Infrastructure Geomapping: Unlocking New Uses for Governments and Citizens

Technology Policy

Infrastructure Geomapping: Unlocking New Uses for Governments and Citizens

Paper
Posted on: 8th December 2021
Maria da Graça Prado
Technology and Public Policy 2021 Fellow

    Introduction

    Introduction

    Infrastructure has a direct impact on people’s lives. It provides citizens with essential services and has been associated with more than 80 per cent of the individual Sustainable Development Goals. It can shorten distances, facilitate trade, connect people, ensure access to education and health care, while also acting as a resource for job creation.

    From a policy perspective, the efficient provision of infrastructure remains challenging. Poor governance, including integrity gaps and corruption, is often a blockage to effective infrastructure development.

    Specific features of the infrastructure sector make projects particularly prone to governance failures and corruption. The high amounts of money at stake, the size and uniqueness of projects, the difficulties in monitoring, as well as complexity and technicality of major projects all act as challenges for the sector.

    Integrity risks exist throughout the project cycle. Prior to public bidding, influence peddling and abuse of authority can bias decision-making and divert goals and priorities away from the public interest. During procurement and implementation, lack of integrity can lead to many forms of corruption such as bid rigging, kickbacks for contract award, embezzlement of public funds, and bribes to conceal low standards of work and regulatory breaches.

    Decision-makers also face skewed incentives during planning and implementation. Politicians may propose unrealistic budgets to get costs approved more easily or give priority to new infrastructure instead of maintaining existing setups. Optimism bias and risk misrepresentation can also undermine infrastructure development, leading to a lack of realistic impact assessments and causing inefficiencies down the road. And the fact that “political priorities” remain the primary driver of infrastructure decision-making can open the door to many distortions emerging from biased priority setting and state capture.

    Inappropriate project choice can create negative impacts beyond a bad investment choice. This includes facilitating corruption during implementation, feeding rent-seeking schemes and delivering infrastructure that fails to meet people’s needs.

    Planning and implementation risk in infrastructure is a complex matter with no silver-bullet solution, but new technologies can help address these issues. Open data and e-government, for example, can facilitate the identification of red flags and are bringing significant savings to public budgets due to the deterrent effect of transparency. My research focuses on a different type of intervention: geomapping technology and its potential new uses to minimise infrastructure risks by:

    • Improving planning through a “systems” approach to infrastructure;
    • Providing objective grounds to guide and challenge project prioritisation and selection; and
    • Flagging inequalities and inconsistencies in the distribution of infrastructure.

    Geomapping visualisations can give visibility into proposed and delivered projects, reducing the risks of “roads to nowhere” situations and planning failures. They can also shine a light on patterns and choices made, helping to identify integrity “fault lines” and improve accountability in decision-making.

    I have developed three case studies to explore the potential uses of geomapping. Findings show how geomapping can trigger an in-depth analysis of decision-making, bringing to light issues of equality of distribution, population needs and political motivations.

    A key takeaway of the research is the need to make infrastructure development accessible to all. Even when information is publicly available, expertise is required to understand planning decisions and the consequences that can derive from choosing one project or one region over others. Geomapping can translate complex decisions into accessible visualisations that can be understood and challenged, breaking down the technicality of the sector and helping democratise knowledge and strengthen accountability.

    Methodology, Challenges and Limitations

    Methodology, Challenges and Limitations

    A case study methodology was applied to the research, which was intended to explore different scenarios and compare outcomes. To cover different levels of economic development – low-, middle- and high-income – Uganda, Brazil and the UK were selected as case studies. The country selection considered different policy approaches applied to infrastructure development: (i) structured policies where infrastructure projects follow a formal process of appraisal and selection as in the UK; (ii) policies that provide general guidelines to decision-makers, with a medium-term horizon to assess political priorities as in the case of Brazil; and (iii) informal systems that, although they may appear highly regulated on paper, work on a case-by-case basis to decide on project approval, which is the dynamic in Uganda. The case study selection also took into consideration signs of integrity failures in decision-making processes and evidence of potential misalignment between policy priorities and the public interest. This was considered an important factor to test the geomapping approach as a tool to foster accountability.

    Two key challenges emerged during the research process: tech-related and access-related. Tech challenges were mostly connected to the difficulties in using geographic information system (GIS) tools. This included my own lack of capability in operating sophisticated GIS tools, the high cost of paid versions of GIS tools, and limitations of open GIS sources, such as restrictions around the use of multiple layers of information in free-of-charge versions.

    In terms of accessing information, the challenges were linked to a lack of information on project location, which required some projects to be excluded from the analysis, and databases that were siloed and non-interoperable, which posed difficulties with overlaying information in the same platform. After trials and iterations, the research exercise was developed using Google Maps, given its user-friendly interface and accessibility.

    The research has limitations. The geomapping exercise covered only a small sample of projects, limiting the insights that could be generated from a quantitative study. From a technological standpoint, more sophisticated GIS tools could have been used to produce high-quality, multilayered visualisations. In addition, there may be small imprecisions in instances where complete addresses were not included in the public sources. In these cases, the name of the municipality, instead of the exact project location, was used to generate the maps. Since the purpose of the research was less a “tech test” and more an exploratory exercise to assess potential uses of geomapping, the choices made, although imperfect, did not compromise the analytical exercise developed and the critical assessment of the information generated.

    Each case study focuses on a specific infrastructure sector: water, sanitation and hygiene (“WASH”) in Uganda, logistics infrastructure in Brazil and health care in the UK. The focused approach was used to facilitate data collection and simplify the visualisations. Given the complexity of running the exercise across the entire Brazilian territory, an option was also made to focus on a sub-national entity: the state of Piauí in the northeast of Brazil. Further detail on the case studies and how geomapping provided relevant insights for infrastructure development can be found below.

    Uganda and the WASH Sector

    Uganda and the WASH Sector

    Statistics show that 8 million people lack access to safe water in Uganda and approximately 27 million do not have access to adequate sanitation. This is a widespread issue in the country, but some regions are particularly exposed to water and sanitation challenges. Karamoja, in northeastern Uganda, is behind other regions in terms of latrine and handwashing coverage.

    Karamoja also falls behind in other indicators. The region concentrates the worst social-economic conditions across the country: these are the poorest counties, with the highest poverty rates and lowest life expectancy, and health indicators that are below the national average and the average of western and central regions.

    Sanitation and hand-washing coverage is also lower in Karamoja. During the Covid-19 pandemic, a vulnerability map prepared by the Ministry of Health confirmed the local frailty, showing that Karamoja and Teso, both located in the northern part of the country, had the lowest percentage of households with access to WASH facilities. The vulnerability map assessed four other dimensions – hospital coverage, population out of poverty, lower-risk demographics and connectivity – and again Karamoja (the sub-counties of Napak, Nakapiripirit and Kotido) and the neighbour region of Teso (Katakwi sub-county) were the most vulnerable sub-counties across all dimensions of vulnerability assessed by the Ministry of Health.

    Integrity Issues

    The World Bank estimates that, globally, between 20 and 40 per cent of public investment in the water sector is lost to corruption. This corresponds to annual losses in excess of US $75 billion. Corruption in the water and sanitation sectors manifests in many ways: from small bribes paid by consumers to have water systems connected, to collusion in the procurement of infrastructure projects and top-level embezzlement schemes involving private and public agents. In Uganda, the diversion of public resources has contributed to delays in expanding adequate water and sanitation coverage in the country.

    A key challenge to integrity in the sector is the lack of planning. Without technical assessment of needs and solid reasoning to decide where and how to invest, corrupt practices can emerge and compromise decision-making. Undue influence in resource allocation can cause more than inefficiencies in the use of public funds; it can also perpetuate unequal patterns of investment and divert resources away from where they are most needed.

    The mapping of new water points built in Malawi between 1998 and 2002, for example, indicated that half of the new points have been placed in areas that had already reached the recommended coverage density, while other areas, with pressing needs and issues, continued to lack access. Looking at local demographics and their needs can help target the unserved population and improve equality in access and provision of WASH services.

    The Mapping Exercise

    The responsibility for water and sanitation in Uganda falls within the remit of the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE), which has the mandate to develop policies for management of water and environmental resources, provide safe water-supply and sanitation facilities in urban and rural areas, and deliver strategic planning of the sector. In some urban centres, the ministry shares regulatory and managing powers with the National Water and Sewerage Corporation, a public utility company that operates in 258 towns.

    For the purpose of this exercise, I focused on infrastructure projects delivered by the MWE in order to cover urban and rural areas across the country, and I used the database of infrastructure projects provided by CoST – the Infrastructure Transparency Initiative to extract project information. Data available on the CoST portal is disaggregated by procuring entity which allowed a search for MWE projects. The database also includes reference to the geographic location of projects.

    Projects that did not provide information on location or did not involve WASH infrastructure despite being procured by the MWE were excluded from the analysis. The list of infrastructure projects considered for the exercise comprises a total of 72 projects procured between 2016 and 2021 with a value of UGX 405 billion (approximately US $115 million), and is available in Annex A. The geo-map produced has been collated against a map of Uganda’s subregions for ease of reference (Figure 1).

    Findings and Implications

    A first reaction to the mapping is that the area between Kampala in the Central subregion and the district of Jinja in East Central concentrates a relevant portion of the WASH projects procured by the MWE. From a policy and political standpoint, the decision to locate a big share of the projects in this area is justified by the higher population density of the region. But the discrepancy in the distribution of projects does not go unnoticed. Whereas other regions received the lions’ share in the distribution, Karamoja received only one project out of the 72 – a water and sanitation supply system in the town of Amudat (Figure 1).

    WASH allocation using population density is an important metric to bring objectivity to decision-making. It is a way to look at demand and allocate provision accordingly. But alone it can create distortions. Note for example the national atlas developed by the MWE in 2017. According to the source, Karamoja is shown as one of the subregions with the highest percentages of people with access to safe water-supply. This is because the atlas considers WASH coverage based on the region’s low population density, which produces a high average for Karamoja. However, when additional factors are considered – for example, the vulnerability mentioned above – the misrepresentation of the local conditions becomes apparent, as well as the gaps in accessibility faced by the population.

    Issues in data reporting, where information may suggest a better representation of the reality, can mask local nuances and be misleading about the reality on the ground. It is considered in the literature as an integrity failure that can compromise an efficient and fair resource allocation. Inaccurate reporting can have bigger consequences in fragmented and siloed sectors such as WASH. When projects are implemented across multiple government departments and bodies, inaccuracies in data reporting can go undetected under the many layers of bureaucracy, reinforcing deficiencies and avoiding necessary changes towards more sustainable and equitable patterns of investment.

    Decisions on project location and prioritisation require in-depth assessment and appraisal of local conditions, which includes consideration of needs, the beneficiary population, the benefits to be created by the project, as well as issues of equality and distribution effects. Accurately assessing the needs of the population is a vital part of the analysis so that there is value for money but also value for many. By cross-analysing population data, socioeconomic indicators and recorded vulnerabilities, inconsistencies in project allocation can emerge. The visualisation of Karamoja infrastructure worked as a first step to recognise discrepancies. The empty quadrant in the northeast of the country triggered a deeper understanding of provision versus needs in Karamoja.

    The geomapping visualisation also provides an objective basis to question established decision-making processes. Historically, Karamoja’s remoteness has created a political dynamic where public services have mostly been provided by international entities and NGOs, which has lessened pressure on the government to direct resources to the region. The provision gaps identified in the mapping can help inform an objective new dialogue on investment reprioritisation in Karamoja and the role of the state in improving social conditions.

    Concluding Remarks

    WASH infrastructure is a serious constraint to sustainable and human development. Global events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change are reminders that access to safe water and sanitation remains a widespread health challenge. Despite being a common good, water is often managed in siloes and with low transparency, which poses difficulties for policymakers to deliver consistent planning throughout the sector. Siloed approaches can perpetuate inefficiencies and inequality in the access and use of water and sanitation services.

    An integrated view of infrastructure helps to visualise gaps in provision and in data reporting, compare demand and needs, and decide according to vulnerabilities. Geomapping is a tool that can offer a systemic view of infrastructure, particularly in sectors with high institutional fragmentation. It can be a way to question inaccurate reporting and identify instances where prioritisation assumptions may have become outdated, providing technical grounds to review political choices that may not be aligned with the urgent needs of the population.

    In the water sector, poor project selection has critical consequences – taps run dry, toilets are not provided and hygienic standards are not maintained. Communities that feel the most severe impacts are the poorest and most vulnerable ones, where water provision is already deficient. This can cost lives and spread diseases. Geomapping can leverage the power of digital technologies to improve planning for a critical sector in society.

    State of Piauí (Brazil) and Logistics Infrastructure

    State of Piauí (Brazil) and Logistics Infrastructure

    Located in the northeast of Brazil, the state of Piauí has one of the worst socio-economic conditions in the country. Data from 2019 showed that more than 43 per cent of the population in Piauí live under the poverty line and 15 per cent remain in extreme poverty.

    Inequality in the distribution of income is also extreme. An 18-fold gap exists between the top 10 per cent of earners and the bottom 40 per cent – the biggest such gap in the country. Urban patterns also differ from the rest of Brazil, with 34 per cent of the population – twice the national average – living in rural areas, and 74 per cent of the urban population located in small-sized cities.

    Between the 1950s and the 1990s, Piauí was the poorest state in Brazil. After large-scale agriculture took hold in the regions of Tabuleiros do Alto Parnaíba and Chapada das Mangabeiras in the southwest of the state, income levels saw unprecedented growth that exceeded the national average as well as that of other states. However, inequality in growth is a noted pattern as most of the regional development is centred on the capital Teresina and in the southwestern portion of the state. Lack of connectivity and isolation are critical obstacles to more equal patterns of development in Piauí.

    Integrity Issues

    Corruption in Brazil is a long-standing problem. In 2014, the federal operation Lava Jato brought to light a sophisticated corruption scheme involving the highest political and economic elites in the country. Procurement fraud in infrastructure projects, illicit campaign contributions, money laundering and undue influence were some elements of the investigation.

    The ties and alliances uncovered by Lava Jato are not new in Brazilian history. Wealth and political powers are so closely entrenched in the country that a specific term is used for this form of engagement – a “capitalism of ties”, a type of crony capitalism where the state apparatus is used to favour political and economic elites.

    The infrastructure sector is particularly prone to this form of corruption. The high sums at stake and the close linkages between contractors and politicians can give rise to undue relationships to compromise adequate infrastructure development.

    Brazilian media outlets have recently exposed events that indicate how this quid pro quo works in practice. According to sources, the Governor of Distrito Federal allocated BRL 7 million (approximately US $1.4 million) of the federal budget to renovate roads where his family owns properties in the south of Piauí. This allocation of money is part of the “secret budget” scandal that erupted in 2020, with allegations that President Bolsonaro had been illegally trading the public budget to secure political support. Infrastructure projects have been one of the main bargaining chips in the scheme.

    The Mapping Exercise

    For the mapping exercise, I used two databases. First, the publicly available record of projects delivered under the Federal Infrastructure Policy PAC that ran between 2007 and 2018. The PAC database allows users to search projects by state and by type of infrastructure, also providing information on project location. Given the issues of connectivity reported in Piauí, I focused on logistics infrastructure and excluded projects that did not contain information on location. A total of 11 projects, involving roads, ports and airports, with projects totalling BRL 13.8 billion (approximately US $2.6 billion) were identified through the exercise. The list of projects can be found in Annex B.

    The second database refers to projects that had been approved in 2020 as part of the alleged “secret budget” scheme. The project list was obtained by accessing the government open data portal. Using the available project list, I filtered logistics projects in the state of Piauí in order to extract a sample. Projects procured by public entities in Piauí that did not contain reference to the location were excluded from the mapping. A total of 29 road projects with a total amount of BRL 158 million (approximately US $30.5 million) were used for the mapping. The list of projects is available in Annex B.

    Three maps were produced for this case study – one for PAC and two for the 2020 “secret budget” (part I and II) – , and they have been collated against a map of Piauí (Figures 2 and 3). The separation in three maps was needed to accommodate the Google Maps layering limitations, but findings and implications are assessed together.

    Findings and Implications

    The first impression from the mapping is that despite two different governments and administrations, the pattern of distribution of infrastructure projects seems to have followed the parameters noted in the literature: in and around the capital Teresina, located in the region of Entre Rios, which received 30 per cent of the investment, and the regions of Tabuleiros do Alto Parnaíba and Chapada das Mangabeiras, where modern agribusiness is the core activity, that accounted for 21 per cent of the projects.

    The isolation of some areas is also apparent. Take the example of the three regions with the lowest shares of projects allocation: Vale do Canindé, Vale do Rio Sambito and Carnaubais. Based on the vulnerability data provided by the Piauí Economic and Social Research Centre, Vale do Canindé has 60 per cent of its population rated as highly vulnerable and 12 per cent as very highly vulnerable; Vale do Rio Sambito has 33 per cent of its population rated as highly vulnerable and 33 per cent as very highly vulnerable; and Carnaubais has 62 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. Despite these levels of vulnerability, only two municipalities in each region had logistics infrastructure among the assessed projects.

    Differences in population density do not explain the investment priority. It is true that the region of Entre Rios where the capital Teresina is located is home to 43 per cent of the population, but there is an equal population distribution between the other subregions. In reality, Tabuleiros do Alto Parnaíba, in the agribusiness portion of Piauí, has less than half the population of the regions that received the lowest investment shares: 46,675 inhabitants, in contrast to 106,753 in Vale do Canindé, 105,057 in Vale do Rio Sambito and 160,214 in Carnaubais. Considering how important logistics infrastructure is to connect people to new markets and jobs, as well as to basic services such as schools and hospitals, the lack of adequate logistics in the most vulnerable regions of Piauí can perpetuate and exacerbate local inequalities.

    The geomapping also prompts additional questions about priorities and decision-making. PAC involved 11 logistics projects worth BRL 13.8 billion (approximately US $2.6 billion), and the 2020 budget included 29 projects at a total of BRL 158 million (approximately US $30.5 million). These are large and high-profile projects that have been prioritised. An alternative approach to connectivity could have been to spread the investment so that more areas could be integrated into the national economy. Smaller projects could also stimulate local participation in bids as small and medium-sized contractors are most likely prevented from bidding for large projects. Given the rural characteristics of Piauí and the small size of its economy, unbundling projects and covering more areas could have been a valid alternative to assess and compare connectivity outcomes.

    The size of infrastructure also has an impact on integrity. Large-scale projects have a high risk of becoming white elephants. They also create more opportunities for corruption and require adequate planning to ensure value for money and value for many. The construction of the Trans-Northeast Railway (“Transnordestina”) illustrates the risk. Budgeted to cost of BRL 13 billion (approximately US $2.5 billion), it is still under construction, despite the project beginning in 2007. Multiple inquiries are ongoing to investigate irregularities in the project, including bidding issues and a threefold cost increase. Despite its strategic relevance for Piauí, as the railway will increase cargo capacity and connect grain producers to relevant ports, poor planning has been noted throughout the project, from illegally breaching protected areas to the impossibility of using one of the selected ports due to climate conditions. Regardless of planning and integrity deficiencies, the project has continued to receive funds from Brazil’s successive administrations since 2007.

    Concluding Remarks

    Challenging decision-making processes in infrastructure matters requires technical knowledge to question public priorities. Geomapping can provide initial steps to support civil society to “ask the right questions” and demand accountability from decision-makers. Looking at the distribution and size of projects and questioning alternative approaches is a line of accountability that geomapping can support. Assessing alternative project options is part of a project appraisal process, and red flags emerge when there is no solid evidence that different options have been considered.

    Logistics infrastructure provides more than roads and pavements. Studies show the importance of connectivity to break hierarchical relationships, alter bargaining powers and improve outcomes for the poor. Bad connectivity, due to poor logistics, can create isolation and reduce the ability of citizens to access external markets, perpetuating inequalities and forcing dependence on local patrons. Having the technical grounds to challenge project priorities is a starting point to changing power relations and better equipping communities and civil society.

    Health Care in the UK

    Health Care in the UK

    The Covid-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in health-care systems across the globe. Mistargeted policies and underinvestment affect everyone. But the poor and most vulnerable are especially affected by unequal access and opaque decision-making.

    Mortality rates illustrate the unequal impact on disadvantaged populations. Comparison of data on mortality and vulnerability shows that higher levels of social and economic deprivation are linked to higher Covid-19 death figures. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), used to assess social and economic vulnerability, is an overall measurement of deprivation based on a number of metrics, such as income, employment, health, education and crime. According to the Office for National Statistics, the least deprived area in England recorded a Covid mortality rate of 58.8 deaths per 100,000 population whereas the most deprived area recorded a mortality rate that was 118 per cent higher, at 128.3 deaths per 100,000 population.

    Recovery plans in the UK are focusing on infrastructure development to rebuild from Covid-19, and health-care investment is a critical part of the government’s “build back better” and “levelling up” agendas. In 2020 a new Health Infrastructure Plan was launched worth GBP 3.7 billion (approximately US $5.1 billion) to build 40 new hospitals by 2030. It is considered “the biggest, boldest, hospital building programme” to serve generations to come.

    Integrity Issues

    With Covid-19, a new wave of integrity issues emerged. In such emergency situations, public controls are often relaxed to expedite responses and this can provide opportunities for abuse. The chair of the UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility summarised the risk during Covid-19: “When the fire is large enough you just spray water and worry about it later.”

    The health-care system faces additional vulnerabilities as the improper use of public funds can cost human lives in addition to the waste of public funds in a sector where corruption already consumes over US $500 billion a year globally.

    The UK has not been immune to lapses of integrity during Covid-19. The National Audit Office identified weaknesses in the country’s procurement system, with real concerns about the lack of transparency, conflicts of interest and inadequate records of how public money had been spent.

    The Mapping Exercise

    For the mapping exercise, I focused on the 40 new hospitals of the Health Infrastructure Plan. As health care follows a devolution model in the UK, the new hospitals are limited to England’s jurisdiction. The list of the facilities and their respective addresses are available on the government’s website, which was used to generate the exercise map (Figure 4). A colour-code scheme was applied in the mapping to identify the political majority in the area of each project – blue in reference to the Conservative Party, red for Labour and yellow for the Liberal Democrats. The mapping considers party majority after the 2019 General Election. The complete list of the projects can be found in Annex C.

    Findings and Implications

    The mapping makes visible the high concentration of projects in the southwest part of the country, where 27.5 per cent of the total projects have been allocated. When adding the London area, which received a 15 per cent share, as well as the east of England, which also received 15 per cent of the projects, and southeastern England, with a 10 per cent stake, it is almost 70 per cent of the total projects located in the south of the country. This overlaps with many areas of Conservative Party majority in the 2019 election.

    Although they receive a lower share of funding, the Midlands, northeast and northwest were included in the Health Infrastructure Plan, with 12.5 per cent, 10 per cent and 10 per cent respectively of the projects. These regions include major conurbations with high levels of deprivation such as Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds – traditional Labour strongholds. These are areas that have been greatly affected by the pandemic and will benefit from improved health-care systems.

    Many factors come into play to guide decision-making processes related to health-care investment. The south of the country includes the largest metropolitan area, with more than 14 million people which represents 25 per cent of England’s total population. The southwest is an area where almost 30 per cent of the population is above the age of 65. These are valid concerns to drive investment allocation, particularly related to health-care projects.

    As the Health Infrastructure Plan does not explain the reasoning behind the project selection, it is difficult to know which aspects were considered in the decision-making process. The plan mentions that projects have been selected from “a list of priority projects already in the pipeline” and based on “engagements with NHS England and NHS Improvement”, but the details of project selection are unclear. If internal assessments and business cases were developed, with a comparison of locations and expected benefits, it is in the public interest to gain access to these analyses so that citizens can at least understand the priorities. Dorset Healthcare, for example, which had five of its bids included in the government’s Health Infrastructure Plan, refused to clarify to the public the reasons for the successful bids – all located within less than 60 miles of each other.

    The Health Infrastructure Plan recognises that “we need to get it right for the healthcare needs of today and the future”, so an opportunity exists to take account of the past, assess trends uncovered by the pandemic and respond accordingly to avoid future capacity shortages. In this vein, studies show that Covid-19 put a disproportionate amount of pressure on health services in the counties of Northumberland and Suffolk, as well as in the northwest of England, particularly Greater Manchester and Liverpool. These areas are liable to major health risks due to their older populations and the elevated levels of social deprivation. Distributing funds based on evidence of needs and short capacity can help respond to existing challenges and prevent future crises. It can also help depoliticise infrastructure investment in the eyes of the public, particularly when technical reasoning is not disclosed to justify decision-making.

    Concluding Remarks

    Geomapping is not a magic bullet for a complex matter such as health-care investment, but it can help policymakers and citizens to visualise the impact of infrastructure and the costs and benefits derived from each available option. Resources are limited and demands are multiple so prioritising infrastructure investment is part of political decision-making.

    It is less about right or wrong decisions, and more about the hard choices to be made, which can have an impact on prioritisation of investment and equality in distribution when responding to pressing challenges. Knowing where to invest is a key step to optimise results, and a holistic approach that considers deprivation, the ageing population and health-care gaps should be an integral part of decision-making.

    Research Implications

    Research Implications

    The case studies explore different uses of geomapping to improve infrastructure policymaking, illustrating how key insights can be revealed and the power of the visualisations to further accountability and help target the unserved population. Regardless of the sector concerned, the mapping provides a new layer of information to better understand issues of accessibility and equality in the distribution of infrastructure. The findings also show that geomapping offers advantages to all stakeholders involved in infrastructure development.

    For governments, there is more clarity on decision-making processes. Political priorities can be defended on objective grounds, which can leverage buy-in and support from allies, opposition and constituencies. Geomapping can improve the planning of infrastructure with a system approach where consequences and impacts of decisions are better understood and hard choices are grounded and explained with transparency. The case studies focused on specific sectors to illustrate the potential that can be unlocked. But combining different types of infrastructure is a viable approach to provide a holistic and systemic view of infrastructure, allowing better understanding of infrastructure interdependencies and fostering synergies, which are essential to minimise planning failures and “road to nowhere” situations. Digital twins and data visualisations are currently being used as tech models to improve city planning. Geomapping is a simple, affordable alternative to start the process of using geolocation to streamline planning and improve social outcomes.

    For citizens and civil society, geomapping is a tool to enhance accountability. Visualisations can guide stakeholders to “ask the right questions”, using objective criteria to challenge political priorities and the choices that have been made. It is a way to flag inequalities in the distribution of infrastructure and identify patterns of investment that may not be justified or technically grounded. Given the skewed incentives existing in the sector, geomapping can help identify integrity risks and expose fragilities and biases in decision-making.

    For policymakers, geomapping can be a game changer in the use of data-driven approaches to infrastructure development. It can provide an objective north to select and approve infrastructure projects, helping in appraising decisions and reducing the margin of arbitrary and non-justifiable choices. Given its low cost of use, it is an efficient technology to equip policymakers and officials with essential knowledge to propose fairer and better-targeted infrastructure policies.

    In addition, geomapping can simplify and demystify infrastructure decision-making. This is a key takeaway from the analysis. Technicalities can conceal corruption and project complexity can create barriers to understanding and challenging decision-making. Geomapping visualisations can bridge this knowledge gap, “lowering the user threshold” so that information can be understood and acted on. This is particularly relevant given the asymmetries of information and power imbalances within the sector that put citizens and communities at a disadvantage when seeking to enforce accountability. But geomapping also helps to leverage the power of horizontal accountability. Developing opportunities to strengthen accountability between public entities and different bodies of the administration can improve outcomes and overcome difficulties arising from institutional fragmentation, decentralisation and power delegation.

    The use of a simple, free-access tool to develop this exercise is testament to its potential. Key insights can be generated by placing project information into a digital map. The simplicity of the model demonstrates the opportunities for using geomapping to support informed policy and political dialogue. Crowdsourced geographic data and participatory mapping are being used for many purposes – for example, for disaster management and to identify the lack of public services. Applied to the infrastructure sector, geomapping can create a digital ecosystem that empowers stakeholders, fosters collaboration and enables meaningful participation.

    The case study approach used in this research has limitations, but it does show the gains of using an affordable technology such as geomapping to optimise infrastructure investment and bridge the knowledge gap in the sector. And this even in contexts where infrastructure information is available and open to the public. Because of the complexities of the sector, data curation is essential to enable adequate understanding and rebalance power relations. Geomapping can translate complex data into accessible visualisations, helping democratise infrastructure knowledge and further accountability.

    There are constraints to scaling up the use of geomapping – either by governments or independently by citizens as a monitoring tool. First, project information needs to be disclosed to enable the mapping. In many countries access to this data – even basic information – is a challenge, and this is a critical issue not limited to middle- and low-income countries. Without access to project information, a geomapping approach cannot be implemented or generate the intended impacts. Access to the internet and the digital divide are additional barriers to geomapping. Where internet access is lacking, intermediaries, such as civil society organisations, are required to bridge the divide and ensure the conditions exist for the data to be gathered and converted into geo-maps for the public. Political will is also key, particularly to grant access to information. Civic space to act and demand accountability is ultimately a necessary ingredient for a meaningful use of geomapping.

    A final point needs to be made. Geomapping is not a panacea for all infrastructure problems. It is not a tech solution to replace participation as it should work as a channel of sharing and interpreting data to foster stakeholder engagement and not disengagement. It is intended as having a complementary role to existing accountability mechanisms, whether they are external audits, technical appraisals or public consultation processes, as geomapping adds a new layer of insights to existing methods. Geomapping can also apply in conjunction with new technologies. Blockchain and distributed ledger technology, for example, can increase transparency about project cashflows and clarify the origin of materials and services, while geomapping can highlight decision-making problems and provide a better understanding of the political and policy backstage.

    Regardless of the infrastructure processes in place, a common threat seen in these case studies is how political and policy decisions on infrastructure allocation are determining the fate of local communities. Low infrastructure investment is perpetuating low social and economic conditions and creating a vicious cycle that traps people in economically challenging situations. Geomapping can shed light on these traps, helping reduce inequalities, target the unserved and connect people – exactly as infrastructure is supposed to work.

    Conclusion

    Conclusion

    Evidence from accountability initiatives shows that, in order to trigger social action, information needs to be understood and perceived as useful and actionable. More information does not necessarily translate into more democratic decision-making. Without the means to make sense of data, more information can result in less understanding, more confusion and less trust.

    In the infrastructure sector, knowledge and power asymmetries are obstacles to adequate accountability – and this even in contexts where information is accessible to all. The sector’s complexity and technicality can hide integrity failures and widen the knowledge gap between powerholders and citizens.

    Geomapping can help bridge the accessibility gap that exists in the sector. Meaningful access means being able to understand and react – and this is where geomapping has immense potential to guide and challenge decision-making. It is a cost-efficient tool to improve infrastructure outcomes, amplifying value for money without forgetting the value for many.

     

    Acknowledgements

    I wish to thank the CoST team in Uganda for their support in extracting data from the CoST portal; Daniel Arbix from Google for his guidance on the functionalities of Google Maps; journalist Marta Salomon for assisting me in finding information on the Brazilian transparency portal; and Gloria Prado and José Inacio Prado for their comments and insights. I also thank the Tony Blair Institute, which supported the research, and extend my appreciation to the Tech Policy team, in particular Benedict Macon-Cooney and Jess Northend for valuable discussions, Ruby Jarvis and Lucia Asanache for their thoughtful guidance throughout the process, and Robert Davies for his skilled copyediting. I am grateful to my colleagues at Engineers Against Poverty and CoST for their example of resilience to improve practises and processes in the infrastructure sector. Last but not least, special thanks to my husband Mick Smyth for his unconditional encouragement and for never refusing to proofread my work. This work is dedicated to policymakers and practitioners who believe infrastructure is more than roads and bridges, and can be a lifeline to individuals and communities.

    Annexes and Figures

    Annexes and Figures

     

    Annex A: List of Projects (Uganda)

     

    Projects

    Location

    1

    14 adverts for construction of Lwamata water-supply system, phase 1 – Amount of investment UGX 2,200,000

    Lwamata

    2

    Construction of Amudat town water-supply and sanitation system – Amount of investment UGX 1,933,516,064

    Amudat

    3

    Construction of Bukedea gravity flow scheme, phase 1 – Amount of investment UGX 42,067,468,118

    Bukedea

    4

    Construction of Busede Bugobya town water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 2,127,094,213

    Busede

    5

    Construction of Buyamba RGC in Rakai district – Amount of investment UGX 2,396,357,492

    Rakai

    6

    Construction of Doho ii irrigation scheme infrastructure and facilities in Butaleja district – Amount of investment UGX 26,169,613,210

    Butaleja

    7

    Construction of Dokolo water-supply and sanitation system – Amount of investment UGX 16,223,143,333

    Dokolo

    8

    Construction of Iziru town water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 2,783,680,078

    Jinja

    9

    Construction of Kabuyanda water-supply system in Isingiro district – Amount of investment UGX 811,319,900

    Isingiro

    10

    Construction of Kainja RGC in Kamwenge district – Amount of investment UGX 0

    Kamwenge

    11

    Construction of Kambuga RGC in Mbarara district – Amount of investment UGX 2,398,192,016

    Mbarara

    12

    Construction of Kapelebyong town water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 2,161,998,896

    Kapelebyong

    13

    Construction of Karago TC piped water-supply and sanitation schemephase1 Kabarole district – Amount of investment UGX 2,161,998,896

    Kabarole

    14

    Construction of Kashakabubare RGC in Mbarara district – Amount of investment UGX 2,297,133,904

    Mbarara

    15

    Construction of Kiko RGC in Kabarole district – Amount of investment UGX 1,609,121,951

    Kabarole

    16

    Construction of mini solar water systems in Nyakatonzi and Bigando RGCS in Kasese District – Amount of investment UGX 1,274,802,923

    Kasese

    17

    Construction of Moyo town council piped water-supply system and sanitation facilities – Amount of investment UGX 6,478,185,715

    Moyo

    18

    Construction of Mubuku ii irrigation scheme infrastructure and facilities in Kasese district – Amount of investment UGX 33,058,059,037

    Kasese

    19

    Construction of Namagera town water-supply sanitation system – Amount of investment UGX 285,329,197

    Namagera

    20

    Construction of Namukoralagoro and Mucwini water-supply systems and sanition facilitties in Kitgum district – Amount of investment UGX 2,290,211,579

    Kitgum

    21

    Construction of Ngenge irrigation scheme infrastructure and facilities in Kween district – Amount of investment UGX 39,906,718,088

    Kween

    22

    Construction of Nsiika RGC in Buhweju district – Amount of investment UGX 1,630,175,340

    Buhweju

    23

    Construction of one six-stance latrine at Butiru town council in Manafwa district – Amount of investment UGX 157,185,204

    Butiru

    24

    Construction of Pabbo town board piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 4,369,111,833

    Pabbo

    25

    Construction of Palabekogili and Paloga water-supply systems and sanitation facilities in Lamwo district – Amount of investment UGX 1,457,375,151

    Lamwo

    26

    Construction of Rwebisengo Kanara gravity-flow scheme in Ntoroko district – Amount of investment UGX 25,372,307,352

    Ntoroko

    27

    Construction of Rwengaaju model village irrigation scheme in Kabarole district – Amount of investment UGX 27,301,186,392

    Kabarole

    28

    Construction of Ssunga TWSS – Amount of investment UGX 2,512,834,907

    Nyenga

    29

    Construction of Tochi irrigation scheme infrastructure and facilities in Oyam district – Amount of investment UGX 28,283,880,419

    Oyam

    30

    Construction works for Amolatar town water-supply and sanitation facilities – Amount of investment UGX 832,990,202

    Amolatar

    31

    Construction works of Amach town water-supply systems – Amount of investment UGX 2,005,194,532

    Amachi

    32

    Contract for renovation of water-quality administration block in Entebbe – Amount of investment UGX 88,308,600

    Entebbe

    33

    Environmental components for Ishongororo faecal-sludge treatment plant for Ibanda district – Amount of investment UGX 347,472,535

    Ibanda

    34

    Extension of power grid to lot 1 Ovujo RGC – Amount of investment UGX 534,574,936

    Ovujo

    35

    Extension of Bukwo town water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 283,946,691

    Bukwo

    36

    Improvement of Igorora town council piped water-supply and sanitation scheme in Ibanda district – Amount of investment UGX 1,423,939,099

    Ibanda

    37

    Improvement of Migeera town water-supply – Amount of investment UGX 4,494,499,018

    Migeera

    38

    Rehabilitation of Kirinya-Jinja waste-water treatment plant – Amount of investment UGX 2,385,997,173

    Kirinya

    39

    Rehabilitation of Kuru water-supply systems reservoir – Amount of investment UGX 26,255,000

    Aringa

    40

    Rehabilitation of Lutunku solar powered water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 466,714,630

    Lutunku

    41

    Spring and catchment protection for Paidha town council – Amount of investment UGX 41,954,900

    Paidha

    42

    Works for expansion of Kangulumira town water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 498,709,292

    Kangulumira

    43

    Works for expansion of Nazigo town water-supply system in Nazigo Town – Amount of investment UGX 497,031,562

    Nazigo

    44

    Works for rehabilitation of Lutunku water-supply Kisozi – Amount of investment UGX 68,750,000

    Lutunku

    45

    Construction of Bugoigo Walukuba Butiaba piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 2,589,328.78

    Bugoigo

    46

    Construction of Bugoigo Walukuba Butiaba piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 2,589,328.78

    Walukuba

    47

    Construction of Bugoigo Walukuba Butiaba piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 2,589,328.78

    Butiaba

    48

    Construction of Butemba Kyankwanzi piped water-supply system in Kyankwanzi district – Amount of investment UGX 4,083,803,481.50

    Butemba

    49

    Construction of Butemba Kyankwanzi piped water-supply system in Kyankwanzi district – Amount of investment UGX 4,083,803,481.50

    Kyankwanzi

    50

    Construction of Gombe-Kyabadaza piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 6,677,382,151

    Gombe

    51

    Construction of Gombe-Kyabadaza piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 6,677,382,151

    Butambala

    52

    Construction of Kabembe-Kalagi-Nagalama piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 4,761,029,996

    Kabembe

    53

    Construction of Kabembe-Kalagi-Nagalama piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 4,761,029,996

    Kalagi

    54

    Construction of Kabembe-Kalagi-Nagalama piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 4,761,029,996

    Nagalama

    55

    Construction of Katuugo Kakooge TWSS – Amount of investment UGX 2,508,062,799.5

    Katuugo

    56

    Construction of Katuugo Kakooge TWSS – Amount of investment UGX 2,508,062,799.5

    Kakooge

    57

    Construction of Kayunga Busaana water-supply and sanitation system, phase 2 – Amount of investment UGX 12,785,688,952

    Kayunga

    58

    Construction of Kayunga Busaana water-supply and sanitation system, phase 2 – Amount of investment UGX 12,785,688,952

    Busaana

    59

    Construction of Loro town board piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 4,190,384,417

    Loro

    60

    Construction of Namulonge and Kiwenda piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 4,780,930,470.5

    Namulonge

    61

    Construction of Namulonge and Kiwenda piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 4,780,930,470.5

    Kiwenda

    62

    Construction of Nyabuhikye-Kikyenkye water-supply and sanitation system – Amount of investment UGX 10,079,118,815.50

    Nyabuhikye

    63

    Construction of Nyabuhikye-Kikyenkye water-supply and sanitation system – Amount of investment UGX 10,079,118,815.50

    Kikyenkye

    64

    Construction of Zigoti-Sekanyonyi piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 4,890,063,938.50

    Zigoti

    65

    Construction of Zigoti-Sekanyonyi piped water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 4,890,063,938.50

    Sekanyonyi

    66

    Extension of grid power lines to production borehole sites of Buliisa and Kabango town water-supply systems – Amount of investment UGX 244,551,699.50

    Buliisa

    67

    Extension of grid power lines to production borehole sites of Buliisa and Kabango town water-supply systems – Amount of investment UGX 244,551,699.50

    Kabango

    68

    Repair and extension of Muyembe, Bukiende and Nambale water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 63,262,514

    Muyembe

    69

    Repair and extension of Muyembe, Bukiende and Nambale water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 63,262,514

    Bukiende

    70

    Repair and extension of Muyembe, Bukiende and Nambale water-supply system – Amount of investment UGX 63,262,514

    Nambale

    71

    The extension of grid power to Dzaipi RGC water source in Adjumani district and awoo RGC water source in Gulu district – Amount of investment UGX 294,361,945

    Adjumani

    72

    The extension of grid power to Dzaipi RGC water source in Adjumani district and awoo RGC water source in Gulu district – Amount of investment UGX 147,180,972.50

    Gulu

    Annex B: List of Projects (Piauí)

     

    Projects – PAC

    Location

    1

    Expansion of Bom Jesus do Gurguéia Airport and new passenger terminal – Amount of investment BRL 28,000,000

    Bom Jesus

    2

    Construction of port complex and retro area – Amount of investment BRL 100,000,000

    Luis Correia

    3

    Construction of Trans-Northeast Railway (Transnordestina) – Amount of investment BRL 13,100,000,000

    Paes Landim, Pajeu do Piaui, Patos do Piaui, Pavussu, Ribeira do Piaui, Simoes, Simplicio Mendes and Socorro do Piaui

    4

    Planning studies and design – Road improvement of BBR-316/PI between route BR-226(B) and route BR-343(A) – Amount of investment BRL 72,900,000

    Demerval Lobao and Teresina

    5

    Road improvement BR-135/PI between Guadalupe and junction PI-219 – Amount of investment BRL 500,000

    Guadalupe

    6

    Road improvement BR-135/PI and pavement upgrade Gilbues – Amount of investment BRL 78,200,000

    Bom Jesus, Eliseu Martins and Gilbues

    7

    Construction of road access BR-135/PI and Eliseu Martins railway yard – Amount of investment BRL 500,000

    Eliseu Martins

    8

    Road construction BR-235/PI – between the border of Bahia and Piaui, to the border of Piaui and Maranhao – Amount of investment BRL 165,000,000

    Bom Jesus, Monte Alegre do Piaui and Santa Filomena

    9

    Road improvement BR-316/PI – Km 13.8 to Demerval Lobao – Amount of investment BRL 160,000,000

    Demerval Lobao

    10

    Road improvement BR-343/PI – Teresina crossing – Amount of investment BRL 1,457,044

    Barras, Batalha, Bom Principio do Piaui, Jose de Freitas, Parnaiba and Teresina

    11

    Planning studies and design – Road improvement BR-343/PI between junction BR-226(A)/PI-352 (Altos) and junction BR-226(B)/316(A) (Teresina) – Amount of investment BRL 1,343,142

    Altos and Teresina

     

    Project – “Secret Budget” 2020

    Location

    1

    Second stage of renovation of state road between junction BR 343 and municipalities of Sebastiao Leal, Uruçui, Ribeiro Goncalves and Baixa Grande do Ribeira – Amount of investment BRL 16,171,829

    Sebastiao Leal, Uruçui, Ribeiro Goncalves and Baixa Grande do Ribeira

    2

    Second stage of the renovation of State Road PI-130 between Teresina, Palmeirais and Amarante – Amount of investment BRL 8,487,349

    Teresina, Palmeirais and Amarante

    3

    Second stage of renovation of state road between Floriano, Itaueira, Conto do Buriti and Sao Raimundo Nonato – Amount of investment BRL 16,171,829

    Floriano, Itaueira, Canto do Buriti and Sao Raimundo Nonato

    4

    Second stage of renovation of state road PI-112 between Teresina and municipalities of Uniao, Miguel Alves and Porto – Amount of investment BRL 16,171,829

    Teresina, Uniao, Miguel Alves and Porto

    5

    Second stage of renovation of state road between junction PI-140 and Brejo do Piaui and Sao Joao do Piaui – Amount of investment BRL 8,487,349

    Brejo do Piaui and Sao Joao do Piaui

    6

    Paving municipal roads of Lagoinha do Piaui – Amount of investment BRL 238,856

    Lagoinha do Piaui

    7

    First stage of renovation of State road between junction of BR-343 and municipalities of Sebastiao Leal, Uruçui, Ribeiro Goncalves and Baixa Grande do Ribeira – Amount of investment BRL 29,641,934

    Sebastiao Leal, Uruçui, Ribeiro Goncalves and Baixa Grande do Ribeira

    8

    First stage of renovation PI-112 State road between Teresina and municipalities of Uniao, Miguel Alves and Porto – Amount of investment BRL 3,683,550

    Uniao, Miguel Alves and Porto

    9

    First stage of renovation PI-140 State road between Floriano, Itaueria, Canto do Buriti, Sao Raimundo Nonato – Amount of investment BRL 5,602,504

    Floriano, Itaueria, Canto do Buriti, Sao Raimundo Nonato

    10

    First stage of renovation PI-140 State road between Brejo do Piaui and Sao Joao do Piaui – Amount of investment BRL 5,122,440

    Brejo do Piaui and Sao Joao do Piaui

    11

    First stage of renovation PI-130 State road between Teresina, Palmeirais and Amarante – Amount of investment BRL 4,591,845

    Teresina, Palmeirais and Amarante

    12

    First stage of renovation PI-112 State road between Teresina, Uniao, Miguel Alves and Porto – Amount of investment BRL 1,918,954

    Teresina, Uniao, Miguel Alves and Porto

    13

    Paving of rural road – Municipality of Wall Ferraz – Amount of investment BRL 457,049

    Wall Ferraz

    14

    Paving of rural road – Municipality of Floriano – Amount of investment BRL 457,049

    Floriano

    15

    Paving municipal roads of Altos – Amount of investment BRL 457,049

    Altos

    16

    Paving municipal roads of Campo Maior – Amount of investment BRL 457,049

    Campo Maior

    17

    Paving of rural road – Municipality of Picos – Amount of investment BRL 457,049

    Picos

    18

    Paving municipal roads of Curral Novo do Piaui – Amount of investment BRL 335,755

    Curral Novo do Piaui

    19

    Paving municipal roads of Caridade do Piaui – Amount of investment BRL 960,019

    Caridade do Piaui

    20

    Road paving PI-392 (Bom Jesus-Baixa Grande do Ribeira) Km 116 to Km 187 TRECHO with 71km within the State of Piaui – Amount of investment BRL 27,967,911

    Bom Jesus and Baixa Grande do Ribeira

    21

    Paving of rural road – Municipality of Lagoa Alegre – Amount of investment BRL 481,104

    Lagoa Alegre

    22

    Paving of rural road – Municipality of Sao Braz do Piaui – Amount of investment BRL 384,205

    Sao Braz do Piaui

    23

    Paving of rural road – Municipality of Jatoba do Piaui – Amount of investment BRL 384,205

    Jatoba do Piaui

    24

    Paving of rural road – Municipality of Nossa Senhora dos Remedios – Amount of investment BRL 384,205

    Nossa Senhora dos Remedios

    25

    Paving of rural road – Municipality of Porto – Amount of investment BRL 384,205

    Porto

    26

    Paving of rural road – Municipality of Castelo do Piaui – Amount of investment BRL 384,205

    Castelo do Piaui

    27

    Road paving in rural communities of Sao Felix do Piaui – Amount of investment BRL 5,743,773

    Sao Felix do Piaui

    28

    Paving municipal roads of Sao Pedro do Piaui – Amount of investment BRL 722,552

    Sao Pedro do Piaui

    29

    Renovation of rural road Sao Pedro do Piaui – Amount of investment BRL 1,440,214

    Sao Pedro do Piaui

    Annex C: List of Projects (England)

     

    Projects – Conservative Party

    Location

    1

    New Midland Metropolitan Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (17%)

    Cranford St, Smethwick B66 2RT, United Kingdom

    2

    New Cumberland Cancer Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (23%)

    Newtown Rd, Carlisle CA2 7HY, United Kingdom

    3

    New Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (27%)

    Hamstel Rd, Harlow CM20 1QX, United Kingdom

    4

    Rebuilding Watford General Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (26%)

    Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 0HB

    5

    New Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (21%)

    Dorking Rd, Epsom KT18 7EG, United Kingdom

    6

    Rebuilding West Suffolk Hospital, Bury St Edmunds. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (38%)

    Hardwick Ln, Bury St Edmunds, Bury Saint Edmunds IP33 2QZ, United Kingdom

    7

    New East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (27%)

    St. Annes House, 729 The Ridge, St. Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, TN37 7PT

    8

    New women and children’s hospital at Milton Keynes Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (32%)

    Milton Keynes University Hospital, Standing Way, Eaglestone, Milton Keynes, MK6 5LD

    9

    Rebuilding the Hillingdon Hospital, North West London. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (25%)

    Pield Heath Road, Uxbridge, UB8 3NN

    10

    New hospital at Basingstoke & North Hampshire Hospital and major refurbishment at Royal Hampshire Hospital in Winchester. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (29%)

    Aldermaston Rd, Basingstoke RG24 9NA, United Kingdom

    11

    Building child and adult mental-health services in St Ann’s Hospital, Dorset. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (29%)

    69 Haven Rd, Canford Cliffs, Poole BH13 7LN, United Kingdom

    12

    Improving Dorchester Community Hospital, Dorset. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (29%)

    Williams Ave, Dorchester DT1 2JY, United Kingdom

    13

    Rebuilding the Poole Community Hospital, Dorset. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (29%)

    Shaftesbury Rd, Poole BH15 2NT, United Kingdom

    14

    Rebuilding the North Devon District Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (31%)

    North Devon District Hospital, Raleigh Park, Barnstaple, Devon, EX31 4JB

    15

    Rebuilding the James Paget Hospital, Great Yarmouth. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (28%)

    Lowestoft Road, Gorleston, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, NR31 6LA

    16

    Rebuilding the Kettering General Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (30%)

    Rothwell Road, Kettering, Northants, NN16 8UZ

    17

    Rebuilding the Bournemouth Community Hospital, Dorset. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (29%)

    Castle Ln E, Bournemouth BH7 7DW, United Kingdom

    18

    Rebuilding the Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (34%)

    Lydeard House, Musgrove Park Hospital, Parkfield Drive, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 5DA

    19

    Rebuilding the Torbay District General, Torquay. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (30%)

    Newton Rd, Torquay TQ2 7AA, United Kingdom

    20

    New Addenbrookes Cancer Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (31%)

    Cambridge University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ

    21

    New Women’s and Children’s Hospital – Cornwall Children’s Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (27%)

    Treliske, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3LJ

    22

    New integrated emergency care hospital – Derriford Emergency Care Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (27%)

    Derriford Rd, Plymouth, PL6 8DH

    23

    Rebuilding St Mary’s Paddington. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (17%)

    Praed Street, London, W2 1NY

    24

    Rebuilding the Hammersmith Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (17%)

    80 Wood Ln, London W12 7TA, United Kingdom

    25

    Rebuilding the Christ Church Community Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (29%)

    Fairmile Rd, Christchurch BH23 2JX, United Kingdom

    26

    New hospital Shotley Bridge Hospital, Durham. Political majority GE 2019: Conservative (40%)

    Consett DH8 0NB, United Kingdom

     

    Projects – Labour Party

    Location

    27

    New Royal Liverpool Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Labour (41%)

    Prescot Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L7 8XP

    28

    Regional Centre for Teaching, Trauma and Tertiary Care at Royal Sussex County Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Labour (25%)

    Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton, East Sussex, BN2 5BE

    29

    New Moorfields Eye Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Labour (27%)

    162 City Road, London, EC1V 2PD

    30

    Rebuild of Northgate Hospital. Political majority: Labour (17%)

    Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 3BP

    31

    New Greater Manchester Major Trauma Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Labour (29%)

    Stott Ln, Salford, M6 8HD

    32

    Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre. Political majority GE 2019: Labour (26%)

    Stanford on Soar, Loughborough LE12 5QN, United Kingdom

    33

    New Whipps Cross University Hospital, north-east London. Political majority GE 2019: Labour (44%)

    Whipps Cross Rd, London E11 1NR, United Kingdom

    34

    Rebuild at Leicester Royal Infirmary and Glenfield & new facilities at Leicester General. Political majority GE 2019: Labour (33%)

    Infirmary Square, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE1 5WW

    35

    Children’s and adult services at LGI with pathology services at St James University Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Labour (33%)

    St. James's University Hospital, Beckett Street, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS9 7TF

    36

    Rebuilding Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading. Political majority GE 2019: Labour (21%)

    London Rd, Reading RG1 5AN, United Kingdom

    37

    Rebuilding the North Manchester General Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Labour (37%)

    Delaunays Rd, Crumpsall, Manchester M8 5RB, United Kingdom

    38

    Rebuilding the Queen’s Medical Centre and the City Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Labour (28%)

    Lenton, Nottingham NG7 2FT, United Kingdom

     

    Projects – Liberal Democrat Party

    Location

    39

    Replacement of the Royal Preston and the Lancaster Royal Infirmary. Political majority GE 2019: Liberal Democrats (26%)

    Ashton Rd, Lancaster LA1 4RP, United Kingdom

    40

    New Cancer Hospital – Royal United Bath Hospital. Political majority GE 2019: Liberal Democrats (28%)

    Combe Park, Bath, BA1 3NG

    Figures

    Figure 1 – Uganda infrastructure geomapping with subregions overlaying

    illustrative map of geomapping in uganda

    Note: Emphasis on the only project implemented in Karamoja

     

    Figure 2 – Geomapping logistics infrastructure under PAC

    illustrative map of geomapping in brazil

    Note: Emphasis on the concentration of projects to connect the capital Teresina and to ensure agribusiness connectivity via the Trans-Northeast Railway, a project ongoing since 2007

    Figure 3 – Geomapping logistics infrastructure under the 2020 “secret budget” (Part I and II)

    illustrative map of geomapping in brazil

    Note: Emphasis on the concentration of projects to connect the capital Teresina and to ensure agribusiness connectivity in the southwest of the state

     

    Figure 4 – Geomapping of the 40 new health-care projects in England colour-coded by the party majority according to the 2019 General Election (blue for Conservative, red for Labour and yellow to Liberal Democrats)

    illustrative map of geomapping in united kingdom

    Note: Emphasis on the projects approved in the Dorset area

    Lead Image: TBI

    Find out more
    institute.global