**Annex 1 Measurement and Data Issues**

# SELECTION AND APPLICATION OF INDICATORS

The other main aspect of data preparation was the construction and application of a set of meaningful and credible indicators to measure and monitor poverty impacts of the infrastructure and urban variables. This meant establishing a preferred set of desired indicators and then working out in practical terms what indicators could be used in this study derived from the existing survey datasets. Finally the indicators were applied by examining the poverty effect of each indicator through the use of poverty measures and geographic disaggregation.

The framework for indicators originally proposed for measuring infrastructure and energy poverty is provided in Attachment 1 of this Annex. This is based on a three-way classification of the effects of infrastructure services, namely: Delivery-Based, Use-Based, and Welfare-Based, each representing a different dimension of poverty. The first type of indicators refers to infrastructure and energy poverty. These are "delivery-based" indicators which show basic access to infrastructure services, level of service reliably available, living conditions and spending on payments for services. The second type relates to potential and actual use of the services. The third type relates to very approximate aspects of economic opportunities and human capital and includes the incidence of activities interrupted due to health problems and the incidence of household head with less than secondary education. These are very narrow dimensions of well-being but the advantage is that they can be easily constructed for and compared across a large number of countries.

Based on data availability and after discussions within the study team and other interlocutors, the final set of indicators used in this study was derived. Attachment 2 of this Annex (already referred to) lists the final set of indicators used. Table 3 below highlights the difference between what indicators were desired compared to what indicators turned out to be possible. Note this list will be different in different regions depending on the surveys conducted.

The selected indicators were applied by examining the poverty effect of each indicator through the use of the relative poverty rate (quintile distribution). This was further disaggregated geographically by the use of a three-way classification: Urban - capital city only, Urban - all other urban, and Rural. This geographic detail allows the effect of the capital city to be isolated from urban conditions outside the capital.

The detailed results for each country are available in Annex 2 with a short description of each indicator. There are three pages of results for each of the 20 countries in the study.

|Table 3<br>ECA INFRASTRUCTURE AND URBAN<br>DESIRED AND POSSIBLE INDICATOR<br>INDICATORS DESIRED|POVERTY STUDY<br>S<br>INDICATORS USED|% of surveys<br>with this<br>information<br>available|
|---|---|---|
|DELIVERY BASED INDICATORS|||
|Availability|Availability of infrastructure/energy<br>service by type of service (formal and<br>informal)||
|Physical availability of<br>infrastructure/energy service by type of<br>service|Water connection *|100%|
||Districtheating connection *|100%|

66