Selection of indicators. Indicators to be evaluated include the following: - Key program indicators as defined by the MYAP proposal document are listed in Annex 1. In addition to Annex 1, the consultant should refer to the IPTT and other relevant documents (Performance Management Plan and proposal) to select relevant related appropriate indicators (outcomes). - A set of indicators that represent activities specific to each Consortium member. The consultants will review these indicators and come up with specific suggestion if any change is required. - A set of qualitative and quantitative tools is to be compiled by the international and local consultants and/or collected to show the impact of the program and compared against the baseline.
Selection of indicators. In the first step the concept for the application is mainly based on Eurostat regional indicators for pragmatic reasons. As far as indicators about economic and social conditions are concerned, the selection and providence of indicators is structured in line with the topics of the Eurostat regional yearbook 2007 (Eurostat 2007). The Eurostat regional yearbook 2007 has the following chapters: • population • gross domestic product • household accounts • labour market • labour productivity • science, technology and innovation • structural business statistics • transport • tourism • education • agriculture.9 9 The topic “urban statistics” of the regional yearbook is not considered yet because it is not possible to present the indicators with a map which is based on NUTS classifications. Eurostat indicators for public health issues and health services are added (s. chart 6). Most of the indicators offered by Eurostat regional statistics are mortality statistics. They can be used to calculate the number of avoidable death and lost life years. The concept of avoidable deaths is based on the assumption that for a couple of causes of death dying before the age of 65 can be defined as “avoidable” and that these causes of death can be assigned to primary, secondary and tertiary prevention (Xxxxx/XxXxx 2004). The calculation of lost life years can be used to analyse the magnitude of certain health problems by considering the age of deceased persons. At a first glance, the number of health related indicators seems small compared to the number of indicators delivered. But it has to be acknowledged that many indicators deliver information about determinants of health.
Selection of indicators. Selecting indicators to track progress is a challenge because 1) it is sometimes difficult to identify measures that truly represent the outcomes or changes of interest and 2) there can be a lack of clarity about what the measures do represent. The tendency is to use data already collected to track progress in an area. However, this data might not directly report on the outcome of interest. Even if the correct measure is identified, care must be taken to ensure that the measures on which judgments are based are accurate. The state HIV epidemiologist gave an example of using new diagnoses of HIV as a measure of HIV infection in a community. If there is a decrease in the number of new diagnoses, it is important to determine whether the decrease in the rate of positive diagnoses is from a decrease in infected individuals or just caused by a decrease in the rate of HIV testing. Also, the data about behaviors or outcomes of most interest are sometimes not feasible to collect because of ethical, practical, or financial reasons. Again, the expedient option is to use data already being collected. If a dashboard does not display valid metrics, then the viewer does not have an accurate picture of what the numbers supposedly represent. The data visualization consultant quoted Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx of the Community Indicators Consortium to express that “we need to stop caring about what we measure and start measuring what we care about.” Impact of technology used for the system. The specific technologies selected for transmitting the data and for creating the display for the end user can impact the operation and performance of the system. In this case, the state offers four options for LHDs to access health data (Table 3-2). A publicly available web-query tool only provides statistics that can be shared with the public. This means the tool might prevent reporting on geographic areas, such as Census Tracts, for some health indicators in order to maintain patient privacy. Publicly available web-query tool Query tool available to public health practitioners Request data sets from GDPH VPN connection between DeKalb BOH and GDPH Types of GDPH data available Less More Most Most Flexibility Can only execute functions available on the form Can only execute functions available on the form Can determine the analysis performed on data set Can determine the analysis performed on data set Process for extracting and transmitting data Can be automated Can be automated Manual Automated Star...
Selection of indicators. The indicators used to assess the proposal are generated by answering the Screening and Characterization Questions in the CASET. After responding to the prescribed questions in the CASET system, and editing the list of indicators manually, 18 out of 26 indicators were confirmed as ‘affected indicators’ under the Economy, Natural Resources, Environmental Quality and Mobility Indicator List. Six aspects of the social checklist were also considered as affected and were taken into account in the assessment. The full list of the sustainability indicators (Appendix 3) and the list of all social checklist questions (Appendix 4) are attached for reference. The 18 indicators and the 6 aspects of the social checklist considered relevant (“affected”) are shown in Table 2. Table 2: CASET Indicators Relevant to the Present Study Guiding Principles Indicator Indicator Description Economy Cost Benefit Economic return as determined through cost benefit analysis Fixed Capital Gross domestic fixed capital formation as a ratio to GDP Freight costs The cost of road-based freight transport; the cost of charges and operating costs as a ratio to GDP Guiding Principles Indicator Indicator Description Income differential Difference between percentage change in the upper quartile of after-tax household income and percentage change in the lower quartile of after-tax household income Unemployment rate Unemployment rate Natural Resources Construction Waste Quantity of construction waste requiring final disposal per capita Energy Consumption Consumption of energy per unit of output ($GDP) Freshwater supplied and consumed Volume of freshwater supplied per capita Municipal waste Quantity of municipal solid waste requiring final disposal per capita Landfill capacity The total remaining landfill capacity (by volume) Significant landscape features (Area based) Area of significant landscape features Significant landscape features (Point based) Total number of point-based significant landscape features and old and valuable trees Environmental Quality Carbon dioxide emitted per year Quantity (Tonnes) of carbon dioxide emitted per year Criteria air pollutants Composite index for Criteria Air Pollutants based on percentage of Air Quality Objectives Excessive Noise Percentage of population exposed to excessive noise Toxic air pollutants Composite index for toxic air pollutants based on percentage of acceptable risk Marine water quality Composite index for marine water quality pollutants based on ...
Selection of indicators. The selection of indicators process was collaborative and consultative, involving relevant stakeholders. The identification of the project and evaluation objectives was realized in collaboration with WP1 and the WP5 Task Leaders. As a following step, the partners in charge of the actions were consulted through the Action Cards [ANNEX I. ACTION CARD TEMPLATE], allowing the identification of objectives and potential indicators for their specific domains and interventions. The two perspectives were then merged taking as a reference the methodological framework defined for the evaluation, and a preliminary longlist of indicators was elaborated. The identified indicators were then shortlisted according to the following criteria: Relevance: significant importance for the evaluation process, in terms of a strong link to the subthemes of the framework and significance for the underlying theory of change. Measurability: capability of being measured, preferably as objectively as possible. Reliability: consistency and measurability over time, in the same way by different observers. Timeliness: measurement at time intervals relevant and appropriate in terms of programme goals and activities. Comparability: comparability between the different demosite cities involved in the project. Clarity: ease of understanding, communicability, capacity to tell narratives. Availability: expected data availability. Finally, the indicators shortlisted were proposed to demosite cities through a dedicated Checklist [XXXXX XX. SOCIAL INDICATORS FEASIBILITY CHECKLIST], in charge for the data collection, in order to validate the indicators availability. The collaborative work allowed to identify availability gaps, to overcome barriers, and to search alternative options. However, proxy indicators will be considered when relevant data are not available. Accordingly, in the social acceptance domain, aim of the literature review was not to suggest one single method nor to verify the validity of the different methods, rather to make sure that all variables that have been studied to influence social acceptance are clearly identified and considered in the selection of the indicators to be adopted by XXxxxXX. Academic research proposed different models that study the relationship between certain variables and the overall acceptance of new solutions. As investigated in Chapter 4.1.2, some researchers assigned stronger influence to “trust” and/or “distributional justice”; others to attitude influenc...
