| District borders [message #24747] |
Tue, 05 July 2022 10:20  |
MiFoo
Messages: 15
Registered: January 2021
|
Member |
|
|
Hi everyone,
I am using the NFHS-4 and the NFHS-5 for a cross-sectional analysis and I would like to analyze the changes of indicators at the district level. However, I realized that the number of districts drastically increased from 640 to 932 between survey rounds. Is it possible to determine which district the PSUs from the NFHS-5 would have belonged to in the NFHS-4. Alternatively, I could combine all districts that have been split, merged, or changed their borders to get a consistent set of borders across survey rounds. I thought about using the longitude and latitude of PSUs provided in the GIS dataset but I guess a classification based on long and lat won't be reliable due to random dislocation.
I am looking forward to you advice!
Sarah
|
|
|
|
| Re: District borders [message #24758 is a reply to message #24747] |
Wed, 06 July 2022 14:09  |
fred.arnold@icf.com
Messages: 84
Registered: May 2021
|
Senior Member |
|
|
|
At the time that the NFHS-5 sample design was finalized, there were 707 districts in India, and the sample included all of those districts. In NFHS-5, 132 newly created districts (79 in Phase 1 and 53 in Phase 2) were formed since NFHS-4.The 132 new districts in NFHS-5 have district codes of 801-932. The 132 newly formed districts in NFHS-5 are not comparable with the NFHS-4 districts even if some of them have the same district name in NFHS-5 and NFHS-4. We recommend limiting your comparison between NFHS-4 and NFHS-5 only to the 575 districts with district codes below 801 in NFHS-5. You are right that due to random displacement of the GPS coordinates for the primary sampling units, the GPS coordinates should not be used for the purpose you mentioned.
|
|
|
|
The DHS Program User Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
