Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev

Adding a basis for sustainable poverty monitoring: The indicator

systems and multi-source data of multi-dimensional
poverty measurement
Xin Cheng a, b, *, Yanting Liu a, b, Ziyi Yu a, b, Jingyue Gao a, b, Yan Dai a, b, Jia Chen a, b,
Yue Liu c, d, Chaofan Wang a, b, e, Chuanmin Shuai a, b, Wenjing Li f, g, Zhiju Xie h, **
a
Department of Management Science and Engineering, School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074,
People’s Republic of China
b
Research Centre of Resource and Environmental Economics, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074, People’s Republic of China
c
Department of Accounting, Business School, Jianghan University, Wuhan, 430056, People’s Republic of China
d
Research Center of Wuhan City Circle Manufacturing Industry Development, Business School, Jianghan University, Wuhan, 430056, People’s
Republic of China
e
Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, NSW, 2109, Australia
f
School of Economics and Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070, People’s Republic of China
g
School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, United Kingdom
h
School of Public Administration, Research Institute of Rural Revitalization, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, 510006, People’s Republic of China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Poverty is a pressing social and economic issue that demands attention. Reducing and eliminating
Multi-dimensional poverty poverty are shared objectives globally. Current studies often rely on existing theoretical models or
Evaluation indicator system survey questions when selecting dimensions and indicators, which may have limitations. Few
Weight processing
researchers have offered a comprehensive framework for indicator selection based on data
Multi-source data
Systematic literature review
sources. The measurement of multi-dimensional poverty primarily relies on the use of the Multi-
In-depth literature analysis dimensional Poverty Index (MPI). However, there is a lack of systematic research on the selection
of indicator systems and their respective weights. This study used in-depth literature analysis and
systematic literature review (SLR) methods to sort out and integrate indicator systems and
evaluation methods of multi-dimensional poverty evaluation (MPE). The results indicate that: (1)
The indicator systems of MPE should include the following dimensions: economic, health, edu­
cation, living standard, social relationship and natural environment for both household and
regional level; (2) MPE based on multi-source data could reduce the difficulty and costs of field
survey, increase comparability and convenience, and be more objective and reliable, which would
be an important direction for future related research; And (3) Hybrid method would be more
reasonable than the single weighting method, which could minimize the loss of information and
make the weighting result as close as possible to the actual result. We propose to establish a

* Corresponding author. School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, No. 388 Lumo Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan,
430074, People’s Republic of China.
** Corresponding author. School of Public Administration, Research Institute of Rural Revitalization, Guangzhou University, No. 230, Waihuan
West Road, University Town, Panyu District, Guangzhou, 510006, People’s Republic of China.
E-mail addresses: cxjournal@163.com (X. Cheng), lyt-cug@cug.edu.cn (Y. Liu), yuzy47@163.com (Z. Yu), gziyii@163.com (J. Gao), daiy0119@
163.com (Y. Dai), chenj_cug@163.com (J. Chen), liuyue1107@qq.com (Y. Liu), wangcf96@163.com (C. Wang), shuaicm@cug.edu.cn (C. Shuai),
wli_academic@163.com (W. Li), zjxie@gzhu.edu.cn (Z. Xie).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2024.100966
Received 10 June 2022; Received in revised form 8 December 2023; Accepted 31 January 2024
Available online 14 February 2024
2211-4645/© 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

dynamic monitoring system based on multi-source data, which could offer new insights for sus­
tainable poverty monitoring.

1. Introduction

Poverty is a social and livelihood issue that deserves concern. Poverty reduction and eradication have been common tasks
worldwide. The first goal of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations (UN) is to “end extreme
poverty”. After years of development, the connotation of poverty has continued to deepen. The international community generally
believes that poverty has evolved from income poverty or consumption poverty to multi-dimensional poverty, which includes non-
monetary factors such as health, education, medical care, and living standards (Alkire and Foster, 2011a; Alkire and Santos, 2010;
García-Gómez et al., 2021; Zhang and Zhou, 2014a). Multi-dimensional poverty measurement has been playing a key role in poverty
evaluation (Alkire and Foster, 2011b). Poverty-stricken areas often show signs of poor natural conditions, backward economic
development, limited educational resources, and incomplete infrastructure, which make it difficult for poverty monitoring.
The multi-dimensional poverty measurement contains the following three elements: indicators, weights, and poverty index, but
there has not been one indicator system that is widely accepted and well-established (Alkire and Fang, 2019). The choice of dimensions
and indicators mainly bases on existing research and theories, and there is currently no universally accepted standard or readily
available measuring tool (Guo and Zhou, 2016). Reasonable indicator selection and integration play an important role in
multi-dimensional poverty measurement (Steele et al., 2017; Watmough et al., 2019). Multi-dimensional poverty measurement re­
quires rigorous sampling surveys and a large amount of data collection. The current research data include yearbook data, census data,
and household survey data, which have the disadvantages of high cost and long period (Steele et al., 2017; Watmough et al., 2019), and
inaccuracies or errors may occur during the collection of these data (Donohue and Biggs, 2015). The latest research shows that the
high-resolution data collected by Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) provides the potential for efficient
poverty monitoring (Blumenstock et al., 2015; Jean et al., 2016; Sedda et al., 2015; Soto et al., 2011). To date, how to use the existing
data reasonably and select the appropriate evaluation indicator system of multi-dimensional poverty (EISMP) remain to be a challenge
for multi-dimensional poverty measurement. Therefore, this study attempts to review the multi-dimensional poverty measurement
from a comprehensive perspective and summarize a series of indicator systems.
Since Sen (1976) put forward the theory of “capability poverty”, it has been widely recognized and adopted by the international
communities (Wang and Feng, 2020). Poverty is not only a lack of income, but also a phenomenon of deprivation of personal welfare
such as education, health, and living standards (Carr, 2021). The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) proposed a global
multi-dimensional index system (UNDP, 2010) based on Alkire’s Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) (Alkire and Santos, 2010),
which includes 3 dimensions and 10 indicators (Alkire and Santos, 2010; Wang et al., 2013). Researchers have combed the poverty
theories and measurement methods as well as evaluated the MPI (Ding, 2014; Zhang and Zhou, 2014b). So far, the theoretical basis of
multi-dimensional poverty has been increasingly improved and shaped (Ding, 2014).
International researchers investigate multi-dimensional poverty in a specific area, in which data are derived from regional surveys.
They have made attempts in the selection of multi-dimensional poverty indicators, such as labour force (Llamas and Hernandez, 2020),
gender and age (Hwang and Nam, 2020), credit (Mora-Rivera et al., 2020), and employment (Sehnbruch et al., 2020). Referring to the
method proposed by Alkire (Alkire and Foster, 2011a), Chinese researchers used yearbook data ( He et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2015;
Zheng and Shan, 2016) and household survey data (Chen and Zhang, 2013; He et al., 2017; Wang, 2016; Zhang et al., 2016) to analyse
multi-dimensional poverty from different dimensions. Limited by single-source data, the indicator systems adopted in
multi-dimensional poverty are similar. Few researchers systematically consider the selection of indicator systems.
To minimize the limitation of data and improve the efficiency of poverty monitoring, researchers have begun to explore the appli­
cation of multi-source data, such as census data and household survey data. Additionally, geographic information data and the spatial
interpolation technology of GIS are used to analyse the spatial pattern of poverty in the multi-dimensional poverty measurement (Sun
et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2014). Spatial interpolation technology can also be used to complement survey data to cover
the entire study area (Wang et al., 2014). The application of multi-source data has enriched the research of multi-dimensional poverty.
However, few studies build a multi-dimensional poverty monitoring framework that integrates multi-source data.
In the evaluation of multi-dimensional poverty (EMP), the integration of the indicator systems is also a challenge. To compare the
results of multi-dimensional poverty, it is necessary to determine the weight of each dimension when conducting the calculation of MPI
(Hwang and Nam, 2020). Weight is an important part of EMP, which reflects the impact of different dimensions and indicators on
poverty (He et al., 2016). The weights include the weight within the dimension and the weight between the dimensions. The weight
within the dimension reflects the welfare status of the individual. The collected indicator information is aggregated into a poverty
index adopting weighted methods. The well-known application of this method is the Human Development Index (HDI) (Zeller et al.,
2006). Currently, there is no authoritative method for determining the weight of indicators globally. The equal weighting method is
adopted in the Human Development Report of UN, where the weights of all dimensions are equal and the weights of indicators within
the dimension are equal, that is, the weight value of this dimension is equally divided (Sun et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2013; Zhang and
nur, 2015). However, some researchers believe that the equal-weight method may affect theoretical interpretation (Zheng and Shan,
2016). There is also some various opinions on MPI based on equal weight (Ravallion et al., 2008;Wang et al., 2012).
Some researchers have classified the weight processing methods as follows: data-driven method, normative method, and hybrid
method (Decancq and Lugo, 2013). In simple terms, data-driven method relies on the analysis of data rather than on the value

2
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

judgments between dimensions. Normative method solely rely on value judgments. Hybrid method integrates normative method and
data analysis results. Although researchers have done a lot of analysis on weight processing, the controversy of weight processing
remains.
In summary, current studies follow the existing theoretical models or survey questions in the selection of the dimensions and
indicators, which could be limited. Few researchers provide a comprehensive framework for the selection of indicators from the
perspective of data sources. The practice of multi-dimensional poverty measurement is mainly based on the application of MPI. Few
researchers have systematically sorted out the selection of indicator systems and weights. Therefore, this study processes the existing
literature and establishes comprehensive evaluation indicator systems for single-source data. This study aims to provide a reference for
other developing countries and government agencies to formulate policies. We also propose the basic idea of establishing a multi-
source data-based Dynamic Monitoring System of Multi-dimensional Poverty (DMSMP) and provide a simple example for reference
in improving the efficiency of poverty monitoring. Specifically, the following questions will be explored: (1) For the limitations of
poverty research data, what indicators are available for researchers to choose from the existing data? (2) To establish high-efficiency
poverty monitoring, which data need more attention from researchers in the future? (3) What are the options for weight processing
methods in the multi-dimensional poverty measurement?
Section 2 describes the methods used in processing data, indicators, and weights. Section 3 reports the findings in indicator systems
of single-source data. Section 4 presents related research based on multi-source data and proposes a framework for future research.
Section 5 reviews the weight processing methods and assesses their strengths and drawbacks, and Section 6 concludes and provides
implications.

2. Methodology

2.1. Data retrieval and processing

We used in-depth literature analysis and SLR methods to sort out and integrate indicator systems and evaluation methods of multi-

Fig. 1. The framework of search and selection process. Notes: the full names of “MP”, “RLS” and “HLS” are multi-dimensional poverty, regional-level
statistical, and household-level survey, respectively.

3
 Table 1
Indicator systems based on data at regional level (Chinese literature).

X. Cheng et al.
Dimension Indicator References

Economic Urbanization rate (%); Urban residents disposable income (yuan); Farmers’ per capita income (yuan); Per capita saving (yuan); Ratio of (He et al., 2016; Zhang and Chen, 2015; Zheng and Shan,
public expenditure to income (%); Ratio of deposits and loans of national banking system (%); Per capita tax (yuan); Per capita GDP 2016)
(yuan); Value-added of the secondary industry and tertiary industry as a percentage of GDP (%); Value-added of the industrial above
designated size as a percentage of GDP (%); Per capita fixed asset investment (yuan); Per capita retail sales of consumer goods (yuan);
Value-added of the primary industry per unit of the rural population (yuan); Per capita local governments expenditure (10, 000 yuan);
Per capita loans (yuan); Opportunities for industry relevancy1 (%)
Health Number of hospital beds per 10, 000 persons (unit); Number of adopting social welfare institutions beds per 10, 000 persons (unit); (He et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2015; Zhang
Rural township hospitals covering rate (%); Rural township hospitals covering rate (%); Health care2 (yuan); Proportion of and Chen, 2015; Zheng and Shan, 2016)
administrative village with healthy equipment (%); Proportion of administrative village with sports square (%); Proportion of insured
new rural cooperative medical system (%)
Education Educational expenditure proportion in GDP (%); Teacher-student ratio for ordinary primary and secondary schools; Rate of school-age (He et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2015; Zhang
children enrolment (%); Nine-year compulsory education average consolidation rate (%); Proportion of students in primary and and Chen, 2015; Zheng and Shan, 2016)
secondary schools3 (%); Gross enrolment rate of senior high school education (%); Proportion of poor people participating in training
(%); Ratio of rural labour migration4 (%)
Living Standard Food expenditure5 (yuan); Clothing expenditure6 (yuan) (Yang et al., 2015)
Water safety population penetration rate (%); Proportion of administrative village with drinking piped water (%); New water (Yang et al., 2016; Zhang and Chen, 2015)
conservancy facilities7/administrative village (unit/village); Number of people who solved drinking water problems/administrative
village (unit/village)
Safe housing rate (%); Residential8 (yuan) (Yang et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2015; Zhang and Chen, 2015)
Proportion of natural village with electricity (%); New biogas digester/administrative village (unit/village) (Yang et al., 2016; Zhang and Chen, 2015)
TV covering rate of population (%); Proportion of households who can access the internet using mobile phones (%); Proportion of (Yang et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2015; Zhang and Chen, 2015)
administrative village with Internet services (%); Proportion of information access9 (%)
Proportion of administrative village access to highway (%); Proportion of administrative village with passenger shuttle buses (%); New (Yang et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2015; Zhang and Chen, 2015)
rural roads10/administrative village (m/village)
4

New land use areas11 (mu); Output of farm crops per labourer under farming, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery12 (ton/person) (Yang et al., 2016; Zhang and Chen, 2015; Zheng and Shan,
2016)
Proportion of administrative village with rural tourism (%); Proportion of administrative village with agricultural greenhouses (%); (Yang et al., 2016; Zhang and Chen, 2015; Zheng and Shan,
Proportion of administrative village with animal husbandry shed (%); Proportion of administrative village with specialized cooperative 2016)
economic organizations of farmers (%); Per capita agricultural machinery and power13 (kw/person)
Participation rate of basic pension insurance (%); Proportion of administrative village with police offices (%); Proportion of (Yang et al., 2016; Zhang and Chen, 2015)
administrative village with community service centres (%); Proportion of administrative village with farm supermarkets (%);
Proportion of administrative village with mutual aid fund organizations in poor villages (%); Proportion of households relocated by
poverty alleviation migrants (%); Proportion of households subsidized for renovation of old houses in danger (%)
Natural Forest coverage rate (%); Non-hazardous disposal rate of household garbage (%); Newly increased area of returning farmland to forest (Yang et al., 2016; Zhang and Chen, 2015)
Environment and grassland (mu); Proportion of administrative village with centralized garbage stacking sites (%); Proportion of administrative
village with landfill sites (%); Proportion of administrative village with full-time cleaners (%)

Note

Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

1
Value-added of the secondary industry/Value-added of the primary industry.
2
Expenditure on drugs, medical instruments and services for health care.
3
(Number of students in primary schools + Number of students in secondary schools)/Year-end population.
4
(Rural labourers - Labourers under farming, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery)/Rural labourers.
5
Expenditure on all kinds of food, including staple food, non-staple food, other food, food outside and food processing.
6
Expenditure on clothing and processing materials.
7
New water conservancy facilities include drinking water pipes, reservoirs and cellars, canals (stone/cement), and farmland water conservancy facilities.
8
Expenditure related to residence, including newly built (purchased) houses, house maintenance, residential services, rental housing, domestic water, domestic electricity, fuel for living, etc.
9
Number of fixed telephones/Year-end population.
10
New rural roads include township roads (cement/asphalt), village roads (cement/asphalt), and household roads (cement/asphalt).
11
New land use areas include economic crop area, economic forest area, irrigated basic farmland, efficient water-saving farmland, artificial improved grassland and grassland area.
12
(Grain output + oil-bearing crops output + meat output * 6 + cotton output * 8)/Labourers under farming, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery.
13
Total power of agricultural machinery/Labourers under farming, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery.
X. Cheng et al.
Table 2
Indicator systems based on data at household level (literature in Chinese).
Dimension Indicator
Economic Per capita income (Per capita income of household (yuan); Per
capita net income (yuan); Per capita deposits (yuan))
Assets (Credit capital assets1 (yuan); Current assets2 (yuan); Whether
poverty alleviation increase family income; Whether poverty
alleviation drive the development of the tertiary industry; Whether
poverty alleviation drive agricultural and industry development)
Education Years of schooling3 (year) (Adult literate rate (%); Education level4
(%))
Educational conditions (Education expenditure (yuan); Educational
debt (yuan); Education return5 (unit); Distance to nearest primary
school (km); Proportion of family members who have participated in
skill training (%))
Child enrolment (Rate of school-age children enrolment (%); Rate of
Children’s dropout (%); No child labour rate6 (%))
Health Medical insurance7
Self-rated health
Family health (Proportion of underweight caused by malnutrition in
families (%); The number of people with chronic diseases in the family
(person); Time to nearest clinic (h); Child mortality (%); Body Mass
Index (BMI); Proportion of getting medical treatment from regular
medical institutions in time after illness (%))
Living Standard Drinking water8
Sanitation9
Cooking fuel10
5
Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966
References
( Chen and Zhang, 2013, 2016; Chen, 2012; Fang, 2012; Guo
and Zhou, 2016; Hou et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2011; Li, 2012; Li
and Li, 2013; Liao, 2015; Sun et al., 2012; Tan and Zhang, 2017;
Wang and Ye, 2014; Wang, 2016; Wu et al., 2013; Yang et al.,
2016; Yang, 2014; Yang and Wang, 2015; Yang et al., 2014;
Zhang and nur, 2015; Zhang and Zhou, 2014c; Zhang et al.,
2016; Zhang et al., 2016; Zou and Fang, 2011)
(He et al., 2017; Liao, 2015; Ma et al., 2016; Sandhu and Sandhu,
2014; Wang et al., 2017
( Chen and Zhang, 2013, 2016; Fang, 2012; Feng et al., 2015;
Gao, 2012; Gao and Ma, 2013; Guo, 2012; Guo and Zhou, 2016;
He et al., 2017; Hou et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2011; Li, 2012;
Liao, 2015; Sun et al., 2012; Tan and Zhang, 2017; Wang and Ye,
2014; Wang and Wang, 2013; Wang et al., 2012; Wang and
Alkire, 2009; Wu et al., 2013; Yang, 2014; Yang and Wang,
2015; Yang et al., 2014; Zhang, 2015; Zhang and nur, 2015;
Zhang and Zhou, 2014a; Zhang et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016;
Zhi et al., 2017; Zhu and Li, 2017)
(Gao, 2015; Gao and Bi, 2016; Wang, 2016; Wang et al., 2017;
Zhang et al., 2016)
(Feng et al., 2015; Gao, 2012; Gao and Ma, 2013; Guo, 2012;
Guo and Zhou, 2016; Li, 2012; Li and Li, 2013; Wang and Wang,
2013; Wang, 2016; Yang et al., 2016; Yang, 2014; Yang and
Wang, 2015; Zhang, 2015; Zhang et al., 2017; Zhang and Zhou,
2014a, 2014c, 2015a, 2015b; Zhi et al., 2017)
(Chen and Zhang, 2013, 2016; Chen, 2012; Fang, 2012; Feng
et al., 2015; Gao, 2012; Gao and Ma, 2013; Hou et al., 2012;
Jiang et al., 2011; Li and Li, 2013; Liao, 2015; Ma et al., 2016;
Sun et al., 2012; Tan and Zhang, 2017; Wang and Ye, 2014;
Wang and Wang, 2013; Wang et al., 2012; Wang and Alkire,
2009; Wu et al., 2013; Yang, 2014; Zhang, 2015; Zhang et al.,
2017; Zhang and Zhou, 2014a, 2014c, 2015a, 2015b; Zhang
et al., 2016; Zhu and Li, 2017)
(Chen, 2012; Fang, 2012; Gao, 2015; Gao and Bi, 2016; Li, 2012;
Liu and Li, 2014; Ma et al., 2016; Wang and Ye, 2014; Wang,
2016; Yang et al., 2016; Yang, 2014; Yang et al., 2014; Zhang,
2015; Zhang et al., 2017; Zhang and nur, 2015; Zhang and Zhou,
2014a, 2014c, 2015a; Zhang et al., 2016)
(Chen and Zhang, 2016; Gao, 2015; Gao and Bi, 2016; Guo,
2012; Guo and Zhou, 2016; Ma et al., 2016; Wang and Ye, 2014;
Wang et al., 2017; Xie, 2015; Yang and Wang, 2015; Yang et al.,
2014; Zhi et al., 2017)
(Chen and Zhang, 2016; Fang, 2012; Feng et al., 2015; Gao,
2012; Gao and Ma, 2013; Guo, 2012; Guo and Zhou, 2016; Hou
et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2011; Li and Li, 2013; Liao, 2015; Ma
et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2012; Tan and Zhang, 2017; Wang and
Wang, 2013; Wang, 2016; Wang and Alkire, 2009; Yang, 2014;
Yang and Wang, 2015; Yang et al., 2014; Zhang, 2015; Zhang
et al., 2017; Zhang and nur, 2015; Zhang and Zhou, 2014a,
2014c, 2015a; Zhang et al., 2016; Zhi et al., 2017; Zou and Fang,
2011)
(Chen and Zhang, 2016; Fang, 2012; Feng et al., 2015; Gao,
2012; Gao and Ma, 2013; Guo, 2012; Guo and Zhou, 2016; Hou
et al., 2012; Liao, 2015; Ma et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2012; Tan
and Zhang, 2017; Wang and Wang, 2013; Wang and Alkire,
2009; Wang et al., 2017; Yang, 2014; Yang and Wang, 2015;
Yang et al., 2014; Zhang, 2015; Zhang et al., 2017; Zhang and
nur, 2015; Zhang and Zhou, 2014a, 2014c, 2015a; Zhi et al.,
2017; Zou and Fang, 2011)
(Chen and Zhang, 2016; Fang, 2012; Feng et al., 2015; Gao,
2012; Gao and Ma, 2013; Guo, 2012; Guo and Zhou, 2016; Liao,
2015; Liu and Li, 2014; Ma et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2012; Tan and
Zhang, 2017; Wang and Wang, 2013; Wang, 2016; Wang and
(continued on next page)
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Table 2 (continued )
Dimension Indicator References

Assets/Consumer durables11
Housing (Per capita dwelling space (m2); Whether housing
structure12 is safe)
Electricity13
Land (Per capita farmland area (m2); Area of land contracted by
farmers (m2); Per capita grain possession (kg); Number of livestock
(unit))
Transportation (Whether village road access; Whether there is
shuttle bus in the residence; Round trip time to market; Township
government, the county town, bank or business office, school and
distance to the nearest road (km); Distance between the farmer’s
address and the nearest bus stop (km))
Consumption (Farmer per capita consumption (yuan); The original
value of productive fixed assets at the year-end (yuan); Average
monthly telephone charge of householder (yuan); Proportion of
family members not participating in or receiving any pension
insurance (%))
Communication (Whether households have communication
facilities14)
Social Relationship Social capital (Whether family members have village leads; Number
of relatives and friends who can ask for help when looking for a job
(person); Whether they have relatives and friends who can lend
money)
Market participation (Whether the means of production are
purchased through modern market15; Whether householders can
easily access market conditions; Whether farmers can prevent and
cope with risks16; Whether farmers employ workers at harvest;
Whether farmers cooperate with leading enterprises or join
cooperatives)
Natural Natural disaster (Whether farmers are seriously harmed and
Environment threatened by landslide, debris flow, collapse and other natural
disasters)
Other Personal Labour & Employment (Whether the family has young and middle-
Characteristics aged labour force; Whether the family have income from migrant
work; Proportion of non-agricultural labour force in family17 (%);
Proportion of adult workers (16–60 years old) unemployment in the
past year (%); Whether leisure time is more than 10 h)
Empowerment (Whether the farmer is a single-parent family;
Proportion of female in the total family population (%); Whether
female have decision-making power in family affairs)
Satisfaction (Whether the farmer have confidence in the future;
Whether the farmer is satisfied with current work)
Alkire, 2009; Wang et al., 2017; Yang, 2014; Yang and Wang,
2015; Zhang, 2015; Zhang et al., 2017; Zhang and nur, 2015;
Zhang and Zhou, 2014a; Zhang et al., 2016; Zhi et al., 2017; Zou
and Fang, 2011)
(Chen and Zhang, 2016; Chen, 2012; Fang, 2012; Feng et al.,
2015; Gao, 2012; Gao and Ma, 2013; Guo, 2012; He et al., 2017;
Hou et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2011; Liao, 2015; Liu and Li, 2014;
Ma et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2012; Tan and Zhang, 2017; Wang
and Wang, 2013; Wang et al., 2012; Wang, 2016; Wang and
Alkire, 2009; Yang et al., 2014; Zhang, 2015;Zhang et al., 2017;
Zhang and Zhou, 2014a; Zhi et al., 2017; Zou and Fang, 2011)
(Chen and Zhang, 2016; Chen, 2012; Fang, 2012; Feng et al.,
2015; Gao, 2012; Gao and Ma, 2013; Guo and Zhou, 2016; He
et al., 2017; Hou et al., 2012; Li, 2012; Liu and Li, 2014; Ma
et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2012; Wang and Wang, 2013; Wang,
2016; Wang and Alkire, 2009; Wang et al., 2017; Yang et al.,
2016; Yang, 2014; Yang et al., 2014; Zhang, 2015; Zhang et al.,
2017; Zhang and nur, 2015; Zhang and Zhou, 2014a; Zhang
et al., 2016; Zhi et al., 2017; Zou and Fang, 2011)
(Feng et al., 2015; Gao, 2012; Gao and Ma, 2013; Guo, 2012; Li
and Li, 2013; Liao, 2015; Ma et al., 2016; Tan and Zhang, 2017;
Wang, 2016; Wang and Alkire, 2009; Wang et al., 2017; Yang,
2014; Zhang, 2015; Zhang et al., 2017; Zhang and nur, 2015;
Zhang and Zhou, 2014a; Zhi et al., 2017; Zou and Fang, 2011)
(He et al., 2017; Li and Li, 2013; Sun et al., 2012; Tan and Zhang,
2017; Wang, 2016; Wang and Alkire, 2009)
(He et al., 2017; Wang, 2016; Wang et al., 2017; Yang, 2014;
Yang et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016)
(Chen and Zhang, 2013; Sun et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2013; Xie,
2015; Yang and Wang, 2015; Zhu and Li, 2017)
(Yang et al., 2016; Yang and Wang, 2015)
(He et al., 2017; Li, 2012; Ma et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016)
(Zhang et al., 2016)
(He et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2012; Wang, 2016)
(Guo and Zhou, 2016; He et al., 2017; Liao, 2015; Wang, 2016;
Zhang and Zhou, 2015b)
(Chen and Zhang, 2013; Li and Li, 2013; Ma et al., 2016; Wu
et al., 2013; Xie, 2015; Yang, 2014; Zhang et al., 2016)
(Chen and Zhang, 2013; Li and Li, 2013; Ma et al., 2016; Wu
et al., 2013; Xie, 2015; Yang, 2014; Zhang et al., 2016)

Note: The dimensions in bold are summarized by the author.

1
Farmers get loans from rural credit cooperatives and commercial banks.
2
The sum of the family’s cash and bank deposits.
3
The indicator of years of schooling investigates the following aspects: average years of schooling for family members over 16 years old (including
16 years old) (years), the proportion of family members with less than 5 years of schooling (%).
4
The indicator of education level investigates the following aspects: the proportion of an adult (over 18 years old) with the highest education level
of primary school in the family (%), the proportion of family labour force with an education level below senior high school (%).

6
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

5
Number of students with junior college degree or above.
6
Proportion of family members (12–16 years old) who are not child labourers.
7
Proportion of family members participating in medical insurance.
8
The indicator of drinking water investigates the following aspects: whether farmers install tap water, whether farmers have difficulty in drinking
water or polluted drinking water source, whether farmers have access to clean drinking water.
9
The indicator of sanitation investigates whether farmers use indoor or outdoor sanitation facilities.
10
The indicator of cooking fuel investigates whether farmers use clean energy (electricity, liquefied gas, natural gas, biogas) as living fuel.
11
The indicator of Assets/Consumer durables investigates whether farmers have more than two assets/consumer durables, including household
appliances, transportation facilities, communication facilities, agricultural machinery, etc. Household appliances include color TV, refrigerators, air
conditioners, etc. Transportation facilities include bicycles, motorcycles, automobiles, etc. Communication facilities include computers, telephones,
mobile phones, etc. Agricultural machinery includes tractors, irrigation equipment, household pumps, etc.
12
The safe housing structure is reinforced concrete structure, brick wood structure, mixed structure instead of wood, bamboo, grass structure, felt,
simple iron house, cave, tent, adobe house, or other structures.
13
The indicator of electricity investigates whether farmers get electricity.
14
Communication facilities include mobile phone, cable TV, computer network, etc.
15
Modern market refers to agricultural market, distribution shop, manufacturer, scientific research institute or agricultural machinery promotion
centre.
16
Farmers may prevent and cope with risks by purchasing agricultural insurance, paying attention to the weather and tracking the market, and
decentralizing management.
17
Non-agricultural labour force refers to the workers who have been employed by business owners for a long time, have a relatively stable income,
and work in non-enterprise organizations (such as the government) or are engaged in self-management.

dimensional poverty evaluation, adopting China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Web of Science (WOS) as databases for
exploring studies in the field of multi-dimensional poverty. A combination search was adopted based on the expression of multi-
dimensional poverty (Table A1 in Appendix A). According to the search results (1169 in Chinese and 1071 in English) with data
last updated on December 10, 2019, we systematically processed the literature as follows: research scope determining, literature
screening, and literature classification. The literature screening process included the number of studies excluded at each stage (Fig. 1).
To make the results of the research more representative as well as consider the relevance and impact of the literature, the research
scope was finally determined to be the top 100 articles in each database (the search results were sorted based on the number of ci­
tations) (100 in Chinese, 100 in English, R2, Fig. 1) based on the relevance of the topic and the numbers of citation. According to the
principle of whether the EISMP appears in the literature, the full-text screening excluded the research related to multi-dimensional
poverty but did not include the EISMP (33 in Chinese, 46 in English, R4m + R4n, Fig. 1). We finally determined 92 articles (61 in
Chinese, 31 in English, R5, Fig. 1) as the research object after the literature screening.
The traditional literature review method is applied in the different fields, and this article discuss multi-dimensional poverty issues
based on multi data sources (Wang, 2012). Meanwhile, we classified the data into regional-level data and household-level data, instead
of primary data or secondary data1 by the nature of research. According to the source of data, we divided data into single-source data
and multi-source data. Specifically, single-source data include regional-level statistical (RLS) data or household-level survey (HLS)
data. Multi-source data are a combination of two or more of the following data sources: RLS data, HLS data, RS data, GIS data, and
other source data.

2.2. Indicators and weights

The general indicator system of RLS data and HLS data would be summed up respectively based on the analysis of studies that use
single-source data (49 in Chinese, 29 in English, R6, Fig. 1). For the studies that use multi-source data (12 in Chinese, 2 in English, R5m
+ R5n, Fig. 1), this study will discuss the application and integration methods of multi-source data in multi-dimensional poverty
research.
For the classification of indicators in the EISMP framework, we followed the idea of classification in human well-being’ key areas
(Leisher et al., 2013). The dimensions and indicators were classified with the data of the same nature as follows: “economic”, “health”,
“education”, “living standard”, “social relationship”, “natural environment”, “other personal characteristics” (Table 1). We sorted the
weights according to the classification of subjective weighting, objective weighting, and hybrid weighting (61 in Chinese, 31 in English,
R5, Fig. 1). The subjective weight is based on the individual or group’s judgment of the importance of the indicators. The objective weight
is based on the analysis of the indicator data. Hybrid weight is a combination of the subjective factor and objective factor.

3. Indicator systems of multi-dimensional poverty measurement

3.1. Indicator systems of single-source data

To analyse the contribution of each indicator, we merged similar indicators and integrated the EISMP that can be categorized into
RLS data and HLS data. For the studies identified (49 in Chinese, 29 in English, R6, Fig. 1), we classified the indicator systems as
follows: Chinese literature-RLS data (Table 1), Chinese literature-HLS data (Table 2), English literature-RLS data (Table 3), English
literature-HLS data (Table 4). The references (the source of literature) indicate the specific source of the indicator (Table 1, Table 2,
Table 3, and Table 4).

7
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

(1) Data at regional level (Chinese literature)

It is more convenient to obtain RLS data than HLS data for researchers. However, there is less Chinese literature that uses RLS data
(Table 1) (5 in RLS data, 44 in HLS data, R6m, Fig. 1). For literature that uses RLS data, indicators mainly reflect the poverty through
the overall data of the region (Table 1). Specifically, the indicators reflect the multi-dimensional poverty through the development of
regional economy, the allocation of educational resources, the protection of environment and the construction of infrastructure, such
as the indicators of public finance expenditure, financial loans, the number of hospital beds, rate of children’s enrolment, and forest
coverage rate (Table 1). The selection of these indicators reflects the advantage of the RLS data in their obtaining. However, the studies
that take regions as the analysis unit ignores the differences in resource allocation of each household, which may raise the issue of
insufficient precision in the EMP.

(2) Data at household level (Chinese literature)

The studies based on HLS data pay more attention to the situation of poor households. A typical example is the MPI, which measures
poverty from three fundamental aspects (health, education, and standard of living). “Per capita income, years of schooling, children
enrolment, medical insurance, self-rated health, drinking water, sanitation, cooking fuel, assets, housing, electricity” are indicators
with more references, indicating that more studies have adopted these indicators (Table 2). Compared to RLS data (Table 1), studies
that use HLS data are more abundant. The dimensions of economic, health, education, living standard include more comprehensive
indicators, and the investigation of the indicators is detailed (Table 2).
Economy and health are dimensions widely used in the EMP. Income still plays a role in the EMP. Although the adoption of income
as the only poverty standard is not comprehensive, it is reasonable to include income in poverty measurement (Table 2). Health is the
basis for getting rid of poverty, and poor health limits other dimensions of poverty. With the promotion of the new rural cooperative
medical system, the indicator of medical insurance has also been adopted for the EMP (Table 2). Education is a dimension that requires
long-term measurement. The measurement of “education” reflects in the education of adults as well as children (Table 2). Improving
material living standards is an important goal of poverty reduction. The indicators in “living standard” include drinking water,
sanitation, cooking fuel, assets, housing, electricity and land (Table 2). These specific indicators reflect the improvement of people’s
quality of life. The requirement of living standards is not only to have water and electricity but also to pay attention to the quality of
life, such as clean water, toilet flushing, sewage, and clean fuel. As for housing, people pay more attention to the acreage, structure, and
materials. Assets include consumer durables, such as household appliances and transportation (Table 2).
The dimension of “social relationship” includes social activities and family support (Table 2). These indicators reflect the
importance people attach to social resources and social networks, indicating that individuals and government departments should
strengthen communication and dissemination of poverty alleviation (PA) information. The dimension of “natural environment” in­
vestigates the threat of natural disasters (Table 2). However, the choice of indicators may depend on the specific conditions of the local
area (the area where the research locate). For poverty-stricken areas with poor geographical location and resource endowment, the
natural resources, living services, and infrastructure provided by the environmental background vary greatly. Remote geographical
location, difficulty in transportation, and lack of social resources all have an impact on poverty. Among them, transportation is not only
a channel for transporting materials but also for information exchange. For regions with harsh environments, research should also pay

Table 3
Indicator systems based on data at regional level (English literature).
Dimension Indicator References

Economic Proportion of population living below $1 per day (%); Per capita gross domestic product (US (Antony and Rao, 2007; De Muro,
$) Mazziotta and Pareto, 2011)
Education Rural female literacy (%); Male literacy rate (%); Male and female gross school enrolment (Antony and Rao, 2007; De Muro et al.,
ratio (primary and secondary) (%); Government expenditure on education (%); Total net 2011; Erenstein et al., 2010)
enrolment ratio in primary education (%)
Health Complete immunization rate (%); Prevalence of underweight children under-5 years of age (Antony and Rao, 2007; De Muro et al.,
(%); Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption (%); 2011; Erenstein et al., 2010)
Infant mortality rate (%); Maternal mortality rate for 1000 live births (%); Number of
tuberculosis cases per 100,000 population; Female life expectancy at birth (years); Intake of
cereals (day/cu); Intake of fruits (day/cu); Total fat intake (day/cu); Prevalence of
contraceptive usage (%)
Living Standard Availability of proper sanitation facilities (%); Proportion of population using an improved (Antony and Rao, 2007; De Muro et al.,
drinking water source (%); Number of internet users per 100 population; Average distance 2011; Erenstein et al., 2010)
to nearest town (km); Share villages with paved access road (%); Derived farm size
(cultivated ha/cultivator); Derived herd size (animal units/household); Irrigated area share
(%); Farm mechanization (tractors/cultivator); Small livestock share (%)
Natural Environment Annual rainfall (mm/year); Soil capability index (1: low; 3: high) Erenstein et al. (2010)
Social Relationship Share villages with cooperative societies (%); Share villages with self-help groups (%); Erenstein et al. (2010)
Scheduled castes/tribes share (%); Share villages with banking facilities (%); Share villages
with credit societies (%)
Other Personal Rural population density (people/km2); Rural work participation rate (%) Erenstein et al. (2010)
Characteristics

8
X. Cheng et al.
Table 4
Indicator systems based on data at household level (English literature).
Dimension Indicator
Economic Per capita income (Per capita income of household (US$); Total per
capita household income (US$))
Weighted-index of wealth (Number of household members with off-
farm activities; Weighted-index of wealth upon arrival on the
property)
Consumption (Satisfaction with financial situation; Difficulty to
make ends meet; Payment arrears (excel, housing); Payment arrears
(housing); Deprivation “large” purchases; Deprivation “small”
purchases; Inability to cope with unexpected expenses; Arrears on
mortgage or rent payments; Arrears on utility bills; Having arrears on
hire purchase instalments)
Affordability (Household’s ability to make ends meet; Household
can afford to keep house warm; Household can afford week holiday
away from home; Household can afford replacing worn-out furniture;
Household can afford to buy new, rather than 2nd-hand clothes;
Household can afford to eat out, if wants to; Household can afford to
invite friends over; Household can afford to pay bills and utilities;
General feeling about economic situation)
Education Years of schooling (Years of schooling1 (year); Schooling
achievement; Literacy2 (%); Completion of primary school; Average
education of all; Maximum education of all respondents)
Child enrolment (Child attendance to school3; Child enrolment4
(%))
Health Child mortality (Child mortality5 (%); Child survival rate (%))
Nutrition6
Health protection (Average vaccination per child (age≥1); BMI;
Health limits activities; Mobility restriction; Unmet need for medical
exam; Unmet need for dental exam; Life expectancy; Has medical
insurance7; Has chronic illness; Has difficulty in meeting basic public
hospital bills)
Living standard Electricity8
Sanitation9
Water10
Housing (Housing11; Floor12; Type of flooring material; Value of
dwelling; Roof made of permanent material; Walls made of
permanent material; Quality of flooring material; Shortage of space in
the house; Accommodation is too dark or insufficient lighting; Lack of
adequate heating; Lack of adequate heating facilities; Leaking roof
and damp; Dwelling has damp walls, floors or foundations; Dwelling
has rot in windows; Lack of basic comfort; Lack in private WC, private
kitchen, private bathroom; Housing deterioration)
Cooking fuel (Cooking fuel13; Access to improved cooking fuel; Type
of cooking fuel; Source of cooking fuel)
Consumer durables/Assets (Consumer durables/Assets14; Number
of other properties owned (rural or urban); Stock of cattle; Ownership
of assets, purchase, sale, or transfer of assets; Farm assets; Non-farm
assets)
Expenditure and affordability (Expenditure on holiday away from
home; Ability to make ends meet; Per person expenditure on clothing)
Land (Proportion of the property in pasture (%); Proportion of the
property in perennials (%); Proportion of the property in annuals (%);
Proportion of the property in primary forest (%); Proportion of the
property in other land use, cover classes (secondary succession,
water, orchard, house & yard) (%); Monetized production for self-
9
Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966
References
(Alkire and Foster, 2011a; Alkire et al., 2013; Battiston et al.,
2013; Grosse et al., 2008; Guedes et al., 2012; Short, 2005; Yu,
2013)
Guedes et al. (2012)
(Betti et al., 2015; Wagle, 2008)
(Aassve et al., 2005; Betti and Verma, 2008; Short, 2005)
(Alkire and Santos, 2014; Alkire and Seth, 2013, 2015; Ayuya
et al., 2015; Betti et al., 2015; Grosse et al., 2008; Guedes et al.,
2012; Rogan, 2016; Vijaya et al., 2014; Wagle, 2008; Yu, 2013)
(Alkire and Foster, 2011a; Alkire and Santos, 2014; Alkire and
Seth, 2013, 2015; Batana, 2013; Battiston et al., 2013; Ferreira
and Lugo, 2013; Sandhu and Sandhu, 2014; Vijaya et al., 2014)
(Alkire and Santos, 2014; Alkire and Seth, 2013, 2015; Grosse
et al., 2008; Rogan, 2016)
(Alkire and Santos, 2014; Alkire and Seth, 2013, 2015; Anand
et al., 2009; Ayuya et al., 2015; Grosse et al., 2008; Rogan, 2016;
Sandhu and Sandhu, 2014; Zeller et al., 2006)
(Alkire and Foster, 2011a; Anand et al., 2009; Ayuya et al., 2015;
Batana, 2013; Betti et al., 2015; Dawson et al., 2016; Grosse
et al., 2008; Sandhu and Sandhu, 2014; Wagle, 2008; Yu, 2013)
(Alkire and Santos, 2014; Alkire and Seth, 2013, 2015; Ayuya
et al., 2015; Batana, 2013; Rogan, 2016; Vijaya et al., 2014; Yu,
2013; Zeller et al., 2006)
(Alkire and Foster, 2011a; Alkire and Santos, 2014; Alkire and
Seth, 2013, 2015; Ayuya et al., 2015; Batana, 2013; Battiston
et al., 2013; Rogan, 2016; Sandhu and Sandhu, 2014; Vijaya
et al., 2014; Yu, 2013; Zeller et al., 2006)
(Alkire and Foster, 2011a; Alkire and Santos, 2014; Alkire and
Seth, 2013, 2015; Ayuya et al., 2015; Batana, 2013; Battiston
et al., 2013; Ferreira and Lugo, 2013; Rogan, 2016; Sandhu and
Sandhu, 2014; Vijaya et al., 2014; Yu, 2013; Zeller et al., 2006)
(Aassve et al., 2005; Alkire and Santos, 2014; Alkire and Seth,
2013, 2015; Ayuya et al., 2015; Batana, 2013; Battiston et al.,
2013; Betti et al., 2015; Betti and Verma, 2008; Dawson et al.,
2016; Dewilde, 2008; Saito et al., 2014; Sandhu and Sandhu,
2014; Vijaya et al., 2014; Zeller et al., 2006)
(Alkire and Foster, 2011a; Alkire and Santos, 2014; Alkire and
Seth, 2013, 2015; Rogan, 2016; Vijaya et al., 2014; Yu, 2013;
Zeller et al., 2006)
(Aassve et al., 2005; Alkire et al., 2013; Alkire and Santos, 2014;
Alkire and Seth, 2013, 2015; Ayuya et al., 2015; Batana, 2013;
Betti et al., 2015; Ferreira and Lugo, 2013; Guedes et al., 2012;
Rogan, 2016; Saito et al., 2014; Zeller et al., 2006)
(Alkire and Foster, 2011a; Betti et al., 2015; Vijaya et al., 2014;
Zeller et al., 2006)
(Dawson et al., 2016; Guedes et al., 2012; Sandhu and Sandhu,
2014; Vijaya et al., 2014)
(continued on next page)
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Table 4 (continued )
Dimension Indicator References

consumption; Weighted index for agricultural technology; Proportion

of the property in high fertility soil (%); Property location (feeder
road vs. highway); Accessibility to the property during the rainy
season; Primary residence Agricultural land)
Living environment (Safety15; Noise from outside neighbours; (Aassve et al., 2005; Anand et al., 2009; Betti et al., 2015; Betti
Pollution or grime; Crime or vandalism; Violence; Infrastructure16) and Verma, 2008; Dawson et al., 2016)
Other Personal Empowerment (Allowed to travel to market, health facility, natal (Alkire et al., 2013; Batana, 2013; Guedes et al., 2012; Vijaya
Characteristics home, outside village, community, area; Decision to access health et al., 2014)
services for own needs; Freedom for people to make their own
decisions; Input in productive decisions; Autonomy in production;
Number of household members with off-farm activities)
Capability (Treated with respect; Occupational prestige; (Alkire et al., 2013; Betti et al., 2015; Dawson et al., 2016;
Employment industry; Work status; Weeks of work; Percent of adults Guedes et al., 2012; Wagle, 2008; Zeller et al., 2006)
who are wage labourers; Access to work opportunities; Duration of
unemployment; Workload; Leisure; Type of labour force used on the
property (family, sharecropper, temporary, permanent))
Rights and freedoms (Use imagination; Free political expression; (Alkire et al., 2013; Anand et al., 2009; Sandhu and Sandhu,
Free exercise religion; Free expresses feelings; Exposure & resilience 2014; Wagle, 2008; Yu, 2013)
to shocks; Gender & social equality; Have the right to vote; Speaking
in public)
Social Relationship Social activities and social participation (Relatives living in the (Dawson et al., 2016; Guedes et al., 2012; Wagle, 2008)
region; Number of families living on the property; Number of family
members living in any city within the study area; Help from children
to the household in the last 12 months; Membership to local
association, union, cooperative; Participation in social activities;
Social relations and sharing between households; Access to formal
agricultural credit)

Note: The dimensions in bold are summarized by the author.

1
No household member has completed 5 years of schooling.
2
No adult member has completed at least primary education.
3
Any school-aged child is not attending school in years 1–8.
4
A child in the age group 5–9 is not enrolled in school.
5
Any child has died in the family.
6
Any adult to child for whom there is nutritional information is malnourished. Adults are considered malnourished if their BMI is below 18.5.
Children are considered malnourished if their z-score of weight-for-age is below minus two standard deviations from the median of the reference
population.
7
No household member has access to any kind of medical insurance.
8
The household has no electricity.
9
The household’s sanitation facility is not improved, or it is improved but shared with other households. A household is considered to have access
to improved sanitation if it has some type of flush toilet or latrine, or ventilated improved pit or composting toilet, provided that they are not shared.
10
The household does not have access to safe drinking water or safe drinking water is more than 30 min walking from home roundtrip. A household
has access to safe drinking water if the water source is any of the following types: piped water, public tap, borehole or pump, protected well, protected
spring or rainwater, and it is within a distance of 30 min’ walk (roundtrip).
11
The household lives in a kaccha house; or lives in a semi-pucca house and owns less than five acres of unirrigated or 2.5 acres of irrigated land.
12
The household has dirt, sand, or dung floor.
13
The household cooks with dung, wood, or carbon.
14
The household does not own one of the following consumer durables/assets: radio, television, telephone, PC, vehicle (bicycle, motorbike, car or
truck), refrigerator, washing machine, bath and shower, video recorder, microwave, dishwasher, air conditioner, water heater, etc.
15
Safety refers to safe during day and night, no previous and future violent assault, no past and future sexual assault, no past, and future domestic
violence.
16
Infrastructure refers to paved roads, transport networks, and electricity.

attention to indicators such as altitude, slope, and land. The dimension of “other personal characteristics” includes the following
indicators: labour force, employment status, confidence, and decision-making (Table 2). Human well-being not only relates to material
satisfaction, but safety, culture, psychology, and power should also be include, which needs further exploration.

(3) Data at regional level (literature in English)

There is less English literature using RLS data (Table 3) (3 in RLS data, 26 in HLS data, R6n, Fig. 1). “Economic” and “education” are
common indicators of regional level (Table 3). “Health” is concerned with immunization rate, female life expectancy at birth, and
number of tuberculosis cases. The observation of nutrition is more detailed, which includes a daily intake of cereals, fruits, and fat
(Table 3). The observation of “living standard” focuses on public services and material wealth, which includes availability of proper
sanitation facilities, average distance to nearest town, farm size, and irrigated area share (Table 3). “Natural environment” investigates
annual rainfall and soil capability, which measure poverty from the perspective of regional development (Table 3). “Social

10
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

relationship” investigates the proportion of social groups in villages, which includes cooperative societies, banking facilities, and credit
societies (Table 3). “Other personal characteristics” measures the population and labour force, which includes rural population density
and rural work participation rate (Table 3).

(4) Data at household level (English literature)

Compared with the studies based on RLS data (Table 3), the literature using HLS data in English literature is more abundant
(Table 4). “Years of schooling, children enrolment, self-rated health, nutrition, drinking water, sanitation, cooking fuel, assets,
housing, electricity” are indicators with more references, indicating that more studies have adopted these indicators (Table 4).
Affordability has become an important indicator for evaluating economy capabilities (Table 4). Education is a common dimension.
And universal primary education is a key component of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the indicators (literacy, average
education) reflect the future living standard of a family (Table 4).
Specific indicators of “health” include vaccination and dental health (Table 4). “Living standard” investigates electricity, sanitation,
water, housing, fuel, assets, land and consumption expenditure (Table 4). Housing considers lighting, space, heating, walls, floors, and
room layout (Table 4). Assets include household appliances, electronic products, vehicles and livestock (Table 4). Assets reflect the
opportunities for farmers to generate income in the past and the future, which can mediate poverty during times of economic crisis.
Land investigates land type, farm, pasture and agricultural technology (Table 4). In developing countries, the land is often the last asset
that people dispose of in crisis and may have a significant impact on the household’s poverty. The living standard also focuses on safety
issues, such as neighbours, pollution, crime, and violence (Table 4). “Social relationship” includes the household’s social and com­
munity cultural exchanges, and “other personal characteristics” focuses on indicators such as empowerment, employment, leisure,
labour force, and political activity (Table 4).

3.2. Comparison of MPI and HDI

The UNDP adopts the HDI to assess a country’s development (Seth, 2009), which is composed of a long and healthy life, being
knowledgeable, and having a decent standard of living, that is, health, education, and living standard. Alkire has measured various
aspects of human development and revealed their strengths and limitations (Alkire, 2002). Human development can be measured by
different methods (Ramos and Silber, 2005), such as Sen (1999)Sen (1999)’s Capability Approach, Allardt (1993) on Having, Loving
and Being, Cummins (2005) Cummins (2005) ‘s Domains of Life Satisfaction, Dimensions of Well-Being (Narayan et al., 2000). Based
on these methods, Alkire proposed the dual cutoff method (Alkire and Foster, 2011a) and the MPI to measure multi-dimensional
poverty. The MPI has become an international index for measuring multi-dimensional poverty. It differs from traditional indicators
of education, health, and living standards in the following two ways: First, all family members’ data were used in determining whether
the household is poor (Alkire and Santos, 2014); Second, people who have been deprived of power were investigated before the final
poverty measure (Alkire and Santos, 2014).
Existing studies have built broad indicator systems (Table 1, Table 2, Tables 3 and 4). Three common dimensions (education,
health, living standard) are consistent with the HDI, which also shows that these three aspects are worth the researchers’ attention. For
the dimension of health, not only nutrition and child mortality are adopted, but medical insurance, disease, physical function, BMI, and
medical equipment in the region are also included. The dimension of education includes years of schooling and children’s enrolment.
Compared with MPI, existing studies add indicators such as education expenditure, skills training, education facilities, and teacher-
student ratio in the region. The dimension of living standard in the MPI includes the following indicators: cooking fuel, sanitation,
drinking water, electricity, housing, and assets. Existing studies add measurements on communication facilities, clothing, food,
lighting, traffic, land, livestock, infrastructure, and public services. Researchers’ choice of indicators also extends to the natural
environment (such as natural disasters) and interpersonal relationships (such as social relationships, relatives, and political capital).
Overall, the framework of the EISMP summed up in this study is different from the HDI. Regarding data, the HDI does not limit the
type of data, which increases the universality of application. We have categorized data into two primary types: RLS data and HLS data,
based on their inherent characteristics, offering a basis for indicator selection. The HDI serves as a comprehensive metric, capturing
key facets of human development. Notably, standardized indicators foster cross-country comparisons and form a foundation for
assessing global poverty dynamics. The incorporation of the EISMP is grounded in the enhancement of existing indicator frameworks.
It transcends mere summarization, constituting an amalgamation of comprehensive single-source data aligned with the inherent
nature of the data. The EISMP is distinguished by its emphasis on indicator systems pertinent to human development, surpassing the
narrow focus on isolated aspects of human survival. This nuanced approach ensures a holistic evaluation of multifaceted dimensions
contributing to human well-being.

3.3. Comparison of related research in China and the world

Reducing and eliminating poverty constitute shared objectives for all nations. Notably, between 1990 and 2015, the global pop­
ulation residing in extreme poverty witnessed a substantial decrease from 1.895 billion to 736 million (World Bank, 2018). According
to the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), global poverty reduction still faces challenges. Countries around the world
have made contributions to global multi-dimensional poverty (Aguilar and Sumner, 2020; Alkire and Foster, 2011a), such as
dimension selection (Tsui, 2002), the interdependence among dimensions (García-Gómez et al., 2021), the overlap of indicators
(Aguilar and Sumner, 2020), and issues related to weighting (Alkire and Foster, 2011b; Decancq et al., 2013; Pinar et al., 2020;

11
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Ravallion, 2011). Broadly, research on multi-dimensional poverty is currently situated in a phase of profound exploration and analysis.
Based on the number of studies (61 in Chinese, 31 in English, R5, Fig. 1), China has made more attempts to multi-dimensional
poverty measurement. Chinese literature contributes and provides more reference for the indicator systems (Appendix A). In
contrast, the data sources of English literature are scattered, except for the data used in some specific countries or regions (such as the
European Community Household Panel Survey (ECHP)) (Appendix A).
China is the world’s largest developing country. The poverty-stricken areas in China have mainly gathered in the old revolutionary
base areas, mountainous areas, ethnic minority areas, immigrant reservoir areas, and border county areas. Since the reform and
opening up, China has accumulated many basic experiences in PA, such as improvement of poverty standards timely, implement
special policies, the combination of sectorial poverty alleviation with social poverty alleviation, and innovation in green ecological
low-carbon poverty reduction (Zhang and Feng, 2016).
From the perspective of sustainable development, poverty reduction should consistently prioritize the enhancement of the natural
environment and the cultivation of qualified individuals with self-development capabilities. It should also consider new development
concepts and ecological compensation in regional development (Niu, 2017; Schleicher et al., 2018; Wang and Feng, 2020). In regions
characterized by deep poverty, remote geographical locations, and fragile natural environments, poverty reduction strategies should be
grounded in spatial poverty theory and the regional system of human-land relationships. This involves enhancing the accuracy of poverty
geography identification, resource utilization, and policy intervention (Liu et al., 2014). China has announced the elimination of extreme
poverty at the end of 2020. All 98.99 million rural poor people have lifted out of poverty based on current standards (XinhuaNet, 2020).
No other country in the world but China has been able to uplift so many people from poverty in such a short span, signifying a momentous
achievement for both China and the global community, with potential significant contributions to worldwide poverty reduction.

4. A case for the multi-dimensional poverty evaluation

4.1. Data & methods

(1) Data sources

The survey data used for the household level measurements in this example are from questionnaires of the 2015 China country level
deep-dive impact evaluation of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) projects. Chongqing City is representative
in multi-dimensional poverty research due to its geographical location, regional diversity, issues of sustainable development, and the
various dimensions associated with multi-dimensional poverty. To assess the implementation efficacy of the IFAD project, i.e.
Chongqing Rural Finance Project , we conducted empirical research and administered structured questionnaire interviews with both
project office personnel and village officials across the seven targeted villages in Chongqing. The survey data were analyzed at the
household level, culminating in the acquisition of 196 valid responses.
The statistics used for regional level measurement in this example are mainly derived from the 2014 Chongqing Statistical Year­
book, with supplementary data from the Chongqing Survey Yearbook, the China County Statistical Yearbook, and the statistical
yearbooks and government bulletins of each district and county in Chongqing. Until 2020, there are 38 districts and counties in
Chongqing, and the urbanization rate of the city is 69.46%. In 2013, the urbanization rates of six of the nine districts in the main city of
Chongqing (Yuzhong, Dadukou, Jiangbei, Shapingba, Jiulongpo, and Nanan) were all close to or above 90%. The other three urban
areas (Beibei, Yubei and Banan) have urbanization rates higher than 76%. Since the focus of this paper is on the rural areas of
Chongqing, the above nine urban areas are excluded from the data of this paper, and the remaining 29 districts and counties are
selected for this example.

(2) Dual cutoff method

The dual cutoff method developed by Alkire and Foster is widely recognized by scholars worldwide, and the method has also been
adopted by the United Nations Development Programme (Zhang and Yang, 2020), making it the mainstream method for measuring
and assessing multi-dimensional poverty. Therefore, the method has authoritative credibility. This example measures
multi-dimensional poverty based on the dual cutoff method, and the multi-dimensional poverty is measured by deprivation cutoffs (Z)
and poverty cutoffs (K) for farm households. The deprivation cutoff is used to determine whether the household is poor for the in­
dicator, i.e., whether the household is deprived on this indicator. The poverty cutoffs is used to determine whether a household has
multi-dimensionally poverty, i.e., whether the sum of the indicators on which the household is deprived is greater than or equal to the
multi-dimensional poverty threshold.
The measurement of multi-dimensional poverty examines the following three dimensions: the incidence of multi-dimensional
poverty (H), the share of multi-dimensional poverty deprivation (A) and the multi-dimensional poverty index (M). The incidence of
multi-dimensional poverty is the proportion of the total number of people identified as multi-dimensionally poor. Multi-dimensional
poverty deprivation share, also known as poverty intensity, refers to the average number of deprivation indicators of the poor
(weighted), and represents the ratio of the average number of deprived dimensions for all poor households to the total number of
dimensions (d). The multi-dimensional poverty index, also known as the adjusted multi-dimensional poverty ratio, is used to describe
the comprehensive poverty status of households or regions. The multi-dimensional poverty index obtained from the multi-dimensional
poverty measurement (MPM) can explain both the incidence of multi-dimensional poverty and the breadth of poverty occurrence. The
MPM method is as follows:

12
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Define household (n) and dimension (d) to form a matrix Y, i and j respectively represents household and dimension, i = 1,2,......n,
j = 1, 2, ......d. yij represents the value of household i on dimension j. Therefore, the row vector of matrix Y represents the values of
household i in each dimension, and the column vector represents the distribution of values of n households in dimension j.
①Poverty identification. The identification of a single dimension of poverty, i.e., the first poverty line. Denote the deprivation
cutoff or poverty line of the j th dimension by zj . hen yij < zj , gij0 = 1; when yij ≥ zj , gij0 = 0. That is, there are only two values,
respectively 0 and 1 in g0 . If household i is deprived in the j th dimension, then gij0 = 1.
For the deprivation matrix, construct an n-dimensional column vector ci , which represents the total number of dimensions in which
the household i is deprived.
②Weights. The Weights are important part of multi-dimensional poverty analysis. This example uses the equal weight method, i.e.,
each dimension is equally weighted, and each indicator within the dimension is equally weighted. The vector wj denotes the weight of
∑
each dimension, and wj = 1. Therefore, for the weighted deprivation matrix, the weighted deprivation counts of household i can be
calculated, and the column vector Ci denotes the weighted deprivation counts.
③Multi-dimensional poverty identification. The identification of multi-dimensions deprivation, i.e., the second poverty line. If the
weighted deprivation count Ci of household i is greater than k, it is considered that the household has multi-dimensional poverty. This
also indicates that the multi-dimensional poverty determination is influenced by both the within-dimension deprivation and the cross-
dimension values. In the following analysis, we will follow the calculation of the international multi-dimensional poverty index by
taking K = 1/3d. A household will be classified as multi-dimensionally poverty if at least one-third of its dimensions are deprived.
④Poverty summation. By identifying poverty in each dimension, a comprehensive multi-dimensional poverty index can be ob­
tained. The incidence of multi-dimensional poverty (H), the share of deprivation in multi-dimensional poverty (A), and the multi-
dimensional poverty index (M) are defined as:
q
H= (1)
n
∑n
i=1 ci
A= (2)
qd
∑n
i=1 ci
M0 = MPI = H × A = (3)
qn

In formulas (1), (2), and (3), q denotes the number of poor people, and n denotes the total population of the study area. Ci denotes the
number of indicators of deprivation for individual i at a poverty cutoff of K.

4.2. Dimensions, weight, and cutoffs

(1) household level

Domestic multi-dimensional poverty measurement studies draw on the three dimensions of the MPI index, which are commonly
used for income, education, health, and standards of living. In this paper, a total of 9 indicators in 4 dimensions were selected to
measure multi-dimensional poverty based on existing studies, where each dimension was given a weight of 1/4 and indicators within
the same dimension were given equal weights, i.e., indicators within a dimension were equally weighted (Table 5).

(2) regional level

Table 5
Dimensions and indicators of multi-dimensional poverty at the household level.
Dimension Indicator and weight Deprivation cutoffs

Income (1/4) Per capita income of households (1/ If below the 2014 national standard of ¥2800, a value of 1 is assigned.
4)
Education (1/4) Years of education (1/8) If below 12 years, a value of 1 is assigned.
School-age children’s school If school-age children do not receive compulsory education, a value of 1 is assigned.
enrollment (1/8)
Health (1/4) Family health (1/8) If 1 or more than 1 of the family members is ill, a value of 1 is assigned.
Medical insurance (1/8) If medical insurance is not purchased, a value of 1 is assigned.
Standards of living Drinking water (1/16) If the source of household drinking water is not from a deep well (less than 5 m in depth) or tap
(1/4) water, a value of 1is assigned.
Fuel (1/16) If electricity, liquefied gas or natural gas modern fuel can not be used, a value of 1 is assigned.
Assets (1/16) If there are less than two pieces of vehicles, agricultural machinery and household equipment in
the home, a value of 1 is assigned
Housing (1/16) If the house is not a reinforced concrete structure, a value of 1 is assigned.

Note: The weights of each dimension and indicator are marked in brackets. In asset indicators, transportation includes bicycles, motorcycles, electric
bicycles, cars, trucks, etc.; agricultural machinery includes small tractors or walking tractors, motor vehicles, etc.; household equipment includes
color TVs, refrigerators or freezers, washing machines, etc.

13
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

In this example, three major dimensions are selected: energy system, economic system and environmental system. Electricity
consumption per capita in rural areas was selected as an indicator to measure energy consumption in rural areas. In terms of economy,
per capita disposable income of rural households, per capita consumption expenditure of rural households, per capita gross output
value of farming, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery services, per capita road miles and percentage of output value of primary
industry are selected as positive indicators in this example. In terms of environment, per capita farmland area, per capita grain yield
and per capita expenditure for agriculture, forestry, and water conservancy are selected as indicators of environmental development,
and the above indicators are all positive indicators.
To eliminate the uncertainty of the weight of each dimension, the entropy weighting method was used to determine the weight of
each dimension. For the deprivation cutoffs of each indicator, this example is based on the relative poverty line, and 60% of the mean
value of an indicator for all samples at the same point in time is taken as the deprivation cutoffs for that indicator (Table 6).

4.3. Results of multi-dimensional poverty estimation

Based on the 1/3 cutoff, this example estimates multi-dimensional poverty outcomes when k ≥ 3 (i.e., when 3 and more dimensions
of poverty exist in 9 dimensions) according to the aforementioned multi-dimensional poverty measure (Table 7).
For the incidence of poverty, at the household level, 10 out of 196 household questionnaires have multi-dimensional poverty, and
the incidence of poverty is 0.051; while at the regional level, 2 out of 29 districts and counties have multi-dimensional poverty, and the
incidence of poverty is 0.069. For the average share of deprivation, A was measured to be 0.444 at the household level and 0.460 at the
regional level.

4.4. Discussion

The incidence of poverty in this chapter represents the proportion of the poverty sample to the overall sample, due to the fact that
the international MPI calculation method takes K = 1/3d as the standard, therefore, it is necessary to meet in 3 or more dimensions of
poverty. Household level measurement relies on the IFAD Chongqing Rural Finance Project, and we selected seven villages in Yunyang
County and Youyang Tujia and Miao Autonomous County of Chongqing, which do not have multi-dimensional poverty in regional
level measurement, so it is reasonable that the household level poverty incidence is slightly lower than the regional level poverty
incidence. The average share of deprivation signifies the manifestation of a specific aggregate of poverty across multiple dimensions on
an average scale, with marginal disparities observed in the outcomes computed at both household and regional levels. In essence,
variations in the construction of indicator systems and the selection of data can exert influence on the outcomes of measures within the
multi-dimensional poverty index.
The ongoing research on the dynamic monitoring system aims to showcase a preliminary demonstration using a limited amount of
data, serving as a catalyst for further exploration. The primary objective of this paper is to propose the development of a dynamic
monitoring system that leverages multi-source data. Although this example solely utilizes data from Chongqing city for calculation
purposes, it should be noted that the data merely serves as empirical validation for the proposed ideas and system construction, rather
than providing a comprehensive analysis. It mainly contains (1) The use of household level survey data and regional level statistics
based on the construction of the indicator system respectively, and the indicator system established on this classification provides the

Table 6
Dimensions and indicators of multi-dimensional poverty at the regional level.
Dimension Indicator Indicator meaning and calculation method Unit Deprivation
cutoffs

Energy development Per capita electricity consumption (0.23) Electricity consumption of rural households/Total Kilowatt 199.74
(0.23) rural population hour
Economic Per capita disposable income of rural Disposable income of rural households/Household Yuan 5707.22
development households (0.10) permanent resident
(0.48) Per capita consumption expenditure of rural Consumption expenditure of rural households/ Yuan 4593.33
households (0.07) Household permanent resident
Per capita gross output value of farming, Gross output value of farming, forestry, animal Yuan 4697.16
forestry, animal husbandry and fishery services husbandry and fishery services/Total rural
(0.12) population
Per capita road miles (0.12) Road miles/Total rural population km/ 41.6
10,000
Percentage of output value of primary industry Output value of primary industry/Regional GDP % 0.09
(0.07)
Environment Per capita farmland area (0.11) Farmland area/Total rural population km2/ 11.62
development 10,000
(0.29) Per capita grain yield (0.07) Total grain yield/Total population ton/ 3878.15
10,000
Per capita expenditure for agriculture, forestry, Expenditure for agriculture, forestry and water Yuan 865.6
and water conservancy (0.11) conservancy/Total rural population

Note: If the sample value is less than the deprivation threshold, assign a value of 1.
Source: Obtained by the authors using statistical data calculation and collation.

14
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Table 7
Multi-dimensional poverty estimation results for k ≥ 3.
Object Incidence of poverty (H) Average share of deprivation (A) Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (M0)

household 0.051 0.444 0.023

region 0.069 0.460 0.032

basis for the selection of indicators; (2) Multiple sources of data provide the basis for efficient poverty detection; (3) Subjective
assignment (equal weight method) and objective assignment (entropy method) are used to handle the weights, which provides a basis
for the selection of weights. Therefore, although this paper is limited by data availability and does not use the latest data for poverty
measurement, the use of multi-source data and the use of subjective and objective weighting methods can also provide a practical
reference for the final proposal of establishing a multi-dimensional poverty dynamic monitoring system based on multi-source data.

5. Multi-source data of multi-dimensional poverty measurement

5.1. Related research based on multi-source data

Multi-source data have applied to the field of multi-dimensional poverty monitoring according to the analysis of 14 literature (12 in
Chinese, 2 in English, R5m + R5n, Fig. 1). The following is a detailed analysis of three literature and discuss the application and
integration of multi-source data in specific practices (Table 8).
Spatial poverty theory (Liu et al., 2014) and geographic identification of poverty (Chen et al., 2016) have been developed based on
multi-source data (Table 8). Statistical data, survey data, RS data, Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data, and vector data (such as Open
Street Map (OSM), Baidu map) are applied to the research (Table 8). In the manipulation of indicators, prevalent techniques encompass
min-max normalization and grade standardization (Table 8). Additionally, ArcGIS software is adopted to generate vector data of poor
villages for spatial pattern analysis (Chen et al., 2016) (Table 8). These theoretical frameworks and methodologies collectively
contribute to enhancing the precision of poverty identification.

5.2. Processing and integration of multi-source data

The data are primarily acquired through statistical methodologies. Statistical techniques serve as the predominant means to gather
information pertaining to the characteristics, magnitude, structure, and degree of natural, economic, and social factors within specific
research domains (Liu et al., 2014). RLS data are collected by the yearbook and census, which are obtained by government de­
partments. HLS data mainly come from household surveys. Researchers also focus on the data provided by RS and GIS. The RS data are
used for clear spatial morphological indicators, such as land cover, road density, and topography. For geographic information, vector
data can also obtain through the OSM, such as boundaries, roads, water systems, railways, and buildings. Poverty-stricken areas often
suffer from poor natural environment and traffic congestion, which brings challenges to the census and household surveys as well as
increases the difficulty and cost. Moreover, variations in collection methods and data calibrations across different countries and re­
gions impede meaningful comparisons. Global-scale data gathered through GIS and RS technologies, utilizing satellites, enhance
comparability to a considerable extent. The utilization of multi-source data, particularly RS and GIS data, forms the cornerstone for
effective poverty monitoring. These data sources offer convenience in acquisition and boast higher credibility compared to traditional

Table 8
The application of MPI based on multi-source data.
Theories Data Data processing methods Implications

The multi-source data and
spatial poverty (Liu et al.,
2014)
The integration of Multi-
source data and
geographical
identification of poverty (
Liu and Xu, 2015)
The multi-source data and
spatial poverty (Chen
et al., 2016)
Statistical data, sampling survey
data, RS data, DEM data
DEM data, precipitation data,
land use data, census data,
county-level administrative map,
statistical yearbook
Yearbook, basic geographic
information data, village latitude
and longitude data based on
Baidu map
Remote sensing inversion and multiple-
factor weighted fusion modelling were
adopted to convert to spatial data. Min-max
normalization was adopted to process
dimension.
Min-max normalization method was used
for the standardization of indicators, and
the value is limited to [0,1].
The classification of indicators was adopted
to process indicators. ArcGIS was used to
generate vector point data for poor villages
and analyse spatial patterns.
Spatial poverty theory, multi-source data
application, and min-max normalization
method provide a reference for anti-
poverty measurement research.
Multi-source data integration and poverty
geographic identification are of great
significance for improving the accuracy of
poverty identification and enrich the multi-
dimensional poverty measurement
method.
The application of multi-source data
provides object support for quantitative
measurement, spatial expression, and
resource allocation in village-level targeted
poverty alleviation. The classification of
indicators is also a method to deal with
different dimensions.

Notes: the full names of “RS”, “DEM” and “GIS” are Remote Sensing, Digital Elevation Model, and Geographic Information System, respectively.

15
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

data sources. This underscores the significance of exploring and integrating multi-source data in future research endeavors.
Following the data collection process, it becomes of utmost importance to address the critical matter of data integration. In this
regard, two primary aspects require attention: integrating the research objects and integrating the time frequency. It is imperative to
acknowledge that the diverse nature of data types necessitates the adoption of distinct approaches to ensure a successful integration
process.
Current research in the field of multi-source data focuses on integrating statistical data, survey data, RS data, and GIS data for the
purpose of multi-dimensional poverty measurement (Table 8). While multi-source data offer a broader range of indicator options, they
also introduce the challenge of dealing with inconsistent indicators. One strategy involves employing the min-max normalization
method to achieve dimensionless processing. This method transforms data from various dimensions into spatial data, grounded in
spatial poverty theory. However, the integration method of current multi-source data is simple (Table 8).
The premise of multi-dimensional poverty dynamic monitoring is to establish a multi-dimensional poverty measurement frame­
work, including the selection of measurement methods, indicators, and weights. Indicators are affected by data sources. Some in­
dicators closely related to households’ livelihoods are likely to be abandoned due to a lack of data sources. A DMSMP can be
established based on existing MPI calculation methods and multi-source data (Fig. 2). This study integrates the indicator systems of
single-source data (Table 1, Table 2, Tables 3 and 4), which could provide the basis for the selection of indicators. Besides, statistical
data, survey data, GIS data, RS data, and other multi-source data are databases, which increase the selection range of indicators. The
integration of diverse data sources gives rise to distinct indicator dimensions. Standardizing these indicators may involve employing
the min-max normalization method and the grade classification method. In the processing of weights, careful consideration should be
given to the merits and drawbacks of both subjective and objective weighting (Table 9 and Table 10). Striving to incorporate hybrid
weighting in the measurement of multi-dimensional poverty is recommended. Building upon these considerations, researchers are
encouraged to leverage GIS data and RS data for expeditious multi-dimensional poverty monitoring. Such an approach facilitates
dynamic monitoring and offers timely insights. The findings derived from this method can serve as valuable references for other
developing nations in the formulation of effective poverty reduction strategies.

6. Weight processing for MPI evaluation

6.1. Summary of weight processing methods

We sorted the weights processing methods according to the classification of subjective weighting, objective weighting, and hybrid
weighting (Table 9). Subjective weighting includes an equal weight to each indicator or dimension as well as equal-nested weight
(equal weight of indicators and dimensions). The references (the source of the literature) show that the equal weight method is un­
doubtedly the weight processing method widely used in current studies (Table 9). The equal weight method considers that the
contribution of all dimensions is equal. Actually, one dimension usually contains multiple indicators, which face the following two
choices of equal weights. One is to give equal weights to all dimensions and the weights of the indicators in each dimension are equal.
The other is to assign equal weights to the indicators in all dimensions, that is, equal weight to each indicator (Table 9). Only when the

Fig. 2. Dynamic monitoring system of multi-dimensional poverty based on multi-source data.

16
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Table 9
Weight processing methods for MPI evaluation.
Classification Weight processing methods References

Objective method- Principal component analysis
data-driven
Entropy weight method
Sequential relationship analysis
Regression-based weighted factors
Analytic hierarchy process
Weighted arithmetic average
Latent class analysis
Factor analysis
Frequency-based weight
Subjective method- Equal weight to each indicator
normative
Equal weight to each dimension
Equal-nested weight (Equal weight of
indicators and dimensions)
Arbitrary weight
Hybrid method Expert scoring method and principal
component analysis
Expert scoring method and participatory rural
appraisal (PRA)
Expert scoring method and entropy weight
method
Analytic hierarchy process and entropy weight
method
Composite weight
Equal weight to each indicator and voices of
the poor weight
Equal-nested weight, “valuation orderings”
weight, and equal weight (indicator)
(Erenstein et al., 2010; He et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2017; Zeller
et al., 2006; Zhang and Zhou, 2014a)
(Pan and Hu, 2016; Yang et al., 2016)
(Liu and Xu, 2015)
Guedes et al. (2012)
(Liu and Xu, 2016)
Sandhu and Sandhu (2014)
Dewilde (2008)
Betti et al. (2015)
Zheng and Shan (2016)
(Alkire and Seth, 2015; Batana, 2013; Chen and Zhang, 2016; Chen, 2012; Gao, 2015;
Gao and Bi, 2016; Hou et al., 2012; Liao, 2015; Liu and Li, 2014; Ma et al., 2016; Tan
and Zhang, 2017; Yang and Wang, 2015)
(Alkire and Foster, 2011a; Alkire and Seth, 2013; Ayuya et al., 2015; Betti and Verma,
2008; Li, 2012; Li and Li, 2013; Rogan, 2016; Short, 2005; Sun et al., 2012; Wagle,
2008; Wang and Wang, 2013; Wang and Alkire, 2009; Wu et al., 2013; Xie, 2015;
Zhang and Chen, 2015)
(Alkire et al., 2013; Alkire and Santos, 2014; Guo, 2012; Guo and Zhou, 2016; Sun
et al., 2016; Vijaya et al., 2014; Wang and Ye, 2014; Wang et al., 2013; Wang et al.,
2014; Yang, 2014; Yang et al., 2014; Yu, 2013; Zhang, 2015; Zhang et al., 2017;
Zhang and nur, 2015; Zhang and Zhou, 2015a,b; Zhang et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016;
Zhi et al., 2017; Zou and Fang, 2011)
(Wang, 2016; Zhu and Li, 2017)
(Chen and Zhang, 2013)
(He et al., 2017)
(Yang et al., 2015)
(Chen et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017)
Fang (2012)
Battiston et al. (2013)
Santos (2013)

dimension includes fewer indicators, the two methods would give similar results. Objective weighting obtains weights through data
analysis to judge the importance of indicators, such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and entropy weight method (Table 9). The
combination of subjective and objective weighting methods (hybrid method) aims to avoid the shortcomings of single weighting, but
how to distribute the obtained weights is also a problem that needs further exploration.

6.2. Evaluation of weight processing methods

There is no uniform method for weighting in the world. The UN’ Human Development Report adopted the equal weight method for
multi-dimensional poverty measurement. This study sorted out the usage and scope of weight processing methods and analyzed their
advantages and disadvantages (Table 10). Weight is the embodiment of capability value. Equal weight is a commonly used weight
processing method but has certain controversies (Ramos and Silber, 2005; Ravallion et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2012). Although it
minimizes interference, the importance of indicators is ignored. Arbitrary weight is based on researchers’ understanding of dimensions
and indicators, which lacks a basis (Chen, 2012). There are also some weights based on national or departmental regulations, such as
predetermined weights by the United States Agency for International Development (Alkire et al., 2013).
Statistical methods avoid the arbitrariness of setting weights, and the measurement results are robust (Zhang and Zhou, 2014a).
PCA method is an objective and strict manner to deal with the above concerns (Zeller et al., 2006). But it ignores the original intention
of the multi-dimensional method, which focuses on important dimensions with low correlation (Alkire et al., 2013; Somarriba and
Pena, 2009). If the cumulative contribution rate of the principal component cannot be maintained at a high level, the principal
component that gathers a lot of information may not be enough to give a strong and realistic explanation (Li, 2016). Contrary to PCA
method, the frequency-based weigh method weights based on the different distribution of poverty dimensions (Rippin, 2016), which
gives higher weight to lower deprived indicators (Ramos and Silber, 2005). The entropy weight method is a relatively objective
method, which adopts data analysis results to represent the importance of indicators (Pan and Hu, 2016; Huimin Yang, Luo, Li and
Gao, 2016). Although statistical methods can set weights, these method precludes Sen’s normative recommendations on weights,
which complicates comparisons across datasets (Alkire and Seth, 2015).
The hybrid method is a more reasonable method than the single weighting method (Wang et al., 2017). The core problem is how to
determine the weight distribution of each method (Wang et al., 2017). The hybrid method minimizes the loss of information and makes

17
 X. Cheng et al.
Table 10
The evaluation of Weight processing methods.
Weight processing Scope Usage Advantage evaluation Disadvantage evaluation
methods

Principal component Applicable to Factor analysis is used to process data and extract Eliminates the problem of unreasonable weight Relies on relevance to assign weights, ignoring important
analysis individuals, regions, or common information between variables. distribution caused by the correlation of indicators and but not highly relevant dimensions (Alkire et al., 2013;
countries (Zeller et al., provides a promising method for circumventing the Somarriba and Pena, 2009). In the process of
2006). problem of autocorrelation as well as the aggregation dimensionality reduction, a small number of
of multi-dimensional indicators (Erenstein et al., 2010; comprehensive variables replace the original multiple
He et al., 2016). variables, which is vaguer and less targeted.
Frequency-based Applicable to Adopts the concept of squared poverty distance and Focuses on indicators that depriving lower and giving Only depends on the relative deprivation level in different
weight individuals, regions, or gives differentiated weights, which gives more weight appropriate weights (Ramos and Silber, 2005). dimensions (Decancq and Lugo, 2013).
countries (Zeller et al., to the poorer groups based on the differences in the
2006). distribution of poverty dimensions among poverty
subjects (Zheng and Shan, 2016).
Entropy weight Applicable to Determines the indicator weight based on the A relatively objective weighting method that can Only adopts data analysis results to represent the
method individuals, regions, or information provided by each indicator data. reduce the influence of subjective factors (Pan and Hu, importance of indicators, which has a certain one-
18

countries (Zeller et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2016). sidedness.

2006).
Equal weight method Applicable in Gives equal weight to the dimensions and equal weight Transparent, comparable and allow comparisons over Cannot reflect the degree of influence of the indicator (
developing countries of the indicator within the dimension. The equal time (Battiston et al., 2013; Guo and Zhou, 2016). Zhang and Zhou, 2014c).
and regions. weight method gives each indicator equal weight.
Arbitrary weight Applicable in certain Based on researchers’ understanding of dimensions Simple and easy to operate, which reflects the Lacks a theoretical basis and overall representativeness.
regions or countries ( and indicators (Chen, 2012). characteristics of the importance of indicators that The empowerment process is not transparent, which is not
Zeller et al., 2006). vary from person to person. conducive to national or international comparison.
Prescribed weight Applicable in certain Based on national or departmental regulations (Alkire Easy to obtain and reduces the operation process. Lacks the theoretical basis and has a certain degree of
regions or countries ( et al., 2013). randomness, which is not conducive to international
Zeller et al., 2006). comparison.
Hybrid method Affected by the Combination of subjective and objective weighting. Compared with other methods, the hybrid weight is The core problem is how to determine the weight
method selected. more comprehensive and objective. distribution of the two methods (Wang et al., 2017).

Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

the weighting result as close as possible to the actual result (Fan et al., 1998; Guo et al., 2012). Any weighting method has a certain
degree of randomness (Grosse et al., 2008). As can be seen through the research of several domestic and foreign scholars, the credibility
and practicality of multi-dimensional evaluation relative to single-dimensional evaluation is widely recognized in the academic
community. We believe that in weight selection, various factors need to be considered, including specific scenarios, research objec­
tives, data, and the nature of the research problem. Therefore, there is still room for discussion on the weight issue and we encourage
scholars to explore further in future research. We strive to find a reasonable method for weight processing and provide a compre­
hensive reference for subsequent researchers (Table 10).

7. Conclusions and implications for future research

The essence of poverty should be multi-dimensional. The indicator systems of multi-dimensional poverty may include income,
education (UN MDGs (United Nations, 2015), MDG2), health (MDG7), water (MDG7), health (MDGs 4, 5, 6), livelihoods, electricity,
housing, and land (Alkire and Foster, 2011a; Alkire and Seth, 2015; Zou and Fang, 2011), which can comprehensively reflect the
situation of poverty-stricken areas. The problem is that the same indicator has different meanings in different cultural backgrounds.
For example, in some countries, houses made from natural fibres are regarded as a symbol of wealth, but in others, it is a symbol of
poverty (Zeller et al., 2006). Another problem is that the selection of multi-dimensional poverty indicators varies between urban and
rural areas, and it is not appropriate to generalize the choice of indicators such as health, water, housing, and land (Aguilar and
Sumner, 2020; Alkire and Fang, 2019). Therefore, the selection of the indicator systems does not have a fixed framework but should
adapt to the poverty-environment based on the actual background and existing data sources. In response to these problems, a clear and
selectable EISMP which improve the efficiency of multi-dimensional poverty monitoring is urgently needed to be established.
Through combing the literature, this study proposed indicator systems of single-source data. By analysing the application of multi-
source data and weight processing methods, this study also proposed to build a DMSMP based on multi-source data. The results
indicate that: (1) The indicator systems of multi-dimensional poverty evaluation should include the following dimensions: economic,
health, education, living standard, social relationship and natural environment for both household and regional level. (2) Multi-
dimensional poverty evaluation based on multi-source data could reduce the difficulty and costs of field survey, and increase
comparability and convenience. And it is more objective and reliable, which would be an important direction for future related
research. (3) The weight processing methods for multi-dimensional poverty evaluation include principal component analysis,
frequency-based weight, entropy weight method, equal weight method, arbitrary weight, prescribed weight and hybrid method.
Hybrid method would be more reasonable than the single weighting method, which could minimize the loss of information and make
the weighting result as close as possible to the actual result.
Multi-dimensional poverty measurement should consider both poverty indicators and the feasibility of data collection (Li et al.,
2019). Multi-source data, especially GIS data and RS data, provide conditions for the expansion of the database and provide data for
further consideration of geographic and environmental indicators. GIS data and RS data with high update frequency would help to
conduct multi-dimensional dynamic poverty monitoring promptly. The key issue is the integration and unification of data from
different sources. Future research should make full use of the existing data and establish an EISMP comprehensively so that the data
source oculd correspondto the indicator system.
Poverty eradication is a long-term and arduous task. Researchers have aware of the relationship between poverty and sustainable
development. They have begun to pay attention to issues such as climate change, agricultural development, natural environment, and
geographic fragility (Mabon et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2020), which are related to and interact with poverty. Government departments
also have aware of taking the path of “blood-making” PA and reduce dependence on fiscal expenditure. The idea of PA adopting new
energy such as photovoltaic poverty alleviation (Zhang et al., 2019) not only creates considerable income but also establishes a
resource-saving and environmental-friendly sustainable livelihood model. According to the UN 2030 SDGs, future research is
necessary to explore sustainable development mechanisms to coordinate and promote effective poverty reduction with ecological and
environmental conservation.

Note

1. The general data classification is primary data and secondary data according to the source of data. The primary data refer to the
data collected directly by the researchers for their research or topics. The researchers generally have direct contact with the research
subjects through interviews, direct observations, and indirect observations. Corresponding to primary data, secondary data refer to
data derived from investigations and experiments of others (commercial and government agencies, marketing research companies,
computer databases), including documents, archives, and physical evidence (Hox and Boeije, 2005).

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Xin Cheng: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Yanting
Liu: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. Ziyi Yu: Writing – review & editing. Jingyue Gao: Writing – review & editing. Yan
Dai: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. Jia Chen: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Yue Liu: Writing – review &
editing. Chaofan Wang: Writing – review & editing. Chuanmin Shuai: Writing – review & editing. Wenjing Li: Writing – review &
editing. Zhiju Xie: Funding acquisition.

19
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

This study is funded by the Major Program of the National Social Science Fund of China (NSSFC) (No. 22&ZD192), Natural Science
Foundation of Hubei Province (No. 2022CFB079), National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Nos. 71903184 and
72003075), Humanities and Social Science Research Youth Fund Project of Ministry of Education (No. 23YJC630021), Science and
Technology Think Tank Young Talent Project of China Association for Science and Technology (No. 20230504ZZ07240045).
Chuanmin Shuai is supported by the Major Program of the National Social Science Fund of China (NSSFC) (No. 17ZDA085), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (No. 71773119), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Uni­
versities, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) (No. CUG170101). Wenjing Li is supported by Humanities and Social Science
Research Youth Fund Project of Ministry of Education (No. 20YJC630065) and Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2019M652672).
Yue Liu is supported by the Research Start-up Funding for High-level Talents of Jianghan University (No. 0836001), and Funding for
Independent Subject of Manufacturing Industry Development Research Center on Wuhan City Circle, Business School of Jianghan
University (No. W2023Y04). Chaofan Wang acknowledges funding support from the Co-funded China Scholarship Council - Macquarie
University Research Excellence Scholarship (CSC-iMQRES, Nos. 202206410008 and 47484020). Ziyi Yu and Jingyue Gao are sup­
ported by the Teaching Laboratory Open Fund Project of China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) (Nos. SKJ2023177 and
SKJ2023182).

Appendix A. Supplementary details for data retrieval

So far, there is no uniform definition of “multi-dimensional poverty”. Researchers can adopt similar expressions of “multi-
dimensional poverty”, not just multi-dimensional poverty, such as “Multidimensional Poverty Index, Multidimensional-analysis AND
Poverty Index”, and “Multidimensional deprivation AND Poverty”. Although these expressions are different, they are used in multi-
dimensional poverty research. We adopted “Multidimensional poverty” as search term and WOS as database to search for multi-
dimensional poverty-related phrases (Table A1).
By combining or merging multi-dimensional poverty phrases, each group of keywords was guaranteed to fully express the meaning
of multi-dimensional poverty (Table A1). It also adopted the “Boolean AND” operator and “Boolean OR” operator to integrate the
expressions of multi-dimensional poverty. “Multidimensional poverty” and “Multi-dimensional poverty” can fully express the meaning
of multi-dimensional poverty. But the abbreviation of the MPI has different meanings in different fields. “MPI” and “MPI Index” express
the same meaning. To avoid the search results that “MPI” does not express the meaning of multi-dimensional poverty, it is necessary to
make “MPI” and “Multi-dimensional poverty” appear at the same time. Therefore, “MPI”, “MPI Index”, and “Multidimensional Poverty
Index” were integrated as follows: (“MPI” OR “MPI Index”) AND “Multidimensional Poverty Index”. Similarly, the “Multidimensional
Poverty Assessment Tool” and “MPAT” were processed in the same way. Other phrases that express multi-dimensional poverty
measures were as follows: “Multidimensional poverty measurement” OR “Multidimensional poverty Assessment”. For keywords that
cannot fully express multi-dimensional poverty, we adopted “AND” to connect (Table A1).

Table A1
The processing of literature search

1. Chinese Literature Search

Platform CNKI
Term Multi-dimensional poverty
Type Subject
Formula (subject = multi-dimensional poverty or title = multi-dimensional poverty or v_subject = Chinese and English expansion (multi-dimensional
poverty, Chinese and English) or title = Chinese and English expansion (multi-dimensional poverty, Chinese and English)) (fuzzy matching)
Result 776 (Aug 18, 2019)
2. English Literature Search
Platform Web of Science
Term Multidimensional poverty
Related Multi-dimensional poverty; MPI; MPI Index; Multidimensional Poverty Index; MPAT; Multidimensional poverty Assessment Tool;
phrases Multidimensional poverty measurement; Multidimensional poverty Assessment; Multidimensional-analysis; Multidimensional measure;
Multidimensional deprivation; Poverty measurement; Poverty index; Poverty assessment; Poverty identification indicators; Poverty
decomposition;
Type Subject
(continued on next page)

20
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Table A1 (continued )
Formula Subject: (Multidimensional poverty) OR Subject: (Multi-dimensional poverty) OR Subject: (“MPI OR MPI Index” AND Multidimensional Poverty
Index) OR Subject: (MPAT AND Multidimensional poverty Assessment Tool) OR Subject: (“Multidimensional poverty measurement” OR
“Multidimensional poverty Assessment”) OR Subject: (Multidimensional-analysis AND Poverty Index) OR Subject: (Multidimensional measure
AND Poverty Index) OR Subject: (Multidimensional deprivation AND Poverty) OR Subject: (Poverty measurement AND Multidimensional) OR
Subject: (Poverty identification indicators AND Multidimensional) OR Subject: (Poverty decomposition AND Multidimensional)
Timespan All years
Indexes SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI–S, CCR-EXPANDED, IC
Result 925 (Sept 29, 2019)
Note: The expressions with the same meaning connected with “OR”, and the expressions with different meanings connected with “AND”.

Appendix B. Abbreviations and Full names

Table A2
Abbreviations and Full names

Abbreviations Full names

BHPS the British Household Panel Survey

BMI Body Mass Index
CHARLS China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study
CHIP Chinese Household Income Project
CHNS China Health and Nutrition Survey
CFPS China Family Panel Studies
CNKI China National Knowledge Infrastructure
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DHS Demographic and Health Survey
DMSMP Dynamic Monitoring System of Multi-dimensional Poverty
ECHP the European Community Household Panel Survey
EISMP Evaluation Indicator System of Multi-dimensional Poverty
EMP Evaluation of Multi-dimensional Poverty
GIS Geographic Information System
HDI Human Development Index
HLS Household-Level Survey
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MPAT Multidimensional Poverty Assessment Tool
MPI Multidimensional Poverty Index
MPM Multi-dimensional Poverty Measurement
NSSO the National Sample Survey Organization
OSM Open Street Map
PA Poverty Alleviation
PCA Principal Component Analysis
PLS Regional-Level Statistical
RS Remote Sensing
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SEDLAC the Socioeconomic Database for Latin America and the Caribbean
SIPP SLR the Survey of Income and Program Participation systematic literature review
TPA Targeted Poverty Alleviation
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WOS Web of Science

References

Aassve, A., Mazzuco, S., Mencarini, L., 2005. Childbearing and well-being: a comparative analysis of European welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy 15
(4), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928705057262.
Aguilar, G.R., Sumner, A., 2020. Who are the world’s poor? A new profile of global multidimensional poverty. World Development 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2019.104716.
Alkire, S., 2002. Dimensions of human development. World Development 30 (2), 181–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(01)00109-7.
Alkire, S., Fang, Y., 2019. Dynamics of multidimensional poverty and Uni-dimensional income poverty: an evidence of Stability analysis from China. Social Indicators
Research 142, 25–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1895-2.
Alkire, S., Foster, J., 2011a. Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics 95 (7–8), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpubeco.2010.11.006.
Alkire, S., Foster, J., 2011b. Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Economic Inequality 9 (2), 289–314.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-011-9181-4.
Alkire, S., Meinzen-Dick, R., Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A., Seymour, G., Vaz, A., 2013. The women’s empowerment in agriculture index. World Development 52,
71–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.06.007.

21
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Alkire, S., Santos, M.E., 2010. Acute multidimensional poverty: a new index for developing countries. OPHI WORKING PAPER 38, 1–139. https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.1815243.
Alkire, S., Santos, M.E., 2014. Measuring acute poverty in the developing world: robustness and scope of the multidimensional poverty index. World Development 59,
251–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.01.026.
Alkire, S., Seth, S., 2013. Selecting a targeting method to identify BPL households in India. Social Indicators Research 112 (2), 417–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11205-013-0254-6.
Alkire, S., Seth, S., 2015. Multidimensional poverty reduction in India between 1999 and 2006: where and how? World Development 72, 93–108. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.02.009.
Allardt, E., 1993. Having, loving, being: an alternative to the Swedish model of welfare research. The quality of life 8, 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/
0198287976.003.0008.
Anand, P., Hunter, G., Carter, I., Dowding, K., Guala, F., Van Hees, M., 2009. The development of capability indicators. Journal of Human Development and
Capabilities 10 (1), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880802675366.
Antony, G.M., Rao, K.V., 2007. A composite index to explain variations in poverty, health, nutritional status and standard of living: use of multivariate statistical
methods. Public Health 121 (8), 578–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2006.10.018.
Ayuya, O.I., Gido, E.O., Bett, H.K., Lagat, J.K., Kahi, A.K., Bauer, S., 2015. Effect of certified organic production systems on poverty among smallholder farmers:
empirical evidence from Kenya. World Development 67, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.10.005.
Batana, Y.M., 2013. Multidimensional measurement of poverty among women in sub-saharan africa. Social Indicators Research 112 (2), 337–362. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11205-013-0251-9.
Battiston, D., Cruces, G., Lopez-Calva, L.F., Lugo, M.A., Santos, M.E., 2013. Income and beyond: multidimensional poverty in six Latin American countries. Social
Indicators Research 112 (2), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0249-3.
Betti, G., Gagliardi, F., Lemmi, A., Verma, V., 2015. Comparative measures of multidimensional deprivation in the European Union. Empirical Economics 49 (3),
1071–1100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-014-0904-9.
Betti, G., Verma, V., 2008. Fuzzy measures of the incidence of relative poverty and deprivation: a multi-dimensional perspective. Statistical Methods and Applications
17 (2), 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-007-0062-8.
Blumenstock, J., Cadamuro, G., On, R., 2015. Predicting poverty and wealth from mobile phone metadata. Science 350 (6264), 1073–1076. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.aac4420.
Carr, S.C., 2021. Setting ‘poverty thresholds’: whose experience counts? Sustainability Science 16 (1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00859-x.
Chen, H., Zhang, Q., 2013. Urban multidimensional poverty measurement based on the alkire-foster model: a case study of zhongshan city. Journal of Wuyi University
(Natural Science Edition) 27 (2), 32–36. CNKI:SUN:WYDW.0.2013-02-008.
Chen, H., Zhang, Q., 2016. Study on the accurate identification of poverty and accurate poverty alleviation based on multidimensional poverty measurement with the
mountain area of northern guangdong as an example. Journal of Guangdong University of Finance & Economics 31 (3), 64–71. http://www.wanfangdata.com.
cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=gdsxyxb201603007.
Chen, Q., 2012. The multidimensional measurement and the policy implication of the rural poverty in the poverty-stricken covered areas. Journal of Sichuan Normal
University (Social Science Edition) 39 (3), 58–63. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=CASS_42054533.
Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, X., 2016. Measurement and spatial analysis of poverty-stricken villages in China. Geographical Research 35 (12), 2298–2308. http://www.
dlyj.ac.cn/EN/Y2016/V35/I12/2298.
Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Wenji, Z., Hu, Z., Duan, F., 2017. Contributing factors and classification of poor villages in China. Acta Geographica Sinica 72 (10), 1827–1844.
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201710008.
Cummins, R.A., 2005. The domains of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos. In: Citation Classics from Social Indicators Research. Springer, pp. 559–584.
Dawson, N., Martin, A., Sikor, T., 2016. Green revolution in sub-saharan africa: implications of imposed innovation for the wellbeing of rural smallholders. World
Development 78, 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.008.
De Muro, P., Mazziotta, M., Pareto, A., 2011. Composite indices of development and poverty: an application to MDGs. Social Indicators Research 104 (1), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9727-z.
Decancq, K., Lugo, M.A., 2013. Weights in multidimensional indices of wellbeing: an overview. Econometric Reviews 32 (1), 7–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07474938.2012.690641.
Decancq, K., Van Ootegem, L., Verhofstadt, E., 2013. What if we voted on the weights of a multidimensional well-being index? An illustration with flemish data. Fiscal
Studies 34 (3), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2013.12008.x.
Dewilde, C., 2008. Individual and institutional determinants of multidimensional poverty: a European comparison. Social Indicators Research 86 (2), 233–256.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9106-6.
Ding, J., 2014. Theoretical Basis,Measurement methods and practice progress of multidimensional poverty. Journal of Chongqing Technology and Business University
(West Forum) 24 (1), 61–70. CNKI:SUN:CQSY.0.2014-01-010.
Donohue, C., Biggs, E., 2015. Monitoring socio-environmental change for sustainable development: developing a multidimensional livelihoods index (MLI). Applied
Geography 62, 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.05.006.
Erenstein, O., Hellin, J., Chandna, P., 2010. Poverty mapping based on livelihood assets: a meso-level application in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, India. Applied
Geography 30 (1), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.05.001.
Fan, Z., Zhang, Q., Ma, J., 1998. An integrated approach to weight determination in multi-attribute decision making. Journal of Management Sciences in China (3),
52–55.
Fang, Y., 2012. Multidimensional measurement on China’s poverty. Modern Economic Science 34 (4), 7–15+124. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.
do?_type=perio&id=ddjjkx201204003.
Feng, H., Wang, X., Xia, Q., 2015. Analysis of relationship between income poverty and multidimensional poverty. Studies in Labor Economics 3 (6), 38–58. http://
www.nssd.cn/articles/article_detail.aspx?id=76687474504849534854484851.
Ferreira, F.H.G., Lugo, M.A., 2013. Multidimensional poverty analysis: looking for a middle ground. World Bank Research Observer 28 (2), 220–235. https://doi.org/
10.1093/wbro/lks013.
Gao, S., 2015. Social status, income and dynamic evolution of multidimensional poverty: from a perspective of capability deprivation. Journal of Shanghai University
of Finance and Economics 17 (3), 32–40+49. https://doi.org/10.16538/j.cnki.jsufe.2015.03.008.
Gao, S., Bi, J., 2016. Dynamic multidimensional poverty in rural China: persistence and transition. China Population Resources and Environment 26 (2), 76–83.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2016.02.010.
Gao, Y., 2012. The multidimensional poverty in urban and rural China: measurement and comparison. Statistical Research 29 (11), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.
issn.1002-4565.2012.11.010.
Gao, Y., Ma, Y., 2013. The dynamic research on the poverty for Chinese household based on the multidimensional framework. Statistical Research 30 (12), 89–94.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-4565.2013.12.012.
García-Gómez, C., Pérez, A., Prieto-Alaiz, M., 2021. Copula-based analysis of multivariate dependence patterns between dimensions of poverty in Europe. Review of
Income and Wealth 67 (1), 165–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12461.
Grosse, M., Harttgen, K., Klasen, S., 2008. Measuring pro-poor growth in non-income dimensions. World Development 36 (6), 1021–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2007.10.009.
Guedes, G.R., Brondizio, E.S., Barbieri, A.F., Anne, R., Penna-Firme, R., D’Antona, A.O., 2012. Poverty and inequality in the rural Brazilian amazon: a
multidimensional approach. Human Ecology 40 (1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9444-5.
Guo, J., 2012. Multidimensional poverty level and characteristic analysis of rural households - based on rural poverty monitoring data in shanxi. Rural Economy (3),
19–22. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=ncjj201203005.

22
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Guo, X., He, Q., Zhang, D., Xu, J., He, J., 2012. Integration of subjective and objective methods for determining the weights of S&T evaluation indicators. Science and
Technology Management Research 32 (20), 64–67+71.
Guo, X., Zhou, Q., 2016. Chronic multidimensional poverty, inequality and causes of poverty. Economic Research Journal 51 (6), 143–156. http://www.wanfangdata.
com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=jjyj201606011.
He, L., Zuo, Z., Luo, Y., 2016. Implementing targeted poverty alleviation recognition and policy implementation adopting multi-dimensional poverty measurement-A
survey of 50 poverty counties in guizhou. Economic Review (7), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.16528/j.cnki.22-1054/f.201607047.
He, R., Li, G., Liu, Y., Li, L.n., Fang, F., 2017. Theoretical analysis and case study on targeted poverty alleviation based on sustainable livelihoods framework:A case
study of Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan Province. Progress in geography 36 (2), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.02.005.
Hou, H., Wang, N., Wang, D., 2012. Measure on Chinese urban areas multidimensional poverty. Urban Studies 19 (12), 123–128. CNKI:SUN:CSFY.0.2012-12-022.
Hox, J.J., Boeije, H.R., 2005. Data collection, primary vs. Secondary 1, 593–599.
Hwang, H., Nam, S.J., 2020. Differences in multidimensional poverty according to householders’ gender and age in South Korea. Applied Research in Quality of Life
15 (1), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9668-2.
Jean, N., Burke, M., Xie, M., Davis, W.M., Lobell, D.B., Ermon, S., 2016. Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict poverty. Science 353 (6301),
790–794. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7894.
Jiang, C., Xu, Q., Li, Y., 2011. Statistical measurement of multidimensional poverty in Chinese households. Statistics and Decision (22), 92–95. https://doi.org/
10.13546/j.cnki.tjyjc.2011.22.045.
Leisher, C., Samberg, L.H., van Beukering, P., Sanjayan, M., 2013. Focal areas for measuring the human well-being impacts of a conservation initiative. Sustainability
5 (3), 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5030997.
Li, F., 2012. Concept, approach and empirical analysis of multidimensional poverty measurement——a household analysis among 9 villages. Guangdong Agricultural
Sciences 39 (9), 203–206. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-874X.2012.09.064.
Li, G., Cai, Z., Liu, J., Liu, X., Su, S., Huang, X., Li, B., 2019. Multidimensional poverty in rural China: indicators, spatiotemporal patterns and applications. Social
Indicators Research 144, 1099–1134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02072-5.
Li, J., Li, H., 2013. Research on multidimensional poverty measurement and poverty alleviation policy innovation of rural households in ethnic areas-taking
changyang Tujia autonomous county of hubei province as an example. Journal of South-Central University for Nationalities (Humanities and Social Sciences) 33
(3), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-433X.2013.03.026.
Li, Y., 2016. The real difficulties and countermeasures of the performance evaluation mechanism of targeted poverty alleviation. Qinghai Social Sciences (3),
132–137. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-2338.2016.03.022.
Liao, J., 2015. Disability and poverty: a research based on income poverty and multidimensional poverty measurements. Population and Development 21 (1), 68–77.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-1668.2015.01.008.
Liu, W., Li, J., 2014. Multidimensional poverty measurement of farmers in western mountain areas - based on a survey of 1,404 questionnaires in ankang, shaanxi.
Rural Economy (5), 14–18. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=ncjj201405003.
Liu, X., Su, S., Wang, Y., Huang, Y., Zhao, Y., 2014. The index system of spatial poverty of village level to monitor in concentrated contiguous areas with particular
difficulties. Scientia Geographica Sinica 34 (4), 447–453. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=dlkx201404008.
Liu, Y., Xu, Y., 2015. Geographical identification and classification of multi-dimensional poverty in rural China. Acta Geographica Sinica 70 (6), 993–1007. https://
doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201506012.
Liu, Y.H., Xu, Y., 2016. A geographic identification of multidimensional poverty in rural China under the framework of sustainable livelihoods analysis. Applied
Geography 73, 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.06.004.
Llamas, R.V., Hernandez, J.M.O., 2020. Multidimensional poverty and the labor market in Mexico. Cuadernos de Economia 39 (79), 139–165. https://doi.org/
10.15446/cuad.econ.v39n79.71201.
Ma, Y., Li, Z., Ma, M., 2016. Measurement and factors of multidimensional poverty of older people in China from community level and family level. On Economic
Problems (10), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.16011/j.cnki.jjwt.2016.10.006.
Mabon, L., Nguyen, S.T., Pham, T.T., Tran, T.T., Le, H.N., Doan, T.T.H., Vertigans, S., 2021. Elaborating a people-centered approach to understanding sustainable
livelihoods under climate and environmental change: thang Binh District, Quang Nam Province, Vietnam. Sustainability Science 16 (1), 221–238. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11625-020-00861-3.
Mora-Rivera, J., van Gameren, E., Garcia-Mora, F., 2020. Poverty and credit use in rural households in Mexico. Cuadernos De Economia-Spain 42 (121), 29–47.
https://doi.org/10.32826/cude.v43i121.130.
Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Shah, M.K., Petesch, P., 2000. Voices of the Poor: Crying Out for Change. Oxford University Press for the World Bank, New York.
Niu, S., 2017. Dilemma and strategic path selection for poverty alleviation in deep poverty regions from a multi-dimensional perspective. Theory Monthly (12),
146–150+176. https://doi.org/10.14180/j.cnki.1004-0544.2017.12.025.
Pan, J., Hu, Y., 2016. Spatial identification of multidimensional poverty in China based on nighttime light remote sensing data. Economic Geography 36 (11),
124–131. https://doi.org/10.15957/j.cnki.jjdl.2016.11.017.
Pinar, M., Stengos, T., Topaloglou, N., 2020. On the construction of a feasible range of multidimensional poverty under benchmark weight uncertainty. European
Journal of Operational Research 281 (2), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.08.047.
Ramos, X., Silber, J., 2005. On the application of efficiency analysis to the study of the dimensions of human development. Review of Income and Wealth (2),
285–309. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000229893100005.
Ravallion, M., 2011. On multidimensional indices of poverty. Journal of Economic Inequality 9 (2), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-011-9173-4.
Ravallion, M., Chen, S., Sangraula, P., 2008. Dollar a Day Revisited. The World Bank.
Rippin, N., 2016. Multidimensional poverty in Germany: a capability approach. In: Paper Presented at the Forum for Social Economics.
Rogan, M., 2016. Gender and multidimensional poverty in South Africa: applying the global multidimensional poverty index (MPI). Social Indicators Research 126
(3), 987–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0937-2.
Saito, M., Kondo, K., Kondo, N., Abe, A., Ojima, T., Suzuki, K., Grp, J., 2014. Relative deprivation, poverty, and subjective health: JAGES cross-sectional study. PLoS
One 9 (10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111169.
Sandhu, H., Sandhu, S., 2014. Linking ecosystem services with the constituents of human well-being for poverty alleviation in eastern Himalayas. Ecological
Economics 107, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.005.
Santos, M.E., 2013. Tracking poverty reduction in Bhutan: income deprivation alongside deprivation in other sources of happiness. Social Indicators Research 112 (2),
259–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0248-4.
Schleicher, J., Schaafsma, M., Burgess, N.D., Sandbrook, C., Danks, F., Cowie, C., Vira, B., 2018. Poorer without it? The neglected role of the natural environment in
poverty and wellbeing. Sustainable Development 26 (1), 83–98.
Sedda, L., Tatem, A.J., Morley, D.W., Atkinson, P.M., Wardrop, N.A., Pezzulo, C., Rogers, D.J., 2015. Poverty, health and satellite-derived vegetation indices: their
inter-spatial relationship in West Africa. International Health 7 (2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihv005.
Sehnbruch, K., Gonzalez, P., Apablaza, M., Mendez, R., Arriagada, V., 2020. The Quality of Employment (QoE) in nine Latin American countries: a multidimensional
perspective. World Development 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104738.
Sen, A., 1976. Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 219–231. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912718.
Sen, A., 1999. Commodities and Capabilities. OUP Catalogue.
Seth, S., 2009. Inequality, interactions, and human development. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 10 (3), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19452820903048878.
Short, K.S., 2005. Material and financial hardship and income-based poverty measures in the USA. Journal of Social Policy 34, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s0047279404008244.

23
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Somarriba, N., Pena, B., 2009. Synthetic indicators of quality of life in europe. Social Indicators Research 94 (1), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-
9356-y.
Soto, V., Frias-Martinez, V., Virseda, J., Frias-Martinez, E., 2011. Prediction of socioeconomic levels using cell phone records. In: Paper Presented at the International
Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization.
Steele, J.E., Sundsøy, P.R., Pezzulo, C., Alegana, V.A., Bird, T.J., Blumenstock, J., Iqbal, A.M., 2017. Mapping poverty using mobile phone and satellite data. Journal of
The Royal Society Interface 14 (127), 20160690. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2016.0690.
Sun, L., Wang, Y., Ke, W., Qian, L., Wang, Q., 2016. A study on the characteristics of multidimensional poverty in the Mongolia autonomous region. Human
Geography 31 (1), 108–115+146. CNKI:SUN:RWDL.0.2016-01-016.
Sun, X., Tian, G., Pan, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhang, W., 2012. Research on rural poverty measurement in China——based the data of shanxi province. On Economic Problems
(4), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.16011/j.cnki.jjwt.2012.04.016.
Tan, Y., Zhang, Z., 2017. Social Networks,Informal finance and multidimensional poverty of farmers. Journal of Finance and Economics 43 (3), 43–56. http://dx-
chinadoi-cn.webvpn.cug.edu.cn:8118/10.16538/j.cnki.jfe.2017.03.004.
Tsui, K.Y., 2002. Multidimensional poverty indices. Social Choice and Welfare 19 (1), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s355-002-8326-3.
UNDP, 2010. The Human Development Report. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Oxford University Press, New York.
United Nations, 2015. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. United Nations Publications, New York.
Vijaya, R.M., Lahoti, R., Swaminathan, H., 2014. Moving from the household to the individual: multidimensional poverty analysis. World Development 59, 70–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.01.029.
Wagle, U.R., 2008. Multidimensional poverty: an alternative measurement approach for the United States? Social Science Research 37 (2), 559–580. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.06.013.
Wang, C., Ye, Q., 2014. Evolution on the multi-dimensional poverty of Chinese rural migrant workers——based on the dimension of income and education. Economic
Research Journal 49 (12), 159–174. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JJYJ201412013.htm.
Wang, S., Wang, X., 2013. Measurement of multidimensional poverty in China. Journal of China Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition) 30 (2), 129–136.
CNKI:SUN:NYSK.0.2013-02-017.
Wang, S., Zhang, W., Chen, H., Yang, L., 2012. Trends, causes and countermeasures of poverty changes of ethnic minorities. Guizhou Social Sciences (12), 85–90.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-6924.2012.12.019.
Wang, X., 2012. Poverty-conducive factors in gansu province:A grey relational analysis. Journal of Lanzhou University(Social Sciences) 40 (4), 137–142. https://doi.
org/10.13885/j.issn.1000-2804.2012.04.020.
Wang, X., 2016. Research on the targeted identification and assistence of poverty alleviation objects-A case study of Qianxi Nanzhou. Contemporary Rural Finance
and Economics (3), 5–9. CNKI:SUN:NCCZ.0.2016-03-002.
Wang, X., Alkire, S., 2009. Multidimensional poverty measurement in China: estimates and policy implications. Chinese Rural Economy (12), 4–10+23.
Wang, X., Feng, H., 2020. China’s multidimensional relative poverty standards in the post-2020 era: international experience and policy orientation. Chinese Rural
Economy (3), 2–21. http://gb.oversea.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=ZNJJ202003001&dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFDTEMP.
Wang, X., Zhen, F., Shen, L., Wu, X., 2017. Evaluation of poor residents’ satisfaction with tourism poverty alleviation. Geographical Research 36 (12), 2355–2368.
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj201712007.
Wang, Y., Qian, l., Duan, F., 2013. Multidimensional poverty measurement and spatial distribution pattern at the country scale:A case study on key country from
national contiguous special poverty-stricken areas. Scientia Geographica Sinica 33 (12), 1489–1497. https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj201309006.
Wang, Y., Qian, L., Duan, F., Zhao, W., 2014. An analysis on multidimensional poverty measurement and research on its spatial distribution pattern:A case study from
neixiang county. POPULATION & ECONOMICS (5), 114–120.
Watmough, G.R., Marcinko, C.L., Sullivan, C., Tschirhart, K., Mutuo, P.K., Palm, C.A., Svenning, J.-C., 2019. Socioecologically informed use of remote sensing data to
predict rural household poverty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (4), 1213–1218. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812969116.
World Bank, 2018. Poverty and Equity Data Portal. Retrieved from. http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/home/.
Wu, H., Hou, Y., Zeng, Y., 2013. Gender poverty measurement of rural families from the perspective of multidimensional poverty. Statistics and Decision (20), 27–29.
https://doi.org/10.13546/j.cnki.tjyjc.2013.20.012.
Xie, E., 2015. Public transfers and multidimensional poverty of older people. China Industrial Economics 11, 32–46. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.
do?_type=perio&id=zggyjj201511003.
XinhuaNet, 2020. Xi Jinping: Speech at the Symposium on the Final Push to Wipe Out Poverty (Authorized for Release). Retrieved from. http://www.xinhuanet.com/
politics/leaders/2020-03/06/c_1125674682.htm.
Yang, H., Luo, Q., Li, X., Gao, G., 2016a. Multidimensional poverty measurement and influencing factor analysis at the households scale of the ecological sensitive
area:A case study on three villages of xichuan county in henan province. Economic Geography 36 (10), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.15957/j.cnki.
jjdl.2016.10.019.
Yang, J., 2014. The measurement and analysis of multidimensional poverty in rural China. East China Economic Management 28 (9), 33–38. https://doi.org/
10.3969/j.issn.1007-5097.2014.09.007.
Yang, L., Wang, S., 2015. Multidimensional poverty measurement and decomposition of households in poor areas——based on the China rural poverty monitoring
household survey in 2010. Population Journal 37 (2), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-129X.2015.02.002.
Yang, L., Xu, W., Zhang, W., Liu, T., 2014. Multidimensional poverty measurement of Tibetan as the concentrated poor areas:A survey on the farming household in the
district of "one river and two branches". Tibetan Studies (1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-0003.2014.01.010.
Yang, Z., Jiang, Q., Liu, H., Wang, X., 2015. Multi-dimensional poverty measure and spatial pattern of China’s rural residents. Economic Geography 35 (12), 148–153.
CNKI:SUN:JJDL.0.2015-12-021.
Yu, J.T., 2013. Multidimensional poverty in China: findings based on the CHNS. Social Indicators Research 112 (2), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-
0250-x.
Zeller, M., Sharma, M., Henry, C., Lapenu, C., 2006. An operational method for assessing the poverty Outreach performance of development policies and projects:
results of case studies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. World Development 34 (3), 446–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.020.
Zhang, H., Xu, Z., Wu, K., Zhou, D., Wei, G., 2019. Multi-dimensional poverty measurement for photovoltaic poverty alleviation areas: evidence from pilot counties in
China. Journal of Cleaner Production 241, 118382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118382.
Zhang, Q., 2015. Dynamic changes in multidimensional poverty in China:from 1991 to 2011. Journal of Finance and Economics 41 (4), 31–41+133. https://doi.org/
10.16538/j.cnki.jfe.2015.04.001.
Zhang, Q., Chen, W., 2015. Multidimensional dynamic evaluation of the poverty-alleviation achievements in China’s fourteen destitute areas based on GRA. Journal
of Yunnan Nationalities University (Social Sciences Edition) 32 (1), 136–142. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=ynmzxyxb-
zxsh201501019.
Zhang, Q., Feng, D., 2016. Practice exploration and theoretical innovation of China’ s poverty alleviation:1978～2016. Reform (4), 27–42. http://www.cnki.com.cn/
Article/CJFDTotal-REFO201604004.htm.
Zhang, Q., Li, B., Zhou, Q., 2017. The dynamic measurement and StructureDecomposition of China’s MultidimensionalPoverty and precision poverty alleviation.
Journal of Finance and Economics 43 (4), 31–40+81. https://doi.org/10.16538/j.cnki.jfe.2017.04.003.
Zhang, Q., nur, A., 2015. Multidimensional poverty level and characteristics for rural residents in three regions of southern Xinjiang. Journal of Arid Land Resources
and Environment 29 (11), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.13448/j.cnki.jalre.2015.358.
Zhang, Q., Zhou, Q., 2014a. Dynamic multidimensional measurement of China’s poverty during the period of transition. Journal of Zhongnan University of Economics
and Law (1), 60–68+159. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-5230.2014.01.009.
Zhang, Q., Zhou, Q., 2014b. The multidimensional poverty measure and appraisement. Economy and Management (1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-
3890.2014.01.004.

24
X. Cheng et al. Environmental Development 49 (2024) 100966

Zhang, Q., Zhou, Q., 2014c. On the dynamic multidimensional measurement and decomposition of China’s poverty: 1989～2009. The Journal of Quantitative &
Technical Economics 31 (6), 88–101. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=sljjjsjjyj201406006.
Zhang, Q., Zhou, Q., 2015a. The dynamic research on the multidimensional poverty in China:1991-2011. Finance and Trade Research 26 (6), 22–29. https://doi.org/
10.19337/j.cnki.34-1093/f.2015.06.004.
Zhang, Q., Zhou, Q., 2015b. Poverty measurement:multidimensional approaches and an empirical application in China. China Soft Science (7), 29–41.
Zhang, T., Yan, T., He, K., Zhang, J., 2016. The Multidimensional Poverty Measurement of the farmers in contiguous poor areas: based on the extended AF method.
Journal of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law (3), 38–45+159. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-5230.2016.03.005.
Zhang, Z., Yang, C., 2020. Aging and multidimensional povertyof the elderly in rural China. Population and Development 26 (1), 12–24+11.
Zheng, C., Shan, D., 2016. The multidimensional measurement of poverty and its spatial-temporal evolution in contiguous destitute areas. Nankai Journal (Philosophy
Literature and Social Science Edition) 251 (3), 135–146. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=nkxb-zxsh201603015.
Zhi, J., Yao, Y., Cao, J., 2017. Measurement of the multidimensional poverty condition of the China’s rural areas and targeted poverty alleviation. Modern Finance
and Economics-Journal of Tianjin University of Finance and Economics 37 (1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.19559/j.cnki.12-1387.2017.01.002.
Zhou, Y., Li, Y.R., Liu, Y.S., 2020. The nexus between regional eco-environmental degradation and rural impoverishment in China. Habitat International 96. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.102086.
Zhu, M., Li, S., 2017. The key to precise poverty alleviation rests in the precise identification of impoverished populations: an analysis of the targeting effect of the
rural subsistence allowance policy. Social Sciences in China (9), 90–112+207. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/85892X/20192/7002105555.html.
Zou, W., Fang, Y., 2011. A study on the dynamic multidimensional measurement of China’s poverty. Chinese Journal of Population Science 6. http://www.
wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=zgrkkx201106005.

25