世界银行-印尼第三方基础设施项目和KOTAKU项目的普遍无障碍影响-两个试点项目的成本效益分析（英）

ImpactofUniversal

AccessibilityinTer

tiar

y

Infrastructure

ProjectsofIndonesiaandtheKOTAKU

Project:A

Cost-Effectiveness

AnalysisofTwo

PilotProjectsAUGUST2023©2023InternationalBankforReconstructionandDevelopment/TheWorldBank1818HStreetNW,

WashingtonDC20433Telephone:

202-473-1000;Internet:SomerightsreservedThisworkisaproductofthestaffofTheWorldBankwithexternalcontributions.Thefindings,interpretations,

andconclusionsexpressedinthisworkdonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofTheWorldBank,

itsBoardofExecutiveDirectors,

orthegovernmentstheyrepresent.TheWorldBankdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracyofthedataincludedinthiswork.Theboundaries,colors,

denominations,

andotherinformationshownonany

mapinthisworkdonotimplyanyjudgmentonthepart

ofTheWorldBankconcerningthelegalstatusofany

territoryortheendorsementoracceptanceofsuchboundaries.NothinghereinshallconstituteorbeconsideredtobealimitationuponorwaiveroftheprivilegesandimmunitiesofTheWorldBank,

allofwhicharespecificallyreserved.RightsandPermissionsThisworkisavailableundertheCreativeCommonsAttribution3.0IGOlicense(CCBY3.0IGO)/licenses/by/3.0/igo.UndertheCreativeCommonsAttributionlicense,

youarefreetocopy,distribute,

transmit,

andadaptthiswork,

includingforcommercialpurposes,

underthefollowingconditions:Attribution—TheNationalSlumUpgradingProject(NSUP/KOTAKU)

UniversalAccessibilityToolkit

was

preparedby

ateamledby

Yuko

Arai,

composedofAlexRobinson,

ElianaPiresdeSouza,

FernandoAlonso,

FrancescoCocco,

JeremiaSirNindyoMamola,

RisyeDwiyaniandTony

HartantoWidjarnarsoundertheguidanceofSatuKristiinaKahkonen,

CountryDirectorforIndonesiaandTimor-LesteandMingZhang,

PracticeManageroftheWorldBank’s

Urban,DisasterRiskManagement,

ResilienceandLandGlobalPractice(GPURL).TheimplementationofNSUP/KOTAKU

was

ledby

theTask

Team

Leaders,

EviHermirasari,

AndreBaldandKumalaSari.TheTeam

isgratefultoalladvicereceivedfromthepeerreviewers,

CharlotteVuyiswaMcClain-NhlapoandNaraeChoi.LisaFerraroParmeleegaveeditorialsupport,

andAmy

Chandesignedthereport.We

endwithafinalwordofgratitudetotheAustralianGovernmentDepartmentofForeignAffairsandTrade

(DFAT).Translations—Ifyoucreateatranslationofthiswork,

pleaseaddthefollowingdisclaimeralongwiththeattribution:Thistranslationwas

notcreatedby

TheWorldBankandshouldnotbeconsideredanofficialWorldBanktranslation.TheWorldBankshallnotbeliableforanycontentorerrorinthistranslation.Adaptations—Ifyoucreateanadaptationofthiswork,

pleaseaddthefollowingdisclaimeralongwiththeattribution:Thisisanadaptationofanoriginalworkby

TheWorldBank.Viewsandopinionsexpressedintheadaptationarethesoleresponsibilityoftheauthororauthorsoftheadaptationandarenotendorsedby

TheWorldBank.Third-partycontent—TheWorldBankdoesnotnecessarilyowneachcomponentofthecontentcontainedwithinthework.TheWorldBankthereforedoesnotwarrantthattheuseofanythird-partyownedindividualcomponentorpart

containedintheworkwillnotinfringeontherightsofthosethirdparties.Theriskofclaimsresultingfromsuchinfringementrestssolelywithyou.Ifyouwishtore-useacomponentofthework,

itisyourresponsibilitytodeterminewhetherpermissionisneededforthatre-useandtoobtainpermissionfromthecopyrightowner.

Examplesofcomponentscaninclude,

butarenotlimitedto,

tables,

figures,

orimages.AllqueriesonrightsandlicensesshouldbeaddressedtoWorldBankPublications,

TheWorldBankGroup,

1818HStreetNW,

Washington,

DC20433,USA;e-mail:pubrights@.Cover,

clockwisefromupperleft:Detailofaccessiblemobilitychainurbansequence(fromhometopublicbuildings);Apersoninawheelchairreachingatoiletdoorhandle,

©EkaPristianto;Implementationofaccessibledesign;AUAassessmentinMalang,

©MalangCityCoordinatorTeam;

Detailofexampleofsnowballsampling.Coverdesign:Amy

ChanImpactofUniversalAccessibilityinTertiaryInfrastructureProjectsofIndonesiaandtheKOTAKU

ProjectContentsIntroduction791

ObjectiveandMethodology2

RegulatoryFramework1215183

SamplingtheEconomicImpactofUA

inTertiaryInfrastructure4

PilotProjectA:CommunalToilet

inKelurahan

Baciro,

YogyakartaThecontextforimpactvaluationofauniversallyaccessibletoilet

.....

19Descriptionoftheproject:LocationandUAfeatures

..............

20Traditional

andUAtoiletfacilitycostscompared

.................

26Cost-effectivenessanalysisofUAversuspersonalassistanceintoiletuse

..................................

265

PilotProjectB:StreetRehabilitationinKelurahan

Kemijen,

Semarang33Publicspacemobility:UAversuspersonalsupport

servicesforPRMs

...34Descriptionoftheproject:LocationandUAfeatures

...............35ThecostsofUAintheKemijenStreet

........................

38Cost-effectivenessanalysisofUAonstreetusedbyencumberedpersons.....................................

396

GraphicDescriptionoftheProcessFollowed7

FinalCommentsAftertheCEAofBothPilotProjectsAnnex434446DetailedUAInvestmentCostAssumptions(Toilet

Facility,

Baciro)

.....

46DetailedUA(CompleteStreet)InvestmentCostAssumptions(Street,

Kemijen)

...............................47References484ImpactofUniversalAccessibilityinTertiaryInfrastructureProjectsofIndonesiaandtheKOTAKU

ProjectFiguresFigure4

1

UAImprovementDiagram(BeforeandAfter)

.......................23Figure4

2

GeneralOverviewofUAfeaturesImplementedtotheExterioroftheToilet

Facility

.........................................

24Figure4

3

UADesignFeaturesofAccessibleStallInterior

.....................

25Figure4

4

3DRepresentationoftheSittingandSquattingToilets

Provided

.........25Figure5

1

RoadandSidewalkDesignforKelurahan

Kemijen

...................33Figure5

2

UAImprovementDiagram(BeforeandAfter)

.......................

37Figure7

1

CostEffectivenessofUAImplementationinTw

oPilotProjects:FlowchartoftheProcess

.....................................

43TablesTable

1

1

SectorRegulationsonInfrastructurethatIncludeReferencestoUAinIndonesia

..........................................

13Table

4

1

ComparativeCostsforToilet

Facility,

WithandWithoutUAFeatures........

26Table

4

2

EstimationofGeneralPopulationandPRMsLivingintheFacility’s

AreaofInfluence

.....................................28Table

4

3

Tw

oScenariosforCalculatingtheEffectivenessofUAinvestmentintheBaciroToilet

Facility.....................................

31Table

5

1

CostsfortheKemijenStreetProject,

WithandWithoutUAplusCompleteStreetsFeatures

....................................38Table

5

2

EstimationofGeneralPopulationandPRMsLivingintheStreet’sAreaofInfluence

...........................................

40Table

5

3

Tw

oScenariosforCalculatingtheEffectivenessofUAInvestmentintheKemijenStreet

........................................42PhotosPhoto4

1

BaciroToilet

FacilityBeforetheRenovation.........................

23Photo4

2

BaciroToilet

FacilityAftertheRenovation

..........................

23Photo5

1

PartofKelurahan

KemijenStreetaftertheIntervention

................

37MapsMap4

1

Kelurahan

Baciro,

Yogyakarta,

withToilet

FacilityLocationOutlinedinGreen

..

21Map4

2

GraphicAnalysisofthePopulationLivingintheBufferZone..............22Map5

1

TheKelurahan

KemijenAccessibleStreetLocationinSemarang

..........36Map5

2

GraphicAnalysisofthePopulationLivinginthebufferzone

.............365ImpactofUniversalAccessibilityinTertiaryInfrastructureProjectsofIndonesiaandtheKOTAKU

ProjectAbbreviationsandAcronymsADLActivitiesofdailylivingAMCAccessiblemobilitychainCEACost-effectivenessanalysisCRPDDFATGDPConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilitiesAustralianGovernmentDepartmentofForeignAffairsandTradeGrossdomesticproductIADLsKEMENHUBKOTAKUMPWHNPVInstrumentalactivitiesofdailylivingMinistryofTransportationKotaTanpa

Kumuh(Indonesia'sSlumUpgradingProgram)MinistryofPublicWorksandHousingNetpresentvalueNSUPODFIndonesianNationalSlumUpgradingProgramOpenDefecationFreePPPeraturanPemerintah(GovernmentRegulation)PersonwithreducedmobilityPRMPUPRRPLPUAMinistryofPublicWorksandHousingWorks(PU)RencanaPenataanLingkunganPermukiman(CommunitySettlementPlan)UniversalaccessibilityWASHWater,

sanitation,

andhygiene6ImpactofUniversalAccessibilityinTertiaryInfrastructureProjectsofIndonesiaandtheKOTAKU

ProjectIntroductionAccess

is

not

just

about

spatial

configurationand

design,

but

is

a

political

and

social

issue:

itisabouttheabilitytotakepart

inpubliclife.—KitchinandLaw

2001,

289Universal

accessibility

(UA)

has

becomea

legal

requirement

anda

key

objective

ofurban

planning

and

transportationpolicy,

but

the

implementation

of

accessibility-enhancing

measuresis

constrained

by

a

number

of

barriers.

These

include

competingdemands

for

investment

duetobudget

constraints

and

an

unclear

understanding

of

theeconomic

benefits

of

improved

accessibility.This

cost

benefit

analysispilot

forKOTAKU

focused

on

the

economic

impact

of

UAintertiary

infrastructure

and

presenteda

series

of

discussions,

analyses,

and

calculationsthat

led

to

several

conclusions:ImprovingUA

can

help

increase

national

production

by

its

potentialto

internalize

humanresources

previously

excluded

from

the

market.In

the

case

of

specific

infrastructure

projects,

investing

in

UA

can

bea

good

economicdecisionfrom

an

opportunity

cost

perspective.

This

conclusion

is

based

onwell-arguedqualitativeanalysis

rather

than

quantitative

estimations,

which

are

impededby

thelimited

existingdata

on

whichwillingness-to-paycalculations

of

changesin

welfare

afterUA

intervention

can

be

based.Data

restrictions

appearto

be

the

morelimitingfactor

fora

fullrevision

of

directbenefits

calculations.A

new

analysis

of

small-scale

interventionsby

KOTAKU

is

introduced

herein

search

ofa

more

precise

economic

rationale

for

the

implementation

of

UA.Itis

presented

as

analternativeto

more

complex

research

and

asa

means

ofinvestigatingthe

impacts

ofaccessible

infrastructure

on

local

populations.This

second

report

adds

dimensions

and

argumentsto

the

economic

case

foraccessibility

at

the

local

scale

andis

founded

on

analysis

of

need

and

use.

Tw

orenovation

projects

are

analyzed:

those

ofa

communaltoiletin

kelurahan

Baciro,Yogyakarta,

anda

local

street

reconstructionin

kelurahan

Kemijen,

Semarang.In

bothcases,

cost-effectiveness

analysis

(CEA)is

usedtocompare

the

costs

ofimproving

UAwith

those

of

an

alternativeway

to

achievesimilar

sanitation

and

mobility

outcomes

forpersonsliving

in

defined

areas

of

influence

around

the

infrastructure.7ImpactofUniversalAccessibilityinTertiaryInfrastructureProjectsofIndonesiaandtheKOTAKU

ProjectCEAis

a

form

of

economic

evaluation

concerned

with

efficiency—that

is,

with

attainingthe

most

benefit

from

the

resources

expended,

or

“valuefor

money.”

In

thisanalysis,the

costs

of

adding

UAto

infrastructure

are

comparedto

those

of

the

personalassistance

neededby

encumbered

neighborsinnon-accessible

traditional

infrastructure.The

measure

of

effectivenessis

inclusion,

or

the

potentialto

enjoy

equal

access.1

Therespective

costs

of

the

two

alternativestobe

comparedin

any

such

project

are

(1)

theadded

cost

of

features

and

improvementsto

achieve

universal

accessibility

and

(2)

theopportunity

cost

or

due

salary

of

the

personal

assistant

neededto

provide

the

sameservice

when

UAisnot

provided.

When

both

costs

are

the

same,

a

tippingpointisreached

at

which,

ceterisparibus,

spending

on

UA

beginstobe

economically

justified.In

the

investigationthat

follows,

different

considerations

are

analyzed

and

discussedtocomplete

impact

assessments

of

UAin

the

two

pilot

projects

andto

present

them

asrepresentative

of

otherKOTAKU

tertiary

investments

facingsimilar

choices.Creatingsafer,

moreaccessiblestreets.1.

Accordingto

Webster’s

New

World

College

Dictionary,

fourth

edition,

“cost

effective”

refersto

“producinggood

resultsfor

the

amount

of

money

spent;

efficient

or

economical.”8ImpactofUniversalAccessibilityinTertiaryInfrastructureProjectsofIndonesiaandtheKOTAKU

Project1.ObjectiveandMethodologyThe

analyses

presentedin

this

report

aimedto

support

the

view

thatimprovingaccessibilityin

tertiary

infrastructure

projects

is

of

economic

value.

The

study

rested

onthree

main

ideas:•

The

economic

impact

of

UA

can

be

measuredby

comparing

the

costs

of

analternativeway

of

producing

outcomes

equivalent

or

similarto

those

producedby

UA.•

The

economic

impact

of

UA

can

be

assessed

accuratelyby

measuring

theoutcomes

and

costs

of

small-scalepilot

projects

under

controlledconditions.These

conditions

include

a

precise

measurement

of

the

costs,

a

precise

set

of

UAfeatures,

a

good

estimation

of

the

people

affected,

anda

number

of

assumptionsunderlying

estimations

of

direct

outcomes.•

The

design

and

relevance

of

UA

features

included

in

a

project

can

be

analyzedindetail

and

combined

withthe

potential

outcomes.The

operational

objective

of

the

studywas

tocompare

the

costs

with

and

without

UAfeatures

of

two

representativepilot

projects,

already

budgeted

or

executedby

theKOTAKU

program,

and

the

corresponding

consequences

for

theautonomy

of

the

users(that

is,

the

population

living

nearby).The

methodology

used

for

the

calculations

was

cost-effectiveness

analysis

(CEA),

aform

of

economic

analysis

that

compares

the

costs

of

differentways

of

producingequivalent

or

similar

outcomes.Itis

useful

when

the

main

benefits

cannot

be

easilyexpressedin

monetary

terms

or

when

undertaking

the

valuation

is

difficult.

While

costsare

expressedin

monetary

terms,

benefits

are

expressedin

terms

ofphysicalunits,health

outcomes,

orany

other

improvements

that

can

result

from

the

project.

Themain

benefit

of

CEA

for

decision

makersis

thatitprovides

information

about

the

bestinvestment

solution—the

one

whose

outcome,

all

else

being

equal,

can

be

achieved

atthe

minimum

cost.The

costs

of

the

two

pilot

projects

were

obtainedin

twoways:

(1)by

taking

relevant

unitpricesdirectly

from

the

construction

budgets

of

the

specificfacility

and

infrastructureimprovement

being

analyzed

and

(2)

based

on

estimations

of

quantity

and

unitarycosts

of

other

comparable

projects

in

thepilots.2

The

maximumeffectiveness

of

either2.

Projects

were

considered

comparable

whenthey

wereof

the

same

infrastructure

subtype

and

locatedwithinthe

sameprovince

(in

this

case,

CentralJava).The

rationale

for

the

parameterwas

to

minimizedifferences

in

unit

costs

related

to

location

or

geographical

factors,

such

as

transportation

costs,

ortoavailability

of

materials.9ImpactofUniversalAccessibilityinTertiaryInfrastructureProjectsofIndonesiaandtheKOTAKU

ProjectUAcanreducethepersonalassistanceneedsoftheelderlyorpersonswithdisabilitiesthroughbetterenvironmentaldesignandmanagementoffacilitiesandinfrastructure.projectwas

consideredtooccur

when,

asa

consequence

ofit,

the

needs

for

care

andassistance

on

the

part

of

beneficiaries

(the

mobility-encumbered

populationdirectlyaffected

by

theinvestment)were

reducedto

a

minimum.UA

can

reduce

the

personal

assistance

needs

of

the

elderly

or

persons

with

disabilitiesthrough

better

environmental

design

and

management

offacilities

and

infrastructure.The

reduction

in

spending

on

servicesprovided

by

personal

assistants

could

beconsidered

the

opportunity

costssaved

by

the

UA

intervention.

Accordingto

thisapproach,

investing

in

UAmay

be

considered

cost

effective

whenits

implementationcost

equals

the

annualized

cost

of

expenditure

on

assistive

services

during

theamortization

period.Consequently,

forthis

UA

investmentto

be

effective,

the

numberof

beneficiaries

whose

need

of

assistance

(andits

costs)are

reducedmust

be

enoughtocompensate

for

the

fullcost

of

the

investment.The

economic

implications

of

care

and

assistance—whether

paid

or

unpaid—are

huge.Twenty

years

ago,

a

large

national

surveycovering

all

adults

ages

18

years

and

olderinthe

United

States

found

that

13.2millionreceived

help

in

activities

of

dailyliving

(ADLs)or

instrumentalactivities

of

dailyliving(IADLs;

see

below),

averaging

31.4

hours

perweek.This

amountsto21.5

billion

hours

of

personal

assistance

service

help

per

year,of

which

13.4

percentis

paid

and

the

remainderis

unpaid.Ifpaid

hours

are

valued

atthe

wage

rate

of

the

average

home

health

worker

at

$11

per

hourin1996,

the

marketvalue

of

home

health

services

would

be

roughly

$32billion

a

year

(LaPlante

2002).Caregivingis

very

complex

from

an

economic

perspective,

asit

is

mostlyprovidedinformally,

through

family

and

relatives,3

while

at

the

same

time

representinga

growingmarket

for

servicesprovided

by

private

or

public

companies

supportedby

public

funds,insurance,

or

direct

payments.

The

exact

proportionsin

which

informal

versus

marketservices

are

procured

orprovided

is

not

known,

but

studies

show

thatprovision

byfamily

membersis

the

most

recurrent.

The

issue

of

costing

these

informal

services3.

“Informal

caregiving

or

care

work”

has

been

defined

as

“the

provision

of

unpaid

personal

servicestomeet

the

physical,

mental

and

emotional

needs

that

allow

a

dependent

personto

function

ata

sociallydetermined

acceptablelevelofcapability,

comfort,

and

safety”

(Friedemann

2011,

514).10ImpactofUniversalAccessibilityinTertiaryInfrastructureProjectsofIndonesiaandtheKOTAKU

Projectisopento

discussion,

but

the

mostobvious

reference

is

the

market

price

of

privatelyprovidedassistance

services.The

salary

for

professional

serviceswas

used

asa

starting

pointin

the

valuationspresented

here,

buttobe

morerealistic

itwas

reducedto

25

percent

when

the

serviceswere

provided

by

family

members

or

the

informalsector.

That

no

economic

transfertakes

placebetweenthe

beneficiaries

and

thoseprovidingthe

assistance

inside

theirfamiliesis

obvious,

but

that

an

actual

economic

tradeoff

existsshouldn´t

be

ignored.This

tradeoffis

the

opportunity

cost

of

the

hours

devoted

to

the

care

of

or

assistancetothe

encumbered

person

that

could

be

used

for

other

purposes,

such

as

work,

study,

orleisure,

all

of

whichhave

economic

implications.Underthisvaluation

framework,

the

two

selectedpilot

projects

are

used

as

samples

foran

analysis

of

the

economic

consequences

ofinvesting

in

UAin

two

different

contexts:(1)

theaccessibility

ofa

communaltoiletand

(2)

the

walkability,

safety,

and

accessibilityofa

strip

ofa

local

street.In

both

cases,

the

beneficiariesin

the

analysis

were

thoseliving

nearby

who

would

potentially

be

using

the

infrastructure.The

amountinvested

in

accessibility

startstobe

cost

effective

in

either

of

the

twoenvironments(toiletfacility

or

street)

at

the

point

at

which

the

net

present

value

(NPV)of

that

investment

equals

0,

considering

the

financing

terms,

such

as

the

discount

rate,investment

cost,

and

lifetime

or

amortization

period—in

other

words,

the

point

at

whichthe

gains

and

losses

ofinvesting

in

accessibility

become

equal.The

NPVis

calculated

using

thefollowingformula:whereI

is

theinvestmentin

theaccessibility

feature,

overtime(t)with

a

discount

rate0(r),

while

Ct

represents

the

annual

cash

flow

resultingfrom

theimproved

accessibility.This

ismeasured

as

costs

avertedby

the

project—that

is,

the

value

of

the

number

ofhours

of

assistancesaved

asa

result

of

theinvestment.11ImpactofUniversalAccessibilityinTertiaryInfrastructureProjectsofIndonesiaandtheKOTAKU

Project2.RegulatoryFrameworkIndonesia

has

long

recognized

the

needs

of

persons

with

disabilities,

a

sensibility

thatbecame

particularly

acute

after

theratification

ofLaw

No.

4,

1997,

onPeople

withDisabilities.

The

regulation

was

revised,

followingIndonesia’s

ratification

ofLaw

No.19,

2011,

on

Ratification

of

theConvention

on

the

Rights

of

Personswith

Disabilities(CRPD)

and

the

subsequent

ratification

ofLaw

No.

8,

2016.4

Chapter

1,

article

2,

of

thelatterlaw

states

that

the

fulfillment

of

rights5

for

people

with

disabilitiesshall

adheretoa

series

of

principles.

Accessibilityis

one

of

them.Much

of

the

available

legal

framework

at

the

nationallevelregulates

aspects

of

thebuilt

environment

or

public

services.

Theselaws

and

regulations

include

the

following:•

Law

No.

28,

2002,

on

Building

(which

was

updated

withthe

OmnibusLaw

orLaw

No.

11,

2020,

on

Job

Creation

but

maintained

the

provisions

on

accessibility)•

Government

Regulation

(PP)

No.

16,

2021,

on

Implementing

Regulation

ofLaw

No.

28,

2002,

on

Building•

Government

Regulation

(PP)

No.

42,

2020,

on

Accessibility

of

Settlements

andPublic

Services

and

Protectionfrom

Disaster

for

Personswith

DisabilitiesIn

particular,

PP

16/2021

(which

updated

the

former

PP

36/2005)provides

an

annex

ofdetailed

standards

for

accessibilityin

the

context

not

only

of

buildingconstruction

butof

thebuilt

environmentin

general

(pertainingtoaccesstoand

from

buildings).

On

theother

hand,

PP

42/2020

stipulates

conditions

for

universal

accessibility

specifically

forpersons

with

disabilities

in

the

context

of

settlements

and

public

services

or

spaces.Regarding

UA

investments

in

streets,

sidewalks,

and

other

relevant

public

infrastructure,the

most

pertinent

regulations

on

the

subjecthave

been

issuedby

the

Ministry

of

PublicWorks

and

the

Ministry

ofTransportation,

aslisted

in

table

1.1.4.

Chapter

2,

article

4,

ofLaw

No.

8,

2016,

acknowledges

four

types

of

disabilities—physical,

intellectual,mental,

and

sensory—aswellas

thepossibility

for

personstopossess

multiple

disabilities.

An

additionalregulation

at

the

nationallevel,

Law

No.

18,

2014,

on

Mental

Health

was

ratified

to

reinforcethe

state’sobligations

toward

persons

with

mental

disabilities.5.