Arora Socioeconomic Impact Assessment X-09

8/3/2019 Arora Socioeconomic Impact Assessment X-09

1/74

Socio-Economic Impact

Assessment (SEIA) Methodologyfor Urban Trans ort Pro ects

Presentation at Santiago, Chile

October, 2009

By:

Anvita Arora, PhDResident Representative, Indian er ace or yc ng xper se - , rec , e e er an sCEO,

Innovative Transport Solutions, Technology and Business IncubationUnit, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India


2/74

Urbanization in India e a ve y

s ow,

ye

one

o

e

arges

urbansystems

3050%slumdwellers,unauthorized

,

work

Growthofinformalsectoroften

Bicycleownership3050%

Carownership 313%

Scooter/Mcycle 4050%


3/74

No. Of Cities

177200

147150

100

28506 3 3

< 1

Town

1-5 lakh

A & B

5-10 lakh

C

10-20 lakh

D

20-50 lakh

E

50-100

lakhF

1 crore

G


4/74

Modal shares in different city

100%

sizes(RITES, 1998)

60%80%

20%

40%

0%A:0.1-

0.5

B0.1-

0.5

C:.5-1 D:1-2 E: 2-5 >5

City size

walk Public Transport Three-

Cycle

Threattosustainablescenario:IncreasingcarandMTWtrips


5/74

Transport Modes of the Urban Poor

bus 0thers

ModalShareforthepoor Delhi

cycle

rickshaw

6%

8% 5%

walk trainothers

ModalShareforthepoor Mumbai

77% 16%

walk

61%

cycle

us

14%


6/74

Rickshawpolicies? Threewheelersparatransit?

Hyderabad LucknowTwowheelers/three

wheelers?Rickshaws,cycles

peds?


7/74

Urbantransportproblems

Poorrelyonnonmotorizedtransportbuttheirfacilitationisoftenignored

Small

changes

in

public

transport

fare/service

can

significantly

affecttheirmobility

servicestothepoor

Dominanceof

private

motor

vehicles

marginalizes

NMTs

Womenarebadlyservedbytransportsystem

Pooraremorevulnerabletoinjuriesandpollution

7


8/74

NationalUrbanTransportPolicy(NUTP)

AsperthedirectivesoftheGOI MOUD UT thevariousproposalsforurbanordertobeeligibleforCentralGovt.funding.

ThefocusofNUTPisonthefollowin strate ies:

1.Equitableallocationofroadspace withpeopleasfocus

2.PrioritytotheuseofPublicTransport

3.Integrated

public

transport

systems

4.Prioritytononmotorisedtransport

5.Promotemultilevelparkingcomplexes

6.Createpublicawareness

DelhiCDPprioritiesandprojectshavebeenidentifiedbasedonaboveguidelinesofNUTP.


9/74

DelhiCityDevelopmentPlan

1. Equitableallocationofroadspace withpeopleasfocus

33%modalshareofpedestrians investmentonpedestrianinfrastructure

0.5% oftotalinvestment

2.

Priorityto

the

use

of

Public

Transport

60%ofvehiculartripsbypublictransport Capacitybuildingofpublic

transport 3projectsLRT,Monorai ,HCBS investment42% o tota

investment

3.

Integratedpublic

transport

systems

No nvestment

4. Prioritytononmotorised transport


5.

Promotemultilevel

parking

complexes

2% oftotalinvestment

6. Createpublicawareness



10/74

Whereistheremaining55%investmentbeingmade?

IncreasingRoad

Length

32%

Road

Widening

8% Spl.SchemeforCPandoldcity 5%


11/74

Investments in flyovers,road expansion and

s


12/74

DelhiMetroRailSystem

256 km by 2021, estimated cost USD~3500 million460 km of

roads,`10000buses carrying6 m trips

Existing Rail

Corridors,

e e ro rs

Phase (2005)

65 km, projected.

m/d, actual

ridership 0.4

m/d USD 7.1m

loss/yr, 100% costoverruns

Final Phase

(2021), 60% residents

& 82% area not withinwalking distance!!!


13/74

Overcrowded

buses


14/74

INTRODUCTIONtothestudy

socialdevelopment

Thebenefitsofimprovingtransport

byperformancecriteria,likeimproved

fortheuser.

14


15/74

Theproblem

Theusersarenotahomogeneousgroup

, ,

somemay

not

be

affected

at

all

externality(+veorve)

ene san s ene s ousersan nonusers

needtobeunderstoodandinternalizedby

.

15


16/74

NeedofStudy

Transportinvestmentsadvocateinclusionofsocialassessment

intransportprojectsandprioritizepovertyalleviationasan

o ect ve. ee toun erstan :

Usersas

a

disaggregated

mass

(differentiated

by

income occu ation ender a e ethnicit etc.

Thegapbetweenaccessavailability(transportinfrastructure)

andmobility

issues

(ability

of

different

groups

to

utilize

the

n rastructure an t e rcorre at onw t poverty espec a y

withrespecttolivelihoodopportunities).

A need to develo a methodolo ical framework or model for

ensuringthe

inclusion

of

socio

economic

issues

of

transport

planninginpoliciesandprojects.

16


17/74

TheContext

Delhi

Populationof13.8million(Census,2001).

Modal

share

62%

of

the

vehicular

trips

(33%

of

all

trips

includingwalk)aremadebybuswithanaveragetriplengthof

. , .

Heavyinvestmentsintransportinfrastructure,likegrade

separatedjunctions,

road

widening

and

the

Delhi

Metro

Rail.

TheDelhiMetroisarepresentativecasestudyofacapital

intensiveurbantrans ort ro ect romisin toaccruehi h

benefitsof

accessibility

and

decongestion.

17


18/74

Objectives&ResearchFocus

Objectives:

accessibility

patterns

of

the

urban

poor. Tounderstandtheimpactofchangedaccessibilityon

households.

Todevelopindicesofaccessibility,mobilityandSEWBandto

formulate

an

SEIA

methodolo .

Researchfocus:

economicwell

being

(SEWB)

of

the

urban

poor

and

how

indicesofaccessibilityandmobilitycanbeintegratedinSEIA methods.

18


19/74

Hypothesis

haschanged

the

accessibility

for

the

urban

oor.

b) Thischangeinaccessibilityhaschangedthe

mobilit rofile and the socioeconomic well

beingoftheurbanpoor.

November 2007 19


20/74

CaseStudy TargetGroup

UrbanpooraffectedbytheDelhiMetroRailProject

UrbanDelhi

poverty

line

at

Rs

505.45

(USD

12.64)

per

capita

per

month,(Saxena,2001)

or e s umspercap a ncomeo ess an s.permonthfor78%inhabitants(Anand,2006)

Twocategoriesoflowincomehouseholdsselected: thoselivinginthevicinity(within1km)ofthemetro

,

thoserelocatedduetotheconstructionofthemetro.

20


21/74

Transport projectTHEORETICAL

The Poor

(urban)

Transport System

(urban)

(Figure 1.1)

Geographic grouping

(slums)

Occupational grouping

(rickshaw pullers, hawkers...)

Condition of Infrastructure

(urban)

Socio-economic profile

Mobility indicators

Usage of Infrastructure

Accessibility indicatorsSocial well-being indicators

Usage of Infrastructure

Relationship

betweenmobility

and

LEGEND

Existing System

Direct Impact

Relationship

betweenmobility

and

November 2007 21

well-being

Indirect Impact

accessibility


22/74

Methodology

Householdsurveybaseddatacollectedfortargetgroup.

Datasetusedtoderiveindicatorsofaccessibility,mobilityandSEWB.

Theindicators

aggregated

into

indices

of

accessibilit ,mobilit andSEWBb usin thePrinci alComponentAnalysis(PCA)technique.

Thechangeinindicatorsandindicesinthebeforeandafter

ofthemetroprojectontheurbanpoor.

Thecorrelationbetweenaccessibility,mobilityandSEWBis

inaccessibilityandmobilityduetoatransportprojectchangestheSEWBofthecommunity.

22


23/74

Structure

1. Introduction

2. Socioeconomicimpactassessment(SEIA) currentpractices

3. Transport

and

poverty4. SEIAmethodologyforurbantransportprojects

5. Accessibility,mobilityandsocioeconomicwellbeing

6. Case

study

Delhi

metro

rail7. Formulationofthesocioeconomicimpactassessment(SEIA)

model

. ,

23


24/74

SEIA CURRENTPRACTICES

Socialimpacts theconsequencestohumanpopulationsofanypublicorprivateactionsthatalterthewaysinwhichpeople

, , , ,

needsand

generally

cope

as

members

of

society.

History

SIArealized

as

important

part

of

EIA

since

1969

to

1980s.

Partially

forced

narroweconomicandtechnicalcriteria(Ricksonetal.,1990;Burdge,1998).

socialimpact

assessment

was

far

less

than

the

cost

of

correcting

unforeseennegativeimpactsthatoccurredafterimplementation(Giroult,1983,citedinBurdge1990).

24


25/74

The

Indian

Scenario:TheMinistryofEnvironmentandForests,hasaseparateEnvironmentClearancemanualforlargeconstructionprojects(MoEF,2006).However,thesocioeconomicaspectsmeritonlya3pointwriteupn nnexure . ues ons o eanswere :

7.Socio

Economic

Aspects

7.1.Willtheproposalresultinanychangestothedemographicstructureof.

7.2.Givedetailsoftheexistingsocialinfrastructurearoundtheproposedproject.

7.3.Will

the

project

cause

adverse

effects

on

local

communities,

disturbance

osacre s esoro ercu ura va ues a are esa eguar sproposed?

infrastructureprojects

in

India

and

re

iterate

the

need

for

comprehensiveworkonit.

25


26/74

ImpactAssessmentMethodologies

Themethodologiesreviewedinthissectionare:

Thefundingagenciesapproach

TheWorldBank

AsianDevelopment

Bank

TheSCOPEframework

Theimplementingagenciesguidelines

TheFDOThandbook

TheNGOsperspective

QueenslandFamilies,YouthandCommunityCare,Australia

26


27/74

Discussion

TheWorldBankapproach:largerpolicyframework,genericapplicability,focusoninstitutionalmechanisms.TheADBdocument:com rehensivebut enericnotincludethespecialproblemsoftransportationprojects.

TheSCOPEframework:formulationofasocioeconomic,

allparameterslistedbutnoholisticassessmentdesign.

FDOTGuidelines:

focus

on

land

use

impacts

of

transportation

pro ec s,commun es n uence euseo an an v ceversaandtransportationprojectsinfluencebothinacorrelatedmanner.

TheAustralian

NGO

approach:

emphasizes

on

people

and

theirneedandreactions,conceptslikecommunitysensitivityindicesandthevulnerablecommunitygroups.

27


28/74


29/74

TRANSPORTANDPOVERTYDefiningPoverty

amultidimensionalphenomenon,encompassinginabilitytosatisfybasicneeds,lackofcontroloverresources,lackofeducationandskill,poorhealth,malnutrition,lackofshelter,pooraccesstowaterand

sanitation,vulnerability

to

shocks,

violence

and

crime,

lack

of

political

freedomandvoice.TheWorldBank(a,1999)

povertymustbeseenasthedeprivationofbasiccapabilitiesratherthanmerelyaslownessofincome(Sen,1999).

Povertyimpactsoftransportinterventions

Complexbecausetransportisanintermediateservice transportimprovementsreducepovertynotthroughincreasedconsumptionofranspor perse u roug mprov ng equa yan secur yo

accessto

work,

markets,

and

services,

and

through

release

of

scarce

resourcesforconsumptionandproduction

29


30/74

Issues

reductionbyenhancingefficiencyandequity(Gannon,etal,2001).

AccessandLivelihoodneedsoftheurbanpoor: Urbantransportinteractswithemploymentissuesforthepoorintwomainways:indirectlybyprovidingaccesstoemploymentopportunitiesanddirectlythrough

employmentof

low

income

people

in

the

transport

sector

Access to livelihoode . bus, c cle, edestrian

DEPENDANCY CONSTRUCT: SOCIETY AND TRANSPORT SYSTEM

SOCIETY Means of livelihood TRANSPORT

POOR)

(eg. Rickshaw pullers)

30

livelihood (eg. Hawkers)


31/74

GenderBias: Womentendtohavedifferenttravelneedsderivingfromthemultipletaskstheymustperformintheirhouseholdsandintheircommunities

(Greico

et

al,

1997).

HealthImpactsofTransport: Pollution(air,water,noise)effectstheur anpoorparticu ar ysevere y,sincet eyaret e easta etoavoi or

seekprotection

from

them

(UNDP

1998).

Pedestrian

and

cyclists

are

most

vulnerabletoroadaccidents.

TheSheltertransportlivelihoodlink: Accesstoaffordabletransportisoneofthemostimportantfactorsindetermininglivelihoodsfortheurban

oorThe

rise

of

rivate

vehicular

traffic

has

decreased

bus

s eeds

and

servicelevelsdrasticallyandmadenonmotorizedtransportdangerousanddifficult.Travelforthepoorhasthusbecomeslowerandmoredifficultevenasothereconomicandplanningforceshavecausedmanyof

peripherallocations

(Immers

et

al,

1993)

31


32/74

Evictionandrelocation

Transportation

People evicted

because of

transport projectsaspects o

eviction and

resettlement Transport

implications for

ev c e peop e

(due to any

project)

Thecentralconcernoftheprocessofevictionand

relocationisthereductioninaccessibilityandmobility

optionsof

the

urban

poor,

which

directly

affects

their

livelihoodandthussocialwellbeing.

32


33/74

ACCESSIBILITY,MOBILITYANDSOCIO

DefineAccessibility,

Mobility

and

SEWB

for

the

Postulateindicatorsandindications

33


34/74

Author Year Definition/ Discussion

Accessibilityo er s e num er o r ps ma e .number of, and/or the ease of making journeys

Black 1981

1992

accessibility is a function of land-use intensity and transport supply

accessibilit is a descri tion of how convenientl land-uses are located in

relation to each other and how easy or difficult it is to reach these land use

activities via the transport network of both public and private transportmodes.

Ross 2000 Often understood as the ease of access to destinations, amongst other

parameters t access ty encompasses eas o costs n t me an money;

extent, comfort and frequency of the public transport system; and the distance

to be negotiated to reach destinations such as shops, work places and schools

Vivier 2001 Access to urban activities for a population presupposes the existence of a,

level, age or handicaps, the possibility of getting to work or school, going

shopping and enjoying themselves.

Accessibility is good when density is high because distances to be covered

are low and when public transport is fast.

Accessibility is a description of the proximity of destinations ofchoice and the facilitation offered by the transport systems (including

34

public transport and non-motorized modes) to reach them.


35/74


Mobility ,mobility is often associated with the repression of basic freedoms and even

human rights

Roberts 1988 the number of kilometers traveled

Ross 2000 The amount of travel eo le undertake measured b er ca ita vehicle

kilometers traveled

A positive relationship exists between mobility and such indicators astransport energy use, motor vehicle ownership and use, journey to work

distance, journey to work speed and general car speed.

Vivier 2001 motorized mobility, measured by average annual distances traveled by city

dwellers in automobiles, motorized two-wheeled vehicles, taxis and public

transport

Litman 2003 the movement of people or goodse mo ty perspect ve e nes transportat on pro ems n terms o

constraints on physical movement, and so favors solutions that increase

motor vehicle system capacity and speed

Mobility is both the ability to travel to destinations of choice and theamount of movement necessary to do so.

35


36/74


SEWBBauer 1966 Social indicators are statistics, statistical series, and all other forms of evidence

that enable us to assess where we stand and are going with respect to our values andgoals, and to evaluate specific programs and determine their impact.

UNStatisticaloffice, F/18.

1975 Social indicators are constructs, based on observation and usually quantitativewhich tell us something about the aspect of life in which we are interested or aboutchanges in it.

Hauser 1975 Social indicators are facts about society in a quantitative form. They involve interpretation of advance and retrogression against some norm

UNDP 1990 Human Development Index (HDI): The index is composed of three indicators:longevity, educational attainment, and standard of living,

Horn 1993 Economic and social development can be broadly distinguished but usuallynteract an s ou pre era y e cons ere toget er.

National level economic development indicators commonly used are GrossNational Product and Gross Domestic product. Others are National accountsSystems and Income distribution

Ed Diener 1995 The Basic Quality of Life (QOL) Index includes seven variables: purchasingpower, om c e ra e, u men o as c nee s, su c e ra e, eracy ra e, grosshuman rights violations, and deforestation

Shookner 1998 Quality of Life (QOL) Index consists of Social, Health, Economic andEnvironmental indicators

INAC 2004 The Community Well-being Index (CWB) is composed of four indicators

Socio-economic well-being is defined as the status of a householdwhere the basic social and economic needs for survival are fulfilled

, , , .

36

and the household has the capacity to improve its quality of life.


37/74

Indicators of AccessibilityIndicator Type Indicator Indication

Dtotal, whereD is distance Lower value givesPublic Transport

Ttotal, whereT is time Lower value gives

better accessibility

Ctotal, whereC is cost Lower value gives


NA + NE , where N is no. of tri s Lower value ives

(unit = per user)

NMLH better accessibility

DA + DE , whereD is distance

DMLH

Lower value gives


TA + TE , whereT is time

TMLH

Lower value gives


CA + CE , whereC is cost

CMLH

Lower value gives


(DA + DE )VEH, whereD is distance

(DA + DE )PED

Lower value gives


SDeducation , where SD is spatial Lower value givesSpatio-traveldistance better accessibility

SDhealth , where SD is spatial

distance

Lower value gives


SDservices , where SD is spatial

distance

Lower value gives


Accessibility (AST)

(unit = per household)

Notes on subscripts:

bus-stop , w ere s spat a

distance

ower va ue g ves

better accessibilitySbus , where S is service of buses

i.e. time gap between two successive buses

Lower value gives


37

= , = , =NMV = non motorized modes including walking, MV = motorized modes


38/74

Indicators of MobilityIndicator Type Indicator Indication

PCTRwork, where PCTR is the average per capita

tri rate HH

Higher value higher

mobilit of HH

Household (+)

Mobilit

PCTReducation, where PCTR is the average per

capita trip rate of HH

Higher value higher

mobility of HH

PCTRothers, where PCTR is the average per capita

trip rate of HH

Higher value higher

mobility of HH

(MHH)

(unit = per

household)

MNMV , where M is modes Higher value higher

MALL mobility of HH

Dwork, where D is daily travel distance Higher value higher

mobilityDeducation, where D is daily travel distance Higher value higher

mobility

Personal (-)

Mobility(MP)

(unit = per

Dothers, where D is daily travel distance Higher value higher

mobility

Twork, where T is daily travel time Higher value higher

mobility

Teducation, where T is daily travel time Higher value higher

household)

mo y

Tothers, where T is daily travel time Higher value shows

higher mobility

Cwork, where C is daily travel cost Higher value higher

mobility

education,

mobilityCothers, where C is daily travel cost Higher value higher

mobility

Notes on subscripts:

38

= , =NMV = non-motorized vehicle

S


39/74

Indicators of SEWBIndicator Type Indicator Indication

NGinschool, where NG is no of girls Higher value showsSocial Well-being (WBS)

schoolage g er soc a we e ngNAliterate (>5grade), where NA is no. of adults

NAall

Higher value shows

higher social well being

Infrastructure rank score * (Electricity,

water, toilet)

Higher value shows


un t = per ouse o

Ylo-income settlement, where Y is no. of Ydelhi

years

Higher value shows


Nworking , where N is no. people

Nall

Higher value shows

higher economic well

Economic Well-being

(WBE)

=

Itotal , where I is income

Nall

Higher value shows

higher economic well

being

Vehall , where Veh is no. of Higher value showsall ve c es g er econom c we

being

* Infrastructure rank score refers to the additive score of the types of services where the service which is formally

39

, ,available is given a value of 0


40/74

ImpactofTransportProject(DelhiMetroRail)

ChangeinAccessibility:

PT

ThedifferencesinindicatorsforbothsetsofBususersandMetro

SpatioTravelAccessibility(AST)

ST .

Indirectimpact changeinindicatorsofAST ofhouseholdsrelocated.

ChangeinMobility:

Direct im act chan e in indicators of Household Mobilit M and Personal

Mobility(MP )ofhouseholds.

Indirectimpact changeinindicatorsofMHH andMP ofhouseholdsrelocated.

ChangeinSEWB:

Direct

impact

change

in

indicators

of

Social

Well

being

and

Economic

Well

beingofhouseholdsinthevicinity.

Indirectimpact changeinindicatorsofhouseholdsrelocated.

40


41/74

CASESTUDY:DelhiMetroRail

LegendIn vicinity

e oca e

Part map of Delhi showing Case Study Area of Metro Rail line

41

and locations of household survey


42/74

BususersandMetrousers

Indicator Comparability platform Percentage of

Bus users

Percentage

of metro

users

Dtotal (Km) Upto 20 Km of total daily travel distance 33% 19%

Ttotal (min) Upto 2 Hours of total daily travel time 57% 80%

. . .

expenditure

Na +Ne / Nmlh > 2 access trips for every MLH trip 4% 48%

Da +De / Dmlh More distance of Access than MLH 3% 27%

Ta +Te / Tmlh More time of Access than MLH 16% 67%

Ca +Ce / Cmlh No cost of Access

More cost of Access than MLH

76%

5%

22%

19%

(Da+De)veh /(Da+De)ped No Vehicle used for Access> 10 times access distance by Vehicle than by

foot

77%

5%

19%

37%

42


43/74

HouseholdSurvey

Nosignificantimpactontheirsocioeconomicandtravelprofile.

Decreaseintheavailabilityofbusessinceseveralbusrouteswererealigned

Consideringthatonly8%oftheirtripsareonbusand77%bywalk,4%by

cycleand

6%

by

rickshaw,

it

is

unlikely

that

these

trips

will

be

replaced

by

metrotrips.

43


44/74

Relocatedduetothemetroline:

.

Theincreasingdistance,timeandcostofdailytravel,alongwithreduced.

Thelanduseaccessibilityhasdeterioratedasdistancetoeducation healthservicesandotherurbanserviceshasincreasedfor52%,63%and52%ofthehouseholdsrespectively.Thetransportaccessibilityhasdeterioratedevenmoreasdistancetobusstophas

increased

for

72%

of

the

households

and

the

bus

frequency

has

seen

an

average ecrease rom m n o m n a mos mes

November 2007 44


45/74

FormulationofSEIAModel

TheSEIAmodelisformulatedin3steps

StepI:EstimatingIndicators

Step

III:

Formulating

the

Model

DEVELOPMENTOFINDICATORS

Illustratedvaluesofindicators,theirchangeandsignificanceofthatchange

due

to

the

introduction

of

the

metro

ACCESSIBILITY(A)

Vicinity: littlechangeindistancetoeducationandhealthservices.Distancetourbanserviceslikevegetablemarkets,dailyneedsshops

. .

decreasedfor

34%

of

households

Relocated: alltheindicatorshavechangedforthemajorityofthehouseholds.Valueshi hershowin deteriorationofaccessibilit

45


46/74

Change CategoryDeducation(diff) Dhealth (diff)

Dservices(diff) Dbusstop(diff) Sbus (diff)

Households in Vicinity of metro line

Total Decrease 0.0% 3.0% 4.9% 0.5% 34.5%

No change 98.0% 93.1% 71.4% 80.3% 65.0%

ota ncrease . . . . .

Households relocated due to metro line

Total Decrease 40.8% 33.8% 36.3% 13.9% 1.5%

o c ange . . . . .

Total Increase 51.7% 62.7% 51.7% 71.6% 98.5%

Significance of changeNo. Indicators Significance of change for HH in metro

vicinitySignificance of change for HHrelocated

At 5% confidencelevel


At 5%confidence level


1 Deducation Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant2 Dhealth Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

3 Dservices Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

46

4 Dbusstop Significant Significant Significant Not significant

5 Sbus Significant Significant Significant Significant

MOBILITY


47/74

MOBILITY

HouseholdMobility(MHH)

Vicinity: somechange

in

the

indicators

of

PCTR

for

work

and

other

purposes

butlittlechangeinthePCTRforeducationandtheshareofNMVsinthemodes

households.For49%households,thePCTRforworkhasincreasedandfor

30%of

the

households

it

has

decreased.

For

71%

of

households,

the

PCTR

foreducationdoesnotchangeThePCTRforotherpurposeshasincreased.

for59%ofthehouseholds.

Change category PCTRwork (diff) PCTRedu(diff) PCTRothers(diff) Mnmv/Mall(diff)Households in Vicinity of metro line

Total Decrease 9.4% 3.9% 13.8% 5.4%

No change 77.8% 91.1% 81.8% 87.2%

Total Increase 12.8% 4.9% 4.4% 7.4%

Households relocated due to metro line

Total Decrease 29.9% 10.4% 35.3% 58.7%

47

No change 21.39% 70.65% 29.35% 21.89%

Total Increase 48.8% 18.9% 35.3% 19.4%


48/74

PersonalMobility(MP)

Vicinity: minimumc ange

in

t e

mo i ity

in icators

regar ing

trave

or

education(distance,time,cost).Thedistance, timetoandcostoftripsmadeforotherpurposeshaschangesalittle.

,haveincreasedfor83%,82%and61%ofthehouseholdsrespectively.The

distance,time

for

education

have

but

not

the

cost.

Similarly

for

other

purposesthereismorechangeindistanceandtimethanthecostofthe.

Change

category

Dwork

(diff)

Deducation

(diff)

Dother

s (diff)

Twork

(diff)

Teducation

(diff)

Tother

s (diff)

Cwork

(diff)

Ceducation

(diff)

Cother

s (diff)


Total Decrease 10.3% 3.9% 15.3% 13.8% 4.4% 16.3% 3.4% 0.0% 4.4%

No change 72.9% 90.6% 72.4% 69.5% 88.7% 71.9% 91.1% 100.0% 93.6%

Total Increase 16.7% 5.4% 12.3% 16.7% 6.9% 11.8% 5.4% 0.0% 2.0%Households relocated due to metro line

Total Decrease 14.9% 22.9% 58.2% 14.4% 21.9% 52.2% 10.4% 2.5% 12.4%

48

No change 2.5% 43.3% 9.0% 3.5% 42.8% 8.0% 28.4% 93.5% 65.2%

Total Increase 82.6% 33.8% 32.8% 82.1% 35.3% 39.8% 61.2% 4.0% 22.4%


49/74

Significanceofchangeofmobilityindicators

No. Indicators Significance of change for HH inmetro vicinity

Significance of change for HHrelocated

At 5% At 1% confidence At 5% At 1% confidenceconfidence level level confidence level level

1 PCTRwork Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant2 PCTRedu Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

others

4 Mnmv/Mall Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

5 Dwork Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

6 D Not si nificant Not si nificant Si nificant Not si nificante uca on

7 Dothers Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

8 Twork Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

9 Teducation Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

10 Tothers Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant11 Cwork Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

12 Ceducation Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

49

13 Cothers Not significant Not significant Significant Not significant

SOCIOECONOMIC WELLBEING (SEWB)


50/74

SOCIOECONOMICWELLBEING(SEWB)

Vicinity: onlytwoindicatorsIRSandHouseholdincomeshowchangewith

theintroduction

of

the

metro.

Relocated: alltheindicatorshavechangedforthemajorityofthehouseholds.Theindicatorsmostaffectedarefemaleliteracy(21%

, ,decrease),Infrastructurerankscore(33%decreaseand61%increase),and

employment(8%

decrease

and

14%

increase).

NGinschl/ NAdults>=5/ Yslum/Changecategory

Ngschage(diff)

Nadults(diff)

IRS(diff)

Ydelhi(diff) W/N (diff) I/N (diff)

V/N(diff)


. . . . . . .

No change 55.67% 100.00% 78.3% 100% 100% 66.01% 100%

Total Increase 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 24.1% 0.0%

NA 44.33%

Households relocated due to metro lineTotal Decrease 20.9% 3.5% 32.8% 100% 8.0% 65.7% 5.0%

No change 41.79% 82.09% 5.97% 0.00% 78.11% 19.4% 94.53%

50

Total Increase 4.5% 14.4% 61.2% 0.0% 13.9% 14.9% 0.5%

NA 32.84%


51/74

Si nificanceofchan eofSEWBindicators

No. Indicators Si nificance of chan e for HH in metro Si nificance of chan e for HHvicinity

relocated





inschl/

Ngschage

2 NAdults>=5/N

adults

Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

3 IRS Significant Significant Significant Significant

4 Yslum/ Ydelhi Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

5 W/N Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

7 V/N Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

51

DEVELOPMENT OF INDICES


52/74

DEVELOPMENTOFINDICES

Differentrotationsaretriedtomaximizeloadingontheprincipalcomponents(PC1,PC2,PCn)sothattheyexplainmaximumpercentof the total variance. Theoreticall the varimax rotation maximizes varianceexplainedwhileincreasingthelargeloadinganddecreasingthesmallerloadings. The

higherloadings

in

each

PC

are

retained

and

the

smaller

loadings

are

discardedinamannersothateachPCclubstogethersimilar/correlatedindicatorsinalogicalmanner.EachPCbecomesatypeoffactorexplainingtheaggregateindexandeachPCisindependentoftheothers.

e oa ngso ere a ne var a es neac are a enasindicativeweightsfortheindicatorsandcalculatedasafractionof1.

ThevarianceexplainedaretakenasrelativeweightsforeachPCto.

Thevalue

of

the

index

is

calculated

for

each

household.

52

Accessibility


53/74

Accessibility

WhereE1andE2aretheeigenvalues

And PC1=d(Dbusstop)+e(Sbus)

PC2=a(Ded)+b(Dhealth)+c(Dser)

Wherea,b,.earecomponentloadings.

The

PC1

explains

accessibility

provided

by

the

bus

system

and

the

PC2

explains

thelanduseaccessibility.ThePC1andPC2explainapproximately55%ofthetotalvariance.

Theaggregatedindexreadsasfollowsforthe4datasets:

InVicinitybeforemetro

A=0.49(Ded)+0.57(Dhealth)+0.62(Dser)+0.63(Dbusstop)+0.62(Sbus) 1a

InVicinityaftermetro

= + + + + e ea ser uss op us

Relocatedbefore

metro

A=0.91(Ded)+0.27(Dhealth)+0.49(Dser)+0.54(Dbusstop)+0.52(Sbus) 1c

Relocated aftermetro

53

A= . 4 Ded + . Dhealth + .5 Dser + .7 Dbusstop + .5 bus 1d

Mobility


54/74

Mobility

WhereE1,E2,E3andE4aretheeigenvalues

And PC1=b(PCTReducation)+e(Ded)+h(Ted)+k(Ced)

PC2=c PCTRothers +f Dothers +i Tothers +l Cothers

PC3=a(PCTRwork)+d(Dwork)+g(Twork)+j(Cwork)

PC4=

Mnmv/Mall

Wherea,b,.larecomponentloadings.

ThePC1explainsthetripforeducation,PC2explainsthetripforotherpurposeslikesocial,health,religiousandPC3explainsthetriptoworkand

z

.

PC1,PC2,PC3ANDPC4explainapproximately65%ofthetotalvariance.TheweightagesofthePCsimplythatthetripforeducationandotherreasonslikebuyingdailyneedsupplieswouldhaveahigherimpactonthemobilityindexthantheworktrips,thoughthedifferenceisnotsignificant.Since

Mhh indicatorsareseenasdesirablemobilityandMp asundesirablemobilitytheyareascribedopposingsignsintheindex.

54

I Vi i it b f t


55/74


.work

.education

.others

.nmv all

[0.65(Dwork)+0.85(Deducation)+0.74(Dothers)+0.62(Twork)+0.85(Teducation)+0.75(Tothers)+

0.25(Cwork)+0.17(Ceducation)+0.63(Cothers)] ...2a


M=[0.53(PCTRwork)

+0.78(PCTReducation)

+0.63(PCTRothers)

+1.39(Mnmv/Mall)]


0.25(Cwork)+0.18(Ceducation)+0.38(Cothers)] ...2b

Relocatedbeforemetro

= + + +

wor

e uca on

o ers

nmv a


0.53(Cwork)+0.22(Ceducation)+0.31(Cothers)] ...2c

Relocatedaftermetro

M=[0.73(PCTRwork)+0.54(PCTReducation)+0.28(PCTRothers)+1.23(Mnmv/Mall)]


55

. work + . education + . others ...

SEWB


56/74

SEWB

Where,E1,E2andE3aretheeigenvalues

AndPC1=e(W/N)+f(I/N)+g(V/N)

PC2=c(IRS)+d(Yslum/Ydelhi)

Wherea,b,.garecomponentloadings

PC1explains

economic

well

being,

PC2

explains

condition

of

physical

infrastructure

and

PC3explainssocialwellbeing.Together,thethreePCsexplain60%ofthevariance. The


SEWB=0.61(NGinschl/NGschage)+0.42(Nadults>=5/Nadults)+0.83(IRS)

.

.

.

.


SEWB=0.57(NGinschl/NGschage)+0.46(Nadults>=5/Nadults)+0.71(IRS)

+0.62(Yslum/Ydelhi)+0.63(W/N)+0.63(I/N)+0.19(V/N) 3b

SEWB

=

0.68(NGinschl/

NGschage)

+

0.68(Nadults>=5/

Nadults)

+

0.93(IRS)

+0.14(Yslum/Ydelhi)+0.62(W/N)+0.62(I/N)+0.22(V/N) 3c

Relocated aftermetro

= + >= +

56

+0.65(Yslum/Ydelhi)+0.72(W/N)+0.67(I/N)+0.06(V/N) 3d


57/74

Si nificanceofchan eintheIndices

No. Indices Significance of change for HHin metro vicinity

Significance of change for HHrelocated

confidence

level

confidence

level

confidence

level

confidence

level

1 Accessibility Significant Significant Significant Significant

2 Mobility Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

3 SEWB Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

57

THE SEIA MODEL


58/74

TH S IAMO

,

1. Correlationbetweentheindices

2. Correlationofdependentindexwithindependentindicators

Correlationbetween

indicesMethodsforlinearcorrelation:

.

2. nonparametric:Spearmancorrelation(Rankorderdataassumed)

Data Set A & M M & S A & SParametric Nonpara Parametric Nonpara Parametric Nonpara

In Vicinity- b4 metro -0.001 0.004 0.176 0.180 0.035 0.084

In Vicinity- aft metro 0.128 0.108 0.112 0.089 0.277 0.280

In Vicinity- change -0.157 -0.202 0.014 0.114 -0.170 -0.177

Relocated- b4 metro -0.034 0.055 0.169 0.134 0.057 0.140

Relocated- aft metro 0.001 -0.049 -0.039 -0.090 -0.065 -0.125

58

Relocated- change 0.026 -0.027 -0.219 -0.229 0.016 0.045

TOTAL -0.223 -0.335 0.122 0.115 0.020 0.034

Linear regression of dependent index with independent indicators


59/74

Linearregressionofdependentindexwithindependentindicators

s

as

eentr e

or

t e

o ow ng

equat ons

or

a

ata

sets,

an

a

repeatedforeachset)

Indexofmobilityandindicatorsofaccessibility

M=a+b(AIi)+c(AIj)++x(AIn) ..4

IndexofSEWBandindicatorsofmobility

SEWB=a+b(MIi)+c(MIj)++x(MIn) ..5

Index o SEWB and indicators o accessibilit

SEWB=a+b(AIi)+c(AIj)++x(AIn) ..6

SEWB=a+[b(AIi)

+c(AIj)++x(AIn)]

+[b(MIi)

+c(MIj)++x(MIn)] ..7

59

SummaryofResultsofLinearregression


60/74

y g

2. -

1 Equation 4 In Vicinity- before metro 0.022 0.49

2 In Vicinity- after metro 0.020 0.55

3 Relocated- before metro 0.025 0.43

- . .

5 TOTAL 0.103 0.00




9 Relocated- after metro 0.283 0.00

10 TOTAL 0.202 0.00





. .




60


20 TOTAL 0.234 0.00

Interpretation of Results


61/74

InterpretationofResults

indicatorsof

A, A does

not

affect

M significantly.

Equation5: thereisasignificantcorrelationbetweentheindexofSEWB andtheindicatorsofM,M affectsSEWB significantly.

Equation6: thereisasignificantcorrelationbetweentheindexofSEWB andthe

indicators

of

A for

the

households

residing

in

the

vicinity

but

the

correlation

isnotsignificantforthehouseholdsrelocated

qua on : ere sas gn can corre a on e ween e n exo an ecombinedindicatorsofA andM, A andM affectSEWB significantly.

ComparingtheR2 values ofallthemodels,thebestresultsaregivenbyEquation

7,im l in

that

the

SEWB is

ex lained

best

when

the

affects/contributions

ofindicatorsofbothA andM areconsidered.However,itisobservedthattheR2 valueschangeforthehouseholdsaftertheintroductionofthemetro.Forthehouseholdslocatedinthevicinity,theaffectsifA andM onSEWB

,

they

become

more

significant.

61

SignificanceofCoefficients(Eqn7)


62/74

- - - -

Indicator Description

metro

metro

metro

metroCoeff P(2Tail) Coeff P(2Tail) Coeff P(2Tail) Coeff P(2Tail)

CONST 435.2 0.006 308.1 0.019 318.2 0.013 515.5 0

A1 SDeducation -81.3 0.041 -43.8 0.123 -2.6 0.812 -10.7 0.736

A2 SDhealth -15.7 0.353 -23.0 0.153 -27.3 0.059 -11.0 0.484

A3 SDservices -69.9 0 -17.6 0.477 -1.1 0.958 -4.6 0.238

A4 SDbus-stop 65.6 0.118 30.9 0.037 295.9 0.088 5.3 0.704

A5 Sbus -0.1 0.929 1.0 0.099 4.1 0.51 -0.2 0.57

M1 PCTRwork 102.5 0 89.7 0 126.4 0 105.6 0

M2 PCTReducation 45.3 0.151 54.0 0.068 53.5 0.344 -1.4 0.966

M3 PCTRothers 31.9 0.224 45.8 0.054 56.2 0.004 31.0 0.042

M4 MNMV/Mall 59.3 0.675 25.0 0.831 -37.9 0.746 -280.3 0M5 Dwork -4.7 0.013 -2.7 0.063 -1.8 0.426 0.3 0.581

M6 Deducation 2.5 0.814 4.0 0.704 -16.2 0.323 4.3 0.567

M7 Dothers -1.5 0.721 -2.3 0.62 -3.3 0.454 6.4 0.005

M8 Twork 0.0 0.909 0.0 0.88 -0.8 0.038 0.0 0.844

M9 Teducation -0.6 0.29 -0.6 0.274 0.1 0.912 -0.3 0.479

M10 Tothers -0.4 0.371 -0.4 0.443 -0.8 0.28 -0.9 0.038

M11 Cwork -0.9 0.558 -2.0 0.135 -1.6 0.364 -3.0 0.012

M12 C 1.1 0.9 1.5 0.861 7.7 0.631 -9.1 0.485

62

M13 Cothers 1.2 0.594 2.1 0.619 3.3 0.384 -6.0 0.045

Note:The indicator coefficients with P value significant at 90% confidence levels have been

highlighted as the coefficients are significant can be included in the models.

Interpretation of Results


63/74

InterpretationofResults

Comparativestudy

of

the

coefficients

shows

that:

Differentcoefficientscontributetothemodelsignificantlyfordifferentdatasets.

T enum ero signi icantcoe icientsincreasesa tert eintro uctionothemetrointhehouseholdsbothlivinginthevicinityandrelocateddueto

the

metro.

acrosstheboard.

ThecostoftravelhasnosignificanceinexplainingSEWB ifrelocationnot

therebut

it

becomes

si nificant

when

the

are

relocated.

Astudyofthecoefficientsofthecombineddatasettogetanoverviewofwhetherthecoefficientsare+veorveshowsthatapproximately90%ofthesignificantindicatorsand72%ofallindicatorsarecorrelatedtothe

n ex naccor ancew t t eemp r ca yo serve e av or

(expectedindications)

63

Final Equations


64/74

FinalEquations

Thefinal

equations

derived

from

the

application

of

Equation

7

using

significant

indicatorsareillustratedbelow:

Vb4 = . . education . services + . work

4.7(Dwork

) 8a

EWBVaft = . + . Dbusstop + . bus + .7 P TRwork

+54.0(PCTReducation)+45.8(PCTRothers) 2.7(Dwork) 8b

SEWBRb4 =318.2 27.3 SDhealth 295.9 SDbusstop +126.4 PCTRwork

+56.2(PCTRothers) 0.8(Twork) 8c

Raft = . . work . others . NMV all

+6.4

(Dothers)

0.9(Tothers)

3.0(Cwork)

6.0

(Cothers)

8

d

64

Interpretationofresults


65/74

p

e

or

wor

mos

mpor an

pos ve

e erm nan

o

.

s

impliesthetripstoworkmadebyahouseholdensuretheSEWB,

Thedistancetoworkisconsistentlyanegativeindicatorforhouseholds.

Theintroductionofthemetrochangestheindicatorswhichaffect

SEWB.Also,

more

numbers

of

indicators

have

a

significant

impact

on

SEWBaftertheintroductionofthemetro.ThisimpliesthattheintroductionofanewtransportsystemrestructuresthedeterminantsofSEWB,makingthehouseholdsmorevulnerablebyincreasingthenumberofsignificantindicators.

:

Sincebusroutesandserviceshavebeenaffectedbytheintroductionofthemetro,theybecomesignificantindicatorsaffectingSEWB.Thisim lies that the introduction of a new trans ort s stem makes the

existing

transport

system

important

in

determining

SEWB.

65

HHRelocated:


66/74

relocation.While

the

distance

for

these

trips

contributes

positively

toSEWB,thetimeandcostofthesetripscontributesnegativelytoit.

ThecommutingcosthadnosignificantcorrelationwithSEWBbefore

relocation,after

relocation

it

has

a

significant

negative

impact

on

SEWBofthehouseholds.

RatioofNMVtoallmodesusedhasbecomeasignificantindicatorafterrelocation.Thehighnegativevalueofthisindicatorimpliesthatthereductioninthisratio(implyingreductioninuseofNMVin

households.Sincetheprocessofrelocationhasincreaseddistancestodestinationsofchoiceforthehousehold,beyondcomfortableNMVdistances,thisindicatorim liesthatthemodalshiftfromNMVtomotorizedmodeshashadanegativeimpactontheSEWBoftherelocated

households.

66

8.Conclusions


67/74

Impactof

Metro

on

the

poor

household

in

its

vicinity

NosignificantimpactontheSEWBandMobility

,

accessibilityhaschangedasdistancetothebusstopshasincreasedfor

19%of

the

households

and

bus

services

have

become

non

existent

for

.

ImpactofMetroonthepoorhouseholdsrelocated

ThereissignificantimpactonAccessibility,MobilityandSEWB

Thelanduseaccessibilityhasdeterioratedasdistancetoeducation,

healthservicesandotherurbanserviceshasincreasedfor52%,63%and

52%ofthehouseholdsrespectively.Thetransportaccessibilityhas

deterioratedeven

more

as

distance

to

bus

stop

has

increased

for

72%

of

thehouseholdsandthebusfrequencyhasseenanaveragedecreasefrom

67

5minto63min(almost13times)


68/74

e

mo ty

o

t e

ouse o s

ave

ncrease

s gn cant y.

e

or

wor

hasincreasedfor49%ofthehouseholdsanddecreasedfor30%,implying

changeinnumberoftripsmadeforworkinthehouseholds.Theshareof

.

mobilityindicatorsfortraveltowork distance,timeandcost have

increasedfor

83%,

82%

and

61%

of

the

households

respectively

,

residency(100%decrease),Householdincomeperperson(66%decrease),

Infrastructurerankscore(33%decreaseand61%increase),andemployment

8 decrease and 14 increase . The indicators of adult literac and vehicleownershipshowleastchangewith82%and94%respectivelyinthenochange

category.

Theresults

imply

that

relocation

due

the

metro

has

had

asignificant

negative

impactontheSEWBofthepoorhouseholds.

68


69/74

Corre at ono

SEWB

to

Access ty

an

Mo ty

SEWBisaffectedbyindicatorsofbothaccessibilityandmobility

SEWBisnegativelycorrelatedtospatialdistancetoeducation,healthand

otherurbanservices

Itis

positively

correlated

to

PCTR

for

work,

education

and

other

purposes

Thesignificanceofindicatorschangeswithchangeinsituationlikethenew

metrolineorrelocationduetoit

coefficientinalldatasets,indicatingthemobilityforworkisimportantin

ensuringtheirSEWB,whateverbetheirsituation

itbecomes

significant

when

they

are

relocated

and

now

have

to

pay

heavily

forthetravel

69

In conclusion


70/74

Inconclusion

Thisstudy

illustrates

that

the

accessibility

and

mobility

and

hence

the

socio

economicwellbeingoftheurbanpoorisaffectedbyitsintroductionin

theurbantransportsystem.

Whiletheymaynotbeexpectedbeneficiariesoftheproject,thedisbenefits

accruedto

them

due

to

the

project

need

to

be

assessed,

and

hence

miti ationmeasures lannedwhen ro osin the ro ect.

Hence,itisimportanttoconductSocioEconomicImpactAssessment(SEIA)

studiesforanewprojectoverdisaggregatedgroups,specificallyincluding

impactson

the

most

vulnerable

group

the

urban

poor.

70

Policyrecommendations


71/74

Thedefinition

of

the

impacted

population

for

a

transport

project

should

includenotonlytheexpectedusersbutthenonusersaffectedbyittoo.

Theaccessibilityandmobilityneedsoftheurbanpoorneedtobes u e an eur anpoors ou eseenascap veso esys emstheyareusing.Introductionofanypolicyorprojectthatchangestheir

statushas

to

be

carefully

monitored

for

impacts.

Thecostbenefitanalysisofatransportprojectshouldincludethedisbenefitstononusergroupsandthecostsofcompensation/mitigationmeasuresinbuiltaspartofprojectcost.Onlythenshouldaprojectbedeclaredfeasible.

TheGovernment

should

constitute

a

statutor

bod

res onsible

for

the

SEIAofallinfrastructureprojectsbeforetheyaregivenapprovalforimplementation.ThisisinkeepingwiththesocialwelfarefunctionoftheGovernment.

monitoring

and

evaluation

protocols

with

stringent

SEIA

guidelines.

71

Contributionofresearch


72/74

Thisdissertation

tries

to

understand

how

the

SEWB

of

the

urban

poor

is

impacted

bylargetransportprojects.Theimpactontheaccessibilityandmobilityofthe

nonusersofthenewsystemisasimportantastheimpactontheexpectedusers

andneedstobeinternalizedbytransportprojects.

The

dissertation

proves

that

the

relocation

of

the

poor

is

one

of

the

most

severe

negativeimpactsofatransportprojectsandneedstobetakeninaccountin

.

Thedissertationhasredefinedtheconceptofmobilityintoitspositiveand

negativeaspects.Ithasformulatedindicatorsofaccessibility,mobilityandSEWB

anda re ated

them

into

indices.

IthasmodeledhowSEWBisaffectedbyaccessibilityandmobilityand,indoing

so,hasformulatedagenericmethodologyofSEIAwhichisapplicablein

understandingtheimpactoflargeurbantransportprojectslike

expressways,flyoversetcontheurbanpoor..Differentinterventionscenarioscan

becompared

for

their

impacts

and

mitigation

measures

planned

accordingly.

This

wouldleadtointernalizingtheexternalcostoftheimpactoftransportprojectson

the urban oor.

72

Scopeforfuturework


73/74

Literaturereviewhasshownthatevenamongsttheurbanpoor,thewomenarepoorerthatthemen,sufferingfrompovertyofmoney,timeandresources.AssessingthegenderedimpactsoftransportprojectswouldgiveadditionaldepthtotheprocessofSEIA.

TheWHOhasdeclaredroadaccidentsasthenumberonediseaseintheworld.

The

health

impacts

of

transport

need

to

be

included

more

comprehensivelyintheSEIAmethodafteranecessaryreviewoftheliteratureonthesame.

ThequalitativedataaboutsocioeconomicconditionsandtheopinionsandchoicesofpeopleareanotheraspectofSEIAwhichrequiresfurtherresearch.

Different

techniques

like

stated

preference

models

can

be

used

to

include

qualitativedata.

Thebenchmarkingofthevariousparameters/indicatorsneedstobecarriedouttoidentifyacceptablelevelofadverseimpactsoftransportprojects.

termsofmoneyandresourcestoformulatecompensationpackageswhere

necessary.

Thisstudy

should

further

lead

to

mitigation

measures

and

alternativerecommendationstominimizeadverseimpactsoftransportprojectsontheurbanpoor.

73


74/74

THANKYOU

November 2007 74

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tarek-yousry
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Arora Socioeconomic Impact Assessment X-09

Documents