Cities, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 237–244, 2000 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reservedPergamon

Printed in Great Britain0264-2751/00 $ - see front matter

www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

PII: S0264-2751(00)00016-0

Viewpoint

UN Habitat Indicators Database: evaluation as asource of the status of urban developmentproblems and programs

Richard May*, Kevin Rex, Lisa Bellini, Sakera Sadullah, EmilyNishi, Francette James and Angela MathanganiInstitute of Public Administration, Wagner School of Public Administration, New York University, New York,USA

The use of numerical indicators to measure economic and social conditions and progress towardadopted goals has become accepted practice by many national and international agencies,including the World Bank and the United Nations. This paper presents an evaluation of thedata assembled by the UN Habitat’s Urban Indicators Program as a source of the status ofindividual cities’ development problems and programs, based on a research project undertakenwith graduate students at New York University. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rightsreserved

Introduction

The United Nations Centre for Human Settlements(UNCHS-HABITAT) is engaged in building nationaland local capacities for the collection and dissemi-nation of indicators on the status of urban develop-ment problems and programs for improving urban liv-ing conditions. Since 1995, UNCHS’s UrbanIndicators Program has collected data and indicatorson the state of cities around the world through a net-work of national focal points and partners. Data from237 cities in 110 countries were assembled for presen-tation at the Habitat II Conference in Istanbul in 1996.In addition, most of the governments participating inthe Conference submitted National Reports (NRs)describing their urban conditions in text and tabularform (National Reports, 1996). Copies of the UrbanIndicators Database and the NRs may be procuredfrom the Global Urban Observatory (GUO) programat UNCHS in Nairobi, Kenya.

The Urban Indicators Program is now establishedas a major UNCHS activity. A worldwide network ofnational and local institutions agreeing to monitor

*Corresponding author

237

urban trends and conditions with the use of indicatorsis being organized with funding from the World Bank.The Urban Observer newsletter of the GUO(February 1999) reported that 23 new cities have sub-mitted indicators for the Global Urban Indicators Dat-abase. It also reports that the 237 original cities in theDatabase have been ranked using an index called theCity Development Index. TheUrban Agemagazinepublished by the World Bank contains updates on theprogram, for example, stating in its Spring 1999 issuethat “The aim is to strengthen national and localcapacity to collect, evaluate and disseminate urbanindicators data that can be used for policy objectives.Indicators are effective bench marking tools for localand institutional urban policy makers, since theyallow immediate cross-city and cross-regional com-parisons”.1 This paper presents an evaluation of theUrban Indicators Database as a guide to determiningurban problems and the progress of individual citiesand national governments in improving the living andeconomic conditions of their low income populations.

1Urban Age, Spring 1999, p 26.

UN Habitat Indicators Database: evaluation as a source of the status of urban development problems and programs: R Mayet al.

The evaluative study

In 1998 the Institute of Public Administration (IPA)at New York University in New York responded toan RFP by UNCHS to undertake an analysis of theGlobal Indicators Database, proposing to:

(1) Evaluate the applicability of the various indi-cators to human settlement conditions, problemsand programs in selected countries as they aredescribed in their NRs presented at the Habitat IIConference; and

(2) Suggest those indicators that are most relevantand useful to the determination of the types oftechnical advisory and financial assistance neededin the selected countries.

The research was undertaken with the help ofgraduate students in their final “Capstone” seminar inInternational Urban Studies at the Wagner School ofPublic Administration of New York University. Theseminar was led by David Mammen and Richard Mayof the Institute of Public Administration. Each of thestudents was assigned to undertake a comparison ofthe NRs and the Indicators Database for cities in thefollowing countries: Brazil, India, Philippines, Latviaand Jamaica.

Methodology

Following a review and outlining of the main findingsof the NRs and the recommendations in the Plan ofActions, a spread sheet was prepared listing each ofthe 70 indicators in the Global Database (Table 1).

Table 1 Summary list of indicators

Land use TransportMetropolitan area (km2): residential formal, informal, business, Modal split (% of work trips by: private car, train/bus, bicycle, foot)agriculture, transport, services, other, total Mean travel time to work (min)Residential density(persons/hectare) Expenditure on road infrastructure (annual)Population Automobile ownershiip (cars/1000 population)Metropolitan area (000) EnvironmentGrowth rate (%) Wastewater treated (%)Households Solid waste generated per capita (m3/year)Formation rate (%) Solid waste disposal methods (landfill, incinerator, open dump)Average size Local governmentWomen-headed (%) Annual revenue per capitaIncome Major sources of funds (taxes, user charges, transfers, other)Household distribution by quintile Annual expenditureIncome disparity (quintile 5: quintile 1) Employees (/1000 pop.)Socioeconomic development Wages in budgetHouseholds below poverty line (%) Services provided (water, sewerage, etc)Women-headed households (%) Housing tenure(owned, rent, social housing, rent free, squatter)Informal employment (%) Housing affordabilityHospital beds (persons/bed) House price to income ratioChild mortality rate Rent to income ratio (%)Children per school classroom (primary, secondary) Floor area (m2/person)Crime rate (murder, theft) Housing complianceInfrastructure Housing provisionHousehold connection level: water, sewerage, electricity, telephone Land development multiplier (raw to developed)Access to potable water (within 200 m from housing) Infrastructure expenditure; mortgage to credit ratio, housingConsumption of water (liters/person/day) production per thousand pop.Median price of water

238

First, the scores for each indicator were copied foreach of the cities shown in the Indicators Database.Then, each indicator was evaluated with reference toits agreement with the NR on the basis of each of thefollowing criteria:

(1) Indicator is similar or equivalent to one containedin the NR.

(2) Agreement of indicator score or data with NRtext: full, partial, contradicts, not given.

(3) Quality appraisal of indicator:• Data available from Census or other official

or qualified source.• Difficult or expensive to find or gather data.• Judgmental; difficult to quantify.• Accuracy questionable – subject to esti-

mation.• Most likely not up-to-date as infrequently

gathered.

(4) Evaluation of indicator: essential, helpful, notuseful: for determining assistance needed bycountry in:• Urban planning.• Housing improvement programs: Informal

and slum areas; land reform; housing finance;housing production.

• Improvement in: environment, infrastructure;social services.

• Popular participation: Gender issues; NGOs;Private sector.

UN Habitat Indicators Database: evaluation as a source of the status of urban development problems and programs: R Mayet al.

• Employment.• Transportation.• Local government.

Evaluation of Database for BrazilMajor urban problems cited in Brazil NR

(1) Large housing deficit and high cost of land andhousing.

(2) Insufficient and poor quality infrastructure –particularly sewerage, causing pollution.

(3) Predatory informal occupation of land unsuitablefor housing.

(4) Inefficient, unsafe and inaccessible public trans-port services cause excessive use of private carsand air pollution.

(5) Social conflicts resulting from above problems.

Are these problems reflected in the IndicatorsDatabase?

• Housing deficit – No.• Cost of land – No.• Cost of housing – Yes (house price (rent) to

income ratio).• Insufficient infrastructure – Yes (wastewater

treated %). Poor quality – No. Pollution – Yes(wastewater treated %).

• Predatory informal occupation of land – No.Unsuitable sites – No.

• Public transport services: inefficient – No.Unsafe – No.

• Inaccessible – No. Excessive use of privatecars – Yes (modal split).

• Social conflicts – No.

“Economic crisis of past 3 years has causedworsening of social, environmental and urbanproblems”

• Federal government reduced support forsocial services.

• Public and private investments reduced.• Increased urban poverty, social exclusion,

social gaps and regional disparities.

Is this revealed in the Database?

• National economic data – No (other sourcesare available).

• Federal government support – Yes (localgovernments receive transfers… (note: statesare also a source of transfers in Brazil).

• Public and private investments – public: Yes(local government capital expenditures andprovision of services audit); private – No

• Increased urban poverty – Yes (income

239

disparity) (note: usually only available nation-ally – not by city).

• Social exclusion, gaps, regional disparities –No.

Recent progress Shown inwas noted in: Database?Reduced infant mortality YesIncreased life expectancy NoReduced illiteracy NoIncreases in water supply Yes

Evolution of urban patterns in Brazil

(Note: these differ substantially from Africa and Asia)In Database?

Many urban concentrations – Nonot one primal citySecondary cities growing Yesfaster than megacitiesCentral areas declining, or not Nogrowing as fast as peripheralareasNine metropolitan regions Yesdeclined from 41% of totalpopulation in 1970s to only29% in 1980sLarge and medium sized Noindustrial plants have movedto urban peripheral areasGrowth in the frontier areas Noof the Northeast and theAmazon is peculiar to Brazil

Housing and land problems In Database?

Economic disparity: richest Yes10% take 48% of nationalincome; poorest 10% takeonly 0.8%Very high interest rate for Partiallyhousing credit; so majoritycannot participate in thehousing market57% of labor force live in Noshanty townsand work in the informal YessectorLand speculation results in Nohuge amount of undevelopedland and vacant lotsUrban sprawl creates huge Nodemand for infrastructure andurban services in peripheralareas at high municipalexpense

UN Habitat Indicators Database: evaluation as a source of the status of urban development problems and programs: R Mayet al.

Inadequate municipal Noplanning process to produceplots for development; andlittle policy guidance from thenational governmentShantytowns grow faster than Nototal cities – eg in Sao Paulofrom 1.2% of total populationin 1973 to 19.8% in 1983(Note: 1973 data seemsdoubtful)Time and cost of commuting Yesto urban center jobs is afactor causing inner-areasquatting

Government actions for In Database?housing

Description of housing laws Noand programs adopted byFederal government from1973 to 1990

Urban environment and In Database?sanitation

35% of national population is Partiallyserved by sanitary sewers;63.5% in the Southeast!47% of solid waste is Yescollected, treated; 24.7 incontrolled landfill; 6.7% insanitary landfill; 5.7%composted, incinerated orrecycled

Transport In Database?

Private car production Yesdoubled; 900,000 to1,800,000 from 1990 to 1995A great shortage of urban Partiallytransport services exists inmost cities due to lack ofcapital to invest in equipment

Government decentralization In Database?

In 1990 National governmenttransferred responsibility forurban transport to states andmunicipalities (note: this wasrescindedin 1993) Yes44% of national tax revenues Yeswere transferred to states andmunicipalities, but from 1988

240

to 1995 the number ofmunicipalities increased by1000. As a result,municipalities had to increaseexpenditures of localresources for social programs:22% for education andculture; 16% for health andsanitation; 14% for housingand urbanization; and 12%for transportMiddle-sized cities have fairly Nowell trained staff, but smallercities do notFederal government continues Noto hold powers ofexpropriation, credit andsavings, bidding andcontracting, and environmentmanagement

Major subjects in Brazil country report covered inUrban Indicators Database – and those not covered

Covered Not coveredCost of housing Housing deficitsInsufficient infrastructure Cost of landWater pollution Infrastructure

qualityNational government transfers National economicto municipalities dataPublic capital investments Private housing

investmentsIncreased urban poverty Social exclusionInfant mortality Life expectancyWater supply Illiteracy ratesUrban population growth Growth ofrates peripheral areasIncomes disparity Industrial location

trendLabor force in informal sector Labor force living

in informalsettlements

Solid waste collection and Housing interesttreatment ratesAuto ownership Growth rates of

formal vs informalsettlements

Responsibility for urban Adequacy oftransport services public transport

servicesSources of local government Land speculationincome(Note: the Database contains many more indicatorson subjects not in Brazil report).

Usefulness and accuracy

The following comments on the sources and likelyaccuracy of specific indicators in the Database are

UN Habitat Indicators Database: evaluation as a source of the status of urban development problems and programs: R Mayet al.

based on the comparative Database scores of specificindicators for Rio de Janeiro, Recife, Brasilia andCuritiba, the only Brazilian cities in the Database.Land use Comments on

scoresBreakdown by use types Not useful as too

varied by area ofmunicipality

Residential; formal, informal Useful if accurate.Disparities mayindicateinaccuracies

Total metropolitan area data NeededPopulationResidential density Overall not useful.

Comparisonbetweenformal/informalareas would beuseful

Population growth rates Very useful, butaccuracy dependson censusfrequency

Household formation rate Accuracyquestionable.Based on samplesurveys?

Household size Same commentWomen-headed households Same commentsIncome disparity by quintiles Source? Dated?Households below poverty Source? Sampleline survey?

Women-headed SameInformal employed Same

Persons per hospital bed Data availableChild mortality rate OK (health

statistics)Children per classroom OK (school

records)Crime-murder, theft rates OK (police

records)Infrastructure – householdconnection

Water Public works dept.Sewers Public works dept.

(treatmentdegree?)

Electricity Power companyTelephone Telephone

companyAccess to potable water Source? Sample

study?(Note: unless compiled byofficial source, such data isexpensive to compile. Greatvariation among cities showsthis)

Liters/person per day (lppd) Great disparityamong cities:

241

(100–300 lppdshown)

Median price per cubic Great disparity:meter 0.04–0.46!Housing tenureOwned, purchasing Great disparity:

50–70%Private rental Same: 20–30%Rent free 7–9% except

Brasilia 23%Price–income ratio Sample? 2.7–5.7

range!Rent–income ratio Same. Probably

estimatedFloor area per person 15.5–21. Sample

interviews?Housing in compliance 30–92%. Must be

estimated unlesscomputer datamaintained

TransportModal split Only by sample

interviewsPrivate car 11.5–44%Train, bus 53–72%Bike, foot 30–51%

(Note the great disparities among cities for manyof the scores.)

Other country evaluations

The students conducted similar evaluative studies ofthe Indicators Database by comparative analysis withthe NRs for India, Jamaica, Latvia and the Philip-pines. As space does not permit complete texts oftheir reports, the following brief summaries arepresented.

India (by Lisa Bellini)

The NR for India describes a number of importanturban conditions and trends that are not revealed inthe Database. Some descriptions of urban conditionsor measures of progress cannot be reduced to num-bers. It is also difficult to find descriptors that willapply in all countries. For example, some conditionsare peculiar to India and may not be useful in othercountries. This also depends on the use of the Datab-ase: is it to only be used as a means for comparisonsamong cities, or as a process for monitoring progressamong cities towards the implementation of the Habi-tat Agenda? The latter option implies that the Datab-ase should be as comprehensive as possible. Countriesshould not confine their research to the global list andshould feel free to add indicators relevant to theirneeds. Some indicators are simply missing from theDatabase, although they could indicate much more onthe implementation of the Habitat Agenda. Perhaps itwill become more complete in time.

The NR gives more emphasis to the dynamics of

UN Habitat Indicators Database: evaluation as a source of the status of urban development problems and programs: R Mayet al.

urban processes. For example, it would be interestingto know that intermediate-sized towns grew faster inthe decade. It seems difficult to find indicators thatcould reflect such dynamics. The Database gives apicture of current conditions rather than noting trends.Numeric indicators do not reveal the causes andconsequences of current conditions. In the case ofIndia the Database contains very detailed data on 11major cities for most of the 70 indicators.

The Database gives no comparisons with rural con-ditions, although the urban–rural continuum isimportant in most developing countries. Moreover,the global indicators do not sufficiently reveal socialinequities – living conditions of the urban poor, forexample. The needs for social and public services aremore clearly expressed in the NR.

Two critical issues to which the Indicators Programshould be extended are women and children, withparticular coverage of issues such as mortality, lifeexpectancy, education, nutrition, drop-out rates, inci-dence of illness, violence, crimes, savings, access tocritical urban services, and the living conditions ofthe poor.

The development of a strong Database is a priorityin India, and has become critical as urban planningwas transferred to local governments. The develop-ment of a monitoring and evaluation system becomesa sustainability-promoting requirement for propermanagement of programs.

Jamaica (by Sakera Sadullah)A review of Jamaica’s NR revealed that the IndicatorsDatabase (ID) did not contain all the pertinent infor-mation for monitoring progress in urban development.Although the Database is composed of eight key mod-ules, the data available for Kingston only partiallycovers the following five modules: Background Data,Socio-economic Development, Local Authorities, andHousing Sections A and B. The NR states that someof the information was not readily available. Inaddition, some of the indicators were so global in nat-ure that they could not adequately portray the livingconditions in Kingston and had to be combined withother indicators to form indices of development.

Unfortunately, the indicators provided no infor-mation on the overcrowded conditions in the KingstonMetropolitan Area (KMA) slums as described in theNR: “West Kingston is characterized by a mixture ofpoorly maintained housing schemes, dilapidated andovercrowded low-income housing and clusters of sub-standard dwellings constructed of wood, cement andzinc… Developers are investing in higher incomedevelopments where profits are usually greater”.

Under the Socio-economic Development module,the Database does not include the vital information inthe NR. For example, the NR states that infant mor-tality is 24 per 1000, or that 46.3% of households inJamaica live below the poverty line. No informationon informal employment is provided in the Database.According to the NR, unemployment was high in all

242

inner city areas. Income earned was generally low,75% of those employed in Downtown Kingstonearned less than J$1000 monthly.

The Database contains no information on infra-structure. The NR states that “during 1993, approxi-mately 86% of the population received treated water,9.5% received untreated water and 4.5% were notserved”. Information on water connections, sewerage,electricity and telephones was requested but not pro-vided to the ID. Similar gaps were found in the sec-tions on Transportation and Environmental Manage-ment. According to the NR, local governmentrevenues were estimated at US$2.86 per capita forKingston.

Overall, Jamaica’s NR contained more informationon Kingston’s condition than the ID. A proper assess-ment of conditions in Kingston was not provided inthe Database because much of the relevant infor-mation requested was not provided by the govern-ment.

Latvia (by Emily Nishi)The NR of Latvia and the ID contain identical infor-mation. The Latvian government created its NR forpresentation to the Habitat II Conference in Istanbuland also provided the same data for the ID. The NRis in far more depth than the ID, yet does not waiverfrom the main points of the indicators.

As a new country, Latvia is facing many changesto its governmental and social structures that will takeyears to reform and stabilize. As priorities, Latviaconsiders specific regional development and physicalplanning projects, infrastructure improvement pro-grams, and ways to reduce energy consumption.

The NR reviews past practices from the 1950s tothe 1990s, which includes a period when Latvia waspart of the Soviet Union and followed guidelinestowards goals much different from the present. At thetime of the report (1995), Latvia had only been inde-pendent for 5 years and was in a period of transitionof its economic and government structure. Responsi-bility for housing and settlement development wastransferred from the central government to local auth-orities, and previously state-owned housing was alsoturned over to municipalities. Cities gained theresponsibility of ensuring that the local populationhad adequate housing, and of setting rents, and deal-ing with the homeless. Privatization of state andmunicipal housing units was projected after 1996.

The transition from a totalitarian state and centrallyplanned economy to a democratic administration andmarket economy was considered the largest issue.Information regarding these political factors is notcontained in the indicators, but is greatly relevantwhen considering human settlement problems andissues.

Another issue of concern is the settlement patternof Latvia. In the past, small settlements provided ser-vices to farms spread over large areas. In the 1960sthe development of national, regional, district and

UN Habitat Indicators Database: evaluation as a source of the status of urban development problems and programs: R Mayet al.

local systems was proposed to create an even distri-bution of local centers. The growth of these centerswas uneven and the capital city of Riga evolvedfurther from its already dominant position; its spherehas grown to include nearby towns, stretching urban-ization far beyond the city. The NR called for correc-tion of the uneven distribution of development toallow for growth in the remote areas of the country.Although patterns of migration over time are notincluded in the indicators, this information is essentialto understanding why housing programs may or maynot be satisfactory. The extension of urban infrastruc-ture into rural areas is another topic not covered inthe indicators.

The NR shows concerns for air, water and soil pol-lution. Although water and sewerage systems havebeen provided since the 1960s, they do not meet mod-ern standards. The NR also notes that waste disposalsystems and recycling programs are underdeveloped,leading to soil pollution. Poor infrastructure and lackof coordination between development of residentialand industrial areas is a major cause of pollution.

Overall, the NR and the ID contain the same infor-mation. Yet, the NR gives a clearer indication of howLatvia expects its human settlements to develop thancan be shown by statistical comparisons. The NR dis-cusses specific programs and means to sustainableends. A major fault of the ID is that it does not reporttrends and shows only a snapshot of conditions whichalone is not particularly useful.

The Philippines (by Francette R. James and AngelaMathangani)The Philippines has been grappling with the issuesand problems of urban growth for a long time. Withurban areas growing at a rate 15 times faster than ruralareas, major cities are overwhelmed with increasingdemands for basic services, cleaner environment,safer neighborhoods, orderly land use, efficient trans-portation and communication systems, as well as bet-ter employment opportunities. During the 1990s thePhilippine strategy for dealing with the above issueshas been shaped in large part by Agenda 21, adoptedat the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil. In the Philippines,Agenda 21 is implemented through the Council forSustainable Development which through its Socialand Economic Committee has initiated activities inthe following areas:

Combating poverty.The government has committeditself to a number of poverty alleviation activities.Social reform packages, covering skills training, wel-fare benefits and unfair business practices have beenintroduced for the benefit of marginalized sectors ofsociety.

Shelter.A revised national plan of action to providea strategy for the development of environmentallysound and sustainable human settlements was formu-lated. It introduces several major policies for housing,

243

including people-centered and aided self-helpapproaches, matching housing finance with benefici-aries affordability, and improvement of the housingdelivery system. The government’s role is shiftedfrom being the major provider of social housing tothe major source of housing finance.

Similar strategies are explained for the provision ofinfrastructure and social services and on the issues ofpopulation and urbanization. It should also be notedthat the role of local governments has been defined,particularly in the area of provision of basic servicesand amenities, employment promotion and environ-mental quality.

As in the other country studies, a comparison ofthe NR and ID shows the Database diverging fromthe NR in one major respect. Whereas the Databaseprovides indicators for individual cities, the NRpresents data for geographic regions, with the excep-tion of Metro Manila. This can be explained in partby the deficiencies in information, policies and insti-tutions that face local governments. In fact, the reportcalls for support of the international community in theestablishment of a national urban Database and thedevelopment of standard definition and measurementon urbanization that would provide continuous andaccurate information on the country’s urban areas. Assuch, the Database presents a step toward this objec-tive.

In view of their different approaches to the struc-ture of data, any comparison of the Database and theNR in purely quantitative terms would be limited inscope. From a qualitative viewpoint, it may be saidthat the Database and the NR use similar indicatorsto some degree in the areas of urban poverty, shelterand urban population. However, as the table suggests,the NR lacks concrete data on infrastructure andsocial services. By contrast, the City DevelopmentIndex in the Database provides a measure of invest-ment in infrastructure and social services, rankingMetro Manila in the medium development range,while Cebu and Davao are ranked in the low develop-ment range.

Certain limitations are present in the Database.There are several gaps of missing information. Forthe cities of Cebu and Davao, for example, no figuresare provided on the number of poor households – anessential indicator for measuring poverty. In addition,the Database’s focus on major cities conceals animportant feature of the Philippine reality – namelythe interrelation of rural and urban areas and the needto balance their common and competing needs. How-ever, as stated above, the Database does respond tosome extent to the need for improved informationalcapacities on urban areas.

CommentsIt is clear from these analyses that the various NRsdescribe a number of important urban conditions andtrends that are not revealed in the Database. Written

UN Habitat Indicators Database: evaluation as a source of the status of urban development problems and programs: R Mayet al.

from the point of view of each nation as a whole,the NRs describe conditions in a larger context thanindividual city indicators. However, the analysesshow that city conditions can only be fully compre-hended in the context of relevant national data. Forexample, it is interesting to note that the middle-sizedcities are growing faster than the megacities in Brazil.Or that informal settlements and peripheral urbanareas are growing faster than the central cities. Alsoof interest are comparative rural and urban populationtrends. None of these important conditions and trendsare included in the Database.

On the other hand, the Database indicators describemany conditions on subjects not found in the countryreports. Questions can be raised as to how essentialsome of these are for an understanding of a particularcity’s urban problems and needs. Is the Databasebeing compiled and maintained to facilitate rapidcomparisons among cities rather than to provideinformation needed to determine each city’s majorproblems and needs for technical and capital assist-ance? Perhaps fewer indicators targeted on specificcritical shelter and environmental issues are neededfor this purpose. Changes in urban conditions cannotand need not be compiled more frequently than 5- or10-year intervals; first because conditions do notchange more frequently, and second because some ofthe basic data are not compiled by official or reliablesources more frequently.

244

Conclusions

The Indicators Database is essential to the process ofmonitoring progress in cities towards the implemen-tation of the Habitat II Agenda. In its present formthe Database represents a significant start in thisdirection. As already noted, individual indicators canonly be fully understood within the context of regu-larly maintained national demographic, economic,social and environmental data.

The comparative analysis of the Database with theNRs demonstrates that not all descriptions of urbanconditions or measures of progress can be reduced tonumbers. For example, subjects such as land reform,legal and financial actions, and popular participationrequire other methods of reporting progress. A similaropinion is voiced by Jerry Lebo of the World Bankstaff in his review of the “Four world cities transportstudy” (Lebo, 1999), in which he states that “simplypresenting comparative statistics cannot do justice tothe subtle interplay of urban growth, transport andland use planning”.

ReferencesLebo, J (1999) Four world cities transport study.Urban Age,

Spring, 29.National Reports (1996) Submitted to theSecond United Nations

Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), Istanbul, Tur-key by the governments of Brazil, India, Jamaica, Latvia andthe Philippines.