terms of their contribution to poverty reduction have directed considerable attention to low volume rural roads. Often the poorest of the poor live in remote rural areas and improved access to social and economic services is a key factor in raising their living standards. The traditional road appraisal frameworks do not fit well with this trend as they generally ignore the impact of social benefit and poverty reduction. Past attempts to overcome these problems have lacked consistency. Therefore, there is a need to develop a consistent framework to address the poverty and social benefit aspects in a systematic manner. A study1 into the identification and treatment of social benefits in road transport project appraisal was conducted in 2003-04. The study highlighted the problems of identification, separation, measurement, forecasting and valuation of social benefits within a cost-benefit approach framework. It recommended a flexible approach using the principles of multi-criteria analysis (MCA) that is capable of combining qualitative and quantitative data into a single analytical framework. One of the study outputs was a computerized software tool that can be used alone or within the framework of globally accepted appraisal models. Although such tools appear to be robust in methodological terms, there are fundamental operational problems, including the choice of the benefits/costs indicators and their weights. The current study undertook field testing of the proposed social benefits model and the software tool to recommend the choice of indicators with their corresponding weights based on results from the field. In addition, the study aimed to improve the capability of the Highway Development and Management Model (HDM-4) and Social Benefits Software Tools in addressing road investment related social issues. Methods The field study was conducted in Acholi and Bugisu sub-regions of Uganda. The two sub-regions are different in demographic, poverty and transport intensity terms. Data were collected at different levels project (community), program (district) and strategic (national). The project level data collection involved a total of four communities, two remote communities and two communities with good access. District and national level data were collected from decision makers at the respective levels. The qualitative methods included semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. The quantitative methods used structured questionnaires, both open and closed-ended. The main responses sought included identification of benefits/costs arising out of road development and pairwise comparison between different types of costs and benefits. The data were analyzed using specialized MCA software2. Summary Results The following table provides the weights and ranges for different types of benefits/costs, social benefits/costs, and different social costs and benefits.
Inclusion of Social Benefits in Transport Planning, A Department of International Development (UK) supported study jointly conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), IT Transport Ltd., UK and the University of Birmingham, UK. One of the Outputs of the study is the Overseas Road Note 22: A Guide to Pro-Poor Transport Appraisal. 2 Expert Choice by Expert Choice Inc.
Table 1
Weights and ranges for different types of benefits/costs, social benefits/costs, and different social costs and benefits
Levels
Benefits/costs Category Type of benefits/costs Economic Social Environmental Social benefits/costs Social Costs Benefits Different Social Benefits 1. Increased access to health facilities 2. Increased access to clean water sources 3. Increased access to educational institutions 4. Access to information, new knowledge, and modernity 5. Access to markets Different Social Costs 1. Increased road accidents 2. Increased insecurity & crime 3.Increased incidences of diseases 4. Negative cultural influence 5. Loss of land and property 6. Mud and dust pollution 7. Social consequences of environmental degradation 8. Resettlement problems
Micro (Community) Mean (Range) 0.22 (0.05-0.64) 0.65 (0.26-0.81) 0.14 (0.05-0.21) 0.17 (0.16-0.2) 0.83 (0.8-0.84) 0.43 (0.14-0.70) 0.30 (0.04-0.70) 0.23 (0.11-0.48) 0.05 (0.04-0.07) 0.52 (0.13-0.68) 0.32 (0.03-0.72) 0.09 (0.07-0.1) 0.04 (0.04-0.04) 0.06 (0.06-0.06) -
Meso (District) Mean (Range) 0.33 (0.04-0.78) 0.51 (0.05-0.79) 0.16 (0.05-0.49) 0.26 (0.1-0.90) 0.74 (0.1-0.90) 0.45 (0.04-0.69) 0.32 (0.06-0.70) 0.29 (0.11-0.65) 0.15 (0.08-0.32) 0.41 (0.17-0.72) 0.13 (0.03-0.53) 0.37 (0.07-0.65) 0.1 (0.03-0.36) 0.16 (0.04-0.40) -
Macro (National) Mean (Range) 0.47 (0.07-0.78) 0.26 (0.07-0.69) 0.27 (0.08-0.73) 0.71 (0.5-0.88) 0.29 (0.13-0.50) 0.27 (0.26-0.28) 0.47 (0.33-0.75) 0.27 (0.13-0.33) 0.38 (0.06-0.78) 0.18 (0.04-0.74) 0.29 (0.19-0.75) 0.18 (0.08-0.50)
The main study conclusions are: The top four road improvement related social benefits identified by the communities in rank order were increased access to health facilities (ranked 1st), increased access to water sources, and increased access to educational institutions (both ranked 2nd), new knowledge and modernity (ranked 3rd), and increased access to firewood and the creation of employment opportunities (both ranked 4th). The communities identified increased road accidents as the most important social cost linked to roads. The other important social costs included increased insecurity and crime (ranked 2nd), increased risk of diseases (ranked 3rd), and loss of land and property and mud and dust pollution and negative cultural influences (jointly ranked 4th). Contrary to common belief, the communities did not identify access to markets as one of the main social benefits. This may be because the communities considered access to markets as an economic benefit rather than a social benefit. The respondents identified mud and dust pollution as one of the highest ranked social costs although it is usually considered under the environmental cost category. Nonetheless, it is to be recognized that the immediate consequence of mud or dust is social (chances of a person travelling of on a dusty or muddy road being ended up with dirty clothes are considerably higher than on a road without dust or mud; this may have a significant social implication). The environmental consequences of the mud or dust pollution occur in a medium to longer term. The composition of social benefits and costs identified by the community and district level respondents were similar. However, responses from the national level were significantly different.
Executive Summary
The community and district respondents attached more importance to social benefits/costs over economic and environmental benefits/costs. However, respondents at the national level attached more importance to economic benefits/costs; the weight attached to social benefits/costs reduces and the weight attached to economic and environmental benefits/costs increases as the level of decision making moves from community, through district to national level. Community and district level respondents attached more importance to social benefits than social costs (and therefore assigned more weight). Responses from the national level were opposite. Although the associated weights for different social benefit types assigned at the community and district levels were similar; they were substantially different (both in type and value) at the national level. Again, the weights for different social costs assigned by the national level respondents are considerably different from the community and district levels.
Limitations, policy implications and requirements for further studies The conclusions from the study can only be taken as valid in the context of rural Uganda. Ideally, it would be necessary to conduct similar studies in the context of a particular country of interest. However, the findings from the study can be generalized as guidance, if time and financial resource constraints do not allow context specific studies. MCAs flexibility in combining qualitative and quantitative data is a major requirement for including non-monetized benefits including social benefits into road appraisal. Because of this, the MCA approach has the potential to be one of the main approaches for the appraisal of rural roads. This study is only a way forward towards the mainstreaming of an approach to include social benefit issues in road appraisal. There still exist important knowledge gaps in the following areas: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Would the indicators identified by rural residents in Ugandan be considerably different in other African, Asian and Latin American countries? How rural residents in other countries compare social, economic and environmental benefits as well as social costs and benefits? Would techniques similar to those used in Uganda work in other developing countries? How would the weights work in a real appraisal situation and what would be the rural residents reaction when a list of roads prioritized using the approach is presented to them?
A Case Study from Uganda
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Social benefits and transport planning
The road sector in developing countries consumes a considerable proportion of total infrastructure investment costs. There is an increasing need for national governments and donor agencies that support national governments to justify investments in the transport sector, like in any other sector, in terms of their contribution to poverty reduction. This focus further increases with the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) through the United Nations Millennium Declaration in 2000. The first of the eight MDGs is linked to the eradication of poverty. This increased focus of poverty alleviation brings more emphasis on the low volume rural roads. This is based on the following two main premises: most of the poorest of the poor live in rural areas; and a number of studies have provided evidence that access to social and economic services is essential for the poor to improve their living standards and to escape from poverty. Roads provide this vital physical access.
The traditional appraisal framework tends to ignore poverty reduction and social benefits3 derived from a scheme. There have been some attempts to overcome such difficulties in appraisal by improvising the use of the commonly used appraisal model outputs. For instance, in some cases additional poverty impact analysis is conducted in addition to the usual economic appraisal. Also some analysts use simplified techniques that try to address the concerns linked to poverty reduction and social benefits (e.g. use of simple prioritization indices). Again a variety of indices are available and, often, they are customized based on the socio-economic context of the road corridors and the type and amount of investment (e.g. the prioritization index for the prioritization of road maintenance would be more simplified than an index used for rehabilitation investment). However, one of the main problems of such approaches is the lack of a consistent framework for defining and incorporating social benefits within appraisal criteria. More problematic is that sometimes the social benefits are often arbitrarily defined, valued and added with economic benefits that substantially increase the possibility of double-counting. It is believed, in general, that social benefits arising from road improvements are most relevant in the case of rural roads. They are considered to be highly important in two instances: where investment provides a very significant improvement of vehicle access, for example, where currently there is no existing access at all or where the access for normal vehicles is possible during the dry season only; and
Road investments may result in both social benefits and costs. However, in many parts of the report such consequences are only referred to as the social benefits. Otherwise, if not mentioned explicitly, they include both social benefits and costs (negative benefits).
where the traffic volume is low and the population is very remote.
There are a number of issues linked to the incorporation of the social benefits into the transport planning framework. The key issues are: their identification there are a wide range of interpretations for the term social benefits and often they are difficult to separate; it is difficult to measure social benefits; it is difficult to value social benefits; and in addition to social benefits, transport improvement may also involve social costs.
A recently conducted study4 has identified four main practical problems related to the inclusion of social benefits within a conventional appraisal framework. They are: the difficulty of separation of social benefits from economic benefits. For example, access to market can provide economic as well as social benefits to rural residents, as markets often provide a place of social interactions among rural people, especially women. In addition, there are concerns about mixing economic and social issues in the appraisal process. It is often argued that it is better to target investment for the poor through a social impact analysis and an efficient identification of intended beneficiaries in the overall decision making process; the measurement of social benefits is another major issue even if the social and economic benefits are identified and separated. For example, what would be the unit of measurement of improved access to communication, knowledge and network? What would be the best yardstick for the measurement of these types of benefits? even if the separation and measurement related problems are overcome, forecasting future social benefits remains a significant problem; the monetary valuation of social benefits is a major problem in the inclusion of social benefits within the conventional appraisal framework of rural roads. Although there have been significant advancements in the monetary valuation of intangibles (e.g. valuation of environmental impacts using preference techniques), an accurate valuation of social benefits/costs is extremely difficult, especially in a rural road context, given their diversity and the resources (financial, time and computational) available to an analyst.
Against this background, the 2003-04 study mentioned above was conducted with an objective to advance a framework for the identification and treatment of social benefits in road transport project appraisal. Field studies were carried out in three different countries in Asia and Africa (Vietnam, Zambia and Ethiopia) with a number of objectives including the analysis of the social benefits and costs of rural road improvements. The study found that although road improvement tends to increase mobility in countries with a dispersed rural road network and low vehicle ownership, the main benefit is perceived to be an improvement in accessibility. 1.2 ORN 22 & Software Tool
Overseas Road Note 22 (Transport Research Laboratory, 2004) sets out the case for a new approach to rural transport appraisal. It proposes that, although the appraisal framework that justifies benefits against investment costs through the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) approach is appropriate for highvolume roads that provide long-distance, inter-urban transport for people and goods, it is inappropriate for low-volume rural roads. This is because there are a number of assumptions within the framework that are not appropriate for rural roads. This includes the concept that motorized traffic
Inclusion of Social Benefits in Transport Planning, A Department of International Development (UK) supported study jointly conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), IT Transport Ltd., UK and the University of Birmingham, UK. One of the Outputs of the study is the Overseas Road Note 22: A Guide to Pro-Poor Transport Appraisal.
Introduction
represents a major component of the total benefits and the assumption that there will be no change to the nature and form of access. Due to the shortcomings in the current appraisal framework, ORN 22 sets out an improved process for transport appraisal that incorporates wider social considerations. Given the difficulties in the separation, quantification, forecasting and valuation of social benefits, ORN 22 suggests an approach that is flexible and capable of combining both qualitative and quantitative benefits into a single analytical framework. The framework uses the multi-criteria analysis (MCA) principles. MCA is a systematic analytical approach that breaks a problem into a number of constituent parts to understand better the problems and consequently to arrive at a decision. MCA helps in the evaluation of road investment alternatives by structuring the problems in a systematic manner in order to achieve a defined objective. The newly developed method has been incorporated into a computerized software tool that uses the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), a widely used MCA method. Although a stand alone tool, it can also be used within the globally accepted appraisal models (e.g. Highway Development and Management Model HDM-4). In order to evaluate investment alternatives, the software tool requires the following to be defined: (i) goals and objective; (ii) investment alternatives; (iii) assessment criteria (e.g. economic benefits, social benefits, etc.) and sub-criteria (e.g. different types of social benefits); (iv) weights of the criteria or sub-criteria; and (v) alternative attribute values. The alternatives are evaluated on the basis of overall scores. 1.3 Shortcomings
The software tool does not seem to have any problems in methodological terms. The steps required for the assessment of the alternatives are methodical and robust. If the investment alternatives, goals and objectives, criteria and their weights can be correctly defined then choosing the best alternative is simple. However, there are a number of operational problems linked to the use of the tool. The main problem appears to be the lack of guidance on the type of social benefit/cost indicators and their weights to be used in the appraisal process. An analyst who wishes to prioritize the alternatives also needs a step by step procedure to understand the whole analysis process. It is understood that due to time and financial limitations, field studies that would have provided guidance on these issues could not be conducted in the earlier study. These limitations and concerns are currently hindering the wider use of the software. 1.4 Aim, central question of the study
In the context of the limitations mentioned above, the current study was undertaken with the aim to field test the social benefits model and the software tool, and to recommend the choice of social benefit/cost indicators with corresponding weights based on the field study results. The central question the study seeks to answer is: How best can different types of social benefits arising from road investments be represented in a Multi-criteria Analysis (MCA) and how can these benefits be weighted against one another and against other categories of benefits? The subsequent questions the study seeks to answer are: how can social benefit indicators be defined and what are the potential main social benefit indicators to be considered in a road appraisal? what are the likely weight-ranges to be used for different categories of benefits (social, economic and environmental)? what are the likely weight-ranges to be used for different types of social benefits? how important are the social benefits for different road intervention levels (e.g. new construction, widening, rehabilitation and maintenance)? how are social benefits viewed at the central (macro), local government/district (meso) and community (micro) levels?
1.5
Structure of the report
This report is structured in five main chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the study. Chapter 2 describes the methodology and survey instruments used for field studies and data collection. Chapter 3 gives details of the data analysis undertaken and the results obtained. Chapter 4 presents a worked example of how social benefits can be incorporated into road planning. Chapter 5 describes how the findings of the present study can be used to improve the capability of HDM-4 and the Social Benefits Software Tool in addressing social issues related to road investments. Chapter 6 presents the main conclusions of this study and points the way forward.
2
2.1
STUDY METHODOLOGY
Study country and areas
2.1.1 Study country Uganda was chosen as the case-study country because of the variety of transport availability and use in rural areas. Another important reason was the well-developed local government system whereby the district councils have a considerable level of power to make their own decisions on investment in district and community access roads. This provided the possibilities for insights into the local level decision making process and their views on the social benefits related to road planning. The population of Uganda is roughly 28 million and its growth rate is fast, 3.4% as reported by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics5. Rural areas, where accessibility is often poor or non-existent, are disadvantaged in terms of a number of welfare indicators including life expectancy, infant mortality and income growth. Economy Uganda is endowed with natural resources such as copper, cobalt, hydropower, limestone and salt. Just over a fifth of the total land area of Uganda is arable. Agriculture has considerable importance in the economy, employing over 80% of the work force. Coffee accounts for the bulk of export revenues. Other agricultural products include tea, cotton, tobacco, cassava (tapioca), potatoes, corn, millet, pulses, cut flowers; beef, goat meat, milk and poultry. Uganda is one of the poorest countries in the World with per capita GDP estimated at $280 (World Bank, 2006). Ugandas GDP grew at 1.9% in 2004-5. The contribution of agriculture to total GDP is still substantial (approximately a third). The service sector accounts for almost half of GDP (World Bank, 2006). Approximately 38% of Ugandas population lives below the poverty line. Transport sector and its role Ugandas road transport infrastructure comprises a total of 72,600 km6 of roads. The network consists of 10,800 km of national roads, 27,500 km of district roads, 4,300 km of urban roads and 30,000 km of community access roads. While some 16,000 km of the total road length is paved, the remainder remains unpaved. Road transport in Uganda accounts for the overwhelming majority of transport sector activity in terms of both passengers and freight. Within the road sector, the national roads make up 15% of the network length but carry about 80% of the total road traffic. While the district and urban authorities are responsible for the management and maintenance of the district and urban roads, respectively, the Ministry of Works and Transport (MOWT) is responsible for the national road network. The role of rural transport is very important in Uganda for two reasons: the contribution of agriculture to livelihoods, and the fact that a majority of the population live in rural areas. The common transport modes include conventional motorized vehicles and non-motorized transport (e.g. bicycles, animaldrawn carts). The Government of Ugandas (GoUs) policy emphasizes rural development and the need to enhance rural accessibility. 2.1.2 Study areas Uganda is divided into 80 districts across four administrative regions. Each administrative region comprises several sub-regions, each of which is divided into districts. Each district is further divided into sub-districts, counties, sub-counties, parishes and villages.
5 6
Uganda Bureau of Statistics; http://www.ubos.org/ All road lengths are approximate.
10
The study conducted investigations at three levels, as illustrated in Figure 2.1 below: 1. 2. 3. Macro level involved two central government ministries Meso level involved two districts, and Micro level involved four communities, two from each of the selected sub-regions
The field studies were conducted in two sub-regions of Uganda namely Acholi and Bugisu. Acholi Subregion (also known as Acholiland) which is located in Northern Uganda is divided into four districts: Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum and Pader. Acholiland is the historical homeland of the Acholi ethnic group. Bugisu Sub-region is located in Eastern Uganda and is divided into three districts: Manapwa, Mbale and Sironko. The majority of the people in Bugisu are the Bagisu ethnic group and Lugisu is the most widely spoken language.
Figure 2.1
Investigation levels
Two central government Ministries Two District Councils (Mbale & Gulu) Two communities in each of the two sub-regions (Bugisu & Acholi)
Macro Level
Meso Level
Micro Level
Central government ministries At the Macro level, the study targeted two key central government ministries: the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development and the Ministry of Works and Transport. A questionnaire survey was conducted among selected officials from both ministries. Selected districts At the Meso level, the case study was conducted in two districts: Mbale and Gulu District. Data were collected from district councilors. The two districts are different in demographic and poverty terms: while Gulu District is sparsely populated (circa 29 persons per sq km), Mbale District is densely populated (circa 284 persons per sq km). Gulu District is considerably poorer than Mbale District; the 1999/2000 figures show that 67 percent and 39 percent of the population live below the poverty line in Gulu and Mbale Districts, respectively. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that there are differences in the use and availability of transport infrastructure and services between these two districts.
Study methodology
11
Mbale District Mbale District has a population of approximately 720,000 and an overwhelming majority (92 percent) of the population are rural (2002 census). The primary economic activity in the district is agriculture. The district grows a number of crops including coffee, beans, matooke (plantains) and maize. Mbale District lies in the hillslopes and valleys between Mount Elgon7 and the plain. The landscape is rather irregular, but characterized by dominantly broad, rounded interfluves and narrow valleys, often with active streams. In Mbale District, the road network density is higher than that of Gulu District. Most of the roads in the plain are in good or fair condition; however, gravel roads in the mountainous areas are in very poor condition and some of them become impassable during the rainy season. Although the most common mode of transport in Mbale District is conventional motorized transport, there is also a widespread use of animal transport, particularly in difficult terrains of the high hills. Headloading and walking are also common modes of transport in the mountainous areas. Gulu District Gulu District is one of the districts that form Acholiland. It has historically been seen as the most important and influential of the northern districts. The population of the district is roughly 300,000 (2002 census). Gulu is one of the northern Uganda districts where the Ugandan government forces have fought rebels from the Lords Resistance Army (LRA). Over 90 percent of the population has been displaced due to the war and they live mostly in camps clustered around towns and trading centers. The landscape of Gulu District can be described as eroded plain, with broad flat interfluves separated by aggraded valleys occurring in a dendritic pattern. Transport plays a vital role in rural livelihoods in Gulu District. Most passenger and freight movement in the district is carried out by walking, headloading, and cycling for distances up to 30 km. Although the desired mode of transport is conventional motorized transport, there are few vehicles on roads that are generally in poor or very poor condition and transport costs are generally high. Road transport plays an important role for the distribution of emergency food supplies and relief services to the war displaced population living in the camps. The main highway running from Kampala to the north runs through Gulu District. The communities At the Micro level, field surveys were carried out in four communities selected from the two subregions. In each sub-region, two communities were selected on the basis of access levels: one offroad community (or remote community) and one on-road community (or community with good access). The on-road rural community comprises households having uninterrupted year round access to different services and facilities and is located on an all-weather road. The off-road rural community comprises households having poor access to different services and facilities and located at least 5 km away from an all-weather road. For off-road rural communities the access to services and facilities is interrupted during the rainy season. In Bugisu Sub-region, the two on-road communities selected were Bungokha-Mutoto and Bukonde, both located in Mbale District. Bungokha-Mutoto was used only as a pilot trial community. The off-road community selected in Bugisu Sub-region was Buginyanya (located in Sironko District), which lies on the high slopes of Mount Elgon. In Acholi Sub-region, Unyama community (in Gulu District) was selected as the on-road community and Alero community (in Amuru District) was the selected off-road community. These communities were chosen because they offered a variety of rural transport availability in terms of both infrastructure and use. The situations represented by the chosen communities are characteristic of rural Uganda. A summary description of the communities is given in Table 2.1.
A 4,321 meter high extinct volcanic mountain on the border of Uganda and Kenya.
12
Table 2.1
Community
Brief description of the study communities

Brief Description Alero community is located about 40 km to the west of Gulu town. It is a community that is located between two main all-weather roads: about 30 km from Gulu Nimule Road and some 40 km from Karuma Pakwach Road. The population of this community lives in camps and almost 99% of people are engaged in a combination of peasant farming and livestock rearing. The feeder roads leading to Alero community are in poor condition. Some are barely passable during rainy seasons. Unyama community is situated on the main road (gravel all weather) running from Gulu town to Kitgum town. The community is located about 8 km east of Gulu town. The road condition is however, in very poor condition but carries a relatively high volume of traffic for an unsealed road. The local community engages in self-help projects to maintain the roads. Most of the people in this community are poor having been displaced by war to live in camps. Access to their farm land is also limited. The community lives near a natural forest reserve. Buginyanya is situated on the high slopes and hills of Mount Elgon. It is accessible by very poorly, and thinly constructed gravel roads that meander along the foothills to the top. Huge cliffs of rocks sometimes fall and block the road. It is a very densely populated community living in mountainous terrain. There is rainfall throughout the year, making the already poor road very difficult to use. At times, the route from the district headquarters is impassable due to mud, slipperiness and drainage. This community is physically separated from the main developing communities. Therefore, it remains remote and isolated. This community is located about 9 km from Mbale town. The survey covered participants from four different villages and the number of respondents totaled 28. The majority of respondents in this community are Muslim by faith and, therefore, can be regarded as belonging to a minority group. A social benefit that was highlighted was access to places of worship. The population of this community are mainly engaged in local business activities.
Remote community Alero (Amuru District)
Good access community Unyama (Gulu District)
Remote community Buginyanya (Sironko District)
Good access community Bukonde (Mbale District)
2.2
Methods used
2.2.1 Levels of data collection, survey methods and instruments used The three levels of data collection as described in Section 2.1.2 were: Macro level (i.e. central ministries level), Meso level (i.e. district councils level) and Micro level (i.e. communities level) used in road investment planning and decision making. The study used a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods. Although both methods are different in approach with regards to data collection and knowledge development, the decision was taken to improve the quality of collected information and use both qualitative and quantitative data in a complementary manner (Meredith, 1998; Jick, 1979). While the qualitative methods included semistructured interviews, focus group discussions and documentary analysis, the quantitative methods used structured questionnaires, both open and closed-ended questionnaires, to collect data. The use of a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods provides the benefit of gaining better understanding of the meaning and implications of the research findings (Maltterud, 2001). Furthermore, the mixed methods approach recognizes that both qualitative and quantitative methods have limitations, and that biases inherent in any single method could neutralize or cancel the biases of other methods. The problems associated with, or the inadequacies of, individual methods are then minimized (Jick, 1979; Cresswell, 1994; Creswell, 2003; Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). Survey instruments Appendix I and Appendix II provide the survey instruments used for the data collection for the communities, districts and ministries. Different approaches were used for the different investigation levels. Community level interviews employed qualitative methods such as focus group discussions and
Study methodology
13
pairwise ranking techniques to solicit answers to structured questions while the district and national level questionnaires followed more structured interview paths. 2.2.2 Field survey methodology The field studies were carried out in a hierarchical manner starting with community level, then district level and finally the central government level. Overall procedure The overall procedure used for the field study can be described as follows: 1. In each of the districts, meetings were held with the district administrators and councilors to explain the purpose of the study, its aims and objectives and the procedures planned for conducting the field surveys. A team of local officials and professionals, mainly from the Local Government and the Ministry of Works and Transport, was identified and tasked to work together with the data collection team. The local team comprised local chiefs and administrators, interpreters, technicians and sociologists. At the meetings, the local communities to be studied were confirmed. In addition, the logistical arrangements (e.g. transport) and daily program of activities to be carried out for each community were made. A Pilot Trial community was identified in Mbale District as Bungokha-Mutoto, an on-road community. The main aim of the pilot trial was to test how the field surveys would be conducted at the community level. This involved testing the formation of a Focus Group (the size of the group, composition of its members, etc.), testing how the survey team would conduct the surveys, testing the level of engagement with members of the Focus Group, determining the amount of time required to conduct the survey, and testing how information and data could be collected and recorded. There were a number of lessons learned from the pilot trial. These were subsequently used to improve the implementation of the actual surveys. The actual field surveys started with Bukonde community (a community with good access). The main method of data collection involved discussions with a Focus Group (FG). The formation of the FG considered a number of factors including an appropriate representation from different gender groups, social classes, etc. People with physical disabilities were also represented in all the communities visited in Bugisu and Acholi sub-regions. The next survey was conducted in Buginyanya, a remote community in Sironko District. Following the completion of data collection in Bugisu Sub-region, the data collection team moved to Acholi Sub-region to collect data from two communities: a community with good access (Unyama) and a community with remote access (Alero). Following the completion of the data collection at the community level in each sub-region, data was collected from district councilors from one district in that particular sub-region. The final survey was carried out at the central government level for the two selected ministries at their respective headquarters in Kampala and Entebbe. The final step of the field study involved data transcription and collation of the data collected.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 7. 8.
Appendix III provides the detailed data collection procedure for each of the levels community, district and central.
14
2.2.3 Objectives and summary methodology Table 2.2 presents the data collection details at different levels including the objective and methodology of the data collection.
Table 2.2
Investigation levels Macro level Central government
Objectives and summary methodology

Objective of the investigation The objective was to assess the strategic level decision makers perception of different types of social benefits/costs and also to assess the weights they are prepared to attach to different types of benefits/costs and social benefits/costs. The objective was to assess the District level decision makers perception of different types of social benefits/costs and also to assess the weights they are prepared to attach to different types of benefits/costs and social benefits/costs. The objective was to gather communities perception of social benefits/costs and to assess what weights they are prepared to attach to different types of benefits/costs and different types of social benefits/costs. Summary methodology Mainly structured interviews with both open and close ended questionnaires.
Meso level Districts
Mainly structured interviews with both open and close ended questionnaires.
Micro level Communities
Focus group discussions (FGD). Each FG was represented by different social class, gender and age groups of the community. Both open and close ended questions were used.
Appendix IV presents more details of the use of the study methodology at different levels strategic, program and project. 2.3 Analysis methods
The data collected mainly comprised information on pairwise comparisons among different types of benefits/costs. The data were analyzed using specialized MCA software (Expert Choice). The outputs of the analysis were weights for different benefits/costs. These are presented in Chapter 3.
3
3.1
CASE STUDY RESULTS

Introduction
The findings of the case study carried out in Uganda have been summarized in this chapter under the following headings: 3.2 Community (micro) level findings; District (meso) level findings; National (macro) level findings; and Comparison of macro, meso and micro level findings
Community (micro) level findings
Each community in the survey identified a long list of benefits and costs from road investments. These benefits and costs were categorized as being economic, environmental or social. Then, using pairwise comparisons, the social benefits and costs were ranked in order to identify the most important social benefits and costs from the communitys point of view. 3.2.1 Social benefits
Table 3.1 presents the top four social benefits identified by each community in rank order. For the purposes of combining rankings, social benefit characteristics were awarded points in accordance with their relative ranking positions. The highest ranked benefit was awarded the maximum of four points, while benefits that were ranked second, third and fourth were awarded three, two and one points (respectively). Benefits ranked fifth and beyond received no points. It can be seen that, based on the combined scores, increased access to health facilities was identified as the top ranked social benefit. This was followed by increased access to clean water sources and increased access to educational institutions (both second ranked). New knowledge and modernity was ranked 3rd. Increased access to firewood and the creation of employment opportunities were both ranked 4th. The following sections provide an explanation for these preferences.
Table 3.1
Social types
Social benefits ranking (community level)

Bugisu Sub-region Good access (1) (4) Remote (1) (2) Acholi Sub-region Good access (2) (1) Remote (3) (2) Score 13 11 Combined Overall Ranking (1) (2)
benefit
Increased access to health facilities Increased access to clean water sources Increased access to educational institutions New knowledge, modernity Increased access to firewood Creation of employment opportunities
(2)
(3)
(3)
(1)
11
(2)
(3) N/A N/A
(4) N/A N/A
N/A (4) N/A
N/A N/A (4)
3 1 1
(3) (4) (4)
15
16
Water In all the communities studied, access to water sources was not a major problem, however, access to clean water sources was. The latter is most associated with road investments in Uganda, as the provision of bore-holes, piped-water and wells were in almost all cases linked to good road access. Table 3.1 shows that increased access to clean water was ranked 4th in good access communities within Bugisu Sub-region. This reflects the fact that they already had relatively good access to clean water sources. By contrast, the community with a high level of access in Acholi Sub-region ranked increased access to clean water 1st. This is because they currently live in a very congested Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camp as a result of the civil war in Northern Uganda. A river (Unyama) runs along the camp and supplies the population with their water needs. The water is not clean for most domestic uses particularly for cooking, drinking and bathing. Consequently, access to clean water sources was ranked high amongst the list of possible benefits. Health Access to health centers was clearly ranked top of the list in Bugisu Sub-region. In Acholi Sub-region, access to health was ranked just below access to clean water sources. It is likely that the most common types of diseases suffered by people in the Acholi communities are water-borne or waterrelated. Therefore, by accessing clean water sources, the health of the entire population would improve significantly. School Deprived people see education as the means by which their children will achieve success in terms of improving their quality of life and enhancing their development. This is the case for the Alero (remote community in Acholi Sub-region) community. The community in Bugisu Sub-region with good access (Bukonde) comprised mainly Muslims and there is a tendency among the minority groups to give high priority to the education of their children so that they can realize a better future and achieve further progress/development. Markets Within the study areas, markets are located at trading centers along the road. The local people, predominantly women, carry small headloads of farm produce and products to sell at the markets. The money generated from the sales of commodities is used to buy salt, paraffin and other items required for day to day living. The market days commonly occur once or twice a week. Large scale farm production is generally bought by middle tradesmen from the farm-gates. This mostly eliminates the need for local people to travel to the market centers. In Acholi Sub-region, the types of goods are often grains (millet, maize, rice), beans and potatoes, which can be stored over a period of months. In Bugisu Sub-region, other crops include bananas and vegetables. Typically, in Uganda, people who live in urban areas also have strong links with members of their families living in farms in the remote rural areas. The urban people are usually the ones who arrange for the transport and sale of any large scale farm production. It is for the above reasons that access to markets was not identified as one of the top social benefits, which is contrary to some expectations. Moreover, the villagers might have seen access to markets as being more of an economic benefit rather than a social benefit. 3.2.2 Social costs
The top ranked social costs from road investments identified by each community are presented in Table 3.2. The highest ranked benefit was awarded the maximum of four points, while benefits that were ranked second, third and fourth were awarded three, two and one points (respectively). Benefits ranked fifth and beyond received no points.
Case study results
17
Table 3.2
Social costs
Social cost ranking (community level)

Bugisu Sub-region Good access Remote (2) (1) Acholi Sub-region Good access (1) (2) Remote (1) (2) Score 15 13 Combined Overall Ranking (1) (2)
Increased road accidents Increased insecurity and crime Increase in diseases (HIV/AIDS) Loss of land and property Mud and dust Negative cultural influence
(1) (2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4) N/A N/A
N/A (4) N/A
N/A N/A (4)
N/A N/A N/A
1 1 1
(4) (4) (4)
A summary of the findings from Table 3.2 is given below: In all communities, except Bugisu remote community, increased road accidents were identified as the highest ranking social cost. In Buginyanya (remote community in Bugisu Sub-region and a mountainous area), traffic volumes and vehicle speeds are low and there are relatively few road accidents. The fear of increased insecurity and crime was identified as being the second major social cost. Bugisu Sub-region (that borders Kenya) has major law and order problems given that it is a cross-border smuggling corridor. In Acholi Sub-region, the sensitivity to insecurity is the aftermath of the war between government forces and insurgents from LRA; The social cost that was ranked third by all communities was that of increased risk of communicable diseases, including HIV/AIDS. Given the high incidence of HIV infections in Uganda, such a ranking was expected; and The fourth ranked social cost item for Bugisu community with good access was the loss of land and property associated with the needs for new road construction and widening projects. In Bugisu (remote community), the fourth major cost item identified was that of mud and dust. In Acholi Sub-region, negative cultural influence on young people was singled out as a major item of social concern.
3.2.3 Comparison of economic, social and environmental benefits/costs

Using the concept of pairwise ranking, each community assigned relative weights to economic, social and environmental categories of benefits and costs. The results of this survey have been summarized in Table 3.3 for good access and remote communities.
18
Table 3.3
Weights for different categories of benefits/costs (community level)

Type of Community Good Access Mean Range 0.05-0.20 0.67-0.74 0.05-0.21 Mean 0.34 0.57 0.09 Remote Range 0.11-0.64 0.26-0.81 0.05-0.16 Mean 0.22 0.65 0.14 Range 0.05-0.64 0.26-0.81 0.05-0.21 Overall
Benefits/Costs Category
1. Economic 2. Social 3. Environmental
0.09 0.72 0.18
All communities assigned the highest relative weights to social benefits/costs, but communities with good access gave a higher weight to social benefits/costs (0.72) compared to that given by remote communities (0.57). Remote communities gave a much greater weight to economic benefits/costs (0.34) compared to that given by communities with good access (0.09). Good Access communities gave a relatively higher weight to environmental benefits/costs (0.18) compared to that given by remote communities (0.09). It is important to note that these relative weights should be considered within the context of overall needs of the communities. It is reasonable to assume that the remote communities have a much greater total economic and social needs compared to communities with good access. Therefore, the remote communities attempt to distribute the relative weights across both economic and social benefits. A possible explanation for the higher weight given to social benefits in the case of communities with good access is that they might have experienced such benefits following the development of road transport infrastructure. On the other hand, remote communities tend to value economic benefits arising out of road improvement more highly than their counterparts with good access based on the expectation that there will be substantial economic gain from such an improvement. For the purpose of road investment appraisal, it is essential to also relate the three categories of benefits and costs to different types of road works, namely new construction, rehabilitation (and periodic maintenance), and spot improvement. Therefore, the study assessed the different benefit/cost weights for different improvement/maintenance options. Table 3.4 gives a summary of the responses from the four communities in Bugisu and Acholi Sub-regions. The key findings from Table 3.4 are summarized as follows: New construction is more closely associated with social benefits compared to rehabilitation or spot improvement; Rehabilitation and spot improvement works are relatively more associated with economic benefits than new construction works; and Environmental issues are more related to new construction works. Weights for different categories of benefits/costs (community level)
Type of Roadworks New Construction Mean Economic Social Environmental 0.16 0.68 0.16 Range 0.06-0.30 0.54-0.70 0.06-0.20 Rehabilitation/ Periodic Maintenance Mean 0.23 0.62 0.14 Range 0.05-0.64 0.26-0.70 0.05-0.21 Spot Improvement Mean 0.26 0.63 0.11 Range 0.06-0.64 0.26-0.81 0.05-0.21 Mean 0.22 0.65 0.14 Range 0.05-0.64 0.26-0.81 0.05-0.21 Overall
Table 3.4
Benefits /Costs Category
Case study results
19
3.2.4
Comparison of different types of social benefits and costs
To determine the relative importance of the different types of social benefits and costs identified, a pairwise ranking procedure was also used. The results of the surveys conducted for good access and remote communities are summarized in Table 3.5. Only the top four ranked benefits and costs have been included in the table. The key findings from Table 3.5 are summarized as follows: For both remote and good access communities, access to health centers has been given the highest priority rating; Increased or better access to clean water sources is rated second by the communities with good access, but rated third by the remote communities. Increased access to educational institutions is rated second by the remote communities, but rated third by the communities with good access. Increase in road accidents has been rated top in the list of social costs. In communities with good access, the weighting assigned to increase in road accidents is very high (0.64) as compared to that given by more remote communities (0.4). Increased insecurity and crime is rated second but it is a more serious concern of remote communities (0.3) than it is for communities with good access (0.21). The remote communities fear that new roads would expose them to outsiders and it might aggravate the law and order situation.
Further details of the breakdown of weights for social costs and benefits by type of roadworks are given in Appendix V. Table 3.5
Item
Weights for different types of social benefits and costs (community level)
Type of Community Good Access Mean (Range) Remote Access Mean (Range) Mean (Range) Overall
Social Benefits 1. Increased access to health facilities 2. Increased access to clean water sources 3. Increased access to educational institutions 4. Access to information, new knowledge, modernity Social Costs 1. Increased road accidents 2. Increased insecurity & crime 3.Increased incidences of diseases 4. Negative cultural influence 0.64(0.64-0.65) 0.21 (0.21-0.21) 0.08(0.07-0.10) 0.04(0.04-0.04) 0.40(0.13-0.68) 0.37(0.03-0.71) 0.10(0.09-0.10) 0.52(0.13-0.68) 0.32(0.03-0.71) 0.09(0.07-0.10) 0.04(0.04-0.04) 0.42(0.14-0.70) 0.37(0.04-0.70) 0.16(0.12-0.19) 0.07(0.07-0.07) 0.44(0.18-0.70) 0.22(0.15-0.30) 0.29(0.11-0.48) 0.04(0.04-0.04) 0.43(0.14-0.70) 0.30(0.04-0.70) 0.23(0.11-0.48) 0.05(0.04-0.07)
Note: The benefits/costs column total may not be equal to 1.00 given that these benefits/costs types were not necessarily the only benefits/costs types considered by the communities.
20
3.3
District (meso) level findings
As mentioned above, the study collected data from the district councilors in order to assess the meso level responses on different benefits/costs and social benefits/costs (Appendix II provides the questionnaire used). The summary results of the analysis are provided in Table 3.6 and Table 3.7. Appendix V provides the detailed results for different types of social costs and benefits. The following is a summary of the district level findings: District level respondents considered social benefits/costs more important than economic and environmental benefits/costs (as in the case of community level respondents). The summary findings indicate that, overall, social benefits far outweigh social costs. Access to markets was identified as one important benefit at the district or program level. However, community level respondents did not consider access to markets as one of the four top benefits. This is explained by the fact that district program planners put more emphasis on investment for economic development as the means by which peoples lives will improve. Increased accidents have been rated highest by councilors in the districts. This is consistent with the community level rating. Better access to health facilities was identified by the district councilors as the most important social benefit of road development. This is again consistent with the response from the community level surveys. As in the case of community level respondents, district councilors perceived the next highest social benefits as access to educational institutions and access to clean water sources.
Table 3.6
Benefits /Costs Category Economic Social Environmental
Weights for different categories of benefits/costs (district level)

Type of Road works New Construction Mean 0.22 0.60 0.18 Range 0.04-0.67 0.24-0.79 0.05-0.47 Rehabilitation Mean 0.42 0.44 0.14 Range 0.04-0.78 0.05-0.78 0.05-0.37 Spot Improvement Mean 0.35 0.48 0.16 Range 0.04-0.71 0.09-0.78 0.06-0.49 Mean 0.33 0.51 0.16 Range 0.04-0.78 0.05-0.79 0.05-0.49 Overall
Table 3.7
Benefits /Costs
Relative weights of social benefits and costs (district level)

Type of Road works New Construction Mean Range 0.1-0.9 0.1-0.9 Rehabilitation Mean 0.25 0.75 Range 0.1-0.9 0.1-0.9 Spot Improvement Mean 0.2 0.8 Range 0.1-0.5 0.5-0.9 Mean 0.26 0.74 Range 0.1-0.9 0.1-0.9 Overall
Social Costs Social Benefits
0.35 0.65
Case study results
21
3.4
National (macro) level findings
The study gathered data from ministry (macro) level officials to assess their views on different types of benefits/costs and social benefits/costs. Appendix II provides the questionnaire used for the collection of data from macro level decision-makers. Table 3.8 and Table 3.9 provide the summary findings. Appendix V provides the detailed results for different types of social costs and benefits. The following summarizes the national level findings: National planners placed more emphasis on economic than on social and environmental benefit/costs (see Table 3.8). This is in marked contrast to community and district level perspectives, which gave greater importance to social than to economic benefits/costs. Given that central level decision makers are more concerned with the implementation of economic strategy, such responses are, perhaps, understandable. Overall, social costs were rated much higher than social benefits (see Table 3.9). This is different from the responses of the district councilors, whom rated social benefits higher than social costs. For new road construction schemes, environmental benefit had the highest weight, but for rehabilitation and spot improvement, economic benefits had the highest weight. The list of benefits and costs identified at the governmental strategic planning level showed a new social cost, which was community resettlement problem. This was not identified by communities or district councilors. The likely explanation for this is that, when planning a new road project/program, the central level decision makers allocate significant priority to re-settlement issues. It can also be seen that access to information and new knowledge was perceived as more important by central government officials than access to health centers, which was identified as the top priority by the communities, and second in the district level findings. Weights for different categories of benefits/costs (national level)
Type of Road works New Construction Mean Economic Social Environmental 0.30 0.28 0.42 Range 0.07-0.64 0.07-0.69 0.24-0.73 Rehabilitation Mean 0.48 0.36 0.15 Range 0.07-0.74 0.17-0.69 0.09-0.24 Spot Improvement Mean 0.62 0.15 0.24 Range 0.41-0.78 0.07-0.25 0.08-0.48 Mean 0.47 0.26 0.27 Range 0.07-0.78 0.07-0.69 0.08-0.73 Overall
Table 3.8
Benefits /Costs Category
Table 3.9
Benefits /Costs
Weights for different categories of benefits/costs (national level)

Type of Road works New Construction Mean Range 0.5-0.88 0.13-0.5 Rehabilitation Mean 0.71 0.29 Range 0.5-0.88 0.13-0.5 Spot Improvement Mean 0.71 0.29 Range 0.5-0.88 0.13-0.5 Mean 0.71 0.29 Range 0.5-0.88 0.13-0.5 Overall
Social Costs Social Benefits
0.71 0.29
22
3.5
Comparison of Macro, Meso and Micro Levels
Tables 3.10 to 3.13 summarize the findings at three different levels of decision making micro (related to project analysis), meso (related to program analysis) and macro (related to strategic analysis) levels. The following compares the findings at these levels. Table 3.10 Top social benefits and costs at different levels
Investigation Levels Micro (community) Social Benefits 1. Increased access to health facilities 2. Increased access to clean water sources 3. Increased access to educational institutions 4. Access modernity to information, new knowledge, Meso (district) Macro (national)
5. Increased access to markets Social Costs 1. Increased traffic Accidents 2. Increased insecurity/crime 3. Increased incidence of Diseases 4. Negative cultural influence 5. Loss of land/property 6. Dust pollution 7. Social degradation consequences of environmental
8. Resettlement problems
Table 3.10 shows that there is no significant difference between the choice of top social benefits/costs at the community and district levels. However, the national level decision makers identified two additional social costs (i.e. social consequences of environmental degradation and resettlement problems) within their top social benefits/costs. Table 3.11 Weights and ranges of different types of benefits/costs for different investigation levels
Benefit Category Micro (community) Mean Economic Social Environmental 0.22 0.65 0.14 Range 0.05-0.64 0.26-0.81 0.05-0.21 Investigation Levels Meso (district) Mean 0.33 0.51 0.16 Range 0.04-0.78 0.05-0.79 0.05-0.49 Macro (national) Mean 0.47 0.26 0.27 Range 0.07-0.78 0.07-0.69 0.08-0.73
As mentioned above, the community and district respondents attached more importance to social benefits/costs than to economic and environmental benefits/costs. The national level respondents attached more importance to economic benefits/costs. The weight given to social benefits/costs
Case study results
23
reduced progressively (from 0.65 to 0.26) as the level of decision making increased. The opposite was true for economic/environmental benefits and costs i.e. the weight increased with increasing decision making levels. Again the weight attached to the social benefits reduces progressively as the level of decision making increases (see Table 3.12 and Figure 3.1); the weight attached to the social benefits by the community level respondents was considerably higher than their national level counterparts 0.83 and 0.29 respectively were the average values. However, the difference in social benefit weights between the community (0.83) and district level (0.74) respondents was not substantial. Table 3.12 Relative weights and ranges of social benefits and costs for different investigation levels
Item Micro (community) Mean Social costs Social benefits 0.17 0.83 Range 0.16-0.2 0.8-0.84 Investigation Levels Meso (district) Mean 0.26 0.74 Range 0.10-0.90 0.10-0.90 Macro (national) Mean 0.71 0.29 Range 0.5-0.88 0.13-0.50
Table 3.12 also shows comparative weightings relating social costs to social benefits at the micro, meso and macro investigation levels. At the community and district levels social benefits outweigh social costs. However, at the national level social costs outweighs social benefits. During the community and district level field surveys, the respondents stated that social costs do not occur frequently whereas social benefits stream continuously so long as the road was in a usable condition.
Figure 3.1: Relative weights of social benefits and costs for different investigation levels
0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 -
0.83 0.74 0.71
0.26 0.17
0.29
Community
District Social costs Social benefits
National
The weights for social benefits assigned at the community and district levels were not considerably different (see Table 3.13). However, the weights at the national level were different from the community and district level weights. For example, the respondents at the national level attached the highest weight to the access to information, new knowledge and modernity followed by social benefits
24
from access to markets. These benefits were also identified by the community and district level respondents but they attached only marginal importance to them. Respondents at the national level attached considerable importance to two particular social costs social consequences of environmental degradation and resettlement problems. These two social costs were not identified at the community or district levels. Table 3.13 Weights of different types of social benefits and costs for different investigation levels
Item Micro (community) Mean Social Benefits 1. Increased access to health facilities 2. Increased access to clean water sources 3. Increased access to educational institutions 4. Access to information, new knowledge, and modernity 5. Access to markets Social Costs 1. Increased road accidents 2. Increased insecurity & crime 3.Increased incidences of diseases 4. Negative cultural influence 5. Loss of land and property 6. Mud and dust pollution 7. Social consequences of environmental degradation 8. Resettlement problems 0.52 0.32 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.13-0.68 0.03-0.71 0.07-0.1 0.04-0.04 0.06-0.06 0.41 0.13 0.37 0.10 0.16 0.10-0.72 0.03-0.53 0.07-0.65 0.03-0.36 0.04-0.40 0.38 0.18 0.29 0.18 0.06-0.78 0.04-0.74 0.19-0.75 0.08-0.50 0.43 0.30 0.23 0.05 0.14-0.70 0.04-0.70 0.11-0.48 0.04-0.07 0.45 0.32 0.29 0.15 0.04-0.69 0.06-0.70 0.11-0.65 0.08-0.32 0.27 0.47 0.27 0.26-0.28 0.33-0.75 0.13-0.33 Range Investigation Levels Meso (district) Mean Range Macro (national) Mean Range
Note: The benefits/costs column total may not be equal to 1.00 given that these benefits/costs types were not necessarily the only benefits/costs types considered by the respondents. These are the top ranked benefits/costs.
4
4.1
A WORKED EXAMPLE ON HOW TO INCORPORATE SOCIAL BENEFITS IN ROAD PLANNING

Introduction
This chapter presents a worked example on how the social benefits/costs can be incorporated in the road investment decision making process. It shows how the weights derived from field studies can be used in practice. The process involves five distinct steps starting with the formulation of a value tree to the calculation of combined scores in order to make an informed investment decision. This chapter also illustrates how the qualitative values can be combined with the quantitative values to derive a single score for decision making purposes. The basis of the method of converting objective values or subjective assessments of relative importance to a set of overall scores or weights lies with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). This was first devised by Saaty (1980) and is one of the most widely used Multi-criteria Analysis (MCA) methods. Examples of practical applications of AHP methods are provided in Zahedi (1986) and Centre for International Forestry Research (1999). Given the rigidity of the traditional appraisal framework, which is based on the cost-benefit analysis process, social benefits/costs are difficult to incorporate due to the problems associated with their identification, measurement, forecasting and valuation. MCA provides a flexible approach compared to the traditional CBA method as it is capable of combining qualitative and quantitative data within a single analytical framework. One of the major advantages of using AHP is the ease of its implementation. The pairwise comparison provides the potential opportunity for users participation in the appraisal process, and the simplicity of its application facilitates the better understanding of the process. The method is also versatile in its application and, therefore, provides considerable flexibility to the analyst. It has the potential to address effectively the central objective of the road development process if one is given the opportunity to develop a value tree (see next section). The disaggregation of different benefits and costs can help in the identification of mitigation measures. This applies even if an alternative is selected based on the combined scores, in contrast to the traditional CBA. There are a number of specialized software tools that the analyzer can use to facilitate the AHP analysis, including Expert Choice.8 HDM-4 Version 2.0 contains a module that can also be used for MCA related analysis. This chapter is written in such a way that the scores can be calculated without the help of any specialized software; however, access to a spreadsheet-based program will greatly facilitate the analysis. 4.2 Steps
As mentioned above, the incorporation of social benefits in road investment planning involves the following steps: Establishing the decision context and development of a value tree; Identification of benefits and costs; Estimation of cost and benefit weightings; Calculation of individual attributes and combined scores of the alternatives; and Investment decision making.
Step 1: Establishment of the decision context and the formulation of a value tree The first step requires the establishment of the decision context followed by the development of a value tree. Figure 4.1 provides an example of how the overall objective of an intervention can help in the development of a value tree, including the development of objectives and criteria at different levels. This in turn helps in the calculation of scores at different criterion levels and the overall scores for different options. For example, Figure 4.1 shows how the overall objective has assisted in the formulation of (three) secondary level objectives (Level 1) of minimizing (monetary, social and environmental) costs and maximizing the (monetary, social and environmental) benefits. Therefore, this framework provides a systematic approach in the identification of different categories of costs and benefits (monetary, social and environmental).
Developed by Expert Choice Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA
25
26
Figure 4.1
A Value Tree
Overall Objective: Poverty reduction through road transport interventions
Overall
Objective: Minimization of costs and maximization of benefits
Level 1
Monetary/Economic Costs/Benefits Social Benefits/Costs Environmental Benefits/Costs
Level 2
Costs Benefits Costs Benefits Costs Benefits
Cost 1
Cost 2
Benefit 1 Benefit 2
Benefit 1
Benefit 2 Benefit 3 Benefit 1 Benefit 2
Level 3
Cost 1
Cost 2
Cost 3
Cost 1
Cost 2
Step 2: Identification of main the benefits and costs Once the value tree has been formulated, the next step requires the identification of costs and benefits under different broader cost/benefit categories. This step involves taking a decision concerning the number of cost and benefit categories to be included in the appraisal process and the identification of the most important benefits and costs. The number of cost and benefit categories to be included in the analysis process will be dependent on the financial, time and computational resources available to the analyst. The output of the step is the main benefits and costs that the analyst intends to include in the analysis process. Road users responses may be used for the identification of costs and benefits and to rank them based on their importance. For example, in the case of rural roads, for which it is likely that social benefit considerations will be important during the planning process, responses from the community may be used for the identification and ranking of the benefits and costs. The use of qualitative techniques is very helpful for such purposes. A list of benefits and costs arising from the development of roads identified by the study communities in Uganda is presented in Appendix VI. Pairwise rankings, one of the most widely used methods for ranking different criteria, can be used to rank the road intervention related benefits/costs. Figure 4.2 provides an example of a pairwise ranking exercise in order to rank road improvement related social benefits. Two individual benefits are compared with each other in isolation from all other benefits, the benefit that is regarded as being more desirable is awarded a point and this process is repeated until all combinations are exhausted. The total number of points each individual benefit is awarded determines its rank order. In this example, increased access to health facilities is the top ranked social benefit followed by increased access to educational facilities, increased access to communication, knowledge and network, increased access to water sources and increased access to places of worship. If the analyst decides to deal with the four most important social benefits, then the benefits ranked from one to four should be used in the analysis process.
A worked example on how to incorporate social benefits in road planning
27
Figure 4.2
Benefit 1
An example of Pairwise Ranking to Rank Road Improvement Related Social Benefits

Benefit 2 2 vs. 1 = 1 Benefit 3 3 vs. 1 = 1 3 vs. 2 = 3 Benefit 4 4 vs. 1 = 1 4 vs. 2 = 4 4 vs. 3 = 3 Benefit 5 5 vs. 1 = 1 5 vs. 2 = 5 5 vs. 3 = 5 ITEM 1. Increased access to health facilities 2. Increased access to worship places 3.Increased access to communication, knowledge and network 4. Increased access to water sources 5. Increased access to educational facilities SCORE9 4 0 2 RANK 1 5 3
5 vs. 4 = 5 Note: 2 vs. 1 = 1 means that 1 is preferred over 2
1 3
4 2
Step 3: Estimation of different cost and benefit weightings The next step involves the estimation of the weightings corresponding to each of the chosen benefits and costs. The derived weightings are then used in the calculation of overall scores (see below for details). Their estimation will be dependent on the way they are represented in the value tree. For example, Figure 4.3 shows that the benefits/costs are divided into three main cost and benefit categories. A pairwise comparison exercise, similar to the one presented in Figure 4.3, can be used to derive the weights for each category of costs/benefits. The point of equal importance or indifference between the statements in the left and right hand columns is represented by 1. The number 9 represents Absolutely more important.
Figure 4.3
Pairwise Comparison of different type of benefits and costs10

9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 Social Benefits/costs Environmental benefits/costs Social Benefits/costs
Monetary/Economic Benefits/costs Monetary/Economic Benefits/costs Environmental/Econo mic benefits/costs
Appendix VII presents the detailed method of calculation of weights based on the response presented in Figure 4.3. Table 4.1 presents the calculated weights for different cost and benefit categories. It can be seen that social benefits/costs has the highest calculated weighting (0.590) followed by financial/economic benefits/costs (0.251) and environmental benefits/costs (0.159).
Number of times an option is preferred over other options. For example, option 5 (increased access to educational facilities) has been preferred twice over the other options (option 3 and option 4). Therefore, the total score of option 5 is 2. 10 1=Right hand side (RHS) and Left-hand Side (LHS) is equally important or vice versa; 3=RHS is weakly more important than LHS or vice versa; 5=RHS is strongly more important than LHS or vice versa; 7=RHS is demonstrably or very strongly more important than LHS or vice versa; 9=RHS is absolutely more important than LHS or vice versa; Judgments may be in between these numbers as well.
28
Table 4.1
Calculation of weights
Weight
Financial/economic benefits/costs Environmental benefits/costs Social benefits/costs
0.251 0.159 0.590
The same methodology can be applied to calculate weightings for benefits and costs at Levels 2 and 3 (in reference to the value tree presented in Figure 4.1). For example, if the response from a pairwise comparison between social benefits and social costs is as provided in Figure 4.4, the weights for social benefits and social costs will be 0.8 and 0.2 respectively. Figure 4.4
Social benefits
Pairwise comparison between social benefits and social costs

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Social costs
Step 4: Calculation of individual attribute and combined scores of the alternatives The objective of this step is to calculate attribute scores and combined scores. The attribute scores are calculated using attribute values and the combined scores are calculated using the attribute values and the weightings calculated from Step 3. For this purpose, detailed evaluation data are required. Table 4.2 provides an example of such data from four roads11. Table 4.2 contains both quantitative (e.g. Net Present Value) and qualitative (e.g. environmental impact) values. The main challenge in this step is to unite these different data types in order to calculate a combined score. For example, Table 4.3 shows the environmental consequences of the development of these roads (reproduced from Table 4.2) and the values assigned12 against each of them. The last column of Table 4.3 presents the calculated scores, in terms of environmental benefits/costs, for the roads under evaluation. Appendix VIII details the calculation of these scores.
11
Some of the physical characteristics and economic values represent real data from roads in Northern Uganda. However, many of the attribute values are assumptions to facilitate the analysis. 12 Values assumed are: Major Positive Impact=1.0; Minor Positive Impact=0.75; Indifferent=0.5; Minor Negative Impact=0.25; Major Negative=0. However, the evaluator may assume different values.
A worked example on how to incorporate social benefits in road planning Loss of Land and property +
29
+++
Social Costs
Increased risk of communicable diseases including HIV/AIDS Increased insecurity/ crime
++ ++ ++ + ++++ +++ +++ +++ 0.109 0.633 0.069 ++++
+++
+++
Accidents +++ ++ +++ 0.481 Road D 90 45 0.865 Note: +++++= Major Positive Impact; ++++= Minor Positive Impact; +++=Indifferent; ++=Minor Negative Impact; + Major Negative Impact 0.556 ++ +++++ ++++ ++++ +++++
Social Benefits
++++
Increased access to educational facilities
+++
Environmental Impacts
Road characteristics and evaluation data
++++
++++
61
45
123.5
41.5
Table 4.2
Road C
Road B
Road A
Road Name
51.4
Length (km)
72
Annual Average (AADT) Traffic
Daily
0.793
0.114
NPV
1.978
1.373
Economic Agency Cost
0.401
0.083
NPV/ Cost
++
++++
Increased access to health facilities
+++
+++
Increased access to water sources
+++
+++
Impact linked to new knowledge, improved communication etc.
++
+++
+++
+++
+++
30
Table 4.3
Road Road A Road B Road C Road D
Calculation of weights for environmental costs and benefits

Impact Minor positive impact Minor negative impact Indifferent Minor negative impact Assigned values 0.75 0.25 0.50 0.25 Score 0.429 0.143 0.286 0.143
In the case of economic criterion, the Net Present Value per unit of cost13 is used in the calculation of scores (see Table 4.4). Appendix IX presents the step by step procedure required for the calculation. Table 4.4
Road Road A Road B Road C Road D
Calculation of weights for the economic criterion

NPV/Cost 0.401 0.083 0.109 0.556 Score 0.349 0.072 0.095 0.484
The next step is the calculation of the total score for each criterion, the combined score for each road and the overall ranking for the four roads. Table 4.5 presents the summary scores and ranks for the four roads. The detailed procedure required in order to execute the calculation is presented in Appendix X. Table 4.5 Summary Scores and Ranks for economic, environmental and social criteria
Road A Economic Economic Criterion Score Rank Economic Criterion Environmental Environmental Criterion Score Rank Environmental Criterion Social Social Criterion Score Rank Social Criterion Combined score Rank 0.149 2 0.304 2 0.132 3 0.172 4 0.118 4 0.187 3 0.194 1 0.337 1 0.067 1 0.022 3 0.045 2 0.022 3 0.088 2 0.018 4 0.024 3 0.121 1 Road B Road C Road D
To neutralise the size bias of the project, the NPV per unit cost is used. However, other criteria (e.g. cost per km) may also be used in the evaluation of the economic criterion.
13
31
Step 5: Investment decision making The final step requires informed investment decision-making based on the scores obtained from the procedure outlined above. It can be seen from Table 4.5 that, in overall terms, Road D ranks top followed by Road A, Road C and Road B (see last row of Table 4.5). Without a budget constraint, all four roads are economically viable, given that all the NPVs are positive. In the more likely scenario of a budget constraint, Road D will get priority over the other roads. Road A will get priority over Road B and Road C, and Road C will get priority over Road B. However, it should be noted here that the environmental criterion score is low for both Road D and Road B. If these roads are accepted then the analyst will need to re-examine the environmental consequences of these roads, and if possible, take steps to include mitigation measures to reduce the negative environmental impacts.
5
5.1
USING SOCIAL BENEFITS AND COSTS WITHIN HDM-4

HDM-4 Multi-criteria Analytical Framework
The economic framework within HDM-4 computes economic indicators that can be used to rank the alternative options. The economic indicators do not include factors associated with road investments that do not have an associated monetary value. An example of this is the social benefits associated with a road improvement scheme. Social benefits can be significant where: There is a desire to weight conventional traffic benefits to different classes of existing users (e.g. provide higher weightings to the poor people); An investment can provide a significant improvement in vehicle access, this is particularly the case where there is either no existing access at all or only access in the dry season; and Existing traffic volumes are very low or where the population is very remote.
The analytical framework of HDM-4 has been extended to consider social, political and environmental aspects of road investments together with the more traditional technical and economic indicators. The approach makes use of Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) within the decision-making framework. Table 5.1 presents the categories of criteria that can be used within HDM-4 to perform an MCA (Odoki, 2003). MCA requires a clear definition of possible alternatives, together with the identification of the criteria under which the relative performance of the alternatives in achieving pre-established objectives is to be measured. Thereafter, it requires the assignment of preferences (i.e. a measure of relative importance, or weighting) to each of the criteria. The selection of a particular set of investment alternatives will greatly depend on the relative importance (or weights) assigned to each criterion. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method has been implemented in HDM-4 because it systematically transforms the analysis of competing objectives to a series of simple comparisons between the constituent elements. AHP is based on pairwise comparisons of alternatives for each of the criteria to obtain the ratings (Saaty, 1980). Table 5.1
Category Economic
Criteria Supported in HDM-4 Multi-criteria Analysis

Criteria/Objectives Minimize road user costs (RUC) Maximize net present value (NPV) Attributes Total road user costs are calculated internally within HDM-4 for each alternative. Economic net benefit to society is calculated internally within HDM-4 for each alternative. Total number and severity of road accidents. These are calculated internally within HDM-4. Provide good riding quality to road users. This is defined on the basis of average IRI (international roughness index). The average IRI is calculated internally within HDM-4. Delay and congestion effects. Level of congestion is defined in terms of volume-capacity ratio (VCR). VCR values are calculated internally within HDM-4. Air pollution is measured in terms of quantities of pollutants from vehicle emissions, which are computed internally within HDM-4. Efficiency in both global and national energy use in the road transport sector. Energy use is calculated internally within HDM-4. Social benefits include improved access to social services (e.g. schools, health centers, markets, etc.). A representative value is externally defined by the user for each alternative. Fairness in providing road access, promotion of political stability, strategic importance of roads, etc. A representative value is externally defined by the user for each alternative.
Safety Functional service level
Reduce accidents Provide comfort
Reduce road congestion Environment Energy Social Reduce air pollution Maximize energy efficiency Maximize social benefits Consider political issues
Political
33
34
The MCA procedure incorporated in HDM-4 Version 2 will produce a matrix of multiple criteria ranking numbers or scores for each alternative of each road section included in the study. The alternative with the highest value is selected for each section. If the score is the same for two or more mutually exclusive alternatives, then the minimum cost alternative should be selected. The HDM-4 screen given in Figure 5.1 shows an example of the selection of criteria and the pairwise comparison defined in relation to the selected base criterion.
Figure 5.1
Selection of criteria and relative weightings in HDM-4
Figure 5.2
Defining the performance index for each investment alternative in HDM-4
Using social benefits and costs within HDM-4
35
The attributes required to calculate the performance index to show the achievement of an objective to maximize social benefits are not calculated within HDM-4. Therefore, the user has to define the performance index for each investment alternative, based on the users own judgment, by choosing from the options given in Figure 5.2, which are major satisfaction, minor satisfaction, indifferent, minor dissatisfaction or major dissatisfaction. When all the indices have been defined, the scores for the defined alternatives can be calculated and ranked. The highest ranking alternative is highlighted as shown in Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3
Calculated scores for the alternatives analyzed in HDM-4
5.2
Limitations of HDM-4
HDM-4 has the ability to rank investment alternatives based on the perceived importance of a range of criteria, one of which is labeled Social Benefits and Costs. There are two main limitations to the current methodology used for the inclusion of Social Benefits within the HDM-4 MCA framework: The Social Benefits/Costs cannot be further broken down into a hierarchy reflecting levels of detail at which the different types of benefits and costs can be identified; and The indices that can be defined for the performance of each alternative in meeting the study objective of maximizing or optimizing social benefits are very broad.
Therefore, the ratings of the investment alternatives are inadequate in providing a meaningful score that can be used in a robust decision support tool. 5.3 Social Benefits Software Tool
The Social Benefits Software Tool associated with ORN 22 was developed to enable more complex social benefits and costs and their perceived importance by many different stakeholders to be analyzed in a consistent framework. The Software Tool aims to provide a basis to quantify benefits from rural infrastructure provision or its improvement. This allows alternative rural infrastructure programs to be ranked based on the perceived social benefits and costs. The results can then be used within road management tools, specifically HDM-4, to prioritize investment alternatives on social benefits rather than on economic terms alone. The Social Benefits Software Tool has a framework based on MCA using the AHP. The MCA within
36
HDM-4 uses the same pairwise comparison of objectives as the Social Benefits Software Tool. Depending on the level of analysis; national, regional, district or community, the following must first be specified: higher level objective the main goal (e.g. poverty alleviation); first level objectives (e.g. improved access to health facilities, increased access to education, access to clean water sources, social capital, etc.); second level objectives (e.g. under health reduce incidence of malaria, HIV/Aids etc); third level objectives (if required); and lowest level objectives or indicators
This hierarchical structure of defining the study objectives is illustrated in Figure 5.4. The number of levels is at the discretion of the user, it is not limited in the software.
Figure 5.4
Defining a hierarchy of study objectives
Main Goal
FirstLevel Objectives
Second Level Objectives
Section Alternatives
To analyze a number of road investment alternatives using the Social Benefits Software Tool the following steps must be completed: Define a hierarchy of study goals and objectives, and the identified social benefits/costs; define the relative importance (or weightings) of the different objectives. A value of 2-9 indicates the strength of the preference, while a value of 1 indicates they are equally preferable. From this information relative weights are computed using principles based on AHP;
Define a quantitative relationship between all pairs of the benefits in the hierarchy (i.e. the relative weights); Define the road investment alternatives to be analyzed. The Social Benefits Software Tool can import a set of road investment alternatives from HDM-4; Define the relationship between the road investment alternatives and the benefits within the hierarchy. This uses constructed scales and is based on a 5-point measurement scale. The scale ranges from major dissatisfaction to major satisfaction; and When this is complete, the overall score for each road investment alternative can be calculated which can then determine its relative ranking position.
Using social benefits and costs within HDM-4
37
The main screen of the Social Benefits Tool, see Figure 5.5, shows the list of steps that need to be followed and their order.
Figure 5.5
The main screen of the Social Benefits Software Tool
5.4
Using the findings of the present study
The findings from the present study can be used to improve the procedure of road planning by: identification of the potential main social benefit/cost indicators to be considered in a road investment appraisal process; highlighting the likely weight-ranges to be used for different categories of benefits (social, economic and environmental) that can be used within the framework of MCA as part of the road investment appraisal process; providing guidance on the likely weight-ranges to be used for different types of social benefits and costs; relating the importance of the different social benefits and costs to different types of road works (e.g. new construction, widening, rehabilitation and maintenance); showing how social benefits are viewed at the central government (or strategic) level, local government/districts (or programming) level and community (or project) level; applying the findings to improve or extend the scope of decision support tools used for road investment appraisal e.g. HDM-4.
The results of this study can be used to improve the capability of both the Social Benefits Software
38
Tool and HDM-4 by overcoming the current limitations of the two models outlined above. By providing integration and connectivity between HDM-4 and the Social Benefits Software Tool, the complex relationships between the social benefits and costs arising from road investments could be modeled. The MCA framework will allow social benefits and costs to be considered alongside other the impacts of road investments including, for example, economic, political and environmental considerations. To achieve this it would be necessary to adapt the interface of HDM-4 to allow it to select a file that defines a hierarchy of objectives. This file would have been created by the existing Social Benefits Software Tool as described in Section 5.3. The user would then define the road investment alternatives achievement in satisfying the lower-level objectives defined in the hierarchy. HDM-4 could then use the Social Benefits Software Tools analytical engine (to be defined in a common reusable software library called Dynamic Link Libraries) to compute the scores for each investment alternative. This score would then be used in place of the existing indices, which only allow a performance index of integers, ranging from 1 to 5 to be defined. The proposed relationship between HDM-4, the Social Benefits Software Tool, and the software library providing the analytical functions is shown in Figure 5.6. Figure 5.6 Proposed relationship between HDM-4, the Social Benefits Software Tool, and the software library
Dynamic Link Libraries
4
SOCIAL BENEFITS STAND-ALONE TOOL HDM-4
CONCLUSIONS AND THE WAY FORWARD
There has been an increased interest in rural road investment in recent years given an emphasis on poverty reduction and the adoption of MDGs. Against this backdrop, there is a need to develop a consistent framework to address the poverty and social benefit aspects in a systematic manner in road, especially in rural road, planning. A 2003-04 study has recommended a flexible approach using MCA principles to include the poverty and social benefits issues in road planning. The study outputs included a software tool within the framework of globally accepted appraisal models. The current study was undertaken to field test the tool and to recommend choice of indicators and their corresponding weights. The study collected data at different levels (community, district and national) from four districts of Uganda. The study identified benefits and costs arising out of the road development and made pairwise comparison of the identified costs and benefits. The next two sections present the summary study findings and the way forward. 6.1 Main conclusions
The following are the main conclusions from the study: The composition of social benefits and costs identified by the community and district level respondents were similar. However, responses from the national level were different. They identified two additional costs, resettlement problems and social consequences of environmental degradation, that were not mentioned by the community and district level respondents. The community and district respondents attached more importance to social benefits/costs over economic and environmental benefits/costs. However, respondents at the national level attached more importance to economic benefits/costs. The weight attached to social benefits/costs reduces and the weight attached to economic and environmental benefits/costs increases as the level of decision making moves from community through district to national level. The weight attached to social benefits against social costs decreases as the level of decision making moves from community through district to national level. Weights assigned to different social benefit types at the community and district levels were similar. However, they were substantially different (both in type and value) at the national level. Again, the national level respondents assigned considerably different weights to social costs compared to the community and district level respondents. Way forward
6.2
The conclusions from the study are valid in the context of Uganda which can be characterized by the following: (i) a poor developing country with agriculture being the mainstay of the economy; (ii) the population density is moderate; (iii) has a competitive transport industry with a variety of motorized and non-motorized transport modes. An ideal approach, to identify indicators and to assign weights, for a country will involve conducting a detailed study. The Uganda study may be considered a way forward in resolving the issues of inclusion of social benefits in transport planning. However, the findings from the Uganda study can be used as guidance if time and financial resource constraints do not allow context specific studies. In order to decide, with some degree of confidence, on the indicators and their weight ranges, further studies will be necessary. It is difficult to recommend the number of further studies needed in order to mainstream the MCA approach and to improve the framework. Nevertheless, the immediate need is to conduct at least two studies, one in Asia and another in Latin America, in order to broaden the knowledge on this issue from different continents perspective. These studies will further be able to identify the requirements for more studies. A further study is also needed to study the impact of the application of the approach at the project and program levels when compared with the conventional appraisal framework that ignores the social benefits. Such a study would be able to assess the post-road-selection responses of the communities in the context of the selection of roads with their direct input. It would also be able to suggest procedures to reconcile the differences, if any, between the communitys wishes and prioritized roads employing the MCA approach. 39
APPENDIX I: COMMUNITY LEVEL QUESTIONNAIRE

COMMUNITY LEVEL QUESTIONNAIRE
To be administered at the community level. The questionnaire accompanies a guide. The guide details the procedure of administering the questionnaire, including who should be the respondents Interviewer/Facilitator: Date: MM/DD/YY Location: Start time: HH:MM Finish time: HH:MM Name of the Village: District: 1. IDENTIFICATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOCIAL BENEFITS ARISING FROM ROAD INVESTMENT 1.1 Using an appropriate qualitative survey technique help the group in the identification of different types of road investment costs and benefits and separate them in three different types economic, social and environmental. List the costs and benefits using the following table.
Costs and Benefits from Road Investment Economic 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Type of benefits/costs (Tick) Social Environmental
41
42
1.2 Using the qualitative pairwise raking technique, rank the different types of social costs and benefits and summarize the findings in the following tables. Social Costs
Cost 1 Cost 2 Cost 3 Cost 4 Cost 5 ITEM Cost 1 Cost 2 Cost 3 Cost 4 Cost 5 SCORE RANK
Social Benefits
Benefit 1 Benefit 2 Benefit 3 Benefit 4 Benefit 5 ITEM Benefit 1 Benefit 2 Benefit 3 Benefit 4 Benefit 5 SCORE RANK
2. PAIRWISE RANKING The following provides an example of the concept of pairwise raking in a MCA including the meaning of the numerical scale of 1-9. For example: When you are comparing between A (e.g. Monetary benefits/costs) and B (e.g. social benefits/costs) and find that: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) A and B are equally important, then circle 1 A is weakly more important than B, then circle 3 on the left hand side or vice versa A is strongly more important than B, then circle 5 on the left hand side or vice versa A is demonstrably or very strongly more important than B, then circle 7 on the left hand side or vice versa A is absolutely more important than B, then circle 9 on the left hand side or vice versa
Note that you can also provide judgment in between the numbers as well. For example, a respondents response to a pairwise comparison between purchase cost of a house and the location of the house could be illustrated as follows:
Costs of a house 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Location of the house
This means that location of the house is weakly more important to the respondent than the cost of the house.
Appendix I
43
2.1 Conduct pairwise ranking exercise for different benefit/cost types (monetary, social and environmental) under different intervention options and record the results using the following table. 1. For new road construction
Monetary Benefits/costs Monetary Benefits/costs Environmental benefits/costs
2.
For rehabilitation/periodic maintenance

3.
For spot improvement

2.2 Conduct pairwise ranking exercise for social benefits and costs under different intervention options and record the results using the following table. Social costs and benefits 1. Pairwise comparison between social costs and benefits for new road construction
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Social Benefits
Social costs
2.
Pairwise comparison maintenance

9 8 7 6
between
social
costs
and
benefits
for
rehabilitation/periodic
Social costs
Social Benefits
3.
Pairwise comparison between social costs and benefits for Spot Improvement
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Social Benefits
Social costs
44
2.3 Conduct pairwise ranking exercise for different types of social benefits and costs and record the results using the following table. 1. Pairwise comparison between different types of social costs for new road construction
9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 Cost 2 Cost 3 Cost 4 Cost 3 Cost 4 Cost 4
Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 2 Cost 2 Cost 3
2.
Pairwise comparison between social costs for rehabilitation/periodic maintenance

3.
Pairwise comparison between social costs for Spot Improvement

2.4 Conduct pairwise ranking exercise for different types of social benefits and costs and record the results using the following table. 1. Pairwise comparison between different types of social benefits for new road construction
9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 Benefit 2 Benefit 3 Benefit 4 Benefit 3 Benefit 4 Benefit 4
Benefit 1 Benefit 1 Benefit 1 Benefit 2 Benefit 2 Benefit 3
Appendix I
45
2.
Pairwise comparison between different types of social benefits for rehabilitation/periodic maintenance
3.
Pairwise comparison between different types of social benefits for spot improvement
APPENDIX II: DISTRICT AND NATIONAL LEVELS QUESTIONNAIRE

DISTRICT AND NATIONAL LEVEL QUESTIONNAIRE
To be administered at the national and district levels.
Interviewer: Date of interview: MM/DD/YY Interview location: Start time: HH:MM Finish time: HH:MM Please note the details of the interviewee: Name: Position: Department: Ministry:
1. IDENTIFICATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS FROM ROAD INVESTMENT Please would you identify different types of social costs and benefits from road investments? Would you please also rank the social costs and benefits?
Social costs from road investment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
Ranking of the social costs with 1 being the most important one
Social benefits from road investment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
Ranking of the social benefits with 1 being the most important one
47
48
1. PAIRWISE RANKING Provide your judgment using numerical scale (1-9) to express the importance of different attributes. The following provides the meaning and interpretation of the different numbers of the numerical scale: For example: When you are comparing between A (e.g. Monetary benefits/costs) and B (e.g. social benefits/costs) and find that: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) A and B are equally important, then circle 1 A is weakly more important than B, then circle 3 on the left hand side or vice versa A is strongly more important than B, then circle 5 on the left hand side or vice versa A is demonstrably or very strongly more important than B, then circle 7 on the left hand side or vice versa A is absolutely more important than B, then circle 9 on the left hand side or vice versa
Note that you can also provide judgment in between the numbers as well. For example, a respondents response to a pairwise comparison between purchase cost of a house and the location of the house could be illustrated as follows:
Costs of a house 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Location of the house
This means that location of the house is weakly more important to the respondent than the cost of the house. 2.0 Different types of benefits/costs: 2.1 Pairwise comparison between monetary, social and environmental costs/benefits 1. For new road construction
2.
For rehabilitation/periodic maintenance

Appendix II
49
3.
For spot improvement

2.2 Conduct pairwise ranking exercise for social benefits and costs under different intervention options and record the results using the following table. Social costs and benefits 1. Pairwise comparison between social costs and benefits for new road construction
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Social Benefits
Social costs
2.
Pairwise comparison maintenance

9 8 7 6
between
social
costs
and
benefits
for
rehabilitation/periodic
Social costs
Social Benefits
3.
Pairwise comparison between social costs and benefits for Spot Improvement
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Social Benefits
Social costs
2.3 Conduct pairwise ranking exercise for different types of social benefits and costs and record the results using the following table. 1. Pairwise comparison between different types of social costs for new road construction
2.
Pairwise comparison between social costs for rehabilitation/periodic maintenance

50
3.
Pairwise comparison between social costs for Spot Improvement

2.4 Conduct pairwise ranking exercise for different types of social benefits and costs and record the results using the following table. 1. Pairwise comparison between different types of social benefits for new road construction
2.
Pairwise comparison between different types of social benefits for rehabilitation/periodic maintenance
3.
Pairwise comparison between different types of social benefits for spot improvement
APPENDIX III: DETAILED DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE

Community Level 1. 2. 3. First of all, the survey team introduced themselves and explained the aim and objectives of the field study. This was followed by an explanation of the different categories of benefits and costs of road investments (i.e. economic, social, environmental and political). An explanation was given of the different types of road projects to be considered (i.e. new construction, rehabilitation, and spot improvement) and relating each of these project options to the categories of benefits and costs. This was successfully done by using local examples of well known roads. The identification of the different types of benefits and costs resulting from roads including social benefits/costs - this was done by the facilitators asking open and close ended questions to the FG (i.e. a brain storming exercise). The list of benefits and costs identified were rationalized and summarized into discrete ones. The respondents were asked to identify the grouping of the benefits and costs identified i.e. whether they fall under economic, social or environmental. Economic benefits (or costs) were defined as impacts/activities that result in money being generated (or lost) directly to an individual or group of individuals. This was the main distinction used by the local communities. The FG conducted pairwise ranking of the benefits and costs identified. The facilitators explained the ranking scale using typical local examples (e.g. the choice between purchasing sugar or salt when there is a budgetary constraint, rearing sheep or goats with respect to their economic and traditional importance for performing rituals). The method used was an interactive one where each person had to express his/her opinion on the relative weights/importance on a pair of benefits. The qualitative descriptors very strong, strong, moderate, weak, and very weak were used to make the respondents understand. These qualitative descriptors were then converted into quantitative scale as given in the questionnaire. The FG conducted an overall ranking of the benefits and costs identified during the discussions. The objective here was to identify any inconsistencies in the pairwise ranking. Whenever any inconsistency was identified, this was immediately brought up to the attention of the FG to clarify and rectify. This sometimes generated a lot of debate among the respondents and in some cases the facilitators needed to explain again the pairwise ranking methodology and to remind them of the objectives of the field study. The definition of economic, social, environmental benefits/costs in relation to the types of road projects was also not easily understood by the respondents. In some cases, some respondents changed their opinions on the pairwise ranking of benefits or costs following further explanation. In many cases there were not unanimous consensus reached on the ranking exercise and the survey team had to resort to taking the opinion of the majority. Exchange of views between the survey team and the respondents also yielded useful information. The respondents described some of the accessibility related problems that they were experiencing in their areas. The survey team also gave the opportunity to the FG to ask them questions or seek clarifications.
4.
5.
6.
7.
District Level The main survey method used for collecting data at the district level was the open and close ended questions included in the questionnaires. In both districts of Gulu and Mbale, the councilors convened to the meeting were mainly members who sit on the Works and technical Services Committees. These were councilors who on a routine basis make investment and spending decisions on roads and other 51
52
infrastructure within the district. In Gulu District 9 councilors were interviewed. In Mbale District 7 councilors were interviewed. 1. The survey team provided the district councilors with the background information on the study and the Questionnaires a couple of days before the day scheduled for the interviews. At the meeting the facilitators introduced the survey team and explained the aim and objectives of the field survey. A considerable amount of effort was put in explaining to the councilors the questionnaires and how to complete the forms. Each councilor completed a separate form by himself or herself. The members of the survey team provided assistance to the councilors where necessary to complete the forms. Again using typical examples of benefits and costs of road investments, and locally well-known road projects, the members of the survey team explained the different types of road projects (e.g. new construction, rehabilitation, spot improvement) Exchange of opinions between the Councilors and the Survey team yielded invaluable information. The Councilors were asked to describe/explain how they prioritize or select road investment projects in their areas. They also described the accessibility problems their areas are experiencing. One of the main problems they raised was that of shortage of funding for road investment. Local Governments have no direct access to international funding agencies, and neither do they have access to commercial bank loans.
2.
3.
4.
Surveys of Central Government Ministries The main survey method used for collecting data at the central government level was the open and close ended questions included in the questionnaires. From each Ministry 3 or 4 officials were selected and given the questionnaires. A detailed explanation was given on how to complete the questionnaires. Filling in the questionnaires was not supervised by members of the Survey team. The questionnaires were collected after conducting a few telephone calls to follow up progress on the work. Particular contributions to the field studies were made by the following individuals: Acholi Sub-region 1. Norbert Mao - Chairman LC5 Gulu District 2. Reagan Okumu Member of Parliament for Aswa 3. Alex Otim Chairperson Works and Technical Services Committee 4. Justine Ojok Chairman LC3 Alero 5. Venansio Opoka Chairman LC3 Paico (Unyama) 6. Michael Lakony LC5 Councilor 7. Alex Ojera Sub-County Chief Paico Bugisu Sub-region 1. Bernard Elly Mujjasi Chairman LC5 Mbale District 2. William Nangosha - District Engineer 3. Michael Kiboma - Supervisor of Works 4. Annet Wazemba - Road Inspector 5. Charles Waniala - Chairperson Works and Technical Services Committee 6. Kasifwa Nasinza - Vice Chairperson LC3 Bukonde 7. Musa Were Sub-County Chief Bukonde 8. Kalid Massa Chairperson LC3 Bungokho-Mutoto 9. Fred Gemei Chairperson LC3 Buginyanya 10. Peter Gidongo Sub-County Chief Buginyanya 11. Darlia Nengone LC5 Woman Councilor 12. Tebenesi Nandala - Chairperson Women Council
APPENDIX IV: FINDINGS FROM THE USE OF THE METHODOLOGY

Communities There were two main tasks associated with conducting the field surveys in the selected communities. The first one related to organization of the Focus Group, and the second one related to the actual conduct of the Focus Group discussions which was the primary method used for conducting the field surveys. The organization of the FG involved the participation of facilitators that included sociologists, interpreters, local administrators and the respondents selected from among the local communities. A Focus Group comprised of individuals who were selected to be representative of the community. It involved homogeneous and heterogeneous samples. Members were chosen with the aim to ensure that all the key constituencies of relevance to the subject matter are covered, and ensure that within each of the key criteria to be considered some diversity is included so that the impact of the characteristic concerned can be explored. Therefore the FG consisted of individuals of varied backgrounds, social class, age groups and gender. This ensured that differences in perspective between age groups, gender and social class can be explored. The number of respondents within each FG was an important issue. There was a need to balance between the benefit of using large sample sizes since the survey results would score well when it comes to generalizing on the one hand, and the ease of managing the FG when the sample size is small on the other hand. The survey team encountered the problem of large sample size particularly in Alero community. The results of the surveys were processed and transcribed in the Community Questionnaires. There were some identified benefits and costs that fall under two categories. For example, the cost of dust and mud fall under both environmental and social impacts of roads, increased development and delivery of services fall under both economic and social categories. However, when there were some significant social aspects of the benefit or cost item it was categorized under social. Only the top 5 ranked benefits/costs were considered in the pairwise ranking. Overall, there were no major inconsistencies in the ranking as the survey team addressed this issue, when identified, at the source during the FG discussions. District Councils From Mbale District there were 7 questionnaires that were filled in with supervision of the survey team. One out of seven of these questionnaires was found to be inconsistent and therefore only partially used as some information included therein was usable. There were some questionnaires that were completed by councilors unsupervised by the members of the survey team. It was later found out that 50% of these were inconsistent, thus unusable. In Gulu District all the questionnaires were supervised but two were only partially usable. Ministry officials The lists of benefits and costs identified by the government officials were short and several of them may fall under both social and economic categories. However, there were not any major difficulties in processing and transcribing the information contained in the questionnaires that were returned.
53
Weights of different types of social benefits and costs related to different types of road works (community level)
Type of improvement New Construction Mean 0.43 0.3 0.23 0.05 0.04-0.07 0.05 0.04-0.07 0.05 0.04-0.07 0.05 0.11-0.48 0.23 0.11-0.48 0.23 0.11-0.48 0.23 0.04-0.7 0.3 0.04-0.7 0.3 0.04-0.7 0.3 0.14-0.7 0.43 0.14-0.7 0.43 0.14-0.7 0.43 0.14-0.7 0.04-0.7 0.11-0.48 0.04-0.07 Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Rehabilitation Spot Improvement Overall
Item
Social Benefits
1. Increased access to health facilities
2. Increased access to clean water sources
3. Increased access to educational institutions
4. Access to information, new knowledge, modernity 0.52 0.32 0.09 0.04 0.04-0.04 0.04 0.04-0.04 0.04 0.07-0.1 0.09 0.07-0.1 0.09 0.03-0.71 0.37 0.03-0.71 0.32 0.13-0.68 0.52 0.13-0.68 0.52 0.13-0.68 0.03-0.71 0.07-0.1 0.04-0.04
Social Costs 0.52 0.32 0.09 0.04 0.13-0.68 0.03-0.71 0.07-0.1 0.04-0.04
1. Increased road accidents
2. Increased insecurity/crime
3. Increased incidence of diseases
4. Negative cultural influence
APPENDIX V: DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS
Weights of different types of social benefits and costs related to different types of road works (district level)
Type of improvement New Construction Mean 0.42 0.33 0.32 0.15 0.41 0.12 0.39 0.09 0.09 0.17-0.72 0.04-0.29 0.18-0.65 0.05-0.16 0.04-0.16 0.08-0.32 0.16 0.39 0.15 0.35 0.13 0.23 0.12-0.65 0.26 0.06-0.7 0.31 0.04-0.69 0.48 Range Mean Rehabilitation Range 0.25-0.69 0.06-0.65 0.11-0.65 0.08-0.25 0.10-0.69 0.03-0.53 0.19-0.65 0.03-0.36 0.12-0.4 Spot Improvement Mean 0.46 0.33 0.28 0.14 0.43 0.13 0.36 0.07 0.17 Range 0.14-0.69 0.06-0.7 0.12-0.65 0.08-0.28 0.21-0.71 0.04-0.28 0.07-0.65 0.03-0.12 0.09-0.36 Mean 0.45 0.32 0.29 0.15 0.41 0.13 0.37 0.10 0.16 Range 0.04-0.69 0.06-0.7 0.11-0.65 0.08-0.32 0.1-0.72 0.03-0.53 0.07-0.65 0.03-0.36 0.04-0.4 Overall
Item
Social Benefits
1. Better access to health facilities
2. Increased access to clean water sources
3. Better access to educational institutions
4. Better access to markets
Social Costs
2. Increased insecurity/crime
3. Increased incidence of diseases
4. Loss of land and property
5. Mud and dust pollution
55
56
Weights of different types of social benefits and costs related to different types of roadworks (national level)
Type of improvement New Construction Mean 0.75 0.26 0.23 0.14 0.38 0.13 0.39 0.05-0.74 0.07 0.07-0.08 0.06 0.09-0.16 0.13 0.1-0.16 0.29 0.08-0.5 0.04-0.08 0.19-0.57 0.24 0.19-0.29 0.26 0.19-0.32 0.06-0.29 0.47 0.08-0.78 0.53 0.12-0.78 0.38 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.13-0.32 0.33 0.32-0.33 0.25 0.18-0.33 0.27 0.26-0.26 0.26 0.26-0.26 0.28 0.28-0.28 0.27 0.75-0.75 0.33 0.33-0.33 0.33 0.33-0.33 0.47 Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range 0.33-0.75 0.26-0.28 0.13-0.33 0.06-0.78 0.19-0.57 0.08-0.5 0.04-0.74 Rehabilitation Spot Improvement Overall
Item
Benefits
1. Better access to information, new knowledge
2. Better access to health facilities
3. Better access to markets
Social Costs
2. Social consequences of Environmental degradation
3. Resettlement problems
4. Loss of land and property
APPENDIX VI: BENEFITS AND COSTS IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMUNITIES IN ACHOLI AND BUGISU SUB-REGIONS IN UGANDA
Identified Benefits from Road Investment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Provides access to health centers Provides access to maternity centers Enhances access to markets Promotes intermediate means of transport Opens up ways to other communities Provides access to water sources Provides access to various opportunities Provides access to quality merchandise Attracts more visitors and enables tourists to get better information Costs from Road Investment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Roads take away land, properties and spaces Accidents Brings in robbers community and thieves to the
Increases prostitution, divorces and bad behaviors Brings famine and hunger as the amount of foodstuff sold outside the community increases Exposes the community to commodities which are difficult to acquire Poor road condition stagnates development Promotes easy infection with ST diseases Increases soil erosion
6. 7. 8. 9.
10. Enables investors to find you where you are 11. Improves security 12. Adds value to land 13. Provides access to schools 14. Exposes people to motorized vehicles 15. Eases communication 16. Brings literacy and modernity in community 17. Provides access to firewood collection places 18. Facilitates health educators community more frequently to visit the
10. Negative changes in lifestyles (e.g. bad drinking habits, laziness) 11. Provides grounds for unscrupulous political manipulation and corruption 12. Brings in-migration of workers 13. Dust and Mud from unsealed roads 14. De-forestation 15. Destruction of wetlands.
19. Facilitates wider immunization programs, that lead to low infant mortality rate 20. Provides access to safe and clean water that enhances hygiene 21. Networks surrounding communities 22. Makes visiting relatives and friends easier 23. Helps in performing Cultural rites circumcision in Bugisu Sub-region) 24. Improves the standard of living 25. Provides greater employment opportunities (e.g. improves sales and transport of bricks) 26. Increases selling and buying capacities of the community members 27. Provides access to worship places 28. Provides access to sports and recreation facilities 29. Helps political mobilization 30. Helps in performing traditional marriages 31. Provides for animal grazing and care 32. Helps reduce poverty (e.g.
57
APPENDIX VII: STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE FOR THE CALCULATION OF WEIGHTS

Step 1: Construct the hierarchy matrix based on the response
Economic Economic Environmental Social 1 1/(1/3) Environmental 2/1 1 1/(1/3) Social 1/3 1/3 1
Step 2: Calculate the sum of each column

Economic Economic Environmental Social Total 1 0.50 3 4.5 Environmental 2 1 3 6 Social 0.333 0.333 1 1.666
Step 3: Normalize each element in each column by dividing by the column sum
Economic Economic Environmental Social 0.222 0.111 0.667 Environmental 0.333 0.167 0.500 Social 0.199 0.199 0.602
Step 4: Divide the row total in Step 3 by the number of elements that are being compared
Economic Economic Environmental Social 0.222 0.111 0.667 Environmental 0.333 0.167 0.500 Social 0.199 0.199 0.602 Weights 0.251 (0.754/3) 0.159 (0.477/3) 0.590 (1.769/3)
59
APPENDIX VIII: STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE FOR CONVERTING QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTE DATA INTO SCORES
Using data from Table 4.2 in the main text this analysis is used to calculate the environmental weights given in Table 4.3. Step 1: Construct the hierarchy matrix based on the attribute values
Road A Road A Road B Road C Road D 1 0.333 (0.25/0.75) 0.666 (0.50/0.75) 0.333 (0.25/0.75) Road B 3 (0.75/0.25) 1 2 (0.50/0.25) 1 (0.25/0.25) Road C 1.5 (0.75/0.50) 0.50 (0.25 /0.50) 1 0.50 (0.25 /0.50) Road D 3 (0.75/0.25) 1 2 (0.50/0.25) 1

Road A Road A Road B Road C Road D Total 1 0.333 0.666 0.333 2.332 Road B 3 1 2 1 7.0 Road C 1.5 0.50 1 0.50 3.5 Road D 3 1 2 1 7.0
Road A Road A Road B Road C Road D 0.429 (i.e. 1/2.332) 0.142 0.288 0.142 Road B 0.429 0.143 0.286 0.143 Road C 0.429 0.143 0.286 0.143 Road D 0.429 0.143 0.286 0.143
Weights Road A Road B Road C Road D 0.429 (1.71/4) 0.143 (0.57/4) 0.286(1.14/4) 0.143 (0.570/4)
61
APPENDIX IX: STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE FOR CONVERTING QUANTITATIVE ATTRIBUTE DATA INTO SCORES
Using data from Table 4.2 in the main text this analysis presents the calculation of economic weights given in Table 4.4. Step 1: Construct the hierarchy matrix based on the attribute values
Road A Road A Road B Road C Road D 1 0.21 (0.083/0.401/) 0.272 (0.109/0.401) 1.387 (0.556/0.401) Road B 4.831 (0.401/0.083) 1 1.314 (0.109/0.083) 6.711 (0.556/0.083) Road C 3.679 (0.401/0.109) 0.761 (0.083/0.109) 1 5.102 (0.556/0.109) Road D 0.721 (0.401/0.556) 0.149 (0.083/0.556) 0.196 (0.109/0.556) 1

Road A Road A Road B Road C Road D Total 1 0.21 0.272 1.387 2.869 Road B 4.831 1 1.314 6.711 13.856 Road C 3.679 0.761 1 5.102 10.542 Road D 0.721 0.149 0.196 1 2.066
Road A Road A Road B Road C Road D 0.349 (i.e. 1/2.869) 0.073 0.095 0.483 Road B 0.349 0.072 0.095 0.484 Road C 0.349 0.072 0.095 0.484 Road D 0.349 0.072 0.095 0.484
Weights Road A Road B Road C Road D 0.349 (1.395/4) 0.072 (0.290/4) 0.095 (0.379/4) 0.484 (1.936/4)
63
APPENDIX X: CALCULATIONS OF OVERALL SCORES

From the data presented in Table 4.5 in the main text, this table combines the analysis presented in Appendices VIII and IX and Chapter 4.
ROW REF ECONOMIC 1 2 3 4 5 6 Weight (Economic Costs/Benefits) Score Economic Criterion Score ENVIRONMENTAL Weight (Environmental Costs/Benefits) Score Environmental Criterion Score SOCIAL Social Benefits 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Weight (Social Benefits) Combined Score (Social Benefits) Weight (Access to Educational Institutions) Score (Access to Educational Institutions) Weight (Access to Water Sources) Score (Access to Water Sources) Weight (Access to Health Facilities) Score (Access to Health Facilities) Weight (New Knowledge) Score (New Knowledge) Social Costs 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Note: Row Row Row Row Row Weight (Social Costs) Combined Score (Social Costs) Weight (Traffic Accidents) Score (Traffic Accidents) Weight (Loss of Land & Property) Score (Loss of Land & Property) Weight (Increased Crime) Score (Increased Crime) Weight (Increased Risk of Diseases) Score (Increased Risk of Diseases) Weight (Social Benefits/Costs) Social Criterion Score COMBINED SCORE 0.2 0.274 0.449 0.4 0.147 0 0.176 0.167 0.228 0.286 0.590 0.148 0.304 0.2 0.272 0.449 0.2 0.147 0.4 0.176 0.333 0.228 0.286 0.590 0.131 0.172 0.2 0.091 0.449 0 0.147 0.2 0.176 0.167 0.228 0.143 0.590 0.118 0.187 0.2 0.362 0.449 0.4 0.147 0.4 0.176 0.333 0.228 0.286 0.590 0.193 0.337 1 0.8 0.246 0.353 0.3 0.118 0.222 0.353 0.231 0.176 0.182 0.8 0.210 0.353 0.2 0.118 0.222 0.353 0.231 0.176 0.182 0.8 0.226 0.353 0.2 0.118 0.222 0.353 0.231 0.176 0.273 0.8 0.318 0.353 0.3 0.118 0.333 0.353 0.308 0.176 0.364 0.159 0.429 0.068 0.159 0.143 0.023 0.159 0.286 0.045 0.159 0.143 0.023 0.251 0.349 0.088 0.251 0.072 0.018 0.251 0.095 0.024 0.251 0.484 0.121 Road A Road B Road C Road D
2 4 3 Rank 3= Row 1xRow 2; Row 6= Row 4xRow 5 8: Row 9xRow 10+Row 11xRow 12+Row 13xRow 14+Row 15xRow 16 18: Row 19xRow 20+Row 21xRow 22+Row 23xRow 24+Row 25xRow 26 28= (Row 7xRow 8+Row 17xRow 18)xRow 27 29= Row 3+Row 6+Row 28
The weights and scores given in Appendix X have been calculated using Expert Choice software developed by Expert Choice Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
65
REFERENCES
Babbie, E.R (1990) The Survey Research Methods. Second Edition, Wadsworth Publishing Company. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). (1999). Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Assessment of Criteria and Indicators, CIFOR, Jakarta. Also available online at: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/acm/methods/toolbox9.html. Charles, C.M (1995). Introduction to Education Research, Second Edition, Longman. Cresswell, J.W (1994). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative Approaches, London, SAGE. Cresswell, J.W (2003). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, London, Sage. Denzin, N and Lincoln, Y.S (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Second Edition, Sage Publication. Doyle, J.K (2001). Introduction to Survey Methodology and Design. Chapter 10 in Handbook for IQP Advisor and Students. Edited by Woods, D. Also available online at: http://www.wpi/Academics/Depts/IGSD/IQPHandbook/tocdetail.html. Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp 602-611. Kirk, J and Miller, M.L (1996). Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research (qualitative Research Methods series, vol.1). Beverly Hills, London: SAGE Publications. Maltterud, K (2001). Qualitative Research: Standards, Challenges, and Guidelines. Lancet Vol. 358. August 2001. Marks, L (2000). Qualitative Research in Context. Admap Publications (in conjunction with the Association for Qualitative Research). Matvev, A.V (2002). The Advantages of Employing Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Intercultural Research: Practical Implications from the Study of the Perceptions of Intercultural Communication Competence by American and Russian Manager. An article published in Bulletin of Russian Communication Association Theory of Communication and Applied Communication, Issue 1 / Edited by I.N. Rozina, Rostov-on-Don: Institute of Management, Business and Law Publishing, pp. 59-67. Meredith, J (1998). Building Operations Management Theory Through Case and Field Research. Journal of Operations Management. Vol. 16, pp441-454. Odoki, J.B (2003). Implementation of Multi-criteria Analysis in HDM-4. International Study of Highway Development and Management, University of Birmingham, UK. Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (eds) (2003). Qualitative Research Practice, London, Sage Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process, John Wiley, New York. Transport Research Laboratory (2004). ORN 22: A Guide to Pro-poor Transport Appraisal The Inclusion of Social Benefits in Road Investment Appraisal, Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham. Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2001). Statistical Abstract, Uganda Bureau of Statistics, np. Zahedi, F (1986). The Analytical Hierarchy Process: A survey of the Methods and its Applications, Interfaces, 16, pp. 96-108.
67

Social Benefits of Transport Projects

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Social Benefits of Transport Projects

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

THE WORLD BANK GROUP

TRANSPORT SECTOR BOARD

Jennaro B. Odoki, Farhad Ahmed, Gary Taylor and Sunday A. Okello

THE WORLD BANK

TRANSPORT SECTOR BOARD

ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTES

Structure of the report

Uganda Bureau of Statistics; http://www.ubos.org/ All road lengths are approximate.

Brief description of the study communities

Remote community Alero (Amuru District)

Good access community Unyama (Gulu District)

Remote community Buginyanya (Sironko District)

Good access community Bukonde (Mbale District)

Objectives and summary methodology

Meso level Districts

Micro level Communities

CASE STUDY RESULTS

Community (micro) level findings

Social benefits ranking (community level)

(3) N/A N/A

(4) N/A N/A

N/A (4) N/A

N/A N/A (4)

(3) (4) (4)

Case study results

Social cost ranking (community level)

(4) N/A N/A

N/A (4) N/A

N/A N/A (4)

N/A N/A N/A

(4) (4) (4)

3.2.3 Comparison of economic, social and environmental benefits/costs

Weights for different categories of benefits/costs (community level)

1. Economic 2. Social 3. Environmental

0.09 0.72 0.18

Case study results

Comparison of different types of social benefits and costs

District (meso) level findings

Weights for different categories of benefits/costs (district level)

Relative weights of social benefits and costs (district level)

Social Costs Social Benefits

Case study results

National (macro) level findings

Weights for different categories of benefits/costs (national level)

Social Costs Social Benefits

Comparison of Macro, Meso and Micro Levels

Case study results

0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 -

0.83 0.74 0.71

District Social costs Social benefits

A WORKED EXAMPLE ON HOW TO INCORPORATE SOCIAL BENEFITS IN ROAD PLANNING

Developed by Expert Choice Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Overall Objective: Poverty reduction through road transport interventions

Objective: Minimization of costs and maximization of benefits

Benefit 2 Benefit 3 Benefit 1 Benefit 2

A worked example on how to incorporate social benefits in road planning

An example of Pairwise Ranking to Rank Road Improvement Related Social Benefits

5 vs. 4 = 5 Note: 2 vs. 1 = 1 means that 1 is preferred over 2

Pairwise Comparison of different type of benefits and costs10

Monetary/Economic Benefits/costs Monetary/Economic Benefits/costs Environmental/Econo mic benefits/costs

Financial/economic benefits/costs Environmental benefits/costs Social benefits/costs

0.251 0.159 0.590