SocioEconomic Impact Assessment SEIA Methodology for Urban Transport Projects

1
Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA)
Methodology for Urban Transport Projects

• Presentation at Hasselt University, Belgium
• 13th May 2009
• By
• Anvita Arora, PhD
• CEO,
• Innovative Transport Solutions, Technology and
  Business Incubation Unit, Indian Institute of
  Technology, New Delhi, India
• Resident Representative,
• Interface for Cycling Expertise, The Netherlands

2
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
3
(No Transcript)
4
Threat to sustainable scenario Increasing car
and MTW trips
5
Transport Modes of the Urban Poor
6
Patna
Jaipur
Three wheelers paratransit?
Rickshaw policies?
Lucknow
Two wheelers/three wheelers?
Hyderabad
Rickshaws,cycles peds?
7
Urban transport problems

• Poor rely on non-motorized transport but their
  facilitation is often ignored
• Small changes in public transport fare/service
  can significantly affect their mobility
• Restraints on informal transport sector limits
  affordable services 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

8
National Urban Transport Policy ( NUTP )

• As per the directives of the GOI- MOUD- UT the
  various proposals for urban transport being
  prepared under JNNURM should comply 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 above guidelines of NUTP.

9
Delhi City Development PlanVision and Investment

• Equitable allocation of road space with people
  as focus
• 33 modal share of pedestrians investment on
  pedestrian infrastructure 0.5 of total
  investment
• 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
  total investment
• 3. Integrated public transport systems
• No investment
• 4. Priority to non motorised transport
• 0.8 of total investment
• 5. Promote multilevel parking complexes
• 2 of total investment
• 6. Create public awareness
• 0.2 of total investment

10
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

11
Investments in flyovers,road expansion and FOBs
12
Delhi Metro Rail System 256 km by 2021, estimated
cost USD3500 million
460 km of arterial roads,10000 buses carrying 6
m trips
13
World class metro

• Over crowded buses

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, speeds and fuel
  savings for the user.

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 an
  externality (ve or ve)
• Benefits and dis-benefits to users and non-users
  need to be understood and internalized by
  transport projects.

16
Need of Study

• Transport investments advocate inclusion of
  social assessment 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.

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.

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
  on mobility 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 the socio-economic well-being (SEWB) of
  the urban poor and how indices of accessibility
  and mobility can be integrated in SEIA methods.

19
Hypothesis

• Introduction of the Metro rail system in Delhi
  has changed the accessibility for the urban poor.
• This change in accessibility has changed the
  mobility profile and the socio-economic
  well-being of the urban poor.

20
Case Study Target Group

• Urban poor affected by the Delhi Metro Rail
  Project
• 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 households selected
  
• those living in the vicinity (within 1 km) of the
  metro stations, and
• those relocated due to the construction of the
  metro.

21
(No Transcript)
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 of the impact of the metro
  project on the urban poor.
• The correlation between accessibility, mobility
  and SEWB is modeled using linear regression to
  illustrate that the change in accessibility and
  mobility due to a transport project changes the
  SEWB of the community.

23
Structure

• Introduction
• Socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA) current
  practices
• Transport and poverty
• SEIA methodology for urban transport projects
• Accessibility, mobility and socio-economic
  wellbeing
• Case study Delhi metro rail
• Formulation of the socio-economic impact
  assessment (SEIA) model
• Conclusions, contribution and scope for future
  work

24
SEIA CURRENT PRACTICES

• Social impacts the consequences to human
  populations of any public or private actions that
  alter the ways in which people live, work, play,
  relate to one another, organize to meet their
  needs and generally cope as members of society.
• History
• SIA realized as important part of EIA since 1969
  to 1980s. Partially forced by project failures
  resulting from inadequate appraisal of projects
  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 of correcting unforeseen
  negative impacts that occurred after
  implementation (Giroult, 1983, cited in Burdge
  1990).

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 merit only a 3 point
  write-up in Annexure II. Questions to be
  answered
• 7. Socio-Economic Aspects
• 7.1. Will the proposal result in any changes to
  the demographic structure of local population?
  Provide the details.
• 7.2. Give details of the existing social
  infrastructure around the proposed project.
• 7.3. Will the project cause adverse effects on
  local communities, disturbance to sacred sites or
  other cultural values? What are the safeguards
  proposed?
• These points highlight the inadequacy of
  inclusion of SIA in large infrastructure projects
  in India and re-iterate the need for
  comprehensive work on it.

26
Impact Assessment Methodologies

• 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

27
Discussion

• The World Bank approach larger policy framework,
  generic applicability, focus on institutional
  mechanisms . The ADB document comprehensive but
  generic not include the special problems of
  transportation projects.
• The SCOPE framework formulation of a
  socio-economic framework of a community, emphasis
  on the need to quantify all parameters listed but
  no holistic assessment design.
• FDOT Guidelines focus on land use impacts of
  transportation projects, communities influence
  the use of land and vice-versa and transportation
  projects influence both in a correlated manner.
• The Australian NGO approach emphasizes on people
  and their need and reactions, concepts like
  community sensitivity indices and the vulnerable
  community groups.

28
Conclusion

• The SEIA of a transportation project must answer
  the following
• What is the impact area of the transport project
  (spatial and temporal)?
• Who is affected by the project?
• What is their socio-economic structure?
• What are their needs?
• What are their demands?
• What is their absorptive capacity?
• Which are the vulnerable groups?
• What is the income differential in mobility and
  accessibility?
• What is the gender differential in mobility and
  accessibility?
• What is the socio-cultural differential in
  mobility and accessibility?
• What is the existing transport system used
  (formal/informal)?
• What are the potential adverse impacts?

29
TRANSPORT AND POVERTY

• Defining Poverty
• a multidimensional phenomenon, encompassing
  inability to satisfy basic needs, lack of control
  over resources, lack of education and skill, poor
  health, malnutrition, lack of shelter, poor
  access to water 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 rather than merely as lowness
  of income (Sen, 1999).
• Poverty impacts of transport interventions
• Complex because transport is an intermediate
  service transport improvements reduce poverty
  not through increased consumption of transport
  per se but through improving the quality and
  security of access to work, markets, and
  services, and through release of scarce resources
  for consumption and production

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 of the urban poor
  Urban transport interacts with employment issues
  for the poor in two main ways indirectly by
  providing access to employment opportunities and
  directly through employment of low-income people
  in the transport sector

31

• Gender Bias Women tend to have different travel
  needs deriving from the multiple tasks they must
  perform in their households and in their
  communities (Greico et al, 1997).
• Health Impacts of Transport Pollution (air,
  water, noise) effects the urban poor particularly
  severely, since they are the least able to avoid
  or seek protection from them (UNDP 1998).
  Pedestrian and cyclist are most vulnerable to
  road accidents.
• The Shelter-transport-livelihood link Access to
  affordable transport is one of the most important
  factors in determining livelihoods for the urban
  poor The rise of private vehicular traffic has
  decreased bus speeds and service levels
  drastically and made non-motorized transport
  dangerous and difficult. Travel for the poor has
  thus become slower and more difficult even as
  other economic and planning forces have caused
  many of them to be displaced from central
  informal settlements to more peripheral locations
  (Immers et al, 1993)

32
Eviction and relocation
People evicted because of transport projects
Transportation aspects of eviction and
resettlement
Transport implications for evicted people (due to
any project)

• The central concern of the process of eviction
  and relocation is the reduction in accessibility
  and mobility options of the urban poor, which
  directly affects their livelihood and thus social
  well being.

33
ACCESSIBILITY, MOBILITY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC
WELLBEING

• Review definitions and discussions
• Define Accessibility, Mobility and SEWB for the
  study
• Postulate indicators and indications

34
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.
35
Mobility is both the ability to travel to
destinations of choice and the amount of movement
necessary to do so.
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.
37
Notes on subscripts A access, E egress, MLH
main line haul NMV non motorized modes
including walking, MV motorized modes
38
Notes on subscripts TR travel, HH
household NMV non-motorized vehicle
39
Infrastructure rank score refers to the
additive score of the types of services where the
service which is formally provided and
operational is given a value of 2, that which is
self obtained has a value of 1, and that which is
not available is given a value of 0
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) and Personal Mobility (MP )of
  households.
• Indirect impact change in indicators of MHH and
  MP of households relocated.
• Change in SEWB
• Direct impact change in indicators of Social
  Well-being and Economic Well being of households
  in the vicinity.
• Indirect impact change in indicators of
  households relocated.

41
CASE STUDY Delhi Metro Rail
Legend In vicinity Relocated
Part map of Delhi showing Case Study Area of
Metro Rail line and locations of household survey
42
Bus users and Metro users
43
Household Survey

• In vicinity of Metro line
• No significant impact on their socio-economic and
  travel profile.
• Decrease in the availability of buses since
  several bus-routes were realigned 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 be
  replaced by metro trips.

44

• Relocated due to the metro line
• Significant change in their accessibility and
  travel profile and income.
• The increasing distance, time and cost of daily
  travel, along with reduced 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 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)

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
• DEVELOPMENT OF INDICATORS
• Illustrated 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 needs shops
  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 the households. Values higher
  showing deterioration of accessibility

46
Significance of change
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 of NMVs in
  the modes
• Relocated all the indicators have changed for
  the majority of the households. For 49
  households, the PCTR for work has increased and
  for 30 of the households it has decreased. For
  71 of households, the PCTR for education does
  not change The PCTR for other purposes has
  increased and decreased equally. The share of
  NMVs in the mode used has decreased for 59 of
  the households.

48

• Personal Mobility (MP)
• Vicinity minimum change in the mobility
  indicators regarding travel for 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 and cost have increased for
  83, 82 and 61 of the households respectively.
  The distance, time for education have but not the
  cost. Similarly for other purposes there is more
  change in distance and time than the cost of the
  trip.

49

• Significance of change of mobility indicators

50

• SOCIO-ECONOMIC WELL-BEING (SEWB)
• Vicinity only two indicators IRS and Household
  income show change with the introduction of the
  metro.
• Relocated all the indicators have changed for
  the majority of the households. The 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).

51

• Significance of change of SEWB indicators

52

• DEVELOPMENT OF INDICES
• Principal components are calculated using PCA
• Different rotations are tried to maximize loading
  on the principal components (PC1, PC2,PCn) so
  that they explain maximum percent of the total
  variance. Theoretically the varimax rotation
  maximizes variance explained while increasing the
  large loading and decreasing the smaller
  loadings. The higher loadings in each PC are
  retained and the smaller loadings are discarded
  in a manner so that each PC clubs together
  similar/ correlated indicators in a logical
  manner. Each PC becomes a type of factor
  explaining the aggregate index and each PC is
  independent of the others.
• The loadings of the retained variables in each PC
  are taken as indicative weights for the
  indicators and calculated as a fraction of 1.
• The variance explained are taken as relative
  weights for each PC to aggregate them as an
  index.
• The value of the index is calculated for each
  household.

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 PC2 explains the landuse
  accessibility. The PC1 and PC2 explain
  approximately 55 of the total variance.
• The aggregated index reads as follows for the 4
  data sets
• In Vicinity-before metro
• A 0.49(Ded) 0.57(Dhealth) 0.62(Dser)
  0.63(Dbusstop) 0.62(Sbus) 1-a
• In Vicinity-after metro
• A 1.07(Ded) 0.17(Dhealth) 0.35(Dser)
  0.52(Dbusstop) 0.52(Sbus) 1-b
• Relocated-before metro
• A 0.91(Ded) 0.27(Dhealth) 0.49(Dser)
  0.54(Dbusstop) 0.52(Sbus) 1-c
• Relocated - after metro
• A 0.34(Ded) 0.39(Dhealth) 0.53(Dser)
  0.72(Dbusstop) 0.50(Sbus) 1-d

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 other purposes like social,
  health, religious and PC3 explains the trip to
  work and PC4 explains only a single indicator of
  use of non-motorized modes. The PC1, PC2, PC3 AND
  PC4 explain approximately 65 of the total
  variance. The weight ages of the PCs imply that
  the trip for education and other reasons like
  buying daily need supplies would have a higher
  impact on the mobility index than the work trips,
  though the difference is not significant. Since
  Mhh indicators are seen as desirable mobility and
  Mp as undesirable mobility they are ascribed
  opposing signs in the index.

55

• In Vicinity-before metro
• 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-after metro
• 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-before metro
• 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-after metro
• 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

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(Nadultsgt5/
  Nadults)
• Where a, b, . g are component loadings
• PC1 explains economic well-being, PC2 explains
  condition of physical infrastructure and PC3
  explains social well-being. Together, the three
  PCs explain 60 of the variance. The aggregated
  index reads as follows for the 4 data sets
• In Vicinity-before metro
• SEWB 0.61(NGinschl/ NGschage)
  0.42(Nadultsgt5/ Nadults) 0.83(IRS)
• 0.61(Yslum/Ydelhi) 0.66(W/N) 0.65(I/N)
  0.14(V/N) 3-a
• In Vicinity-after metro
• SEWB 0.57(NGinschl/ NGschage)
  0.46(Nadultsgt5/ Nadults) 0.71(IRS)
• 0.62(Yslum/Ydelhi) 0.63(W/N) 0.63(I/N)
  0.19(V/N) 3-b
• Relocated-before metro
• SEWB 0.68(NGinschl/ NGschage)
  0.68(Nadultsgt5/ Nadults) 0.93(IRS)
• 0.14(Yslum/Ydelhi) 0.62(W/N) 0.62(I/N)
  0.22(V/N) 3-c

57

• Significance of change in the Indices

58

• THE SEIA MODEL
• Correlation between Accessibility, Mobility and
  SEWB modeled in two ways
• Correlation between the indices
• Correlation of dependent index with independent
  indicators
• Correlation between indices
• Methods for linear correlation
• parametric Pearson correlation (Continuous data)
  
• non-parametric Spearman correlation (Rank order
  data assumed)

59

• Linear regression of dependent index with
  independent indicators
• This has been tried for the following equations
  (for all 4 data sets, and all repeated for each
  set)
• Index of mobility and indicators of accessibility
  
• M a b(AIi) c(AIj)x(AIn)
  ..4
• Index of SEWB and indicators of mobility
• SEWB a b(MIi) c(MIj)x(MIn) ..5
  
• Index of SEWB and indicators of accessibility
• SEWB a b(AIi) c(AIj)x(AIn)
  ..6
• Index of SEWB and indicators of both
  accessibility and mobility
• SEWB a b(AIi) c(AIj)x(AIn) b(MIi)
  c(MIj)x(MIn) ..7

60

• Summary of Results of Linear regression

61

• Interpretation of Results
• Equation 4 no significant correlation between
  the index of mobility and the indicators of A, ?
  A does not affect M significantly.
• Equation 5 there is a significant correlation
  between the index of SEWB and the indicators of
  M, ? M affects SEWB significantly.
• Equation 6 there is a significant correlation
  between the index of SEWB and the indicators of A
  for the households residing in the vicinity but
  the correlation is not significant for the
  households relocated
• Equation 7 there is a significant correlation
  between the index of SEWB and the combined
  indicators of A and M, ? A and M affect SEWB
  significantly.
• Comparing the R2 values of all the models, the
  best results are given by Equation 7, implying
  that the SEWB is explained best when the
  affects/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 the vicinity, the affects if A and M
  on SEWB become less significant after the metro
  and for the households relocated, they become
  more significant.

62

• Significance of Coefficients (Eqn 7)

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.
63

• Interpretation of Results
• Comparative study of the coefficients shows that
• Different coefficients contribute to the model
  significantly for different data sets.
• The number of significant coefficients increases
  after the introduction of the metro in the
  households both living in the vicinity and
  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 are relocated.
• A study of the coefficients of the combined
  dataset to get an overview of whether the
  coefficients are ve or ve shows that
  approximately 90 of the significant indicators
  and 72of all indicators are correlated to the
  SEWB index in accordance with the empirically
  observed behavior (expected indications)

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

65

• Interpretation of results-
• 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 will negatively affect SEWB.
• The introduction of the metro changes the
  indicators which affect SEWB. Also, more numbers
  of indicators have a significant impact on SEWB
  after the introduction of the metro. This implies
  that the introduction of a new transport system
  restructures the determinants of SEWB, making the
  households more vulnerable by increasing the
  number of significant indicators.
• HH in Vicinity
• Since bus routes and services have been affected
  by the introduction of the metro, they become
  significant indicators affecting SEWB. This
  implies that the introduction of a new transport
  system makes the existing transport system
  important in determining SEWB.

66

• HH Relocated
• Travel for purposes other than work and education
  is affected by the relocation. While the distance
  for these trips contributes positively to SEWB,
  the time and cost of these trips contributes
  negatively to it.
• The commuting cost had no significant correlation
  with SEWB before relocation, after relocation it
  has a significant negative impact on SEWB of the
  households.
• Ratio of NMV to all modes used has become a
  significant indicator after relocation. The high
  negative value of this indicator implies that the
  reduction in this ratio (implying reduction in
  use of NMV in the household) has a severe
  negative impact on the SEWB of the households.
  Since the process of relocation has increased
  distances to destinations of choice for the
  household, beyond comfortable NMV distances, this
  indicator implies that the modal shift from NMV
  to motorized modes has had a negative impact on
  the SEWB of the relocated households.

67
8. Conclusions

• Impact of Metro 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 of Metro 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)

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
  of the poor households.

69

• Correlation of SEWB 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

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 its introduction
  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.

71
Policy recommendations

• The definition of the impacted population for a
  transport project should include not only the
  expected users but the non-users affected by it
  too.
• The accessibility and mobility needs of the urban
  poor need to be studied and the urban poor should
  be seen as captives of the systems they are
  using. Introduction of any policy or project that
  changes their status has to be carefully
  monitored for impacts.
• The cost-benefit analysis of a transport project
  should include the dis-benefits to non-user
  groups and the costs of compensation/mitigation
  measures inbuilt as part of project cost. Only
  then should a project be declared feasible.
• The Government should constitute a statutory body
  responsible for the SEIA of all infrastructure
  projects before they are given approval 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 SEIA guidelines.

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 and mobility 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 and negative 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
  intervention scenarios 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.

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, time and
  resources. Assessing the gendered impacts of
  transport projects would give additional depth to
  the process of SEIA.
• The WHO has declared road accidents as the number
  one disease in the world. The health impacts of
  transport need to be included more
  comprehensively in the SEIA method after a
  necessary review of the literature on the same.
• The qualitative data about socio-economic
  conditions and the opinions and choices of people
  are another aspect of SEIA which requires further
  research. Different techniques like stated
  preference models can be used to include
  qualitative data.
• The benchmarking of the various
  parameters/indicators needs to be carried out to
  identify acceptable level of adverse impacts of
  transport projects.
• The impacts on accessibility, mobility and SEWB
  need to ascribed value in terms of money and
  resources to formulate compensation packages
  where necessary. This study should further lead
  to mitigation measures and alternative
  recommendations to minimize adverse impacts of
  transport projects on the urban poor.

74

• THANK YOU