Social Screening & Me Framework
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Himachal Pradesh State Road Project Feasibility Report Social Screening & ME Framework CHAPTER 11 – SOCIAL SCREENING & ME FRAMEWORK 11.1 NEED FOR SOCIAL SCREENING The Himachal Pradesh State Road Project primarily envisages improvement and rehabilitation of State Highway, Major District Roads of the state. The improvement works will consist mainly in raising the formation level, upgrading/improvement of road geometrics, widening, road stretches crossing urban areas may also require upgrading to a two-lane cross section, and/or provision for drains, sidewalks and parking where required. In some cases, new alignments (by- passes) and/or re-alignments may also be required. Improvement and rehabilitation work would entail land acquisition, adverse impact on structures, other assets and sources of earning, religious properties, impact on common properties such as bus stops, hand pumps, etc. The Government of India, the World Bank and the Government of Himachal Pradesh recognizes the need for addressing social issues at very beginning stage of any development project for minimizing adverse impacts and maximizing the benefits through equitable distribution. 11.2 CRITERIA FOR SOCIAL SCREENING Social screening of roads has been undertaken keeping in view the following parameters: (a) presence of number of residential, commercial and residential cum commercial properties within the direct impact zone (b) Existence of religious properties in project impact zone (c) likely Impact on public services (d) likely impact on public utilities (e) average land holding size (f) percentage of SC population (g) percentage of ST population. Under each parameter, relevant indicators have been identified for the screening purpose to arrive at a more meaningful screening result that would help in rational planning and selection of road. The relevant indicators for each parameter are given below in table 11.1. Table 11.1: List of Parameters and Indicators for Screening Parameters Indicators Number of structures and Loss of residential structure families affected Loss of commercial structure Loss of residential cum commercial structure Existence of sensitive Impact on temple/ mosque/ Shrine/ Dargha/ gurudwara/ church structures within ROW Impact on grave yard, cemetery No. of public facilities along Impact on health facility road Impact on educational facility Impact on other buildings Impact on common property Hand pump/water tap resources Rain shelter Operational land holding Average land holding size in the district % of ST population % of ST population in the district to total population % of SC population % of SC population in the district to total population 11.2.1. PRIORITISATION MATRIX AND MODEL The parameters were assigned weight on a 100 point scale, depending on the relative importance of each parameter. Further under each parameter, indicators have been identified on the basis of field screening process and assigned points depending on the relative importance of each indicator within the parameter. The weightage factors for indicators were calculated with respect to total point of 100 and the total weightage factor for all indicators is equal to 1. PW – Parameter weightage IW – Indicator Weightage WF – Weightage Factor The Louis Berger Group Inc 11-1 Himachal Pradesh State Road Project Feasibility Report Social Screening & ME Framework Table 11.2: Parameters and their respective weightages Sl. Parameters PW Indicators IW WF No. 1. Number of structures 40 Loss of residential structure 15 0.1 and families affected Loss of commercial structure 10 0.1 Loss of residential cum commercial structure 15 0.2 2. Existence of sensitive 20 Impact on temple/ mosque/ shrine/Dargha/ 15 0.15 structures within ROW gurudwara/ church Impact on grave yard, cemetery 5 0.05 3. No. of public facilities 10 Impact on health facility 4 0.04 along road Impact on educational facility 4 0.04 Impact on other buildings 2 0.02 4. Impact on common 5 Hand pump/water tap 4 0.04 property resources Rain shelter 1 0.01 5. Operational land 15 Average land holding size in the district 15 0.15 holding 6. % of ST population 5 % of ST population in the district to total 5 0.05 population 7. % of SC population 5 % of SC population in the district to total 5 0.05 population 100 1.0 11.2.2. SCORING METHOD ADOPTED For all the indicators, a uniform scoring method has been adopted for screening purpose. A scaling method in the range of 1 to 5 has been developed for the indicators. The score of these scales has been linked to the existence of number of units under each indicators and magnitude of impact. The lowest magnitude impact is with 1 point to very high with 5 points. The point scored for each indicator will be multiplied with the weighted factor and the sum of indicators will give the score for each parameters. The sum of each parameter will give the score for the each corridor, which will vary from 1.0 to 5.0. Table 11.3: Scaling criteria for the indicators Indicators Indicator Score (IS) 1 2 3 4 5 Loss of residential structure in number <50 51-100 101-250 251- 500 >501 Loss of commercial structure in number <100 100-200 201-500 501-1000 >1001 Loss of residential cum commercial structure <50 51-100 101-250 251- 500 >501 in number Impact on temple/ mosque/ shrine/ Dargha/ <5 5-10 11-25 26-50 >51 gurudwara/ church in number Impact on grave yard, cemetery in number 0 1 2 3 4&+ Impact on health facility in number 0 1 2 3 4&+ Impact on educational facility in number 0 1 2 3 4&+ Impact on other buildings in number <5 5-10 11-15 16-20 >20 Hand pump in number <5 5-10 11-20 21-30 >31 Rain shelter in number <5 5-10 11-20 21-30 >31 Average land holding size in hectare >2.5 2-2.5 1.5-2.0 1-1.5 <1 SC population in % in district <5 5-15 16-25 26-35 >35 ST population in % in district <1 1-2 2-3 3-4 <4 The Louis Berger Group Inc 11-2 Himachal Pradesh State Road Project Feasibility Report Social Screening & ME Framework The final score for the corridors will be categorised from very low to very high impact corridor as per the scaling pattern mentioned in table 11.4. The higher the score for a particular road is greater the social impact. Thus project roads were ranked universally to the scores obtained. The road at rank 1 has the least social impact and as the rank increase, the likelihood of social impact too increases. By this method, the priority of roads for implementation is clear from social considerations. Table 11.4: Corridor impact categorisation Impact categorisation Points scored Very Low < 1 Low 1-2 Medium 2-3 High 3-4 Very High >4 11.3 CORRIDOR PROFILE 11.3.1. MEHTAPUR – UNA - AMB The road length is about 45 kilometres long. The road starts at Mehatapur at chainage 5.000 and ends at Amb at chainage 50.000. This is an important road connecting Punjab with at Mehatpur. The road is traversing through two important townships viz. Mehatpur and Una. The other prominent settlements along the corridor are Lalsinghi, Jhelra, Basal, Turi, Randawal, Dhussara, Behra, Baruhi, Chulru, Nandpur and Undiyari. The land use along this corridor is of mixed nature including agriculture, commercial, residential and commercial cum residential. The land use at Una, Mehtapur and Jhalera is mostly commercial cum residential. The initial 15 kilometre of road is witnessing ribbon development. The number of properties within the corridor of study i.e. 15mt. on either side from the existing centreline is presented in table: 11.5. Table 11.5: Number of properties in project impact zone Type LHS RHS Total Residential 228 214 442 Commercial 1758 1459 3217 Residential Cum Commercial 354 517 871 Public utilities 45 64 109 Public facilities 12 22 34 Religious 8 8 16 Total 2405 2284 4689 Source: Primary Survey 11.3.2. UNA –AGHAR- BARSAR- JAHU-BHAMBLA -NER CHOWK Una – Ner Chowk is the nearest link to Mandi district from Hoshiarpur district (Punjab). The road starts from Una Town with a chainage of 0.000 Km and ends at Ner chowk at 109.270 Km. The road traverses through Una, Hamirpur and Mandi districts. First Thirteen (13) Kms of the road is predominantly in plain terrain, which slowly changes into hilly terrain there after. After the first Km a link road also diverts towards Una Railway Station from the project road. This road passes through one (1) railway crossing. The road is passing through two important townships viz. Una and Bhota. The Louis Berger Group Inc 11-3 Himachal Pradesh State Road Project Feasibility Report Social Screening & ME Framework There are thirty (30) settlements along the corridor viz. Anjoli and Manglau, Khuryi, Thana Kala, Dumkhar, Bangana, Dhundla, Taniha, Lathani, Barsar, Makredi, Banni, Tikkar Brahammna, Salouni, Jhiralari, Dhudan, Latesar, Kothi, Bharadi, Patta, Ladlraur, Kahorata, Manoh, Sulgwan, Jahu, Kenchimode, Upper Bhambla, Dhalwan, Kalhar Chowk and Kotlu. The RoW available on this corridor varies between 11 mt. to 12 mt. The land use along this corridor is of mixed nature including agriculture, commercial and commercial cum residential. The number of properties within the corridor of study i.e. 15mt. on either side from the existing centreline is presented in table: 11.6. Table 11.6: Number of properties in project impact zone Type LHS RHS Total Residential 919 860 1779 Commercial 2180 2146 4326 Residential Cum Commercial 890 962 1852 Public utilities 170 182 352 Public facilities 55 59 114 Religious 58 53 111 Total 4272 4262 8534 Source: Primary Survey 11.3.3 THEOG –KOTHKHAI- HATKHOI -ROHROO Total length of the road is 80.730 Kms.