India - Urban Slums Survey: NSS 69th Round, Schedule 0.21, July 2012 - December 2012
Reference ID | DDI-IND-MOSPI-NSSO-69Rnd-Sch-0dot21-2012 |
Year | 2012 |
Country | India |
Producer(s) | National Sample Survey Office |
Sponsor(s) | M/o Statistics & Programme Implementation, GOI - MOSPI - |
Collection(s) | |
Metadata | Documentation in PDF |
Created on
Aug 05, 2016
Last modified
Sep 02, 2016
Page views
2352335
- Block-1-Identificati
on of sample UFS blo
ck - Block-2-some salient
features of the slu
m(s) lying wholly or
partly within the s
ample UFS block - Block-3 - Characteri
stics of slum(s) lyi
ng wholly or partly
within the sample - Block-4-Change durin
g the last 5 years i
n the condition of t
he slum(s) lying who
lly or partly within
the sample UFS bloc
k. - Block-5-Particulars
of field operations
State Region
(State_region)
File: Block-4-Change during the last 5 years in the condition of the slum(s) lying wholly or partly within the sample UFS block.
File: Block-4-Change during the last 5 years in the condition of the slum(s) lying wholly or partly within the sample UFS block.
Overview
Type:
Discrete Format: character Width: 3 | Valid cases: 881 Invalid: 0 |
Value | Category | Cases | |
---|---|---|---|
011 | 3 | 0.3% | |
013 | 8 | 0.9% | |
021 | 1 | 0.1% | |
031 | 10 | 1.1% | |
032 | 7 | 0.8% | |
041 | 4 | 0.5% | |
051 | 5 | 0.6% | |
061 | 7 | 0.8% | |
071 | 12 | 1.4% | |
081 | 19 | 2.2% | |
082 | 16 | 1.8% | |
083 | 2 | 0.2% | |
084 | 1 | 0.1% | |
085 | 3 | 0.3% | |
091 | 9 | 1.0% | |
092 | 17 | 1.9% | |
093 | 5 | 0.6% | |
095 | 13 | 1.5% | |
101 | 11 | 1.2% | |
102 | 10 | 1.1% | |
121 | 4 | 0.5% | |
151 | 4 | 0.5% | |
161 | 4 | 0.5% | |
171 | 2 | 0.2% | |
181 | 4 | 0.5% | |
182 | 4 | 0.5% | |
191 | 7 | 0.8% | |
192 | 14 | 1.6% | |
193 | 33 | 3.7% | |
194 | 23 | 2.6% | |
195 | 11 | 1.2% | |
201 | 12 | 1.4% | |
202 | 7 | 0.8% | |
211 | 9 | 1.0% | |
212 | 2 | 0.2% | |
213 | 16 | 1.8% | |
222 | 21 | 2.4% | |
223 | 4 | 0.5% | |
231 | 5 | 0.6% | |
232 | 19 | 2.2% | |
233 | 35 | 4.0% | |
234 | 1 | 0.1% | |
235 | 11 | 1.2% | |
236 | 3 | 0.3% | |
241 | 31 | 3.5% | |
242 | 13 | 1.5% | |
244 | 1 | 0.1% | |
245 | 12 | 1.4% | |
251 | 4 | 0.5% | |
261 | 4 | 0.5% | |
271 | 60 | 6.8% | |
272 | 24 | 2.7% | |
273 | 14 | 1.6% | |
274 | 24 | 2.7% | |
275 | 28 | 3.2% | |
276 | 6 | 0.7% | |
281 | 29 | 3.3% | |
282 | 24 | 2.7% | |
283 | 24 | 2.7% | |
284 | 11 | 1.2% | |
285 | 19 | 2.2% | |
291 | 4 | 0.5% | |
292 | 4 | 0.5% | |
293 | 22 | 2.5% | |
294 | 30 | 3.4% | |
301 | 6 | 0.7% | |
322 | 5 | 0.6% | |
331 | 21 | 2.4% | |
332 | 13 | 1.5% | |
333 | 15 | 1.7% | |
334 | 13 | 1.5% | |
341 | 2 | 0.2% |
Warning: these figures indicate the number of cases found in the data file. They cannot be interpreted as summary statistics of the population of interest.