Accessibility Index to public facilities for prioritisation of community access road development Fhatuwani Lesley Nemvumoni Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering (Research) in the Faculty of Engineering at Stellenbosch University Supervisor: Prof K. Jenkins Co-supervisor: Mrs C. Rudman Department of Civil Engineering March 2017 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. March 2017 Copyright © 2017 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved i Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstract A number of studies have acknowledged the positive impacts that rural roads have on the social and economic development of a region. This impact is due to the increased accessibility offered by road development. The effect of the social impact, however, has proven to be difficult to quantify, with many studies opting to use ratings to define this impact. The need to quantify the social impact arises from the need to aid decision-making processes, which seek to identify or prioritise the most cost effective projects. This is more often the case in rural communities where a typical economic prioritisation method, such as a cost-benefit analysis, will likely yield unfavourable results because of the low traffic volumes present on these roads. The method proposed for prioritisation in this research introduces an accessibility index that takes into account the accessibility provided by the road infrastructure, and by transportation modes, and by public facilities such as public schools and clinics. The data required to formulate and validate the model was collected in three villages located in the Limpopo Province of South Africa. The accessibility provided by the road infrastructure is quantified as the percentage of the length of the road link that conforms to road classification standards. The standards relate to travel speed for motorised transport and cross sectional dimensions for non-motorised transport. The probabilities of a preference to use a facility or transport mode are used as accessibility indices for the facilities and the transport modes. The probabilities are a result of stated preference experiments, which take into account the different quality attributes of public facilities, and characteristics of the transport mode. The final weighted accessibility index is obtained by considering the number of users in each observed facility in South Africa and the budget allocated to it. This enables the accessibility index to be converted further into a monetary value that is compared with the cost of successfully completing the project and the figures that arise from alternative projects. The facilities investigated were selected with the guidance of the National Development Plan (NDP) and included public schools and public healthcare facilities. The exercise resulted in accessibility indices that were used successfully to rank seven hypothetical projects from two of the identified villages. The research showed ii Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za that, for low-volume roads, non-motorised transport modes are just as important as motorised transport modes. Other key findings were made which illustrated significant variables that influence preference for transport modes, school attendance and clinic visitation. iii Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Acknowledgements I would to like express my gratitude to my supervisors Prof K. Jenkins and Mrs C. Rudman for their valuable guidance, comments and engagements through the completion of this research. Furthermore, I would like to thank all who participated in the surveys and interviews in Khakhu, Mangwele and Sane. In addition, I would like to thank my family and loved ones for the support they have given me and the patience they have shown. iv Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Overview of Chapters ................................................................................................................ 8 2 Literature review ................................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 10 2.2 Quality of Facilities .................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.1 Basic Education ...................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1.1 School fees in basic education ............................................................................................................... 15 2.2.1.2 Availability of books in basic education ............................................................................................ 16 2.2.1.3 Bad facilities in basic education ........................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1.4 Large classes in basic education ........................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2 Health Care ............................................................................................................................................... 18 2.3 Mobility ....................................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.1 Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.1.1 Present condition survey methods ..................................................................................................... 24 2.3.1.1.1 Visual assessments ............................................................................................................................... 25 2.3.1.1.2 Instrument surveys .............................................................................................................................. 27 2.3.2 Transport .................................................................................................................................................. 31 2.3.2.1 Educational transport ............................................................................................................................... 32 2.3.2.2 Health care transportation ..................................................................................................................... 35 2.3.2.3 General transport perceptions .............................................................................................................. 37 2.4 Current Ranking Methods ..................................................................................................... 40 2.4.1 Condition Ranking ................................................................................................................................ 40 2.4.2 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Ranking ................................................................................................... 40 2.4.2.1 Methods of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis ................................................................................................... 43 2.4.2.1.1 Consumer surplus ................................................................................................................................. 44 2.4.2.1.2 Producer surplus ................................................................................................................................... 45 2.4.3 Social Benefits Ranking – Study Review ..................................................................................... 45 2.4.4 Accessibility Ranking – Study Review .......................................................................................... 48 2.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 50 3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 52 v Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................