Hong Kong, China vs Papua New Guinea: Getting electricity: Mechanisms for restoring service (0-1)
Hong Kong, China
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Papua New Guinea
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Hong Kong, China rank
1st
Papua New Guinea rank
1st
Getting electricity: Mechanisms for restoring service (0-1) over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Papua New Guinea
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 1 DB16-20 methodology against 1 DB16-20 methodology in Papua New Guinea, a difference of 0 DB16-20 methodology.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Papua New Guinea has been ahead every year.
Hong Kong, China ranks 1st and Papua New Guinea ranks 1st of 187 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting electricity: mechanisms for restoring service (0-1), Hong Kong, China or Papua New Guinea?
- Hong Kong, China, at 1 DB16-20 methodology against 1 DB16-20 methodology in Papua New Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting electricity: mechanisms for restoring service (0-1) between Hong Kong, China and Papua New Guinea?
- 0 DB16-20 methodology, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Papua New Guinea?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Papua New Guinea rank globally for getting electricity: mechanisms for restoring service (0-1)?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 1st and Papua New Guinea ranks 1st of 187 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Getting electricity: Mechanisms for restoring service (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The mechanisms for restoring service index evaluates what tools are used by the distribution utility to restore power supply. A score of 1 is assigned if the utility uses automated tools, such as an OMS/IMS or SCADA system. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.