Identifying target baseline data
Select baseline data by working backward from a project decision. Identify the change that may occur, the people exposed to it, the resources or relationships involved, and the evidence needed to choose and assess a response. This keeps the survey focused while making the reason for each question reviewable.
The original Maluku discussion considered employment, local procurement, public services, migration, prices and resource access around a proposed regional investment. These remain useful lines of inquiry. Establish their relevance through the project's activities and local consultation before treating them as expected outcomes.
Describe the pathway before choosing an indicator
A useful pathway links an activity to an exposure and a consequence: construction restricts a landing place; fishers travel farther or lose fishing time; costs, earnings or food availability change. Measure the links needed to assess that mechanism, including season and feasible alternatives. Household income alone would leave much of the pathway unexplained.
Consider opportunities with the same discipline. Recruitment may increase earnings for selected workers, while access to training, care responsibilities, contract duration and recruitment practices determine who benefits. Distinguish a company commitment, a community expectation, a delivered output and an observed outcome.
IFC Performance Standard 1 links assessment to recent baseline evidence and calls for attention to people facing disproportionate impacts. Its management provisions connect actions with outcomes, indicators, responsibilities and time periods. These are useful anchors for an indicator register. IFC, 2012, PS1 paragraphs 7, 12 and 16
Specify measures and denominators
For each indicator, record the purpose, population, observation unit, numerator and denominator, reference period, source, disaggregation, calculation and management response. Define which observations count as missing and who is responsible for resolving them.
| Decision | Candidate baseline measures | Supporting evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Protect access to productive resources | Users, activity, season, effort, net returns and dependence on the affected access point | Use records, routes, tenure and seasonal mapping |
| Design local recruitment and training | Skills, availability, barriers to participation and existing earnings | Individual interviews, employer demand and training provision |
| Plan service capacity | Population served, operating capacity, reliability, cost and travel time | Facility records, household use and verified routes |
| Assess housing and price pressures | Tenure, rent, household spending, crowding and a consistent local price basket | Rental-market inquiry, repeated prices and settlement change |
| Monitor livelihood restoration | Real welfare, productive opportunities, access and assistance received | Original affected cohort, payment records and follow-up interviews |
These are proposed specifications to adapt. Define “local” for recruitment, distinguish workers from jobs or workdays, and separate sales from net earnings. Record a facility's capacity and operating status alongside its presence. Specify whether a land denominator covers ownership, actual use or affected area.
Measure distribution and changing membership
Identify exposure groups before collection: tenants, owners, workers, resource users, hosts and incoming households may experience the same change differently. Examine barriers and dependence within those groups. Gender, age, disability or identity can inform disaggregation without becoming a complete explanation of vulnerability.
Migration can increase demand, labor supply and trade at the same time. Analyze population change alongside service capacity, prices, access and livelihood opportunities. The migration monitoring discussion connects these measures to management responses. Avoid using a person's origin as a substitute for evidence about behavior or risk.
Use a coherent welfare measure alongside access and security measures. Increased cash expenditure can reflect higher prices, household expansion or recovery spending. Track composition, season and a documented price basis before interpreting it as improved living standards.
Align with national instruments
Compare the proposed measure with the relevant national questionnaire and published table. Match the household definition, eligible respondent, reference period, unit, response categories, geography and survey edition. Record the relationship as exact, compatible after a stated conversion, partial or unsuitable for comparison.
The Indonesia and Nepal guides develop these crosswalks. National definitions support comparability; additional questions about customary access, seasonal use or project assistance preserve the local relationships needed for assessment. A district estimate supplies context rather than an individual eligibility finding.
Plan the interpretation and response
Draft the output table before finalizing the questionnaire. Check that the frame and sample support the intended geographic and subgroup comparisons. The UN survey guidelines connect objectives, questionnaire design and tabulation planning in sections 2.2.2–2.2.3. UN, 2008, pp. 17–20
Assign follow-up frequency and review triggers according to the pathway. An interruption to drinking water calls for rapid operational monitoring; livelihood recovery may need repeated seasonal observation. Before-and-after change describes what happened. Attribution requires a justified comparison design and evidence about competing explanations.
Continue with baseline collection, survey design, the detailed baseline series and methods references.