9.4 Setting Priorities
The L1S user query application supplied with the database provides a number of tools that can assist users to develop mine action plans.
In the section dealing with
Access to Results the eight types of reports that can be produced using the Query Application Tool are described. In this section we describe in more detail two of these reports that are tools for assessing the relative needs of communities for mine clearance. One of these assessment tools is based on a pre-defined set of criteria and the other is entirely user controlled. The pre-defined tool is referred to by the name of the organisation that first created it, the Survey Action Centre (SAC) and the other we simply refer to as, "User Scoring".
Scoring systems are needed to create priority lists of villages and suspected areas for clearance and other humanitarian mine action responses. Creating priorities requires a method for comparing the many different socio-economic effects of mine/UXO contamination.
For example, an organisation with a mandate to improve access to water resources would approach the question of priority setting very differently from an organisation with a mandate to reduce human casualties. Both organisations have access to the same information from the Level One Survey. This information includes data on blocked access to schools, markets, pagodas etc. We refer to these socio-economic effects as "blockages". The two organisations in our example would assess the significance of each "blockage" rather differently depending on its mandate. Clearly an organisation with the objective to reduce human casualties, would be concerned about those "blockages" that result in the highest numbers of casualties.
To calculate the relative importance of each type of blockage a relative "weight" is assigned. In the table on the next page we show an example of how these weights might be assigned by organisations with the mandates just discussed.
Weights are often expressed as percentages, for example in the example scoring table percentage weights are assigned among the blockage types for which we have survey information. But weights can also be expressed as a score out of ten (10). The Query Application Tool allows users to choose which of these two approaches they wish to use.
In the example below a village (1) that reported blockages of access to water resources only would score 50% but a village (2) that reported blockages for dams and/or canals, as well as water resources, would score 80%. Using such an approach the scores for all villages can listed in order with the highest scoring villages being assigned the highest priority for clearance.
To further illustrate how the same information can be used by an organisation with a different mandate, we use an organisation with a mission to reduce casualties. The scoring approach might be as described in the table below. The percentage weights for casualty reduction are listed in the column under that heading. The blockages reported for the two example villages are indicated and the scores in this case would be 40% for village 1 and 30% for village 2.
Applying "weights" to socio-economic "blockages".
| Type of blocked access: |
Weights for Water Resources Development |
Weights for Casualty Reduction |
Occurre
Block |
nce of ages |
| |
Per Cent |
Per Cent |
Village 1 |
Village 2 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Homes |
|
|
|
|
| Home construction land |
|
15% |
* |
|
| Agricultural land |
|
15% |
|
* |
| Pasture land |
|
30% |
|
|
| Water sources |
50% |
10% |
* |
* |
| Forests |
|
10% |
|
|
| School |
|
5% |
|
|
| Dams and/or Canals |
30% |
5% |
|
* |
| Markets |
|
|
|
|
| Business Activities |
|
|
|
|
| Health Centre |
|
|
|
|
| Pagoda |
|
|
|
|
| Bridge |
20% |
|
|
|
| Neighbouring village |
|
15% |
* |
|
| Total |
100% |
100% |
|
|
* Indicates this type of blockage is present in the village.
Scoring for Village 1
| |
|
|
| (i) Water Resource Development |
|
50% |
| Blockages: |
|
|
| Home Construction Land |
blockage |
zero weight |
| Water Sources |
blockage |
50% |
| Neighbouring Village |
blockage |
zero weight |
| |
|
|
| (ii) Casualty Reduction |
|
40% |
| Blockages: |
|
|
| Home Construction Land |
blockage |
15% |
| Water Sources |
blockage |
10% |
| Neighbouring Village |
blockage |
10% |
Scoring for Village 2
| |
|
|
| (i) Water Resource Development |
|
80% |
| Blockages: |
|
|
| Agricultural Land |
blockage |
zero weight |
| Water Sources |
blockage |
50% |
| Dams and/or Canals |
blockage |
30% |
| |
|
|
| (ii) Casualty Reduction |
|
30% |
| Blockages: |
|
|
| Agricultural Land |
blockage |
15% |
| Water Sources |
blockage |
10% |
| Dams and/or Canals |
blockage |
5% |
Water Resources Development:
In this case village 2 would have mine/UXO clearance priority for water resources development as it scores 80% and village 1 scores 50%.
Casualty Reduction:
In this case mine/UXO clearance priority would be given to village 1 as it scores 40% as opposed to 30% for village 2.
The Survey Action Centre has produced a similar scoring system for priority setting also based on assigning weights. This approach divides mine/UXO related issues identified in each village into three groups:
1. Presence/absence of Mines/UXO - a score is given if both mines and UXO are present, to a maximum total assigned by the user.
2. Socio-economic blockages, and - a score, to a maximum total also determined by the user, is given for blockages, and
3. Number of victims in the last two years - an unlimited score is given for victims of mines/UXO within the last two years, with a recommended score of two (2) for each casualty.
In the worked example below we have assigned the following weights: category 1 Mines/UXO are given a weight of 3 and UXO are given a weight of 1. Within category 2 the types of blockages identified are assigned a maximum weight of ten (10). Based on this weighting, clearance priority would be given to village 1.
| |
Weight |
Occurence of |
Blockages |
SAC |
Score |
|
|
Village 1 |
Village 2 |
Village 1 |
Village 2 |
| Presence Mines/UXO/CB |
|
|
|
|
| Mines |
3.0 |
* |
* |
3.0 |
3.0 |
| UXO |
1.0 |
* |
* |
1.0 |
1.0 |
| Total Mine/UXO |
4.0 |
|
|
4.0 |
4.0 |
| Blockage Type |
|
|
|
|
|
| Agriculture |
1.0 |
|
* |
|
1.0 |
| Pasture |
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
| Forest |
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
| Drinking water |
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
| Water resources |
1.0 |
* |
* |
1.0 |
1.0 |
| Housing |
1.0 |
* |
|
1.0 |
|
| Roads / Bridges |
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
| Irrigation |
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
| Infrastructure |
1.0 |
* |
* |
1.0 |
1.0 |
| Business |
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
| Total Blockages |
10.0 |
|
|
3.0 |
3.0 |
| Each Casualty |
2.0 |
|
|
|
|
| Number of Casualties |
|
4 |
1 |
8.0 |
2.0 |
| Total |
|
|
|
15.0 |
9.0 |
The choice of which scoring system is used in any particular instance should reflect the needs and characteristics of the organisation undertaking the analysis.
