Relocating the Weekly Market
The Ketu District Assembly plans to relocate the weekly market from its present site beside the main school and clinic to a new site 3.5 km from the town centre. The old market hosts about 420 traders but has only 180 permanent stalls; on market days, goods spill onto the road, and waste collection is irregular. The new site has 300 stalls, piped water, toilets and a lorry park, but traders say customers will not travel there. A recent survey found 60% of traders opposed to the move. The assembly has GHS 120,000 for the relocation and has set a three-month deadline. Traders' leaders want the old site improved instead. The assembly says fire and health risks make the old site unsafe.
1. Identify the main stakeholders and one interest or concern for each.
Read the worked answer
Traders: income and customer access; fear that a 3.5 km move will reduce sales, and concern about stall fees. Customers: transport cost and convenience; GHS 4 round trip is significant for small daily purchases. District Assembly: safety, waste management, revenue and order; it also carries legal responsibility for fire and health risks. School and clinic: congestion, noise and road safety at the old site; they benefit from decongestion. Transport operators: demand for shuttle services and fare levels. Waste workers: cost of servicing two sites if the old market is not closed. Residents near the new site: noise, waste and traffic. A decision that ignores traders' livelihoods will likely fail, even if the safety case is strong.
2. Using the evidence, evaluate whether the assembly should proceed with the relocation as planned.
Read the worked answer
The evidence supports intervention but not the relocation as planned. On the safety side, 420 traders for 180 stalls, goods spilling onto the road and irregular waste collection are real fire, health and traffic risks. On the feasibility side, 60% trader opposition, a 3.5 km move and a GHS 4 round trip threaten customer flow and incomes. The GHS 120,000 budget and three-month deadline are tight for transport, stall allocation and consultation. Proceeding without addressing customer transport risks creating an empty new market and worsening livelihoods. A better judgement is to treat relocation as a phased pilot: improve the old site immediately for fire lanes and waste, run a market-day shuttle to the new site, and move only when trader sign-up and customer numbers meet agreed targets.
3. Propose a decision-making process that balances safety and livelihoods, with two measurable conditions for going ahead.
Read the worked answer
Process: form a relocation committee with traders' leaders, assembly, school/clinic, transport and waste representatives; publish stall allocation and fee rules; run a 6–8 week pilot with a subsidised shuttle and temporary stalls; review data before closure. Two measurable conditions for going ahead: (1) at least 70% of current traders sign up for a stall at the new site, and (2) average market-day customer counts at the new site reach an agreed threshold (for example 60% of old-site counts) for three consecutive weeks. Also require fire lanes and waste collection at the old site during transition. If conditions are not met, improve the old site and extend the pilot rather than closing it on the deadline.