Download - Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
1/74
Socio-Economic ImpactAssessment (SEIA) Methodology
for Urban Transport Projects
Presentation at Hasselt University, Belgium
13th
May 2009By:
Anvita Arora, PhDCEO,
Innovative Transport Solutions, Technology and Business Incubation
Unit, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India
ResidentRepresentative,Interface for Cycling Expertise, The Netherlands
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
2/74
Urbanization in India Relatively slow, yet one of the
largest urban systems 30-50% slum dwellers,
unauthorized self constructed
dwellings, close to work
Growth of informal sector often
faster than formal sector
Bicycle ownership 30-50 %
Car ownership 3-13%
Scooter/M-cycle 40-50%
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
3/74
147
177
28 20
6 3 3
0
50
100
150
200
< 1
Town
1-5 lakh
A & B
5-10 lakh
C
10-20 lakh
D
20-50 lakh
E
50-100
lakh
F
1 crore
G
No. Of Cities
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
4/74
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% share
A:0.1-
0.5
B0.1-
0.5
C:.5-1 D:1-2 E: 2-5 >5
Cit size
Modal shares in different cit
sizes(RITES, 1998)
w Tr r ThrR - haw Car TWC
Threat to sustainable scenario: Increasing car and MTW trips
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
5/74
Transport Modes of the Urban Poor
walk77%
cycle4%
rickshaw6%
bus8%
0thers5%
Modal Share for the poor - Delhi
walk61%
cycle6%
bus14%
train16%
others3%
Modal Share for the poor - Mumbai
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
6/74
Patna Jaipur
Hyderabad Lucknow
Rickshaw policies? Three wheelers paratransit?
Two wheelers/threewheelers?
Rickshaws,cycles peds?
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
7/74
Urban transport problems
Poor rely on non-motorized transport but their facilitationis often ignored
Small changes in public transport fare/service cansignificantly affect their mobility
Restraints on informal transport sector limits affordableservices to the poor
Dominance of private motor vehicles marginalizes NMTs
Women are badly served by transport system
Poor are more vulnerable to injuries and pollution
7
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
8/74
National Urban Transport Policy ( NUTP )
As per the directives of the GOI- MOUD- UT the various proposalsfor urban transport being prepared under JNNURM shouldcomply with NUTP in order to be eligible for Central Govt.funding.
The focus of NUTP is on the following strategies :1. Equitable allocation of road space with people as focus
2. Priority to the use of Public Transport
3. Integrated public transport systems
4. Priority to non motorised transport
5. Promote multilevel parking complexes
6. Create public awareness
Delhi CDP priorities and projects have been identified based on aboveguidelines of NUTP.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
9/74
Delhi City Development PlanVision and Investment
1. Equitable allocation of road space with people as focus 33% modal share of pedestrians investment on pedestrian
infrastructure 0.5% of total investment
2. Priority to the use of Public Transport
60% of vehicular trips by public transport Capacity building of public
transport 3 projects LRT, Monorail, HCBS investment 42% of totalinvestment
3. Integrated public transport systems
No investment
4. Priority to non motorised transport
0.8% of total investment5. Promote multilevel parking complexes
2% of total investment
6. Create public awareness
0.2% of total investment
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
10/74
Where is the remaining 55% investment being made?
Increasing Road Length 32%
Flyovers 10% Road Widening 8%
Spl. Scheme for CP and old city 5%
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
11/74
Investments in flyovers,road expansion and
FOBs
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
12/74
Delhi Metro FirstPhase (2005)
65 km, projected
ridership 1.5
m/d, actual
ridership 0.4
m/d, USD 7.1mloss/yr, 100% cost
overruns
Existing Rail
Corridors,
Delhi Metro Rail System
256 km by 2021, estimated cost USD~3500 million
Final Phase
(2021), 60% residents
& 82% area not within
walking distance!!!
460 km of
arterial
roads,`10000
buses carrying6 m trips
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
13/74
Over crowded
buses
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
14/74
14
INTRODUCTION
Transport is a critical link between economic
and social development
Transport is a derived demand need based
The benefits of improving transport
infrastructure have traditionally been
measured by performance criteria, like
improved connectivity, travel time, speedsand fuel savings for the user.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
15/74
15
The problem
The users are not a homogeneous group Some users may benefit, some may not, and
some may not be affected at all
Also the non-users may be impacted anexternality (+ve or ve)
Benefits and dis-benefits to users and non-
users need to be understood and internalized
by transport projects.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
16/74
16
Need of Study
Transport investments advocate inclusion of socialassessment in transport projects and prioritize poverty
alleviation as an objective. Need to understand:
Users as a disaggregated mass (differentiated by
income, occupation, gender, age, ethnicity, etc.)
The gap between access availability (transport
infrastructure) and mobility issues (ability of different
groups to utilize the infrastructure) and their correlation
with poverty (especially with respect to livelihood
opportunities).A need to develop a methodological framework or model
for ensuring the inclusion of socio-economic issues of
transport planning in policies and projects.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
17/74
17
The Context
Delhi Population of 13.8 million (Census, 2001).
Modal share - 62% of the vehicular trips (33% of all trips
including walk) are made by bus with an average trip length
of 10.7 Km (RITES, 1994).
Heavy investments in transport infrastructure, like grade
separated junctions, road widening and the Delhi Metro
Rail.
The Delhi Metro is a representative case study of a capital-intensive urban transport project promising to accrue
high benefits of accessibility and decongestion.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
18/74
18
Objectives & Research Focus
Objectives: To understand the impact of Delhi Metro Rail on the
accessibility patterns of the urban poor.
To understand the impact of changed accessibility onmobility and the socio-economic status of the low-
income households. To develop indices of accessibility, mobility and SEWB
and to formulate an SEIA methodology.
Research focus:
To understand how accessibility and mobility affect thesocio-economic well-being (SEWB) of the urban poorand how indices of accessibility and mobility can beintegrated in SEIA methods.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
19/74
November 2007 19
Hypothesis
a) Introduction of the Metro rail system in Delhi
has changed the accessibility for the urban
poor.
b) This change in accessibility has changed
the mobility profile and the socio-economic
well-being of the urban poor.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
20/74
20
Case Study Target Group
Urban poor affected by the Delhi Metro RailProject
Urban poor as the inhabitants of slums in the city Urban Delhi poverty line at Rs 505.45 (USD 12.64) per
capita per month, (Saxena, 2001) For Delhi slums per capita income of less than Rs. 600 (15
USD) per month for 78% inhabitants (Anand, 2006)
Two categories of low-income householdsselected: those living in the vicinity (within 1 km) of the metro
stations, and
those relocated due to the construction of the metro.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
21/74
November 2007 21
The Poor
(urban)
Geographic grouping
(slums)
Occupational grouping
(rickshaw pullers, hawkers...)
Mobility indicators
Socio-economic profile
Transport System
(urban)
Condition of Infrastructure
(urban)
Usage of Infrastructure
Accessibility indicators
Transport project
Social well-being indicators
Relationship
between
mobility
and
well-being
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
(Figure 1.1)
LEGEND
Existing System
Direct Impact
Indirect Impact
Usage of Infrastructure
Relationship
between
mobility
and
accessibility
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
22/74
22
Methodology
Household survey based data collected for target group. Dataset used to derive indicators of accessibility, mobility
and SEWB.
The indicators aggregated into indices of accessibility,mobility and SEWB by using the Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) technique. The change in indicators and indices in the before and
after metro scenarios used to assess the significance ofthe impact of the metro project on the urban poor.
The correlation between accessibility, mobility andSEWB is modeled using linear regression to illustratethat the change in accessibility and mobility due to atransport project changes the SEWB of the community.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
23/74
23
Structure
1.
Introduction2. Socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA) current
practices
3. Transport and poverty
4. SEIA methodology for urban transport projects5. Accessibility, mobility and socio-economic wellbeing
6. Case study Delhi metro rail
7. Formulation of the socio-economic impact assessment
(SEIA) model8. Conclusions, contribution and scope for future work
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
24/74
24
SEIA CURRENT PRACTICES
Social impacts the consequencesto humanpopulations ofanypublic orprivateactionsthatalterthe waysin whichpeoplelive, work, play, relateto oneanother, organizetomeettheirneedsandgenerally copeasmembers ofsociety.
History
SIA realized as important part of EIA since 1969 to 1980s. Partiallyforced by project failures resulting from inadequate appraisal ofprojects on narrow economic and technical criteria (Rickson et
al., 1990; Burdge, 1998).WHO has pointed out that the cost of submitting major proposals
for social impact assessment was far less than the cost ofcorrecting unforeseen negative impacts that occurred afterimplementation (Giroult, 1983, cited in Burdge 1990).
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
25/74
25
The Indian Scenario:The Ministry of Environment and Forests, has a separate
Environment Clearance manual for large construction projects(MoEF, 2006). However, the socio-economic aspects meritonly a 3 point write-up in Annexure II. Questions to beanswered:
7. Socio-Economic Aspects
7.1. Willtheproposalresultinany changesto thedemographic
structure oflocalpopulation? Providethedetails.7.2. Givedetails oftheexistingsocialinfrastructurearoundthe
proposedproject.
7.3. Willtheprojectcauseadverseeffects onlocalcommunities,disturbanceto sacredsites orotherculturalvalues? Whatarethesafeguardsproposed?
These points highlight the inadequacy of inclusion of SIA inlarge infrastructure projects in India and re-iterate theneed for comprehensive work on it.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
26/74
26
The methodologies reviewed in this section are: The funding agencies approach
The World Bank
Asian Development Bank
The SCOPE framework
The implementing agencies guidelines The FDOT handbook
The NGOs perspective Queensland Families, Youth and Community Care,
Australia
Impact Assessment Methodologies
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
27/74
27
The World Bank approach: larger policy framework,
generic applicability, focus on institutional mechanisms .The ADB document: comprehensive but generic notinclude the special problems of transportation projects.
The SCOPE framework: formulation of a socio-economicframework of a community, emphasis on the need toquantify all parameters listed but no holistic assessmentdesign.
FDOT Guidelines: focus on land use impacts oftransportation projects, communities influence the use ofland and vice-versa and transportation projects influenceboth in a correlated manner.
The Australian NGO approach: emphasizes on peopleand their need and reactions, concepts like communitysensitivity indices and the vulnerable community groups.
Discussion
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
28/74
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
29/74
29
TRANSPORT AND POVERTYDefining Poverty
a multidimensional phenomenon, encompassing inability to satisfybasic needs, lack of control over resources, lack of educationand skill, poor health, malnutrition, lack of shelter, poor access towater and sanitation, vulnerability to shocks, violence and crime,lack of political freedom and voice. The World Bank (a,1999)
poverty must be seen as the deprivation of basic capabilities ratherthan merely as lowness of income (Sen, 1999).
Poverty impacts oftransport interventions
Complex because transport is an intermediate service transportimprovements reduce poverty not through increasedconsumption of transport per se but through improving the qualityand security of access to work, markets, and services, andthrough release of scarce resources for consumption andproduction
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
30/74
30
Issues Efficiency vs Equity: Good transport policy contributes to poverty
reduction by enhancing efficiency and equity (Gannon, et al, 2001).
Access and Livelihood needs ofthe urban poor: Urban transportinteracts with employment issues for the poor in two main ways:indirectly by providing access to employment opportunities anddirectly through employment of low-income people in the transport
sector
SOCIETY
( BAN
OO )
Access to livelihood(eg. bus, cycle, pedestrian)
Means of livelihood(eg. Rickshaw pullers)
acilitator of
livelihood (eg. Hawkers)
T NSPORT
SYSTE
DEPE DA CYCO STRUCT:
SOC
I TY TSPOR
TS
YS
T
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
31/74
31
Gender Bias: Women tend to have different travel needs derivingfrom the multiple tasks they must perform in their households and intheir communities (Greico et al, 1997).
Health Impacts ofTransport: Pollution (air, water, noise) effectsthe urban poor particularly severely, since they are the least able toavoid or seek protection from them (UNDP 1998). Pedestrian andcyclist are most vulnerable to road accidents.
The Shelter-transport-livelihood link:Access to affordabletransport is one of the most important factors in determininglivelihoods for the urban poor The rise of private vehicular traffic hasdecreased bus speeds and service levels drastically and made non-motorized transport dangerous and difficult. Travel for the poor hasthus become slower and more difficult even as other economic andplanning forces have caused many of them to be displaced fromcentral informal settlements to more peripheral locations (Immers etal, 1993)
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
32/74
32
Eviction and relocation
The central concern of the process of eviction and
relocation is the reduction in accessibility andmobility options of the urban poor, which directly
affects their livelihood and thus social well being.
Transportation
aspects of
eviction and
resettlement
People evicted
because of
transport projects
Transport
implications for
evicted people
(due to any
project)
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
33/74
33
ACCESSIBILITY, MOBILITY AND SOCIO-
ECONOMIC WELLBEING
Review definitions and discussions
Define Accessibility, Mobility and SEWB for
the study
Postulate indicators and indications
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
34/74
34
Author Year Definition/ Discussion
AccessibilityRoberts 1988 the number of trips made.
number of, and/or the ease of making journeys
Black 1981
1992
accessibility is a function of land-use intensity and transport supply
accessibility is a description of how conveniently land-uses are located in
relation to each other and how easy or difficult it is to reach these land useactivities via the transport network of both public and private transport
modes.
Ross 2000 Often understood as the ease of access to destinations, amongst otherparameters it (accessibility) encompasses ideas of costs in time and money;
extent, comfort and frequency of the public transport system; and the distanceto 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 apublic transport service offering all city dwellers, whatever their incomelevel, 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 of
choice and the facilitation offered by the transport systems (including
public transport and non-motorized modes) to reach them.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
35/74
35
Author Year Definition/ Discussion
MobilityEkeh 1974 mobility is closely linked with personal and individual freedom, and lack of
mobility is often associated with the repression of basic freedoms and even
human rightsRoberts 1988 the number of kilometers traveled
Ross 2000 The amount of travel people undertake measured by per capita vehicle
kilometers traveledA positive relationship exists between mobility and such indicators as
transport energy use, motor vehicle ownership and use, journey to workdistance, journey to work speed and general car speed.
Vivier 2001 motorized mobility, measured by average annual distances traveled by citydwellers in automobiles, motorized two-wheeled vehicles, taxis and public
transport
Litman 2003 the movement of people or goods
The mobility perspective defines transportation problems in terms ofconstraints 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 the
amount of movement necessary to do so.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
36/74
36
Socio-economic well-being is defined as the status of a household
where the basic social and economic needs for survival are fulfilled
and the household has the capacity to improve its quality of life.
Author Year Definition/ Discussion
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 usuallyinteract and should preferably be considered together.
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, homicide rate, fulfillment of basic needs, suicide rate, literacy rate, 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
education, labour force, income, and housing.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
37/74
37
Notes on subscripts:A = access, E = egress, MLH = main line haulNMV = non motorized modes including walking, MV = motorized modes
I ica rs f Accessi ili y
Indi Typ Indi Indi i nDt t l D i di t Lower val e gives
better accessibilit
Ttotal whereT is ti e Lower val e gives
better accessibilit
Ctotal whereC is cost Lower val e givesbetter accessibilit
NA + NE , whereN is no. oftri s
NMLH
Lower val e gives
better accessibilit
DA + DE , whereD is distanceDMLH
Lower val e givesbetter accessibilit
TA + TE , whereT is ti eTMLH
Lower val e givesbetter accessibilit
CA + CE , whereC is cost
CMLH
Lower val e gives
better accessibilit
P blic Transport
Accessibilit (APT)(unit = per user)
(DA + DE )VEH, whereD is distance(DA + DE )PED
Lower value givesbetter accessibilit
SDeducation , where SD is spatialdistance
Lower value givesbetter accessibilit
SDhealth , where SD is spatialdistance
Lower value givesbetter accessibilit
SDservices , where SD is spatial
distance
Lower value gives
better accessibilit
SDbus-stop , where SD is spatial
distance
Lower value gives
better accessibilit
Spatio-travelAccessibilit (AST)
(unit = per household)
Sbus , where Sis service ofbuses
i.e. ti e gap between two successive buses
Lower value gives
better accessibilit
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
38/74
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
39/74
39
Indica rs f W
Ind Typ Ind Ind nNGinschool, where NG is no ofgirls
NGschoolage
Higher value shows
highersocial well being
NAliterate (>5grade), where NA is no. ofadults
NAall
Higher value shows
highersocial well beingInfrastructure rankscore * (Electricity,
water, toilet)
Higher value shows
highersocial well being
Social Well-being (WBS)
(unit per household)
Ylo-income settlement, where Y is no. ofYdelhi
years
Higher value shows
highersocial well being
Nworking , where N is no. people
Nall
Higher value shows
higher economic wellbeing
Itotal , where I is incomeNall
Higher value showshigher economic wellbeing
Economic Well-being
(WBE)(unit per household)
Vehall , where Veh is no. ofNall vehicles
Higher value showshigher economic well
being
* Infrastructure rank score refers to the additive score of the types of services where the service which is formallyprovided and operational is given a value of 2, that which is self obtained has a value of 1, and that which is notavailable is given a value of 0
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
40/74
40
Impact of Transport Project (Delhi Metro
Rail)
Change in Accessibility:
Public Transport Accessibility (APT)
The differences in indicators for both sets of Bus users and Metro
Spatio-Travel Accessibility (AST)
Direct impact change in indicators of AST of households in the vicinity.
Indirect impact change in indicators of AST of households relocated.
Change in Mobility:
Direct impact change in indicators of Household Mobility (MHH) andPersonal Mobility (MP )of households.
Indirect impact change in indicators of MHH and MP of householdsrelocated.
Change in SEWB:
Direct impact change in indicators of Social Well-being and EconomicWell being of households in the vicinity.
Indirect impact change in indicators of households relocated.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
41/74
41
CASE STUDY: Delhi Metro Rail
Legend
In vicinityRelocated
Part map of Delhi showing Case Study Area of Metro Rail line
and locations of household survey
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
42/74
42
Bus users and Metro users
Indicator Comparability platform Percentage ofBus users
Percentageof metro
users
Dtotal (Km) Upto 20 Km oftotal daily travel distance 33% 19%
Ttotal (min) Upto 2 Hours oftotal daily travel time 57% 80%
Ctotal (Rs.) Upto Rs. 15 (0.38 USD) oftotal daily travel
expenditure
42% 2%
Na +Ne / Nmlh 2 access tripsfor every MLH trip 4% 48%
Da +De / Dmlh More distance ofAccess than MLH 3% 27%
Ta +Te / Tmlh More time ofAccess than MLH 16% 67%
Ca +Ce / Cmlh No cost ofAccessMore cost ofAccess 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%
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
43/74
43
Household SurveyIn vicinity ofMetro line:
No significant impact on their socio-economic and travel profile.
Decrease in the availability of buses since several bus-routes wererealigned by policy to improve metro ridership.
Considering that only 8% of their trips are on bus and 77% by walk, 4%by cycle and 6% by rickshaw, it is unlikely that these trips will bereplaced by metro trips.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
44/74
Relocated due to the metro line:
Significant change in their accessibility and travel profile andincome.
The increasing distance, time and cost of daily travel, along withreduced incomes has a negative impact on the households.
The land-use accessibility has deteriorated as distance to education,
health services and other urban services has increased for 52%,63% and 52% of the households respectively. The transportaccessibility has deteriorated even more as distance to bus stop hasincreased for 72% of the households and the bus frequency hasseen an average decrease from 5 min to 63 min (almost 13 times)
November 2007 44
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
45/74
45
Formulation of SEIA Model
The SEIA model is formulated in 3 steps
Step I: Estimating Indicators
Step II: Developing Indices
Step III: Formulating the Model
DEV
ELOPMEN
T OF IN
DICATORSIllustrated values of indicators, their change and significance of that
change due to the introduction of the metro
ACCESSIBILITY (A)
Vicinity: little change in distance to education and health services.Distance to urban services like vegetable markets, daily needsshops increased for 23.6% of the households. The bus service time-gap has decreased for 34% of households
Relocated: all the indicators have changed for the majority of thehouseholds. Values higher showing deterioration of accessibility
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
46/74
46
Change Category
Deducation(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%
Total Increase 2.0% 3.9% 23.6% 19.2% 0.5%
Households relocated due to metro line
Total Decrease 40.8% 33.8% 36.3% 13.9% 1.5%
No change 7.5% 3.5% 11.9% 14.4% 0.0%
Total Increase 51.7% 62.7% 51.7% 71.6% 98.5%
No. Indicators Significance of change for HH in metro
vicinity
Significance of change for HH
relocated
At 5% confidence
level
At 1% confidence
level
At 5%
confidence level
At 1%
confidence level1 Deducation Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
2 Dhealth Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
3 Dservices Not significant Not significant Significant Significant
4 Dbusstop Significant Significant Significant Not significant
5 Sbus Significant Significant Significant Significant
Significance ofchange
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
47/74
47
MOBILITY
Household Mobility (MHH)
Vicinity: some change in the indicators of PCTR for work and other
purposes but little change in the PCTR for education and the share ofNMVs in the modes
Relocated: all the indicators have changed for the majority of thehouseholds. For 49% households, the PCTR for work has increasedand for 30% of the households it has decreased. For 71% ofhouseholds, the PCTR for education does not change The PCTR forother purposes has increased and decreased equally. The share of
NMVs in the mode used has decreased for 59% of the households.
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%
No change 21.39% 70.65% 29.35% 21.89%
Total Increase 48.8% 18.9% 35.3% 19.4%
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
48/74
48
Personal Mobility (MP)
Vicinity: minimum change in the mobility indicators regarding travelfor education (distance, time, cost). The distance, time to and cost of
trips made for other purposes has changes a little.
Relocated: mobility indicators for travel to work distance, time andcost have increased for 83%, 82% and 61% of the householdsrespectively. The distance, time for education have but not the cost.Similarly for other purposes there is more change in distance andtime than the cost of the trip.
Change
category
Dwork
(diff)
Deduc
ation
(diff)
Dother
s (diff)
Twork
(diff)
Teduc
ation
(diff)
Tother
s (diff)
Cwork
(diff)
Ceduca
tion
(diff)
Cother
s (diff)
Households in Vicinity of metro line
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%
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%
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
49/74
49
Significance ofchange ofmobility indicators
No. Indicators Significance of change for HH in
metro vicinity
Significance of change for HH
relocated
At 5%
confidence level
At 1% confidence
level
At 5%
confidence level
At 1% confidence
level
1 PCTRwork Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
2 PCTRedu Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
3 PCTRothers Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
4 Mnmv/Mall Not significant Not significant Significant Significant
5 Dwork Not significant Not significant Significant Significant
6 Deducation Not significant Not significant Significant Not significant
7 Dothers Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
8 Twork Not significant Not significant Significant Significant
9 Teducation Not significant Not significant Significant Significant10 Tothers Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
11 Cwork Not significant Not significant Significant Significant
12 Ceducation Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
13 Cothers Not significant Not significant Significant Not significant
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
50/74
50
SOCIO-ECONOMIC WELL-BEING (SEWB)
Vicinity: only two indicators IRS and Household income showchange with the introduction of the metro.
Relocated: all the indicators have changed for the majority of thehouseholds. The indicators most affected are female literacy (21%decrease), residency (100% decrease), Household income perperson (66% decrease), Infrastructure rank score (33% decrease and61% increase), and employment (8% decrease and 14% increase).
Change
category
NGinschl/
Ngschage
(diff)
NAdults>=5/
Nadults
(diff)IRS
(diff)
Yslum/
Ydelhi
(diff) W/N (diff) I/N (diff)V/N
(diff)
Households in Vicinity of metro line
Total Decrease 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9% 0.0%
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 line
Total 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%
Total Increase 4.5% 14.4% 61.2% 0.0% 13.9% 14.9% 0.5%
NA 32.84%
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
51/74
51
Significance ofchange ofSEWB indicators
No. Indicators Significance of change for HH in metro
vicinity
Significance of change for HH
relocated
At 5% confidence
level
At 1% confidence
level
At 5%
confidence level
At 1% confidence
level
1 NGinschl/
Ngschage
Not significant Not significant Significant Significant
2 NAdults>=5/Nadults
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
6 I/N Not significant Not significant Significant Significant
7 V/N Not significant Not significant Significant Significant
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
52/74
52
DEVELOPMENT OF INDICES
Principal components are calculated using PCA
Different rotations are tried to maximize loading on the principalcomponents (PC1, PC2,PCn) so that they explain maximumpercent of the total variance. Theoretically the varimax rotationmaximizes variance explained while increasing the large loading and decreasing
the smaller loadings. The higher loadings in each PC are retainedand the smaller loadings are discarded in a manner so thateach PC clubs together similar/ correlated indicators in a
logical manner. Each PC becomes a type of factor explainingthe aggregate index and each PC is independent of the others.
The loadings of the retained variables in each PC are taken asindicative weights for the indicators and calculated as a fractionof 1.
The variance explained are taken as relative weights for eachPC to aggregate them as an index.
The value of the index is calculated for each household.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
53/74
53
Accessibility
A = E1(PC1) + E2(PC2)Where E1 and E2 are the eigenvalues
And PC1 = d(Dbusstop) + e(Sbus)PC2 = a(Ded) + b(Dhealth) + c(Dser)
Where a,b,.e are component loadings.
The PC1 explains accessibility provided by the bus system and the PC2explains the landuse accessibility. The PC1 and PC2 explainapproximately 55% of the total variance.
The aggregated index reads as follows for the 4 data sets:
In Vicinity-beforemetro
A = 0.49(Ded) + 0.57(Dhealth) + 0.62(Dser) + 0.63(Dbusstop) + 0.62(Sbus) 1-a
In Vicinity-aftermetro
A = 1.07(Ded) + 0.17(Dhealth) + 0.35(Dser) + 0.52(Dbusstop) + 0.52(Sbus) 1-bRelocated-beforemetro
A = 0.91(Ded) + 0.27(Dhealth) + 0.49(Dser) + 0.54(Dbusstop) + 0.52(Sbus) 1-c
Relocated- aftermetro
A = 0.34(Ded) + 0.39(Dhealth) + 0.53(Dser) + 0.72(Dbusstop) + 0.50(Sbus) 1-d
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
54/74
54
Mobility
M = E1 (PC1) + E2 (PC2) + E3 (PC3) + E4 (PC4)
Where E1,E2, E3 and E4 are the eigenvalues
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
Where a, b, .l are component loadings.
The PC1 explains the trip for education, PC2 explains the trip for otherpurposes like social, health, religious and PC3 explains the trip towork and PC4 explains only a single indicator of use of non-motorizedmodes. The PC1, PC2, PC3 AND PC4 explain approximately 65% ofthe total variance. The weight ages of the PCs imply that the trip for
education and other reasons like buying daily need supplies wouldhave a higher impact on the mobility index than the work trips, thoughthe difference is not significant. Since Mhh indicators are seen asdesirable mobility and Mp as undesirable mobility they are ascribedopposing signs in the index.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
55/74
55
In Vicinity-beforemetro
M = [0.53(PCTRwork) + 0.79(PCTReducation) + 0.55(PCTRothers) + 1.68(Mnmv/Mall)]
[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)] ... 2-a
In Vicinity-aftermetro
M = [0.53(PCTRwork) + 0.78(PCTReducation) + 0.63(PCTRothers) + 1.39(Mnmv/Mall)]
[0.64(Dwork) + 0.85(Deducation) + 0.65(Dothers) + 0.62(Twork) + 0.85(Teducation) +
0.69(Tothers) + 0.25(Cwork) + 0.18(Ceducation) + 0.38(Cothers)] ... 2-b
Relocated-beforemetro
M = [0.67(PCTRwork) + 0.75(PCTReducation) + 0.55(PCTRothers) + 1.58 (Mnmv/Mall)]
[0.74(Dwork) + 0.80(Deducation) + 0.61(Dothers) + 0.73(Twork) + 0.80(Teducation) +
0.70(Tothers) + 0.53(Cwork) + 0.22(Ceducation) + 0.31(Cothers)] ... 2-c
Relocated-aftermetro
M = [0.73(PCTRwork) + 0.54(PCTReducation) + 0.28(PCTRothers) + 1.23 (Mnmv/Mall)]
[0.83(Dwork) + 0.84(Deducation) + 0.89(Dothers) + 0.78(Twork) + 0.80(Teducation) +
0.86(Tothers) + 0.84(Cwork) + 0.78(Ceducation) + 0.86(Cothers)] ... 2-d
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
56/74
56
SEWB
SEWB = E1 (PC1) + E2 (PC2) + E3 (PC3)Where, E1, E2 and E3 are the eigenvalues
And PC1 = e(W/N) + f(I/N) + g(V/N)PC2 = c(IRS) + d(Yslum/Ydelhi)
PC3 = a(NGinschl/ NGschage) + b(Nadults>=5/ Nadults)
Where a, b, . g are component loadings
PC1 explains economic well-being, PC2 explains condition of physical infrastructureand PC3 explains social well-being. Together, the three PCs explain 60% of thevariance. The aggregated index reads as follows for the 4 data sets:
In Vicinity-beforemetro
SEWB = 0.61(NGinschl/ NGschage) + 0.42(Nadults>=5/ Nadults) + 0.83(IRS)
+ 0.61(Yslum/Ydelhi) + 0.66(W/N) + 0.65(I/N) + 0.14(V/N) 3-a
In Vicinity-aftermetro
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) 3-b
Relocated-beforemetroSEWB = 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) 3-c
Relocated- aftermetro
SEWB = 0.68(NGinschl/ NGschage) + 0.66(Nadults>=5/ Nadults) + 0.60(IRS)
+ 0.65(Yslum/Ydelhi) + 0.72(W/N) + 0.67(I/N) + 0.06(V/N) 3-d
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
57/74
57
Significance ofchange in the Indices
No. Indices Significance of change for HH
in metro vicinity
Significance of change for HH
relocated
At 5%
confidence
level
At 1%
confidence
level
At 5%
confidence
level
At 1%
confidence
level
1 Accessibility Significant Significant Significant Significant
2 Mobility Not significant Not significant Significant Significant
3 SEWB Not significant Not significant Significant Significant
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
58/74
58
THE SEIA MODEL
Correlation between Accessibility, Mobility and SEWB modeled in twoways
1. Correlation between the indices2. Correlation ofdependent index with independent indicators
Correlation between indicesMethods for linear correlation:
1. parametric: Pearson correlation (Continuous data)2. non-parametric: Spearman correlation (Rank order data assumed)
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
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
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
59/74
59
Linear regression ofdependent index with independent
indicators
This has been tried for the following equations (for all 4 data sets, and allrepeated for each set)
Indexofmobilityandindicators ofaccessibility
M = a + b(AIi) +c(AIj)++x(AIn) ..4
Indexof SEWB andindicators ofmobilitySEWB = a + b(MIi) +c(MIj)++x(MIn) ..5
Indexof SEWB andindicators ofaccessibility
SEWB = a + b(AIi) +c(AIj)++x(AIn) ..6
Indexof SEWB andindicators ofbothaccessibilityandmobility
SEWB = a + [b(AIi) +c(AIj)++x(AIn)] + [b(MIi) +c(MIj)++x(MIn)] ..7
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
60/74
60
Summary ofResults ofLinear regression
No. Model used Data set R2 value P value for F-test
1 Equation 4 In Vicinity- before metro 0.022 0.49
2 In Vicinity- after metro 0.020 0.553 Relocated- before metro 0.025 0.43
4 Relocated- after metro 0.051 0.07
5 TOTAL 0.103 0.00
6 Equation 5 In Vicinity- before metro 0.283 0.00
7 In Vicinity- after metro 0.257 0.00
8 Relocated- before metro 0.200 0.00
9 Relocated- after metro 0.283 0.00
10 TOTAL 0.202 0.00
11 Equation 6 In Vicinity- before metro 0.157 0.00
12 In Vicinity- after metro 0.130 0.00
13 Relocated- before metro 0.011 0.83
14 Relocated- after metro 0.012 0.81
15 TOTAL 0.037 0.00
16 Equation 7 In Vicinity- before metro 0.361 0.00
17 In Vicinity- after metro 0.331 0.00
18 Relocated- before metro 0.231 0.00
19 Relocated- after metro 0.295 0.00
20 TOTAL 0.234 0.00
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
61/74
61
Interpretation ofResultsEquation 4: no significant correlation between the index of mobility and
the indicators ofA, A does not affect M significantly.
Equation 5: there is a significant correlation between the index ofSEWBand the indicators ofM, M affects SEWB significantly.
Equation 6: there is a significant correlation between the index ofSEWBand the indicators ofA for the households residing in the vicinity butthe correlation is not significant for the households relocated
Equation 7: there is a significant correlation between the index ofSEWB
and the combined indicators ofA and M, A and M affect SEWBsignificantly.
Comparing the R2 values of all the models, the best results are given byEquation 7, implying that the SEWB is explained best when theaffects/contributions of indicators of both A and M are considered.However, it is observed that the R2 values change for the households
after the introduction of the metro. For the households located in thevicinity, the affects ifA and M on SEWB become less significant afterthe metro and for the households relocated, they become moresignificant.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
62/74
62
Significance ofCoefficients (Eqn 7)
Indicator DescriptionIn Vicinity-b4metro
In Vicinity-aftmetro
Relocated-b4metro
Relocated-aftmetro
Coeff 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 0
M5 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 Ceducation 1.1 0.9 1.5 0.861 7.7 0.631 -9.1 0.485
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.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
63/74
63
Interpretation ofResultsComparative study of the coefficients shows that:
Different coefficients contribute to the model significantly for differentdata sets.
The number of significant coefficients increases after theintroduction of the metro in the households both living in the vicinityand relocated due to the metro.
The PCTR for work is the only indicator that is significantly
consistent across the board. The cost of travel has no significance in explaining SEWB if
relocation not there but it becomes significant when they arerelocated.
A study of the coefficients of the combined dataset to get an overviewof whether the coefficients are +ve or ve shows that approximately
90% of the significant indicators and 72%of all indicators arecorrelated to the SEWB index in accordance with the empiricallyobserved behavior (expected indications)
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
64/74
64
Final Equations
The final equations derived from the application of Equation 7 using
significant indicators are illustrated below:
SEWBVb4 = 435.2 - 81.3(SDeducation) - 69.9(SDservices) + 102.5(PCTRwork)
- 4.7(Dwork) 8-a
SEWBVaft = 308.1 + 30.9 SDbus-stop) + 1.0(Sbus) + 89.7(PCTRwork)
+ 54.0(PCTReducation) + 45.8(PCTRothers) - 2.7(Dwork) 8-b
SEWBRb4 = 318.2 - 27.3(SDhealth) - 295.9(SDbus-stop) + 126.4(PCTRwork)
+ 56.2(PCTRothers) - 0.8(Twork) 8-c
SEWBRaft = 515.5 + 105.6(PCTRwork) + 31.0(PCTRothers) -280.3(MNMV/Mall)+ 6.4 (Dothers) - 0.9(Tothers) - 3.0(Cwork) - 6.0 (Cothers) 8-d
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
65/74
65
Interpretation ofresults- The PCTR for work most important positive determinant of SEWB.
This implies the trips to work made by a household ensure the
SEWB, The distance to work is consistently a negative indicator for
households implying that increase in distance to work willnegatively affect SEWB.
The introduction of the metro changes the indicators which affectSEWB. Also, more numbers of indicators have a significant impacton SEWB after the introduction of the metro. This implies that theintroduction of a new transport system restructures thedeterminants of SEWB, making the households more vulnerableby increasing the number of significant indicators.
HH in Vicinity:
Since bus routes and services have been affected by theintroduction of the metro, they become significant indicatorsaffecting SEWB. This implies that the introduction of a newtransport system makes the existing transport system important indetermining SEWB.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
66/74
66
HH Relocated:
Travel for purposes other than work and education is affectedby the relocation. While the distance for these trips contributes
positively to SEWB, the time and cost of these trips contributesnegatively to it.
The commuting cost had no significant correlation with SEWBbefore relocation, after relocation it has a significant negativeimpact on SEWB of the households.
Ratio of NMV to all modes used has become a significantindicator after relocation. The high negative value of thisindicator implies that the reduction in this ratio (implyingreduction in use of NMV in the household) has a severenegative impact on the SEWB of the households. Since theprocess of relocation has increased distances to destinations of
choice for the household, beyond comfortable NMVdistances, this indicator implies that the modal shift from NMVto motorized modes has had a negative impact on the SEWBof the relocated households.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
67/74
67
8. Conclusions
Impact ofMetro on the poor household in its vicinity
No significant impact on the SEWB and Mobility
While the landuse accessibility remains unchanged too, the
transport accessibility has changed as distance to the bus stops has
increased for 19% of the households and bus services have become
non-existent for 33% of the households.
Impact ofMetro on the poor households relocated
There is significant impact on Accessibility, Mobility and SEWB
The land-use accessibility has deteriorated as distance to education,
health services and other urban services has increased for 52%,
63% and 52% of the households respectively. The transport
accessibility has deteriorated even more as distance to bus stop has
increased for 72% of the households and the bus frequency has
seen an average decrease from 5 min to 63 min (almost 13 times)
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
68/74
68
The mobility of the households have increased significantly. The PCTR
for work has increased for 49% of the households and decreased for
30%, implying change in number of trips made for work in the
households. The share of NMVs amongst the mode used has decreased
for 59% of the households. The mobility indicators for travel to work
distance, time and cost have increased for 83%, 82% and 61% of the
households respectively
The SEWB indicators most affected are female literacy (21% decrease),residency (100% decrease), Household income per person (66%
decrease), Infrastructure rank score (33% decrease and 61% increase),
and employment (8% decrease and 14% increase). The indicators of
adult literacy and vehicle ownership show least change with 82% and
94% respectively in the no change category.
The results imply that relocation due the metro has had a significant
negative impact on the SEWB ofthe poor households.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
69/74
69
Correlation ofSEWB to Accessibility and Mobility
SEWB is affected by indicators of both accessibility and mobility SEWB is negatively correlated to spatial distance to education, health
and other urban services
It is positively correlated to PCTR for work, education and other
purposes
It is negatively correlated to travel distance, time and cost The significance of indicators changes with change in situation like the
new metro line or relocation due to it
PCTR for work is positively correlated with SEWB and has the
highest coefficient in all datasets, indicating the mobility for work is
important in ensuring their SEWB, whatever be their situation Cost of travel has no significance in explaining SEWB of the urban
poor but it becomes significant when they are relocated and now
have to pay heavily for the travel
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
70/74
70
In conclusion
This study illustrates that the accessibility and mobility and hence the
socio-economic well-being of the urban poor is affected by itsintroduction in the urban transport system.
While they may not be expected beneficiaries of the project, the dis-
benefits accrued to them due to the project need to be assessed,
and hence mitigation measures planned when proposing the project.
Hence, it is important to conduct Socio Economic Impact Assessment(SEIA) studies for a new project over disaggregated groups,
specifically including impacts on the most vulnerable group the
urban poor.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
71/74
71
Policy recommendations The definition of the impacted population for a transport project
should include not only the expected users but the non-usersaffected by it too.
The accessibility and mobility needs of the urban poor need to bestudied and the urban poor should be seen as captives of thesystems they are using. Introduction of any policy or project thatchanges their status has to be carefully monitored for impacts.
The cost-benefit analysis of a transport project should include thedis-benefits to non-user groups and the costs ofcompensation/mitigation measures inbuilt as part of project cost.Only then should a project be declared feasible.
The Government should constitute a statutory body responsiblefor the SEIA of all infrastructure projects before they are givenapproval for implementation. This is in keeping with the social
welfare function of the Government. All funding mechanisms for transport projects should have inbuilt
monitoring and evaluation protocols with stringent SEIAguidelines.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
72/74
72
Contribution of research
This dissertation tries to understand how the SEWB of the urban poor is
impacted by large transport projects. The impact on the accessibility andmobility of the non-users of the new system is as important as the impact on
the expected users and needs to be internalized by transport projects.
The dissertation proves that the relocation of the poor is one of the most
severe negative impacts of a transport projects and needs to be taken in
account in impact assessment studies.
The dissertation has redefined the concept of mobility into its positive andnegative aspects. It has formulated indicators of accessibility, mobility and
SEWB and aggregated them into indices.
It has modeled how SEWB is affected by accessibility and mobility and, in
doing so, has formulated a generic methodology of SEIA which is applicable
in understanding the impact of large urban transport projects like
expressways, flyovers etc on the urban poor.. Different interventionscenarios can be compared for their impacts and mitigation measures
planned accordingly. This would lead to internalizing the external cost of the
impact of transport projects on the urban poor.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
73/74
73
Scope for future work
Literature review has shown that even amongst the urban poor, the
women are poorer that the men, suffering from poverty of money, timeand resources. Assessing the gendered impacts of transport projectswould give additional depth to the process of SEIA.
The WHO has declared road accidents as the number one disease inthe world. The health impacts of transport need to be included morecomprehensively in the SEIA method after a necessary review of theliterature on the same.
The qualitative data about socio-economic conditions and the opinionsand choices of people are another aspect of SEIA which requiresfurther research. Different techniques like stated preference models canbe used to include qualitative data.
The benchmarking of the various parameters/indicators needs to becarried out to identify acceptable level of adverse impacts of transportprojects.
The impacts on accessibility, mobility and SEWB need to ascribedvalue in terms of money and resources to formulate compensationpackages where necessary. This study should further lead to mitigationmeasures and alternative recommendations to minimize adverseimpacts of transport projects on the urban poor.
-
8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En
74/74
THANK YOU