Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis: a new tool for integrated development planning

Figures & data

Figure 1: Inputs and outputs for the proposed process to compile an integrated, participatory budget

Figure 2: Steps towards an integrated, participatory budget

Figure 3: A simplified example of a hierarchy of issues for a hypothetical community

Table 1: Hypothetical community development measurement scales

Measure progress	Housing & land	Roads transport	Recreational facilities	Jobs	Health education
100	Best outcome: All people have access to adequate, weatherproof, safe houses that are effectively financed, close to job opportunities and amenities and linked to affordable services	Best outcome: There is a safe, effective and efficient system of roads and public transport which links people's homes to their places of work, schools, recreation and other amenities	Best outcome: The community have adequate spaces and structures in which to congregate, socialise and play. There are effective facilities for the elderly, the disabled, the youth and children	Best outcome: All who are able and available to work have access to employment or an acceptable means of generating an income. Youth in particular have access to employment	Best outcome: All people have access to clear and accessible information about healthy lifestyles and safe practices. There are effective campaigns to encourage adherence to these principles.
50	Roughly three-quarters of the community are adequately housed	Roughly three-quarters of the public have access to some form of public transport that is affordable to them. There is limited provision for the transport of schoolchildren	There are some recreational facilities for the community but they are either too few or inappropriate for the above designated groups	Around 50% of the community (or the youth) are unemployed OR less than one quarter of the community derives income from drugs/crime/prostitution	There is effective health educational material but it is estimated to reach and educate around 50% of the population only
0	Worst outcome: More than half the population does not have access to adequate housing	Worst outcome: Roads are inadequate and unsafe. Public transport is unaffordable or unavailable to most. Pedestrians, especially children, are at risk on the roads	Worst outcome: There are either no recreational facilities for the community or very inadequate ones	Worst outcome: More than three-quarters of the community is unemployed with no prospects OR at least one third of the community derives income from drugs/crime/prostitution	Worst outcome: There is no information on healthy lifestyles and practices, or it is ineffective or inaccessible
Possible indicators:	Percentage population housed Average distance to work Proportion with access to services Proportion of houses with defects	Road/pedestrian fatalities Average time/cost to reach work Average time/cost to reach school	Community facilities per unit of population Average distance to nearest sportsfield/hall/youth centre	Unemployment rate Youth unemployment rate Female unemployment rate Crime statistics	Community perceptions of Aids Compliance rates (TB medication) Alcoholism Drug dependencies Teenage pregnancies Foetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) Distance to nearest clinic

Figure 4: A pictorial representation of the swing weights allocated to community issues

Figure 5: Prioritised community value tree

Figure 6: Measuring impact on housing

Table 2: Scoring system for impact on community needs

Impact	Score	Definition
No impact on the issue	0	No discernible impact on the scale defined in Table 1
Low impact	1–2	An increase of 5–7 per cent points on the scale
Moderate impact	4–6	An increase of 10–15 per cent points on the scale
High impact	9–10	An increase of at least 20 per cent points on the scale

Table 3: Scoring instrument to measure sustainability

Sustainable?	Score	Definition
Not sustainable	0	Unaffordable, extremely negative to people and environment
No, but …	1–2	… can be sustained if substantial capital/resources can be made available from future budgets or if strongly negative effects on people and/or environment could be tolerated/counteracted
Sustainable, if …	4–6	… fairly moderate amounts of capital/resources are made available from future budgets or if fairly moderately negative impacts on people/environment can be tolerated/counteracted
Yes, definitely sustainable	9–10	Proposal is financially, socially and environmentally sustainable

Table 4: Scoring instrument for technical urgency/necessity

Urgency/necessity	Score	Clarification
Not urgent/necessary	0
Nice to have but not explicitly required	1–5
Required in order to reach objectives of job/service	6–8
Must be done now or service/department will collapse	9
Legally prescribed (no choice)	10	Quote relevant Act