Gender disparities in rural accessibility and mobility in Ghana

Journal Pre-proofs Gender Disparities in Rural Accessibility and Mobility in Ghana Gifty Adom-Asamoah, Clifford Amoako, Kwasi Kwafo Adarkwa PII: DOI: Reference:

S2213-624X(18)30285-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.12.006 CSTP 414

To appear in:

Case Studies on Transport Policy

Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:

27 August 2018 18 June 2019 29 December 2019

Please cite this article as: G. Adom-Asamoah, C. Amoako, K.K. Adarkwa, Gender Disparities in Rural Accessibility and Mobility in Ghana, Case Studies on Transport Policy (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.12.006

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of World Conference on Transport Research Society.

Gender Disparities in Rural Accessibility and Mobility in Ghana

By Gifty Adom-Asamoah Department of Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana [email protected] Clifford Amoako Department of Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana [email protected] Kwasi Kwafo Adarkwa Department of Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana [email protected]

Addresses of Corresponding Author: Clifford Amoako, [email protected] OR [email protected] +233 20 6742683

Conflict of Interest Statement Authors are working colleagues of the same department and are working on this project as part of our usual research work. We have no conflict of interest beyond being working colleagues in the same academic department of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi.

Abstract

Many African governments claim that substantial proportions of development budgets are spent on transport infrastructure. However, physical access and mobility continue to be a challenge for rural dwellers. Several studies have attempted to establish the impact of such investments, using quantitative approaches, which are largely impersonal and have little or no direct personal impacts expressed by households. This paper explores household impacts of rural road investments under the Road Sector Development Project (RSDP) implemented by the Government of Ghana between 2002 and 2008. Based on a quasi-experimental design under the “with-and-without” framework together with qualitative and participatory methods, the gendered impacts of the RSDP were assessed in selected communities along both “experimental” and “control” road corridors. The study reveals that transport needs and travel patterns in the selected communities are gendered; because they were differentiated for men and women. The paper also reveals the embedded social and economic benefits rural men and women derive from improved access. For sustained impacts of rural road investments on residents; the issue of gender must be re-negotiated and properly understood. Keywords: Gender, rural transport, accessibility, mobility, rural development, Ghana

1.

Background of Study and Introduction

In many African countries, physical inaccessibility and/or poor access to social and economic services in rural areas pose serious problem for rural development (Bryceson et al., 2008). Most rural dwellers are faced with poor roads, inadequate transport services and lack of connectivity (Porter, 2012). Coupled with inadequate social services and poor siting of the few available, many rural residents are excluded from the benefits of development. The drudgery and enormous time required by rural households for transport services significantly impede their growth and socio-economic activities (Ellis, 1997; Hine 2014).

With about half of their populations in rural areas, improved rural transport could be an important rural development tool. For most residents in rural Africa, walking and head loading are the dominant modes of transport; most of these efforts being undertaken by women (Hine, 2014: 5). There are limited choices for intermediate transport modes such as bicycles, tricycles, and donkey-drawn carts in rural Africa. Where there are motorised transport services, they are inadequate, inefficient, unreliable and unsafe. In the face of poor or inadequate transport services, rural dwellers in sub-Saharan Africa remain marginalised and poor, because isolation is a strong contributor to poverty (Stifel and Minton, 2008). It is estimated that only 34% of rural population in sub-Saharan Africa have access to all-weather roads (Berg et al., 2016). This cuts off two-thirds of rural population in the sub-region for most parts of the year. Another limitation to rural transport in sub-Saharan Africa is poor road infrastructure (Riverson, 1991; Berg et al., 2018) and unreliable service delivery (Hine, 2014). For the four decades; between 1970 and 2005, paved rural road network could only increase from 77,800 km to 185,000 km, of the over 700,000 km in the sub-region (Riverson et al., 1991; Berg et al., 2016). Currently, about half of the total rural road network in sub-Saharan Africa is in poor condition; many of which are non-motorable during rainy seasons. Again, the network remains insufficient in extent and density. For instance, Foster and Briceño-Garmendia (2010) report an average road density of 137 km/100 km2 in the sub-Saharan Africa, which is far below the 211 km/100 km2 in other comparable low-income countries. Poor rural road infrastructure and inefficient transport services have been the causes of many socio-economic setbacks including slow agricultural development; high cost of transport and delayed travel times; and general corruption in the transport sector (Raballand et al., 2010).

A third challenge for transport in sub-Saharan Africa is gender inequality in rural access and mobility. Although modest gains have been made in the last few decades (Porter et al., 2011), there are clearly many gender-specific rural transport constraints in rural communities in all countries in the sub-region (Tamene and Megento, 2017; Porter, 2008). Rural men and women do not have the same access to transport infrastructure and services that is needed for the different roles in the household. While women perform greater proportion of household duties, they have limited access to rural transport (Fernando, 1998). Rural men, with far less household commitments, in most cases, control and have more access to rural transport (Tamene and Megento, 2017). Gender intensified inequalities in access to rural transport infrastructure are complex and require an understanding of how household dynamics and gender power relations interact. Access to education, health services and market are often used to show evidence on how gender issues relate to transport (Porter, 2008; Zogo and Epo, 2016: 133). For instance in education, Porter (2008) reported that most rural girls are disadvantaged with distance and travel times, since they are required to help their mothers with daily household chores. Many of these girls drop-out of school, owing to the frustrations they are subjected to. Kane (2003) furthered the argument on the ill –effect of trip making on African girls and found that the gendered responsibility on girls to take care of younger siblings and fetching water lowered their rate of attendance and completion than boys. Regarding health, Bour (2004) indicated that rural women have greater need for health services than men; but they are limited by long distances, low incomes and inefficient transport services. Access to market is probably the most important of the three. McQuaid (2009) in linking transport to employment indicated that in assessing benefits from transport infrastructure and services in rural areas impacts on productivity and access to markets could be a good indicator. Rural retail trade is dominated

by women and hence they are required to make most of the trips. However, with limited transport options and higher portion of household burden, women are by far disadvantaged (Zogo and Epo, 2016) in rural access and mobility. By the structure and functioning of most rural households, women incur most of the rural transport burdens (Peters, 2002), particularly due to their role as homemakers and retail traders on periodic market days. For many rural households, women and children transport water, fuel and food. They also transport farm produce to markets; and need transport to school and health facilities. While women and children are most affected by transport challenges, they often have less access to rural transport services. Rural youth also have peculiar transport needs requiring attention. According to Porter et al. (2010) children, in particular adolescent girls, may be prevented from attending school because of parental fears for their safety on the journeys between school and home. These different transport needs among members of rural households situate gender within the rural transport planning discourse In responding to the rural transport challenges outlined above, many governments in subSaharan Africa have dedicated large amounts of their development budgets to rural roads construction and rehabilitation (Adarkwa, 2001). In spite of the continuous investments in rural transport, their observed, perceived and actual impacts have come under academic and policy debates (Hine and Riverson, 2001; Starkey, 2002). In pinning down the actual and perceived benefits of rural transport investments, this paper argues that greater attention should be given to the observed and experiential effects of transport investments on men, women and children. The study provides answers to the following questions: Are transport investments directly beneficial to rural households? How do members of rural households

perceive and experience the benefits of rural road infrastructure investments and transport services? It is argued that by their differentiated transport demands and needs, investments in rural transport have different effects on men, women and children in rural households (The World Bank, 2011). Using Ghana’s Road Sector Development Programme (RSDP) implemented between 2002 and 2008, this paper explores the benefits of road investments on rural households in the Ashanti and Brong Ahafo Regions of Ghana. Road projects under RSDP were selected for the study because since 1992, when Ghana started its current democratic governance, the programme has been the highest public sector investment in rural road development.

2. Rural Accessibility, Mobility and Gender in Developing Countries Over the last three decades or so, gender and social justice have been an important themes in transportation research and policy in emerging economies (The World Bank, 2011; Elias et al., 2015) especially Africa, Asia and the Arab world. For instance, an earlier work by Bryceson and Howe (1993) had pointed out that men, far more than women, had benefited from all donor investments in appropriate technology aimed at enhancing rural accessibility, mobility and agricultural productivity in Africa. In the Arab world, Elias et al. (2015: p. 1920) also connect travel patterns and vehicle ownership to gender by indicating that while women travel on household related chores, most of their daily trips are on foot. However, men who do more private trips are mostly the owners of vehicles. These inequalities in transportation planning informed the work of Martens (2016), who advocates for social justice in accessibility and mobility among various groups in transportation planning.

Within the broader call for transport justice in the transportation planning literature (Hine, 2014; Martens, 2016), this study conceptualises the central role of gender in rural transport infrastructure planning and provision. Earlier, Bryceson and Howe (1993, p. 1724-1725) raised key arguments for mainstreaming gender in rural transport planning in Africa as an important intervention for improving the welfare of women, who are usually marginalised in access and mobility. Due to their cultural roles, as providers of the household’s basic supplies, transport is seen as an essential need for rural women, and determines their access to essential resources and activities such as employment, health care, education and child care in rural areas of developing countries. In Africa, works of Bryceson and Howe (1993); Porter (1995; 2002; 2008); Mahapa and Mashiri (2001); Porter et al. (2007); Bryceson et al.(2008); Porter et al.(2011); Seedhouse et al. (2016) have, at different times and using different approaches, attempted to locate gender in rural transport and poverty reduction. For instance, transport patterns of rural households in Africa have been widely documented with some attention to the various sex-roles and how they shape transport needs and mobility patterns. There are also works on gendered mobility among the youth in Ghana by Porter et al. (2007) and Porter et al. (2011). Gendered access to intermediate means of transport (IMTs) in rural Africa have also been documented (Bryceson and Howe, 1993). There are also studies on the impacts of investments in transport infrastructure on women (Maramba and Bamberger, 2001; Mahapa and Mashiri, 2001; Bryceson et al., 2008; Seedhouse et al., 2016). All these works have sought to connect gender, rural transport and social exclusion and equity. In pinning down the earlier studies reviewed, gender can be situated within rural transport in the global south based on the three conceptual pillars of Patriarchy, Poverty and Planning/Policy. As conceptualised in this paper, Patriarchy explains local power

relationships that are shaped by cultural values, precepts and traditions that have been built over long periods of time (Grieco et al., 1995; Overton, 1996). Again, Patriarchy relates to the gendered division of labour, livelihood assets and survival methods which in turn shape transport needs among men, women and children. According to Peters (2002, 6) Poverty explains the ability of men and women to access and pay for transport services at the household and village levels. In terms of transport planning and policy, Peters (2002, 6-7) contends that transport policy/planning has ignored the multiple roles of women and, hence, hardly consider their travel needs in investments in transport infrastructure and services. In contributing to the three conceptual frames put forward by Peters (2002), we argue that for rural transport investments to achieve their full potentials, they should re-shape patriarchal relationships by providing gendered mobility needs and reducing household poverty. These interactions between gender constructs, women’s mobility and rural transport development are strongly evident in the African context (Porter, 2008, 281). On the one hand, men are seen to play the role of bread winners and as such expected to move out of the house in search of the daily needs of the family. Rural women, on the other hand, have been associated with home-making and daily domestic chores which shape their transport needs and mobility patterns. Based on the above socio-economic and traditional structures for resource-ownership, which are skewed in favour of men, access to rural transport and mobility is male-dominated (Peters, 2002; Porter, 2008). Peters (2002, 5) has suggested that “men, in their superior power position within the household hierarchy, tend to appropriate the most efficient transport for themselves”. He implied that in most rural household settings, means of transport such as cars, bicycles, or even animal carts are major household assets over which men must exercise power. As a result, men are mostly the principal owners and operators of both domestic and

commercial rural transport services; while women are the principal pedestrian transporters (See also Porter 2008, 281). Rural transport investments are therefore the central link for reshaping social processes that produce gendered mobility patterns and access to basic services (Porter, 2008). Hence, this paper attempts a post implementation evaluation of Ghana’s RSDP in terms of its impacts on gendered transport access and patriarchal relationships at the household level, poverty reduction among women and the programme’s gender sensitivity. It is therefore within this conceptual discourse that we explore the perceived, actual and experiential benefits of transport on men and women. Though the success of rural transport infrastructure and services in meeting gendered needs are well documented in literature, how investments in rural transportation re-shape patriarchy, poverty reduction and the planning of such investments are still poorly understood.

3. Study Approach and Contexts 3.1 Study Approach and Methods The study adopts a quasi-experimental design, making use of a “with-and-without” framework; where rural roads in good and poor conditions were selected as intervention and control cases, respectively. Roads selected as intervention cases are those rehabilitated or improved under the RSDP; while control case roads received no improvement over the period of project implementation (2002 – 2008) and during the study. Following consultations with officials of Ghana’s Department of Feeder Roads (DFR), two districts in the Ashanti and Brong Ahafo Regions were purposively selected as primary cases for the study. These were Afigya Sekyere South and Jaman North districts respectively (Figures 1 and 2). Selection of these districts was informed by their high poverty profiles before the RSDP interventions. In each of the selected districts, two rural roads were purposively

sampled based on their official classification as rural/feeder roads which benefited from the RSDP and which was fully completed within its implementation period. For each of these intervention roads, a control road within an average distance of 3-5 kilometres, with similar transport service characteristics, community livelihoods and travel patterns were also purposively sampled. All communities along each of the selected roads were studied. Using the household numbers given by Ghana’s last Population and Housing census in 2010, simple random sampling techniques were used to select the number of households to participate in the study (Table 1). The rest of the respondents were purposively sampled based on their level of knowledge on the subject under investigation. The observed physical conditions and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on market and non-market days of the selected roads are summarised in parts of Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics along all the selected study corridors exhibited rural conditions except for the Agona-Wiamoase road which showed urban conditions. The surveys revealed that all the selected communities for the study along the other road corridors were rural and exhibited cohesive social and family relationships. This was found to be so because of their relatively small populations and the identification of individuals with specific roles or contributions. TABLE 1 HERE Table 1: Characteristics of Study and Control Communities Source: Authors’ Field Survey, March 2016 Along the study corridors and in the selected communities, a combination of qualitative methods were used to collect relevant data for the study. Data collection methods adopted include: in-depth interviews of households, vehicle operators and market traders along the study roads; focus group discussions with associations of vehicle operators and market women; institutional consultations with district offices of agriculture development, health service and education. In addition, there were also market surveys, traffic counts and origin &

destination surveys along the study roads. With the help of 20 trained enumerators, a total of 646 households (distributed among communities based on their respective household population as shown in Table 1) were interviewed along all the roads; 30 vehicle operators, 50 market women and 10 officials from relevant institutions. Household selection for interview was based on systematic random sampling in which every third house in the study communities is visited. In these houses, accidental sampling was used to select the available household at the time of the visit, until the sample size is exhausted. The variables used in assessing the gendered impacts of rural transport investments under the study were adopted from Maramba and Bamberger (2001). Under the Gender and Rural Transport Initiative (GRTI) component of the Rural Travel and Transport Programme, Maramba and Bambeger (2001) identified: economic production (which is mainly agricultural and trade); social re-production (childbearing, health, education, and access to water); and community management (communal labour etc.) as key to defining gendered roles in rural African contexts. Hence, these factors/indicators were selected because they are key to determining gendered roles and patriarchal relationships in rural households in Africa (Maramba and Bamberger, 2001; Peters, 2002). These factors have been contextualised to include: participation in agricultural activities and production; involvement in non-farm activities; access to social and economic facilities; and access to transport services and travel patterns. Following the 3 months of data collection, multiple qualitative methods including: theme and context analyses, discussions of quotes of key respondents along the key themes; cross-analyses of view and opinions of respondents. Discussions of data were based on the proposition that intervention roads show improvements in the variables mentioned above.

3.2 Characteristics of Study Areas and Corridors Afigya Sekyere South district is located in the north eastern part of the Ashanti Region, with Agona as its capital and situated 37 kilometres north-east of Kumasi, Ghana’s second largest city. The study corridors were the 17km Agona- Wiamoase (intervention) and the 9km Wiamoase – Kokotesua (control) road corridors. Wiamoase is home to a host of services and facilities ranging from health centres, primary and secondary schools, weekly markets, a vehicle terminal, agricultural input supply centres among others (Table 2). These facilities serve most communities along this route. The control corridor Wiamoase – Kokotesua connects the two communities with a poorly gravelled surface. The villages along the stretch have been ranked the highest in food crop production, but owing to the poor nature of the road most of these produce are sold at farm gate prices or transported at high transport costs to the Wiamoase’s weekly market. FIGURE 1 HERE Figure 1: Study corridors and communities in Afigya Sekyere South District Source: Drawn by Authors, May, 2019 Table 2 HERE Table 2: Location of Facilities and Distances covered to access them in the Afigya Sekyere South District Source: Authors’ Field Survey, March, 2016 Jaman North, the second study district, is located to the North-Western part of the Brong Ahafo Region. The district capital, Sampa, is located about 119km from Sunyani, the regional capital. It is a rural district, with crop farming as the main occupation of its residents. The two roads selected were Old Drobo -Ponko No. 1 (intervention) and Kokosua 1 – Kokosua 2 (control) (See Figure 2). The Old Drobo -Ponko No. 1 road is an important rural road which links Old Drobo and other villages to the main trunk road that links Ghana to La Cote d’Ivoire to the west. As a result of its importance, the Old Drobo-Ponko No. 1 road was rehabilitated with bituminous surface

under the RSDP and carries substantial traffic all year round. It is also used as the main route by villages within the catchment of Old Drobo to access basic social services such as health and education (Table 3). The road also connects several communities within its catchment area to the district capital, Sampa, to access social services (Table 3). The control road, Kokosua 1 – Kokosua 2, is an untarred road with very poor surface conditions. As a result, it is usually rendered impassable during the rainy season between April – July as well as September and October every year. Transport services are limited along this corridor. Most market women who ply this road corridor can only travel on weekly market days, and at very high costs. Residents who may require transport services on other days, aside market days, have to hire a bus or taxi. FIGURE 2 HERE Figure 2: Study corridors and communities in the Jaman North District Source: Drawn by Authors, May, 2019 TABLE 3 HERE Table 3: Location of Facilities and Distances covered to access them in the Jaman North District Source: Authors’ Field Survey, March, 2016 4. Study Results and Discussions 4.1 Household Characteristics and Gendered Roles Average household sizes along the study roads range between 4.9 and 5.2 (See Table 4). There are no significant differences in household sizes and gender structure along the study corridors, indicating relative homogeneity of socio-cultural structures in the communities studied. Reflecting the demographic structures of the two regions, most households were dominated by females, with an average of 2 males to 3 females per household. However, most households were headed by men (Table 4). For instance, from Table 4, the proportion of male-headed households ranged between 65.2 percent along Agona Wiamoase road to 90 percent along Kokosua No. 1 – Kokosua No. 2. Although it appears that there were higher

proportions of male-headed households along the control than intervention corridors, the figures indicate similar social structures along all the study corridors, and rural communities in Ghana. Male headship of households are determined by access to economic resources and locally accepted social definitions of roles. Another factor for the definition of gender roles and positions within the households were levels of educational attainment and sectors of primary occupation/employment (See Table 4). From Table 4, it appears males lead in educational attainment and non-agricultural sectors along all corridors. For instance more males obtained technical/vocational and tertiary education and are employed in formal service and industrial sectors, than females. In contrast, more females are into informal service and agricultural sectors than males. These educational and economic advantages exacerbate male-domination at the household level. It must also be noted from the table that the proportions of household members who have attained education and work in non-agricultural sectors are higher along the intervention corridors than the control roads. While the statistical significance of the differences in proportions was not tested, there were some evidences that quality of life were slightly better for households along the intervention corridors than those along the control roads. For example no female had received technical/vocational or tertiary education along the Kokosua No. 1 – Kokosua No. 2 road; while only 1 percent each of females obtained technical/vocation and tertiary education respectively along Kokoteasua-Wiamoase corridor. Incidentally, this road received no interventions during the period under study spanning 2002- 2016. TABLE 4 HERE Table 4 Household Sizes and Gender Characteristics Source: Authors’ Field Survey, March, 2016

An important finding from Table 4 is that while most households were headed by males, in terms of numbers, most households were dominated by females. This sits within the context of patriarchal structure discussed earlier under section 2 from the works of Grieco et al., (1995), Overton (1996), Peters (2002) and Porter (2008). In their studies, patriarchy is seen as a key determinant of gender roles, as well as access to household resources; which in turn determine mobility demands and ability to access rural transport. Within patriarchal systems, most households are headed by men, while there are more females in the family. By their numbers and roles, transport demands of females and their number of trips per week is higher than males. This confirms the existing view that transport needs of rural women and girls are higher than their male counterparts, but they control less household resources to satisfy those needs (Tamene and Megento, 2017; Zogo and Epo, 2016; Hine, 2014). For instance, from Table 4, there are higher proportions of females in the informal (service) and agricultural sectors where there are more trips to urban and periodic markets, but they lack access to efficient transport service. This view was captured by a woman in her late 50s during focus group discussion at Kokosua No. 2 as: “I travel out of the village for five days of the week. For the other two days I go to farm. My husband who teaches in the local primary school hardly travels, except to the district capital once awhile, but owns a motorbike. I don’t even know how to ride the motorbike, because he would not teach me. Even if I knew how to ride the motorbike, it will not be enough to carry all my foodstuffs to the market” The above view summarises not only the travel patterns of most rural women, but also the mobility challenges they encounter weekly, if not daily. Again, the relatively less trips made by their male counterparts is also highlighted in the above quote. Another important view from the above quote is the male ownership of the household’s motorbike. In most households, key resources of power, which included the house and means of transport, were in the hands of the male-head. Further details on household trip patterns are presented next.

4.2 Travel Patterns, Vehicle Ownership and Transport Needs Household travel patterns showed minimal differences between genders in major destinations, travel purposes, trip frequencies and mode of transport (Table 5). As indicated in the previous section, female household members have more destinations and travel more frequently than their male counterparts. For instance, the average adult female along the study road corridors had six major destinations to which they travelled on daily basis as against an average of three major destinations for their male counterparts who travel relatively less often – two times a week on the average. Again, apart from trips to farms, funerals and other social gatherings, which were common to both men and women, most male trips outside their communities were for personal reasons; while the trip purposes reported by their female counterparts were related to the welfare of the household. For example, most female household members interviewed along intervention and control corridors indicated that their trips to markets were to sell farm produce, while their visits to health facilities include taking their children to the hospital or attending antenatal or post-natal clinics. Similar differentiated travel patterns between men and women in rural Africa have been discussed in the literature by Maramba and Bamberger (2001); Mahapa and Mashiri (2001); Porter et al. (2007); Porter (2008) and others.

Bicycle or motorbike ownership and usage is not only for transport, but prestige and a thing of pride. This view was recorded at different stages during field work and in many instances. For example during the interview with the local government representative at Kokotesua had this to say with regard to his ownership of a bicycle:

“I own a bicycle and everyone in the community thinks I am rich. Many people come to me for loan, when they are bereaved and want money for funeral… I used my bicycle when I was campaigning to be elected, so they think I have lots of money” Coming from a male respondent, who has also won election to represent the community at the local government level, the quote above establishes two key points. Firstly, the locally held view that ownership of any type of vehicle is a sign of wealth and attracts respect from members of the community is highlighted. Secondly, it can also be inferred that, having a vehicle of any kind could provide (or are perceived to provide) advantage of power and leadership. Within patriarchal systems, male-ownership of such vehicles could thus be exploited. This view was evidenced in an interview with a woman at Kokosua No. 2, who stated that: “My husband is the richest man in this village because he has a motorbike. He drove Mansa (a friend of the respondent) to the clinic to deliver her first child. Mansa’s family was grateful for the timely intervention which would not have been possible without the motorbike” Thus, while the reported travel modes were found to be generally similar along all the study roads – that is, walking to nearby villages, farms and water sources and motorised vehicles to urban centres, periodic markets and nearby towns; the few bicycles and other intermediate means of transport (IMT) options identified were male-owned and used for short (average of 1-2 km) to medium distances (3-5km) inter and intra village travels. Aside being used as a major rural transport means, bicycles were found to be indicators of social status, assets and wealth for the men who owned them, while preserved as a thing of pride for the households involved. No private car ownership was recorded in any of the communities studied along the selected roads. In any case, not many households in rural Ghana can afford to own and maintain a private vehicle. However, there were a few households (14%) operating commercial vehicles along the Agona-Wiamoase and Old Drobo – Ponko No. 1 road corridors. Further interviews

with these commercial vehicle-owning households also revealed that all of them were maleheaded and that the vehicles were owned and operated by the male-household heads and other male members such as their cousins, children, and nephews. For many of such households, the female members were found to be farmers or market traders whose goods are transported by the family vehicles. This notwithstanding, the business ownership structures between the male and female household members were made very clear- the male familyhead owns the transport business, while the female members are engaged in informal petty trading and/or farming. Rural transport needs are mainly determined by major destinations, trip frequencies and purposes of transport users (Hine and Riverson, 2001). These were also found to be gendered along the study road corridors. The major destinations identified among the households interviewed have been categorised into men, women, boys and girls as shown in Table 5. These were farms, urban centres and nearby villages for men. Beyond these three, women were found to have many other destinations; notable among these being: periodic and daily urban markets; health facilities, water sources and nearby villages.

These gendered

differences shape rural transport impacts in the area. TABLE 5 HERE Table 5: Households’ Travel Patterns and Transport Needs Source: Authors’ Field Survey, March, 2016 Except for trip frequencies, not much differences in travel patterns were recorded along the study roads. However, for the destinations outside the study communities, trip frequencies varied between the two road corridors. For instance, trip frequencies along intervention roads ranged from daily to bi-weekly; while trip frequencies along control roads were reduced to between once a week to when extremely necessary due to the poor road conditions and irregular transport services. The reasons for these differences were aptly stated by a female household head and a market trader interviewed at Kokosua No. 1, who intimated that:

“We are not able to regularly go to the urban market because the roads are bad, and it is difficult to get a bus. Even when you get a vehicle, you have to pay twice the approved fares for passengers and tariffs for goods and services” The above view was expressed by several market women along the two control roads. Travel patterns and trip frequencies for most of these women were determined by the availability of rural transport services at high costs, over which they have no control. In some cases their travel patterns were determined by weather conditions. For instance, sections of the two control roads of Kokoteasua-Wiamoase and Kokosua No. 1 – Kokosua No. 2 are rendered impassable during the rainy seasons (May – July and September-October). As a result, vehicular transport services are available only on market days, when they are rented by groups of market women or brought in by urban bulk buyers who come to the study communities to purchase foodstuffs, vegetables and fruits for nearby urban markets. Travel patterns, and hence transport needs along the study corridors, are gendered to the extent that major destinations, trip frequencies and purposes were differentiated for men and women in the households interviewed. Situated within Peters (2002, 2-4) conceptual frame of Patriarchy in rural communities in the developing world, the differentiated and gendered travel patterns and transport needs are attributable to gendered division of labour, livelihood assets and survival methods which in turn shape movement patterns. For instance, most of the women interviewed along the study corridors were engaged in informal economic activities such as sale of foodstuffs, vegetables and basic household items (Table 4). Again, women sell agricultural produce from the family farm and bring home basic household items such as soap, kerosene, fish, salt and other daily supplies. What were the perceived and actual implications of the investments in the two rural roads? Did the perceived impacts of investments under RSDP affect gendered roles, livelihood and travel patterns? Attempts are made to address these questions next.

4.3 Perceived and Reported Impacts of Road Investments on Rural Households Generally, the study revealed positive impacts of road investments along the intervention roads. As was revealed and discussed in the previous sub-section, while major destinations, trip purposes and transport needs are similar along the two sets of study roads, trip frequencies, travel times and costs were different and determined by the availability of transport services and surface condition of roads during rainy seasons. For instance, on the average, households made 3 visits to health facilities along control roads compared to 6 trips along intervention roads annually (Table 5). Beyond the above perceived differences in trip frequencies along control and intervention roads, impacts at the household levels were also found to be gendered along both sets of study roads. For example, it can be seen from Table 5, that the household trips to health facilities were mainly undertaken by women. Again, women in informal economic activities along the study roads were identified as the leading users of transport services and hence perceived to be the most impacted by transport interventions. This finding goes to support McQuaid’s (2009) view that investment in rural roads can be assessed using users access to markets where these women in the informal sector sell their goods. This points to a greater impact of transport infrastructure and services on female members of the households studied.

In order to tease out households’ perceptions of gendered impacts of rural roads rehabilitated under the RSDP, two thematic areas were discussed namely: mobility, travel cost and access to household incomes; and Access and Trips to social and economic facilities. Under each of these themes, the perceived benefits derived from rural roads infrastructure and transport

services were solicited from men, women and children in the households studied. These are presented and discussed below. 4.3.1 Mobility, Cost of Travel and Access to Household Incomes along Study Roads As indicated earlier in Tables 4 and 5, the main vehicular trips in the study communities were those made to major and nearby urban markets. Access to these markets were gendered especially for farming households. The local agricultural sector in the study communities is dominated by men with the support of their wives, many of whom were also engaged in petty trading and other informal economic activities. It was revealed that along both intervention and control corridors agriculture-related trips were differentiated between male and female members of the households interviewed. For instance, male farmers made an average of 2 and 6 trips annually along control and intervention roads respectively to urban market, for agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, weedicides and pesticides. In sharp contrast, their female counterparts make an average of 8 and 18 trips annually along control and intervention roads respectively to urban markets to sell farm produce and procure manufactured household items for sale in the communities or consumption. From the foregoing, women along control roads are perceived to spend four times more on transport cost than men in travels related to agricultural activities and production. Again, along intervention roads, women spend three times more on agricultural related trips to urban markets annually. Asked why this was the case for most agricultural households in the study community, a fifty-year old woman at Wiamoase stated that: As a woman, I am required to go to the market to purchase the basic household needs of my family…but because, they are cheaper on major market days and transport services are available on those days, I choose to sell some products from our farm. That is one of the ways to have access to household income and control part of the family’s finance”

Two key perceptions can be drawn from the above statement. First is the role of inherent socio-cultural division of labour in determining the gendered impacts of rural transport investments. Thus, from the study, not only are transport needs and travel patterns different for men and women as shown in Table 5, but these differences also shape the perceived impacts of transport investments on men and women. In the above example, women by their socio-cultural role as homemakers make more trips to markets and pay more for such trips. Secondly, it can be revealed from the statement that through their roles and trips to market, women get to control a portion of the household income. Hence, through rural transport, gendered access to markets, movement patterns and control of family incomes are defined. Thus, while it may seem as though women are disadvantaged by the number of trips made to the market and associated costs, it is an important platform for economic empowerment and greater access to household incomes from farming and their informal trading activities.

4.3.2 Access and Trips to Social and Economic Facilities and Services Physical access to social facilities and economic services is an important determinant for assessing the impacts of rural transport investments (Coyle et al., 2009; Bryceson et al., 2008; Bhatta, 2004). Access in this case is defined as the ease with which one can travel to and enjoy a facility and return to the origin and it is determined by travel time, distances covered and availability of appropriate transport services (Starkey et al., 2002). Along the study roads, the main social facilities studied were: health including clinics and the district hospital; educational facilities including basic and secondary schools; as well as religious and social functions such as churches (Tables 2 and 3). In addition, economic facilities and services accessed by households along the study roads include urban markets, periodic markets, rural banks and micro-financial institutions.

As was indicated in Table 5, apart from educational facilities which were major destinations for school children, trips to health facilities, religious and social functions were mainly limited to women of the households interviewed. On the average, a woman makes 5 trips per month to social facilities and functions along intervention as compared to 3 trips per month along control roads. It was further revealed that women also make three times more trips to urban and periodic markets, rural banks, and micro-financial institutions than their male counterparts. Apart from trips to urban markets to purchase farm inputs, spare parts for their bicycles/motorbikes, gun powder for their hunting guns, most men interviewed indicated that they travel to health facilities, funerals and church programmes only when it is necessary. Again, for most men, trips to rural banks were limited to an average of once a month. Thus, mobility and access for women along all study corridors were higher than men. For instance, a 70 year old male cocoa farmer at Kokosua No. 1 indicated that: “I hardly travel out of this village. My wife does all the travels…to markets and the city. I only travel to town when the government pays for my cocoa. Even then, most times I go with my wife who is more experienced with urban life” The above statement gives credence to higher mobility and access of women to social and economic facilities and services even along the poor roads with limited transport services. For these women, it was revealed that attendance to health facilities, funerals and church programmes were extremely critical to their general well-being, sense of worth and community belongingness. For instance, a 30-year-old woman at Kokosua No. 2, captured the importance of visiting the District Hospital at Sampa in the statement below: “I frequently access the District Hospital at Sampa because that is where I can use my health insurance card…I go there for ante-natal, post-natal, reproductive health care, family planning, and breast cancer awareness services…Sometimes health officials from the hospital also come to our village to educate our women on family planning” Trips to funerals, weddings and religious functions also attracted women because in the words of the woman cited above:

“Those events bring women in our community together to share our problems and joy….Through that we also connect economically through petty trading and paying monies borrowed from our friends and relatives” The two statements above point to the intrinsic and embedded social and economic benefits rural women derive from improved access along study roads. Women along the intervention roads also revealed even higher social and economic benefits they derive from the rehabilitation and improvement of the Agona-Wiamoasi and Old Drobo – Ponko No. 1 corridors. For example, in addition to the social and economic benefits mentioned along the control roads, women along the Agona - Wiamoase road indicated that they access HIV counselling services from the health facilities, loans from rural banks and sell their goods at the urban market at Agona and Wiamoase. Some women at Bipoa, Kofikrom and Oppong Yaw revealed loan officials from rural banks visit them to help them with the management of their informal businesses. 5. Conclusion and Contributions This study set out to explore the perceived benefits of rural transport investments derived by men and women members of rural households. The study comes on the heels of several others in the past (Starkey, 2005; Porter, 2002, 2008; Bryceson et al., 2008; Porter et al., 2010) that have attempted to investigate the relationship between poverty attributes, rural accessibility and mobility. The overall objective was to record the perceived effects of transport investments on men and women in rural Ghana using qualitative approaches. This is because in the developing world the actual effects of transport on rural households are usually not officially captured and measured on personal and local knowledge bases. Like many others, the study revealed relationship between gender and transport along both the intervention and control roads. On the one hand, it was revealed that gendered roles and access to rural livelihoods have greatly been shaped by households’ transport needs, and travel patterns along the intervention and control roads. On the other hand, the study also

revealed that through their transport needs and access to transport services, gendered roles are entrenched and consolidated at the household level. For instance, the study revealed that, through their frequent travels out of the communities, most women have access to a proportion of the household income with which they manage their homes along intervention roads; while long distances and unreliable transport services were barriers to women who trade on periodic markets along control roads. These perceived differences in travel patterns point to substantial advantages and/or limitations for and participation of women at the household level. Even though the overall and community level impacts of rural road and transport investments have been documented in the broader literature; as seen in the literature reviewed under this study, there are a number of personal, unintended and embedded benefits of rural transport highlighted by this study. This points to personal and embodied benefits of rural transportation. Thus, the study revealed the benefits of rural roads investments reported from personal and everyday life perspective by many of the respondents based on their gendered position within their respective households. Respondents used their own everyday life and livelihoods to measure and describe the impacts of rural road investments. This is a point of departure from many of the road impact(s) studies and could make a case for a change in research design from strictly quantitative to more flexible and scientifically based qualitative designs. It is clear from the above discussions that adequate rural transport infrastructure and services give more social, economic and cultural benefits to women than is largely reported in the literature. This is because most studies only reduce the impacts of rural transport investments into figures and discuss them along the lines of direct causality, statistical tests and correlation coefficients. In most cases these approaches to studying impacts of rural transport investments do not capture localised and personalised experiences of effected households.

Again, the embedded and indirect effects of improved transport infrastructure are not captured and discussed.

6. References Adarkwa, K.K. (2001). “Social and Economic Infrastructure for Rapid Growth and Sustainable Development in Ghana”, ISSER Millennium Seminar Series Ghana in the 21st Century. Legon, Accra, Institute of Statistical, Social & Economic Research. Berg, C.N., Blankespoor, B., and Selod, H. (2018). Roads and Rural Development in SubSaharan Africa, The Journal of Development Studies, 54 (5): 856874, DOI: 10.1080/00220388.2018.1430772 Berg, C.N., Blankespoor, B., and Selod, H.(2016). Roads and Rural Development in SubSaharan Africa, Policy Research Working Paper 7729, Washington DC, The World Bank Group Bhatta, B. P. (2004). Socioeconomic Transformations and Road Accessibility: Evidence from Northern Ethiopia. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Degree of Master Science in Development and Resource Economics at the Department of Economics and Resource Management Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Accessed on 10th February, 2017 at http://www.ub.uib.no /elpub/Norad/ 2004/nlh/thesis01.pdf Bryceson, D.F., Bradbury, A. and Bradbury, T. (2008). Roads to Poverty Reduction Exploring Rural Roads’ Impact on Mobility in Africa and Asia. Development Policy Review 26:459–482. Bryceson, D. F., & Howe, J. (1993). Rural household transport in Africa: reducing the burden on women? World Development, 21(11): 1715–1728.

Buor, D. (2004). “Gender and the utilization of health services in the Ashanti region, Ghana”. Health Policy, 69: 375-388. Coyle, E., Huws, D., Monaghan, S., Roddy, G., Seery, B., Staats, P., Thunhurst, C., Walker, P. and Fleming P. (2009). Transport and health– a five-country perspective. Public Health 123(1): 21-23 Ellis, S. (1997). Key Issues in Road Transport in Developing countries, TRL Report 260, London, Transport Research Laboratory. Elias, W., Benjamin, J., and Shiftan, Y. (2015). Gender differences in activity and travel behavior in the Arab world, Transport Policy, 44:19–27. Fernando, P. F. (1998). Gender and rural transport, Gender Technology and Development, 2: 63-80. Foster, V. and Briceño-Garmendia, C. (eds.) (2010). Africa’s Infrastructure: A Time for Transformation, Washington DC, The World Bank Grieco, M, Turner, J. and Kwakye, E. (1995). “A Tale of Two Cultures: Ethnicity and Cycling Behavior in Urban Ghana.”

Transportation Research Record 1441,

Washington DC Hine, J.L. and Riverson, J.D.N. (2001). The Impact of Feeder Road Investment on Accessibility and Agricultural Development in Ghana, Rural Transport Knowledge Base, London, DFID. Hine, J (2014) Good Policies and Practices on Rural Transport in Africa Planning Infrastructure & Services, SSATP, Africa Transport Policy Program, Working Paper No. 100. Washington DC, the World Bank Group. Kane, E.(2003) Girls’ Education in Africa. Africa Region Human Development Working

Paper Series, World Bank, Washington D.C. Mahapa, S.M. and Mashiri, M. (2001). Social exclusion and rural transport: gender aspects of a road improvement project in Tshitwe, Northern Province, Development Southern Africa, 18(3): 365- 376. Maramba, P and Bamberger, M. (2001). A Gender Responsive Monitoring and Evaluation System for Rural Travel and Transport Programs in Africa: A Handbook for Planners, Managers and Evaluators, SSATP Working Paper No. 55, Africa Region, The World Bank Martens, K. (2016). Transport Justice – Designing Fair Transportation Systems, LondonUK, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group McQuaid, R. W.(2009)Linking Transport to Employment: Pursuing the Millennium Development Goals in Africa, Transport and the Millennium Development Goals, Achieving an Internationally Set Agenda. Edited by Margaret Grieco, Muna Ndulo, Deborah Bryceson, Gina Porter and Talia McCray. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK Overton, K. (1996) Using the Bicycle for Women's Empowerment in Africa, Sustainable Transport, No. 6, summer 1996: 6-10. New York: The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). Peters, D. (2002). Gender and Transport in Less Developed Countries: A Background Paper in Preparation for CSD-9, London, UK, UNED Forum Porter, G. (1995). The impact of road construction on women’s trade in rural Nigeria. Journal of Transport Geography, 3(1): 3 - 14 Porter, G. (2002). Living in a walking world: rural mobility and social equity issues in subSaharan Africa. World Development 30(2): 285-300 Porter, G. (2008). Transport planning in sub-Saharan Africa II: putting gender into mobility

and transport planning in Africa, Progress in development studies, 8 (3): 281-289. Porter, G. (2012) Transport services and their impact on poverty and growth in rural subSaharan Africa: Literature review. Report to the Africa Community Access Programme, Technical Report, London-UK, Department for International Development (DFID) Porter, G., Blaufuss, K. and Owusu Acheampong, F. (2007). Youth, mobility and rural livelihoods in sub- Saharan Africa: perspectives from Ghana and Nigeria. Africa Insight 37(3): 420-431. Porter, G., Hampshire, K., Bourdillon, M., Robson, E., Munthali, A., Abane, A., Mashiri, M. (2010). Children as research collaborators: issues and reflections from a mobility study in sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Community Psychology 46 (1): 215-227. Porter, G. and Hampshire, K. and Abane, A. and Tanle, A. and Esia-Donkoh, K. and Amoako, S. and Agblorti, R. and Owusu, S. (2011) 'Mobility, education and livelihood trajectories for young people in rural Ghana: a gender perspective. Children's Geographies, 9 (3-4): 395-410. Raballand G., P. Macchi, and C. Petracco (2010). Rural Road Investment Efficiency: Lessons from Burkina Faso, Cameroon, and Uganda. Published in Directions in Development. Washington, D.C. World Bank. Seedhouse, A, Johnson, R. and Newbery, R. (2016) Potholes or Pitfalls: The Impact of Rural Transport on Female Entrepreneurs in Nigeria, Journal of Transport Geography, 54: 140 -147 Starkey, P. (2002) Local Transport Solutions for Rural Developments. London, Department for International Development Starkey, P. (2005). Methodology for the Rapid Assessment of Rural Transport Services.

Seminar on Sustainable Access and Local Resource Solution, 28th - 30th November, 2005, Bangkok. Starkey, P., Ellis, S., Hine, J. and Ternell, A. (2002). Improving Rural Mobility: Options for Developing Motorised and Non-motorised Transport in Rural Areas. World Bank Technical Paper 525. Washington DC, USA. World Bank Stifel, D. and Minten, B. (2008). Isolation and agricultural productivity. Agricultural Economics, 39(1): 1-15. Tamene, S and Megento T.L. (2017) Gender differences in access to rural transport infrastructure and agricultural production: The Case of Horro Guduru Wollega Zone, Western Ethiopia, Global Journal of Human-Social Science: B Geography, Geo-Sciences, Environmental Science and Disaster Management, 17(4). Online: ISSN: 2249-460x The World Bank (2011) Making Transport Work for Women and Men: Challenges and Opportunities in the Middle East and North Africa Lessons from Case Studies. Washington DC: The World Bank Zogo, V.O and Epo, B.N. (2016). Assessing Gender Inclusion in Cameroon’s Rural Transport, Journal of African Transformation, 1(2): 129-144.

Figure 1: Study corridors and communities in Afigya Sekyere South District Source: Drawn by Authors, May, 2019

Figure 2: Study corridors and communities in the Jaman North District Source: Drawn by Authors, May, 2019

Afigya Sekyere South

17

425

403

bitumen

Link up a number of villages to the urban market at Agona

KokoteasuaWiamoase

Control road

9

9

5

Gravel

Old-DroboPonko No. 1

Intervention road

9.1

27

22

Bitumen

Feeder road linking farming communities to the Wiamoase township Road linking farming communities/villages

Jaman North

Kokosua No. 1 – Kokosua No. 2

Control road

3

5

3

Earth

Source: Authors’ Field Survey, March 2016

Community

Total Numbe Househ

Wiamoase Bipoa Kofikrom Oppong Yaw Kokoteasua

2,847 1,024 15 8 37

Nsonsomea Old Drobo Ponko No. 1 Kokosua No. 1 Kokosua No. 2

225 100 82 9 29

Current function

Intervention road

Surface condition

ADT on Non-market days

AgonaWiamoase

Length of road(km)

ADT on Market days

Table 1: Characteristics of Study and Control Communities Corridor Corridor Characteristics Name classification

Districts

Road linking farming communities/villages

Table 2: Location of Facilities and Distances covered to access them in the Sekyere South District Service/Facilities Community(ies) Communities Accessing Distances Covered(km) Located Markets Wiamoase Kokotesua 9 Health Centre OppongYaw 9.78 Education: Basic Kofikrom 11.05 SHS Bipoa 13.72 Vehicle Terminal Agricultural Input Supply centre Markets Health Centre Education: Basic SHS

Bipoa

OppongYaw Kofikrom

5.7 3.7

Source: Authors’ Field Survey, March 2016 Table 3: Location of Facilities and Distances covered to access them in the Jaman North District Service/Facilities Community Location Communities Accessing Distances Covered (km) Markets Sampa Kokosua No. 1 12.16 Hospital Kokosua No. 2 16.01 Education: SHS Nsonsonmea 18.93 Ponko No. 1 15.38 Old Drobo 12.7 Clinic Basic school

Old Drobo

Basic school Basic school

Ponko No.1 Kokosua No. 1

Kokosua No. 1 Kokosua No. 2 Nsonsonmea Ponko No. 1 Nsonsonmea Kokosua No. 2

Source: Authors’ Field Survey, March 2016

34

8.8 4.8 6.2 2.8 6.2 2.8

)

ducation

onal

mal)

ormal)

d

Table 4 Household Sizes and Gender Characteristics Intervention Roads Control Roads Agona-Wiamoase Old-Drobo-Ponko No. Kokoteasua1 Wiamoase 4.9 (2males 3 5 (2males , 3 males) 5.1 (1.7males, females) females) 44 46 51 65.2 68 74.6 34.8 32 25.4 100 100 100 Males Males Females Males Females 14.0 24.5 30.0 30.0 32.5 40.0 15.2 24.1 23.0 13.6 22.6 18.0 43.3 32.2 35.0 38.3 33.2 33.0 19.5 11.8 9.0 15.4 8.1 7.0 4. 9 4.0 2.0 1.7 3.6 1.0 3.1 3.4 1.0 1.0 2.3 1.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 6.2 7.4 2.3 4.3 5.0 1.8 23.5 24.3 14.6 31.4 27.2 6.3 6.5 1.5 2.4 5.1 60.6 60.5 76.9 60.9 62.0 3.4 1.3 3.1 1.0 0.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Authors’ Field Study, March 2016.

35

Kokosua No. 1 Kokosua No. 2 3.4 5.2 (1.2 males, females) 49 90 10 100

Females

19.2 1.0 76.5 1.5

– 4

Males Females 35.0 43.0 20.0 19.0 38.0 35.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 100.0 100.0 1.0 5.9 9.1 2.0 1.9 89.2 100.0 100.0

-

89.0 -

Table 5: Households’ Travel Patterns and Transport Needs Member Major Purposes of HH Destinations Farm Farming, harvesting Men

Women

Intervention Roads

Girls

Boys

Men

Control Roads

Women

Girls

Freq. of Travel

M

Daily

B

Shopping etc. Funerals, church etc Farming, harvesting, transporting farm produce Sale of food stuff and other farm produce

Weekly Weekly Daily Weekly

M B W M

Purchase of manufactured goods, meat, fish etc.

Twice/week

M

Funerals, church, buy foodstuffs, social visits etc Urban Health Access health services, send children to Facilities facilities etc Water sources Access and transport water Farm Farming, harvest and transport food, fuel wood Urban centres Access health, urban market, secondary schools etc. Nearby villages Attend basic schools, social visits Water sources Access and transport water Farm Farming Urban centres Access urban services- secondary schools, health facilities etc Nearby villages Access basic schools Farm Farming, harvesting Urban market Shopping etc. Nearby village Funerals, church etc Farm Farming, harvesting, transporting farm produce Periodic Sale of food stuff and other farm produce Market Urban market Purchase of manufactured goods, meat, fish etc. Nearby villages Funerals, church, buy foodstuffs, social visits etc Health Access health services, send children to Facilities facilities etc Water sources Access and transport water

Daily

M

Twice every 2/3 months Daily Daily When necessary

M

Daily/weekly Daily Daily When needed

w W W M

Daily Daily Once a month Once a month Daily Weekly

W B M B W W

When needed Weekly

M W

Farm Urban centres

Daily When necessary Weekly

Urban market Nearby villages Farm Periodic Market Daily Urban market Nearby villages

Nearby villages

Farming, harvest and transport food, fuel wood Access health, urban market, secondary schools etc. Attend basic schools, social visits

36

w w M

Once every 3/4 W months v Daily W

W very M

W

Boys

Farm Urban centres Nearby villages

Farming Twice a week Access urban services- secondary schools, When needed health facilities etc Access basic schools Daily

Source: Authors’ Field Survey, March 2016

37

W M

W

Highlights  This paper explores household impacts of rural road investments under the Road Sector Development Project (RSDP) implemented by the Government of Ghana between 2002 and 2008. 

Based on a quasi-experimental design under the “with-and-without” framework together with qualitative and participatory methods, the gendered impacts of the RSDP were assessed in selected communities along both “experimental” and “control” road corridors.



The paper also reveals the embedded social and economic benefits rural men and women derive from improved access.



Adequate rural transport infrastructure and services give more social, economic and cultural benefits to women than is largely reported in the literature.



For sustained impacts of rural road investments on residents; the issue of gender must be re-negotiated and properly understood.

38