North Korea’s 2017 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey reported that 60.9% of the household population covered by its water-quality analysis met its safely managed drinking water indicator. The reported share was 71.3% for urban areas and 44.5% for rural areas. These figures describe the survey year and the definition used in its drinking-water table.
The Central Bureau of Statistics conducted the survey with technical assistance from UNICEF. The report distinguishes the type of source, where it is located, whether enough water is available and what the testing found. That distinction helps explain why having access to a source and meeting the complete indicator are different things.
- MICS stands for Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey.
- Table WS.1.8 is the source for the 60.9%, 71.3% and 44.5% figures.
- The table describes members of households in the survey analysis. Its denominator and notes matter.
UNICEF — DPR Korea 2017 MICS report page
Choose a reading route
What safely managed means in this table · Worked example: write a reliable figure caption · Frequently asked questions
Chapters 1–4 · Read the evidence
Chapters 5–7 · Test a comparison
Chapter 1 of 7
What safely managed means in this table
Start with the source. The report uses the category improved for certain types of water source. It then asks whether an improved source is accessible on the premises, whether sufficient water is available when needed and whether testing detected thermotolerant coliform bacteria at the source. Table WS.1.8 combines these conditions for the indicator.
The World Health Organization’s global definition includes both faecal and priority chemical contamination criteria. The DPRK survey table explicitly identifies the thermotolerant coliform measure. In a report about the 2017 findings, name what was tested. This keeps a clear distinction between the survey’s operational measurement and the fuller definition used for global monitoring.
Think of the conditions as several questions about the same water service. Can household members reach the source on their premises? Is water available when they need it? What does the quality result show? A service can do well on one of these measures while falling short on another.
DPR Korea Central Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF — full MICS report
Chapter 2 of 7
Read urban and rural figures as survey estimates
The table gives 71.3% for urban and 44.5% for rural household population. The difference is 26.8 percentage points. That arithmetic describes the gap between two reported shares. It does not identify which factors caused the difference or describe every place within either group.
Urban and rural populations are different sizes in the analysis. A national percentage is therefore not a simple average of those two percentages. A survey also uses weights to represent the population covered by its design. The easiest way to report the national estimate is to use the national row instead of calculating an unweighted average of the two group values.
A useful note names the indicator, population group and year. If you show the urban and rural figures on a chart, use one vertical scale and label the values directly. Readers can then distinguish the numerical gap from the question of what produced it.
DPR Korea Central Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF — full MICS report
Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter
Chapter 3 of 7
Why the denominator matters
The table gives 5,150 household members with information on water quality for the combined indicator analysis. This is the table’s stated denominator information. It should not be mistaken for the country’s total population, the number of samples collected from every location, or a count of everyone interviewed for other parts of the survey.
If you read “61%” in a UNICEF summary, check which unit the full report uses. Table WS.1.8 describes the household population. A percentage of household members and a percentage of households can differ because households have different numbers of people. Stating the unit alongside the percentage lets another reader check that you copied the intended measure.
Look at the notes for subgroup rows as well. The table marks some results based on few unweighted cases. A precise-looking percentage can come from a small set of observations. Read the note before drawing a broad conclusion about the subgroup it describes.
DPR Korea Central Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF — full MICS report
Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter
Chapter 4 of 7
Source water and water used at home
The report distinguishes quality at the source from quality in household drinking water. These are separate measurements. In general, transport, handling and storage can affect what reaches a person at home. The report’s separate tables give readers a way to see which stage was measured.
If two percentages differ, check whether they come from the same source, the same group and the same sample definition. An observed difference between results at two points does not establish when or how a change occurred. To investigate a particular pathway, you would need information linking the same source and household, along with details of what happened in between.
DPR Korea Central Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF — full MICS report
Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter
Chapter 5 of 7
Worked example: write a reliable figure caption
Write that the 2017 DPRK MICS reported 60.9% for the household population in its safely managed drinking water analysis. Add “Table WS.1.8” so a reader can locate the source. If you compare places, put 71.3% and 44.5% beside the words urban and rural, and identify the gap in percentage points.
Next, put a sentence under the caption explaining that the table uses an improved source, access on premises, availability and the named bacterial test. Keep the 2017 date visible. A statement about water service in a later year would need a later measurement or estimate with its own method.
DPR Korea Central Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF — full MICS report
Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter
Chapter 6 of 7
Why a source category and a quality test belong in separate columns
Imagine two homes using an improved source. At the first, the source is on the premises and enough water is available when needed. At the second, the household must collect water elsewhere. Those homes can share a source category while receiving different service levels. If the quality test also differs, the final indicator reflects several conditions at once.
To make a classroom diagram, draw four columns labelled source type, location, availability and quality. Put an example in each column. Then mark which columns the combined indicator needs. The exercise shows why the indicator changes when one condition changes, even if the type of source stays the same.
This is useful when reading a report about infrastructure. A source list can describe how water is supplied. A service indicator asks how that supply works for people. An investigation of improvements can look at each part separately to see which part changed.
WHO — definition of safely managed drinking water
Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter
Chapter 7 of 7
How to compare the 2017 survey with another year
First identify the name of the indicator in each source. Then read the wording and data collection methods. A later report can use a different approach to estimating national service coverage. A change in the figure may reflect a change in conditions, a change in method or some combination. Use the documentation to decide how directly the numbers can be compared.
Next, check which groups each source covers. A national household survey result may sit next to an estimate for schools, health facilities or a particular region. Give each its own line. A result for a facility cannot be used as though it measured households, and a city result cannot answer a national question.
Finally, make the unit explicit in ordinary language. Say “of household members covered by the analysis” where that is the unit used. Use “percentage points” when subtracting two shares. If you add an interpretation, put it in a separate sentence and explain what evidence supports it. These small choices help readers check the number without opening the full report for every detail.
For another practice question, find a chart headed “basic water service” and compare its definition with the safely managed indicator. The WHO monitoring page explains why the two categories use different thresholds. Use the exercise to identify which condition has been added or changed. The result is a clearer account of what any stated improvement would actually mean.
If your comparison has to use two different measures, give them separate labels and explain why each is included. A chart can still show both, provided readers can see whether the comparison concerns source type, service level, location or the results of testing.
WHO — definition of safely managed drinking water
Contents · Previous chapter · Questions
Frequently asked questions
What was the survey’s national result?
The table reports 60.9%, often rounded to 61%, for its safely managed drinking water indicator.
Does an improved source automatically meet the combined indicator?
The table also checks access on the premises, availability and the result of a bacterial test at the source.
Do these figures describe current conditions?
They describe the 2017 survey. For later conditions, look for a dated source and check whether it uses a comparable definition.
Sources and next reading
Sources
- UNICEF — DPR Korea 2017 MICS report page
- DPR Korea Central Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF — full MICS report
- WHO — definition of safely managed drinking water