CoreTrustSeal certification

Abstract

The GHS is an annual household survey which measures the living circumstances of South African households. The GHS collects data on education, health, and social development, housing, access to services and facilities, food security, and agriculture.

Geographic coverage

The General Household Survey has national coverage.

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The survey covers all de jure household members (usual residents) of households in the nine provinces of South Africa, and residents in workers' hostels. The survey does not cover collective living quarters such as student hostels, old age homes, hospitals, prisons, and military barracks.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

From 2015 the General Household Survey (GHS) uses a Master Sample (MS) frame developed in 2013 as a general-purpose sampling frame to be used for all Stats SA household-based surveys. This MS has design requirements that are reasonably compatible with the GHS. The 2013 Master Sample is based on information collected during the 2011 Census conducted by Stats SA. In preparation for Census 2011, the country was divided into 103 576 enumeration areas (EAs). The census EAs, together with the auxiliary information for the EAs, were used as the frame units or building blocks for the formation of primary sampling units (PSUs) for the Master Sample, since they covered the entire country, and had other information that is crucial for stratification and creation of PSUs. There are 3 324 primary sampling units (PSUs) in the Master Sample, with an expected sample of approximately 33 000 dwelling units (DUs). The number of PSUs in the current Master Sample (3 324) reflect an 8,0% increase in the size of the Master Sample compared to the previous (2008) Master Sample (which had 3 080 PSUs). The larger Master Sample of PSUs was selected to improve the precision (smaller coefficients of variation, known as CVs) of the GHS estimates. The Master Sample is designed to be representative at provincial level and within provinces at metro/non-metro levels. Within the metros, the sample is further distributed by geographical type. The three geography types are Urban, Tribal and Farms. This implies, for example, that within a metropolitan area, the sample is representative of the different geography types that may exist within that metro.

The sample for the GHS is based on a stratified two-stage design with probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling of PSUs in the first stage, and sampling of dwelling units (DUs) with systematic sampling in the second stage.After allocating the sample to the provinces, the sample was further stratified by geography (primary stratification), and by population attributes using Census 2011 data (secondary stratification).

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview

Research instrument

Data was collected with a household questionnaire and a questionnaire administered to a household member to elicit information on household members.

Data appraisal

Since 2019, the questionnaire for the GHS series changed and the variables were also renamed. For correspondence between old names (GHS pre-2019) and new name (GHS post-2019), see the document ghs-2019-variables-renamed.

Abstract

The October Household Survey is an annual survey based on a survey of a large number of households (ranging from 16 000 in 1996 through to 30 000 in 1997 and 1998, depending on the availability of funding). It covers a range of development indicators, including unemployment rates (official and expanded), according to standard definitions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

Geographic coverage

The survey had national coverage.

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The survey covered households and household members in households in the nine provinces of South Africa

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

A sample of 20 000 households was drawn in 2 000 enumerator areas (EAs) (that is 10 households per enumerator area). A two-stage sampling procedure was applied and the sample was stratified, clustered and selected to meet the requirements of probability sampling. The sample was based on the 1996 Population Census enumerator areas and the estimated number of people from the administrative records of the 1996 population Census. The sampled population excluded all prisoners in prisons, patients in hospitals, people residing in boarding houses and hotels (whether temporary or semi-permanent). The sample was explicitly stratified by province, Transitional Metropolitan Council (TMC)and District Council (DC). A square root method was used for the allocation of the sample EAs to the explicit strata.

Within each explicit stratum the EAs were stratified by simply arranging them in geographical order by magisterial district and, within the magisterial district, by EA. The allocated number of EAs was systematically selected with probability proportional to size in each stratum. The measure of size was the estimated number of people in Each EA. A systematic sample of 10 households was drawn.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The data files in the October Household Survey 1997 (OHS 1997) correspond to the following sections in the questionnaire:
PERSON: Indivitual-level data from Section 1 and Section 4; BIRTHS: Data from Section 2; CHILDREN: Data from Section2; WORKER: Data from Section 3; MIGRANT: Data from Section 5; DEATHS: Data from Section 6; MIGRATION: Data from Section 7; DOMESTIC: Data from Section 8; HOUSE: Household-level data from Section 9

Errors in the marital codes in the original OHS 1998 questionnaire: The questionnaire for the OHS 1998 originally provided by Statistics SA with the data files was incorrect. It was the OHS 1997 questionnaire with a OHS 1998 flap. The marital codes were different in the two surveys. In 1997, the codes for the variable Marital Status were: 1 Never married 2 Married - civil 3 Married - customary 4 Living together 5 Widowed 6 Divorced

In the 1998 survey, the codes for the variable Marital Status are:

1 Married - civil 2 Married - traditional (customary) 3 Living together 4 Widower/widow 5 Divorced/separated 6 Never married

DataFirst notified Statistics SA of this error on 13 July 2007 and they sent a corrected questionnaire. The correct questionnaire is version 2, available with the data since 2007.

Data appraisal

Errors in the marital codes in the original OHS 1998 questionnaire:

The questionnaire for the OHS 1998 originally provided by Statistics SA with the data files was incorrect. It was the OHS 1997 questionnaire with a OHS 1998 flap. The marital codes were different in the two surveys. In 1997, the codes for the variable Marital Status were: 1 Never married 2 Married - civil 3 Married - customary 4 Living together 5 Widowed 6 Divorced

In the 1998 survey, the codes for the variable Marital Status are:

1 Married - civil 2 Married - traditional (customary) 3 Living together 4 Widower/widow 5 Divorced/separated 6 Never married

DataFirst notified Statistics SA of this error on 13 July 2007 and they sent a corrected questionnaire. The correct questionnaire is version 2, available with the data since 2007.

Uncover historical ownership history and changes over time by performing a reverse Whois lookup for the company DataFirst-Tech.

Abstract

The Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS) is a household-based sample survey conducted by Statistics South Africa (StatsSA). It collects data on the labour market activities of individuals aged 15 years or older who live in South Africa. Since 2008, StatsSA have produced an annual dataset based on the QLFS data, "Labour Market Dynamics in South Africa". The dataset is constructed using data from all all four QLFS datasets in the year. The dataset also includes a number of variables (including income) that are not available in any of the QLFS datasets from 2010.

Geographic coverage

The survey had national coverage.

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

The QLFS sample covers the non-institutional population except for those in workers' hostels. However, persons living in private dwelling units within institutions are enumerated. For example, within a school compound, one would enumerate the schoolmaster's house and teachers' accommodation because these are private dwellings. Students living in a dormitory on the school compound would, however, be excluded.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

Each year the LMDSA is created by combining the QLFS waves for that year and then including some additional variables. The QLFS master frame for this LMDSA was based on the 2011 population census by Stas SA. The sampling is stratified by province, district, and geographic type (urban, traditional, farm). There are 3324 PSUs drawn each year, using probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling. In the second stage Dwelling Units (DUs) are systematically selected from PSUs. The 3324 PSU are split into four groups for the year, and at each quarter the DUs from the given group are replaced by substitute DUs from the same PSU or the next PSU on the list (in the same group). It should be noted that the sampling unit is the dwelling, and the unit of observation is the household. Therefore, if a household moves out of a dwelling after being in the sample for, two quarters and a new household moves in, the new household will be enumerated for two more quarters until the DU is rotated out. If no household moves into the sampled dwelling, the dwelling will be classified as vacant (or unoccupied).

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview

Data appraisal

The statistical release notes that missing values were "generally imputed" for item non-response but provides no detail on how Statistics SA did so.

The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland Data Layer (CDL) is an annual raster, geo-referenced, crop-specific land cover data layer produced using satellite imagery and extensive agricultural ground reference data. The program began in 1997 with limited coverage and in 2008 forward expanded coverage to the entire Continental United States. Please note that no farmer reported data are derivable from the Cropland Data Layer.

The National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES) Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates (EDGE) program develops annually updated point locations (latitude and longitude) for public elementary and secondary schools included in the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD program annually collects administrative and fiscal data about all public schools, school districts, and state education agencies in the United States. The data are supplied by state education agency officials and include basic directory and contact information for schools and school districts, as well as characteristics about student demographics, number of teachers, school grade span, and various other administrative conditions. CCD school and agency point locations are derived from reported information about the physical location of schools and agency administrative offices. The point locations and administrative attributes in this data layer were developed from the 2022-2023 CCD collection. For more information about NCES school point data, see: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/Geographic/SchoolLocations. For more information about these CCD attributes, as well as additional attributes not included, see: https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/files.asp. Notes: -1 or M Indicates that the data are missing. -2 or N Indicates that the data are not applicable. -9 Indicates that the data do not meet NCES data quality standards. All information contained in this file is in the public domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

Data Package: Exploring the opportunities and challenges of implementing open research strategies within development institutions

DOI for this package: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.844394
Project Description: https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8880
Data Management Plan: https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e14672
Other Related Documents and Reports: https://riojournal.com/collection/18/
Funder: International Development Research Centre/Centre de rechereches pour le développement international, https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000193

Abstract
========

This is the Data Package for the project "Exploring the opportunities and challenges of implementing open research strategies within development institutions" the proposal for which was published as https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8880. The research project conducted open data pilot case studies with seven IDRC grantees to develop and implement open data management and sharing plans. The results of the case studies served to refine guidelines for the implementation of development research funders’ open research data policies.

Contents
========

The Data Package contains all the public data generated by the project. The package was curated and metadata generated, including an HTML Catalog using the Calcyte Tool (https://codeine.research.uts.edu.au/eresearch/calcyte) developed at University of Technology Sydney.

The project had two major phases:

1. A review, based on desk work and interviews with data management experts
2. Case studies, based on implementing open data practices within seven IDRC funded research projects

Review
------

The review, published at https://riojournal.com/article/14673/ was supported by desk work and interviews. The materials related to the interviews can be found in the directory:

* Policy and Implementation Review Interviews

Case Studies
------------

Seven IDRC-funded projects were contributed to the pilot project.

The materials generated by the case studies and used to support the final report (to be published with the collection at https://riojournal.com/collection/18/) are found in the following directories.

* Introductory_Data_Workshop_Materials
* Introductory_Workshop_Presentations
* Data Management Planning
* SciDataCon Presentations
* Final_Project_Workshop_Materials
* Final_Project_Workshop_Presentations

The files are encoded with a three letter code that identifies the relevant contributing project in each case. The contributing projects were:

* Crowd Sourcing Data to fight Social Crimes: Harassmap, Egypt (HMP)
* The Brazilian Virtual Herbarium: CRIA, Brazil(BVH)
* Strengthening the Economic Committee of the National Assembly in Vietnam: Centre for Analysis and Forecasting, Vietnam (ECV)
* The Impact of Copyright User Rights: Derechos Digitales, Columbia (DED)
* Establishing a clearinghouse for tobacco economic data in Africa: DataFirst, South Africa (TED)
* Les problèmes négligés des systèmes de santé en Afrique : une incitation aux réformes: LASDEL, Niger (NDF)
* Indigenous Knowledge in Climate Change: Natural Justice, South Africa (IKC)

More details will be found in the Case Studies and in the Final Report (forthcoming at https://riojournal.com/collection/18/)

References
==========

* Neylon C, Chan L (2016) Exploring the opportunities and challenges of implementing open research strategies within development institutions. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8880. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8880
* Neylon C (2017) Data Management Plan: IDRC Data Sharing Pilot Project. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e14672. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e14672
* Neylon C, Chan L (2016-17) Exploring the opportunities and challenges of implementing open research strategies within development institutions: A project of the International Development Research Center, Research Ideas and Outcomes Collection, https://riojournal.com/collection/18/

Abstract

The Post-Apartheid Labour Market Series (PALMS) version 3.3 is a stacked cross sectional dataset created by DataFirst at the University of Cape Town. The data consists of microdata from 69 household surveys conducted by Statistics South Africa between 1994 and 2019, as well as the 1993 Project for Statistics on Living Standards and Development conducted by SALDRU at UCT. The Statistics South Africa surveys include the October Household Surveys from 1994 to 1999, the bi-annual Labour Force Surveys from 2000-2007, including the smaller LFS pilot survey from February 2000, and the Quarterly Labour Force Surveys from 2008-2019. The data is at individual level, but household level variables may be created using the household id variable uqnr. No attempt has been made to link individuals or households across waves, although there was a panel element to the earlier rounds of the LFS, as well as the QLFS.

Geographic coverage

The surveys used to construct PALMS had national coverage

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The target population is all households. Coverage of workers' hostels, convents/monasteries, as well as institutions such as old age homes, hospitals, prisons and military barracks varied across the surveys. Data users will need to consult the individual OHS, LFS and QLFS datasets for information on the universe for each survey.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Mode of data collection

Other

BLM NV PLSS First Division: This dataset represents the GIS Version of the Public Land Survey System including both rectangular and non-rectangular surveys. The primary source for the data is cadastral survey records housed by the BLM supplemented with local records and geographic control coordinates from states, counties as well as other federal agencies such as the USGS and USFS. The data has been converted from source documents to digital form and transferred into a GIS format that is compliant with FGDC Cadastral Data Content Standards and Guidelines for publication. This data is optimized for data publication and sharing rather than for specific "production" or operation and maintenance. This data set includes the following: PLSS Fully Intersected (all of the PLSS feature at the atomic or smallest polygon level), PLSS Townships, First Divisions and Second Divisions (the hierarchical break down of the PLSS Rectangular surveys) PLSS Special surveys (non rectangular components of the PLSS) Meandered Water, Corners and Conflicted Areas (known areas of gaps or overlaps between Townships or state boundaries). The Entity-Attribute section of this metadata describes these components in greater detail.

Abstract

This dataset includes imputation for missing data in key variables in the ten percent sample of the 2001 South African Census. Researchers at the Centre for the Analysis of South African Social Policy (CASASP) at the University of Oxford used sequential multiple regression techniques to impute income, education, age, gender, population group, occupation and employment status in the dataset. The main focus of the work was to impute income where it was missing or recorded as zero. The imputed results are similar to previous imputation work on the 2001 South African Census, including the single ‘hot-deck’ imputation carried out by Statistics South Africa.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Temporary residents who are in Canada on a study permit in the observed calendar year. Datasets include study permit holders by year in which permit(s) became effective or with a valid permit in a calendar year or on December 31st. Please note that in these datasets, the figures have been suppressed or rounded to prevent the identification of individuals when the datasets are compiled and compared with other publicly available statistics. Values between 0 and 5 are shown as “--“ and all other values are rounded to the nearest multiple of 5. This may result to the sum of the figures not equating to the totals indicated.

Abstract

The Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS) is a household-based sample survey conducted by Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). It collects data on the labour market activities of individuals aged 15 years or older who live in South Africa.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

The QLFS sample covers the non-institutional population of South Africa with one exception. The only institutional subpopulation included in the QLFS sample are individuals in worker's hostels. Persons living in private dwelling units within institutions are also enumerated. For example, within a school compound, one would enumerate the schoolmaster's house and teachers' accommodation because these are private dwellings. Students living in a dormitory on the school compound would, however, be excluded.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The QLFS uses a master sampling frame that is used by several household surveys conducted by Statistics South Africa. This wave of the QLFS is based on the 2013 master frame, which was created based on the 2011 census. There are 3324 PSUs in the master frame and roughly 33 000 dwelling units.

The sample for the QLFS is based on a stratified two-stage design with probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling of PSUs in the first stage, and sampling of dwelling units (DUs) with systematic sampling in the second stage.

For each quarter of the QLFS, a quarter of the sampled dwellings are rotated out of the sample. These dwellings are replaced by new dwellings from the same PSU or the next PSU on the list. For more information see the statistical release.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-Face and Computer Assisted Personal and Telephone Interview

The Travel Time to Work indicator compares the mean, or average, commute time for Champaign County residents to the mean commute time for residents of Illinois and the United States as a whole. On its own, mean travel time of all commuters on all mode types could be reflective of a number of different conditions. Congestion, mode choice, changes in residential patterns, changes in the location of major employment centers, and changes in the transit network can all impact travel time in different and often conflicting ways. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the workplace location (office vs. home) is another factor that can impact the mean travel time of an area. We don’t recommend trying to draw any conclusions about conditions in Champaign County, or anywhere else, based on mean travel time alone.

However, when combined with other indicators in the Mobility category (and other categories), mean travel time to work is a valuable measure of transportation behaviors in Champaign County.

Champaign County’s mean travel time to work is lower than the mean travel time to work in Illinois and the United States. Based on this figure, the state of Illinois has the longest commutes of the three analyzed areas.

The year-to-year fluctuations in mean travel time have been statistically significant in the United States since 2014, and in Illinois in 2021 and 2022. Champaign County’s year-to-year fluctuations in mean travel time were statistically significant from 2021 to 2022, the first time since this data first started being tracked in 2005.

Mean travel time data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Travel Time to Work.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (16 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 October 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (17 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (29 March 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (29 March 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

Herewith we present the dataset of wind measurements from a Skipheia meteorological station on the island of Frøya on the western coast of Norway, Trondelag.

The site represents an exposed coastal wind climate with open sea, land and mixed fetch from various directions. UTM-coordinates of the Met-mast: 8.34251 E and 63.66638 N.

Presented data were gathered between years 2009-2015;

Hardware summary: 6 pairs of 2D sonic anemometers at 10, 16, 25, 40, 70, 100 m above the ground, independent temperature measurements at the same heights and near the ground; pressure and relative humidity from local meteostation (Sula, 20 km away).

Database summary: approx. 180 000 of 10 min data samples of full data recovery. Wind speed and direction, temperature, pressure & relative humidity (from a nearby meteostation).

Data description: Two data files of different formats are available: a ‘*.txt’ comma-separated values file and a native MATLAB ‘*.mat’ file. Both contain the same data, starting with the first column: timestamp, wind speed (m/s, columns WS1-WS12) for 6 anemometers pairs, wind direction (360 deg, columns WD1-WD12) for 6 anemometers pairs, temperature at 0.2 m (AT0), temperatures at levels of wind measurement (deg C, AT1-AT6), data from nearby meteostation Sula, pressure (hPa, PressureSula), relative humidity (%, RelHumSula), temperature (deg C, TempSula), wind direction (360 deg, WDSula) and wind speed (m/s, WSSula). Columns have headers describing the data (first row).

Detailed site description with wind climate description can be found in attached analysis: Site analysys.pdf.

Additional information and analysis can be found in listed below works, using data from Frøya site, or nearby sites:

Møller, M., Domagalski, P., and Sætran, L. R.: Comparing Abnormalities in Onshore and Offshore Vertical Wind Profiles, Wind Energ. Sci. https://wes.copernicus.org/articles/5/391/2020/

IEA Wind TCP Task 27 Compendium of IEA Wind TCP Task 27 Case Studies, Technical Report, Prepared by Ignacio Cruz Cruz, CIEMAT, Spain Trudy Forsyth, WAT, United States, October 2018; Chapter 1.8. https://community.ieawind.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=8afc06ec-bb68-0be8-8481-6622e9e95ae7&forceDialog=0

Domagalski, P., Bardal, L. M., & Satran, L. Vertical Wind Profiles in Non-neutral Conditions-Comparison of Models and Measurements from Froya. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, doi: 10.1115/1.4041816, http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=2711333&resultClick=3

Mathias Møller , Piotr Domagalski and Lars Roar Sætran, Characteristics of abnormal vertical wind profiles at a coastal site, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, IOPscience, under review (Feb 2019), DeepWind2019 conference poster available at: https://www.sintef.no/globalassets/project/eera-deepwind-2019/posters/c_moller_a4.pdf

Bardal, L. M., Onstad, A. E., Sætran, L. R., & Lund, J. A. (2018). Evaluation of methods for estimating atmospheric stability at two coastal sites. Wind Engineering, 0309524X18780378, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309524X18780378

Bardal, L. M., & Sætran, L. R. (2016, September). Spatial correlation of atmospheric wind at scales relevant for large scale wind turbines. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 753, No. 3, p. 032033). IOP Publishing, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/753/3/032033, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/753/3/032033/pdf

Bardal, L. M., & Sætran, L. R. (2016). Wind gust factors in a coastal wind climate. Energy Procedia, 94, 417-424, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.207

Abstract

The household registration system known as ho khau has been a part of the fabric of life in Vietnam for over 50 years. The system was used as an instrument of public security, economic planning, and control of migration, at a time when the state played a stronger role in direct management of the economy and the life of its citizens. Although the system has become less rigid over time, concerns persist that ho khau limits the rights and access to public services of those who lack permanent registration in their place of residence. Due largely to data constraints, however, previous discussions about the system have relied largely on anecdotal or partial information.

Drawing from historical roots as well as the similar model of China’s hukou, the ho khau system was established in Vietnam in 1964. The 1964 law established the basic parameters of the system: every citizen was to be registered as a resident in one and only household at the place of permanent residence, and movements could take place only with the permission of authorities. Controlling migration to cities was part of the system’s early motivation, and the system’s ties to rationing, public services, and employment made it an effective check on unsanctioned migration. Transfer of one’s ho khau from one place to another was possible in principle but challenging in practice.

The force of the system has diminished since the launch of Doi Moi as well as a series of reforms starting in 2006. Most critically, it is no longer necessary to obtain permission from the local authorities in the place of departure to register in a new location. Additionally, obtaining temporary registration status in a new location is no longer difficult. However, in recent years the direction of policy changes regarding ho khau has been varied. A 2013 law explicitly recognized the authority of local authorities to set their own policies regarding registration, and some cities have tightened the requirements for obtaining permanent status.

Understanding of the system has been hampered by the fact that those without permanent registration have not appeared in most conventional sources of socioeconomic data. To gather data for this project, a survey of 5000 respondents in five provinces was done in June-July 2015. The samples are representative of the population in 5 provinces – Ho Chi Minh City, Ha Noi, Da Nang, Binh Duong and Dak Nong. Those five provinces/cities are among the provinces with the highest rate of migration as estimated using data from Population Census 2009.

Geographic coverage

5 provinces – Ho Chi Minh City, Ha Noi, Da Nang, Binh Duong and Dak Nong.

Analysis unit

Household

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sampling for the Household Registration Survey was conducted in two stages. The two stages were selection of 250 enumeration areas (50 EAs in each of 5 provinces) and then selection of 20 households in each selected EA, resulting in a total sample size of 5000 households. The EAs were selected using Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) method based on the square number of migrants in each EA, with the aim to increase the probability of being selected for EAs with higher number of migrants. “Migrants” were defined using the census data as those who lived in a different province five years previous to the census. The 2009 Population Census data was used as the sample frame for the selection of EAs. To make sure the sampling frame was accurate and up to date, EA leaders of the sampled EAs were asked to collection information of all households regardless of registration status at their ward a month before the actual fieldwork. Information collected include name of head of household, address, gender, age of household’s head, household phone number, residence registration status of household, and place of their registration 5 years ago. All households on the resulting lists were found to have either temporary or permanent registration in their current place of residence.

Using these lists, selection of survey households was stratified at the EA level to ensure a substantial surveyed population of households without permanent registration. In each EA random selection was conducted of 12 households with temporary registration status and 8 households with permanent registration status. For EAs where the number of temporary registration households was less than 12, all of the temporary registration households were selected and additional permanent registration households were selected to ensure that each EA had 20 survey households. Sampling weights were calculated taking into the account the selection rules for the first and second stages of the survey.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The questionnaire was mostly adapted from the Vietnam Household Living Standard Survey (VHLSS), and the Urban Poverty Survey (UPS) with appropriate adjustment and supplement of a number of questions to follow closely the objectives of this survey. The household questionnaire consists of a set of questions on the following contents:

• Demographic characteristics of household members with emphasis on their residence status in terms of both administrative management (permanent/temporary residence book) and real residential situation. • Education of household members. Beside information on education level, the respondents are asked whether a household member attend school as “trai-tuyen” , how much “trai-tuyen” fee/enrolment fee, and difficulty in attending schools without permanent residence status. • Health and health care, collecting information on medical status and health insurance card of household members. • Labour and employment, asking household member’s employment status in the last 30 days; their most and second-most time-consuming employment during the last 30 days; and whether they had been asked about residence status when looking for job. • Assets and housing conditions. This section collects information on household’s living conditions such as assets, housing types and areas, electricity, water and energy. • Income and expenditure of households. • Social inclusion and protection. The respondents are asked whether their household members participate in social organizations, activities, services, contribution; whether they benefit from any social project/policy; do they have any loans within the last 12 months; and to provide information about five of their friends at their residential area. • Knowledge on the Law of Residence, current regulations on conditions for obtaining permanent residence, experience dealing with residence issues, and opinion on current household registration system of the respondents.

Cleaning operations

Managing and Cleaning the Data

Data were managed and cleaned each day immediately upon being received, which occurred at the same time as the fieldwork surveys. At the end of each workday, the survey teams were required to review all of the interviews conducted and transfer collected data to the server. The data received by the main server were downloaded and monitored by MDRI staff.

At this stage, MDRI assigned a technical team to work on the data. First, the team listened to interview records and used an application to detect enumerators’ errors. In this way, MDRI quickly identified and corrected the mistakes of the interviewers. Then the technical team proceeded with data cleaning by questionnaire, based on the following quantity and quality checking criteria.

• Quantity checking criteria: The number of questionnaires must be matched with the completed interviews and the questionnaires assigned to each individual in the field. According to the plan, each survey team conducted 20 household questionnaires in each village. All questionnaires were checked to ensure that they contained all essential information, and duplicated entries were eliminated. • Quality checking criteria: Our staff performed a thorough examination of the practicality and logic of the data. If there was any suspicious or inconsistent information, the data management team re – listened to the records or contacted the respondents and survey teams for clarification via phone call. Necessary revisions would then be made.

Data cleaning was implemented by the following stages: 1. Identification of illogical values; 2. Software – based detection of errors for clarification and revision; 3. Information re-checking with respondents and/or enumerators via phone or through looking at the records; 4. Development and implementation of errors correction algorithms; The list of detected and adjusted errors is attached in Annex 6.

Outlier detection methods The data team applied a popular non - parametric method for outlier detection, which can be done with the following procedure: 1. Identify the first quartile Q1 (the 25th percentile data point) 2. Identify the third quartile Q3 (the 75th percentile data point) 3. Identify the inter-quartile range(IQR): IQR=Q3-Q1 4. Calculate lower limits (L) and upper limits (U) by the following formulas: o L=Q1-1.5*IQR o U=Q3+1.5*IQR 5. Detect outliers by the rule: An observation is an outlier if it lies below the lower bound or beyond the upper bound (i.e. less than L or greater than U)

Data Structure The completed dataset for the “Household registration survey 2015” includes 9 files in STATA format (.dta): • hrs_maindata: Information on the households, including: assets, housing, income, expenditures, social inclusion and social protection issues, household registration procedures • hrs_muc1: Basic information on the

The i.c.sens Visual-Inertial-LiDAR Dataset is a data set for the evaluation of dead reckoning or SLAM approaches in the context of mobile robotics. It consists of street-level monocular RGB camera images, a front-facing 180° point cloud, angular velocities, accelerations and an accurate ground truth trajectory. In total, we provide around 77 GB of data resulting from a 15 minutes drive, which is split into 8 rosbags of 2 minutes (10 GB) each. Besides, the intrinsic camera parameters and the extrinsic transformations between all sensor coordinate systems are given. Details on the data and its usage can be found in the provided documentation file.

https://data.uni-hannover.de/dataset/0bcea595-0786-44f6-a9e2-c26a779a004b/resource/0ff90ef9-fa61-4ee3-b69e-eb6461abc57b/download/sensor_platform_small.jpg" alt="">

Image credit: Sören Vogel

The data set was acquired in the context of the measurement campaign described in Schoen2018. Here, a vehicle, which can be seen below, was equipped with a self-developed sensor platform and a commercially available Riegl VMX-250 Mobile Mapping System. This Mobile Mapping System consists of two laser scanners, a camera system and a localization unit containing a highly accurate GNSS/IMU system.

https://data.uni-hannover.de/dataset/0bcea595-0786-44f6-a9e2-c26a779a004b/resource/2a1226b8-8821-4c46-b411-7d63491963ed/download/vehicle_small.jpg" alt="">

Image credit: Sören Vogel

The data acquisition took place in May 2019 during a sunny day in the Nordstadt of Hannover (coordinates: 52.388598, 9.716389). The route we took can be seen below. This route was completed three times in total, which amounts to a total driving time of 15 minutes.

https://data.uni-hannover.de/dataset/0bcea595-0786-44f6-a9e2-c26a779a004b/resource/8a570408-c392-4bd7-9c1e-26964f552d6c/download/google_earth_overview_small.png" alt="">

The self-developed sensor platform consists of several sensors. This dataset provides data from the following sensors:

• Velodyne HDL-64 LiDAR
• LORD MicroStrain 3DM-GQ4-45 GNSS aided IMU
• Pointgrey GS3-U3-23S6C-C RGB camera

To inspect the data, first start a rosmaster and launch rviz using the provided configuration file:

roscore & rosrun rviz rviz -d icsens_data.rviz

Afterwards, start playing a rosbag with

rosbag play icsens-visual-inertial-lidar-dataset-{number}.bag --clock

Below we provide some exemplary images and their corresponding point clouds.

https://data.uni-hannover.de/dataset/0bcea595-0786-44f6-a9e2-c26a779a004b/resource/dc1563c0-9b5f-4c84-b432-711916cb204c/download/combined_examples_small.jpg" alt="">

Related publications:

• R. Voges, C. S. Wieghardt, and B. Wagner, “Finding Timestamp Offsets for a Multi-Sensor System Using Sensor Observations,” Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 357–366, 2018.

• R. Voges and B. Wagner, “RGB-Laser Odometry Under Interval Uncertainty for Guaranteed Localization,” in Book of Abstracts of the 11th Summer Workshop on Interval Methods (SWIM 2018), Rostock, Germany, Jul. 2018.

• R. Voges and B. Wagner, “Timestamp Offset Calibration for an IMU-Camera System Under Interval Uncertainty,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Madrid, Spain, Oct. 2018.

• R. Voges and B. Wagner, “Extrinsic Calibration Between a 3D Laser Scanner and a Camera Under Interval Uncertainty,” in Book of Abstracts of the 12th Summer Workshop on Interval Methods (SWIM 2019), Palaiseau, France, Jul. 2019.

• R. Voges, B. Wagner, and V. Kreinovich, “Efficient Algorithms for Synchronizing Localization Sensors Under Interval Uncertainty,” Reliable Computing (Interval Computations), vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2020.

• R. Voges, B. Wagner, and V. Kreinovich, “Odometry under Interval Uncertainty: Towards Optimal Algorithms, with Potential Application to Self-Driving Cars and Mobile Robots,” Reliable Computing (Interval Computations), vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 12–20, 2020.

• R. Voges and B. Wagner, “Set-Membership Extrinsic Calibration of a 3D LiDAR and a Camera,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Las Vegas, NV, USA, Oct. 2020, accepted.

• R. Voges, “Bounded-Error Visual-LiDAR Odometry on Mobile Robots Under Consideration of Spatiotemporal Uncertainties,” PhD thesis, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität, 2020.

This Event Duration Monitoring (EDM) dataset relates to the performance of storm overflows in England. Data are provided by Water and Sewerage Companies (WaSCs) to the Environment Agency each year as part of their regulatory Annual Return, to fulfil their permitted conditions to discharge from these storm overflows under the Environmental Permitting Regulations.

Data files are provided by year (2024, 2023, 2022, 2021 & 2020) and include a sheet for each of the 10 WaSCs with storm overflows in England. Each WaSC sheet shows how often and how long each monitored storm overflow discharged during that year. From 2021 onwards the dataset also includes reasons why event duration monitors (EDM) may have provided information for <90% of the relevant return period, and why an overflow may have high spill counts in that period. These data reflect the best available information held by the WaSC at time of submission.

The data file for each year also contains key summary data tables. These include: number of storm overflows with EDM, number of storm overflows returning spill counts, average spill duration and average spill count for each WaSC. A dataset README guide is also provided which provides further information to help use and understand the data.

A sixth data file contains the annual key summary data from respective years plus a table showing long-term trends from 2016-2024.