Abstract

The study included four separate surveys:

1. The LSMS survey of general population of Serbia in 2002

2. The survey of Family Income Support (MOP in Serbian) recipients in 2002 These two datasets are published together separately from the 2003 datasets.

3. The LSMS survey of general population of Serbia in 2003 (panel survey)

4. The survey of Roma from Roma settlements in 2003 These two datasets are published together.

Objectives

LSMS represents multi-topical study of household living standard and is based on international experience in designing and conducting this type of research. The basic survey was carried out in 2002 on a representative sample of households in Serbia (without Kosovo and Metohija). Its goal was to establish a poverty profile according to the comprehensive data on welfare of households and to identify vulnerable groups. Also its aim was to assess the targeting of safety net programs by collecting detailed information from individuals on participation in specific government social programs. This study was used as the basic document in developing Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) in Serbia which was adopted by the Government of the Republic of Serbia in October 2003.

The survey was repeated in 2003 on a panel sample (the households which participated in 2002 survey were re-interviewed).

Analysis of the take-up and profile of the population in 2003 was the first step towards formulating the system of monitoring in the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS). The survey was conducted in accordance with the same methodological principles used in 2002 survey, with necessary changes referring only to the content of certain modules and the reduction in sample size. The aim of the repeated survey was to obtain panel data to enable monitoring of the change in the living standard within a period of one year, thus indicating whether there had been a decrease or increase in poverty in Serbia in the course of 2003. [Note: Panel data are the data obtained on the sample of households which participated in the both surveys. These data made possible tracking of living standard of the same persons in the period of one year.]

Along with these two comprehensive surveys, conducted on national and regional representative samples which were to give a picture of the general population, there were also two surveys with particular emphasis on vulnerable groups. In 2002, it was the survey of living standard of Family Income Support recipients with an aim to validate this state supported program of social welfare. In 2003 the survey of Roma from Roma settlements was conducted. Since all present experiences indicated that this was one of the most vulnerable groups on the territory of Serbia and Montenegro, but with no ample research of poverty of Roma population made, the aim of the survey was to compare poverty of this group with poverty of basic population and to establish which categories of Roma population were at the greatest risk of poverty in 2003. However, it is necessary to stress that the LSMS of the Roma population comprised potentially most imperilled Roma, while the Roma integrated in the main population were not included in this study.

Geographic coverage

The surveys were conducted on the whole territory of Serbia (without Kosovo and Metohija).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample frame for both surveys of general population (LSMS) in 2002 and 2003 consisted of all permanent residents of Serbia, without the population of Kosovo and Metohija, according to definition of permanently resident population contained in UN Recommendations for Population Censuses, which were applied in 2002 Census of Population in the Republic of Serbia. Therefore, permanent residents were all persons living in the territory Serbia longer than one year, with the exception of diplomatic and consular staff.

The sample frame for the survey of Family Income Support recipients included all current recipients of this program on the territory of Serbia based on the official list of recipients given by Ministry of Social affairs.

The definition of the Roma population from Roma settlements was faced with obstacles since precise data on the total number of Roma population in Serbia are not available. According to the last population Census from 2002 there were 108,000 Roma citizens, but the data from the Census are thought to significantly underestimate the total number of the Roma population. However, since no other more precise data were available, this number was taken as the basis for estimate on Roma population from Roma settlements. According to the 2002 Census, settlements with at least 7% of the total population who declared itself as belonging to Roma nationality were selected. A total of 83% or 90,000 self-declared Roma lived in the settlements that were defined in this way and this number was taken as the sample frame for Roma from Roma settlements.

Planned sample: In 2002 the planned size of the sample of general population included 6.500 households. The sample was both nationally and regionally representative (representative on each individual stratum). In 2003 the planned panel sample size was 3.000 households. In order to preserve the representative quality of the sample, we kept every other census block unit of the large sample realized in 2002. This way we kept the identical allocation by strata. In selected census block unit, the same households were interviewed as in the basic survey in 2002. The planned sample of Family Income Support recipients in 2002 and Roma from Roma settlements in 2003 was 500 households for each group.

Sample type: In both national surveys the implemented sample was a two-stage stratified sample. Units of the first stage were enumeration districts, and units of the second stage were the households. In the basic 2002 survey, enumeration districts were selected with probability proportional to number of households, so that the enumeration districts with bigger number of households have a higher probability of selection. In the repeated survey in 2003, first-stage units (census block units) were selected from the basic sample obtained in 2002 by including only even numbered census block units. In practice this meant that every second census block unit from the previous survey was included in the sample. In each selected enumeration district the same households interviewed in the previous round were included and interviewed. On finishing the survey in 2003 the cases were merged both on the level of households and members.

Stratification: Municipalities are stratified into the following six territorial strata: Vojvodina, Belgrade, Western Serbia, Central Serbia (Šumadija and Pomoravlje), Eastern Serbia and South-east Serbia. Primary units of selection are further stratified into enumeration districts which belong to urban type of settlements and enumeration districts which belong to rural type of settlement.

The sample of Family Income Support recipients represented the cases chosen randomly from the official list of recipients provided by Ministry of Social Affairs. The sample of Roma from Roma settlements was, as in the national survey, a two-staged stratified sample, but the units in the first stage were settlements where Roma population was represented in the percentage over 7%, and the units of the second stage were Roma households. Settlements are stratified in three territorial strata: Vojvodina, Beograd and Central Serbia.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

In all surveys the same questionnaire with minimal changes was used. It included different modules, topically separate areas which had an aim of perceiving the living standard of households from different angles. Topic areas were the following: 1. Roster with demography. 2. Housing conditions and durables module with information on the age of durables owned by a household with a special block focused on collecting information on energy billing, payments, and usage. 3. Diary of food expenditures (weekly), including home production, gifts and transfers in kind. 4. Questionnaire of main expenditure-based recall periods sufficient to enable construction of annual consumption at the household level, including home production, gifts and transfers in kind. 5. Agricultural production for all households which cultivate 10+ acres of land or who breed cattle. 6. Participation and social transfers module with detailed breakdown by programs 7. Labour Market module in line with a simplified version of the Labour Force Survey (LFS), with special additional questions to capture various informal sector activities, and providing information on earnings 8. Health with a focus on utilization of services and expenditures (including informal payments) 9. Education module, which incorporated pre-school, compulsory primary education, secondary education and university education. 10. Special income block, focusing on sources of income not covered in other parts (with a focus on remittances).

Response rate

During field work, interviewers kept a precise diary of interviews, recording both successful and unsuccessful visits. Particular attention was paid to reasons why some households were not interviewed. Separate marks were given for households which were not interviewed due to refusal and for cases when a given household could not be found on the territory of the chosen census block.

In 2002 a total of 7,491 households were contacted. Of this number a total of 6,386 households in 621 census rounds were interviewed. Interviewers did not manage to collect the data for 1,106 or 14.8% of selected households. Out of this number 634 households

A random sample of households were invited to participate in this survey. In the dataset, you will find the respondent level data in each row with the questions in each column. The numbers represent a scale option from the survey, such as 1=Excellent, 2=Good, 3=Fair, 4=Poor. The question stem, response option, and scale information for each field can be found in the var "variable labels" and "value labels" sheets. VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: The scientific survey data were weighted, meaning that the demographic profile of respondents was compared to the demographic profile of adults in Bloomington from US Census data. Statistical adjustments were made to bring the respondent profile into balance with the population profile. This means that some records were given more "weight" and some records were given less weight. The weights that were applied are found in the field "wt". If you do not apply these weights, you will not obtain the same results as can be found in the report delivered to the Bloomington. The easiest way to replicate these results is likely to create pivot tables, and use the sum of the "wt" field rather than a count of responses.

The American Community Survey Education Tabulation (ACS-ED) is a custom tabulation of the ACS produced for the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) by the U.S. Census Bureau. The ACS-ED provides a rich collection of social, economic, demographic, and housing characteristics for school systems, school-age children, and the parents of school-age children. In addition to focusing on school-age children, the ACS-ED provides enrollment iterations for children enrolled in public school. The data profiles include percentages (along with associated margins of error) that allow for comparison of school district-level conditions across the U.S. For more information about the NCES ACS-ED collection, visit the NCES Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates (EDGE) program at: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/Demographic/ACSAnnotation values are negative value representations of estimates and have values when non-integer information needs to be represented. See the table below for a list of common Estimate/Margin of Error (E/M) values and their corresponding Annotation (EA/MA) values.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. -9 An '-9' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. -8 An '-8' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available. -6 A '-6' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. -5 A '-5' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. -3 A '-3' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate. -2 A '-2' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.

Abstract

Round 1 of the Afrobarometer survey was conducted from July 1999 through June 2001 in 12 African countries, to solicit public opinion on democracy, governance, markets, and national identity. The full 12 country dataset released was pieced together out of different projects, Round 1 of the Afrobarometer survey,the old Southern African Democracy Barometer, and similar surveys done in West and East Africa.

The 7 country dataset is a subset of the Round 1 survey dataset, and consists of a combined dataset for the 7 Southern African countries surveyed with other African countries in Round 1, 1999-2000 (Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe). It is a useful dataset because, in contrast to the full 12 country Round 1 dataset, all countries in this dataset were surveyed with the identical questionnaire

Geographic coverage

Botswana Lesotho Malawi Namibia South Africa Zambia Zimbabwe

Analysis unit

Basic units of analysis that the study investigates include: individuals and groups

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A new sample has to be drawn for each round of Afrobarometer surveys. Whereas the standard sample size for Round 3 surveys will be 1200 cases, a larger sample size will be required in societies that are extremely heterogeneous (such as South Africa and Nigeria), where the sample size will be increased to 2400. Other adaptations may be necessary within some countries to account for the varying quality of the census data or the availability of census maps.

The sample is designed as a representative cross-section of all citizens of voting age in a given country. The goal is to give every adult citizen an equal and known chance of selection for interview. We strive to reach this objective by (a) strictly applying random selection methods at every stage of sampling and by (b) applying sampling with probability proportionate to population size wherever possible. A randomly selected sample of 1200 cases allows inferences to national adult populations with a margin of sampling error of no more than plus or minus 2.5 percent with a confidence level of 95 percent. If the sample size is increased to 2400, the confidence interval shrinks to plus or minus 2 percent.

Sample Universe

The sample universe for Afrobarometer surveys includes all citizens of voting age within the country. In other words, we exclude anyone who is not a citizen and anyone who has not attained this age (usually 18 years) on the day of the survey. Also excluded are areas determined to be either inaccessible or not relevant to the study, such as those experiencing armed conflict or natural disasters, as well as national parks and game reserves. As a matter of practice, we have also excluded people living in institutionalized settings, such as students in dormitories and persons in prisons or nursing homes.

What to do about areas experiencing political unrest? On the one hand we want to include them because they are politically important. On the other hand, we want to avoid stretching out the fieldwork over many months while we wait for the situation to settle down. It was agreed at the 2002 Cape Town Planning Workshop that it is difficult to come up with a general rule that will fit all imaginable circumstances. We will therefore make judgments on a case-by-case basis on whether or not to proceed with fieldwork or to exclude or substitute areas of conflict. National Partners are requested to consult Core Partners on any major delays, exclusions or substitutions of this sort.

Sample Design

The sample design is a clustered, stratified, multi-stage, area probability sample.

To repeat the main sampling principle, the objective of the design is to give every sample element (i.e. adult citizen) an equal and known chance of being chosen for inclusion in the sample. We strive to reach this objective by (a) strictly applying random selection methods at every stage of sampling and by (b) applying sampling with probability proportionate to population size wherever possible.

In a series of stages, geographically defined sampling units of decreasing size are selected. To ensure that the sample is representative, the probability of selection at various stages is adjusted as follows:

The sample is stratified by key social characteristics in the population such as sub-national area (e.g. region/province) and residential locality (urban or rural). The area stratification reduces the likelihood that distinctive ethnic or language groups are left out of the sample. And the urban/rural stratification is a means to make sure that these localities are represented in their correct proportions. Wherever possible, and always in the first stage of sampling, random sampling is conducted with probability proportionate to population size (PPPS). The purpose is to guarantee that larger (i.e., more populated) geographical units have a proportionally greater probability of being chosen into the sample. The sampling design has four stages

A first-stage to stratify and randomly select primary sampling units;

A second-stage to randomly select sampling start-points;

A third stage to randomly choose households;

A final-stage involving the random selection of individual respondents

We shall deal with each of these stages in turn.

STAGE ONE: Selection of Primary Sampling Units (PSUs)

The primary sampling units (PSU's) are the smallest, well-defined geographic units for which reliable population data are available. In most countries, these will be Census Enumeration Areas (or EAs). Most national census data and maps are broken down to the EA level. In the text that follows we will use the acronyms PSU and EA interchangeably because, when census data are employed, they refer to the same unit.

We strongly recommend that NIs use official national census data as the sampling frame for Afrobarometer surveys. Where recent or reliable census data are not available, NIs are asked to inform the relevant Core Partner before they substitute any other demographic data. Where the census is out of date, NIs should consult a demographer to obtain the best possible estimates of population growth rates. These should be applied to the outdated census data in order to make projections of population figures for the year of the survey. It is important to bear in mind that population growth rates vary by area (region) and (especially) between rural and urban localities. Therefore, any projected census data should include adjustments to take such variations into account.

Indeed, we urge NIs to establish collegial working relationships within professionals in the national census bureau, not only to obtain the most recent census data, projections, and maps, but to gain access to sampling expertise. NIs may even commission a census statistician to draw the sample to Afrobarometer specifications, provided that provision for this service has been made in the survey budget.

Regardless of who draws the sample, the NIs should thoroughly acquaint themselves with the strengths and weaknesses of the available census data and the availability and quality of EA maps. The country and methodology reports should cite the exact census data used, its known shortcomings, if any, and any projections made from the data. At minimum, the NI must know the size of the population and the urban/rural population divide in each region in order to specify how to distribute population and PSU's in the first stage of sampling. National investigators should obtain this written data before they attempt to stratify the sample.

Once this data is obtained, the sample population (either 1200 or 2400) should be stratified, first by area (region/province) and then by residential locality (urban or rural). In each case, the proportion of the sample in each locality in each region should be the same as its proportion in the national population as indicated by the updated census figures.

Having stratified the sample, it is then possible to determine how many PSU's should be selected for the country as a whole, for each region, and for each urban or rural locality.

The total number of PSU's to be selected for the whole country is determined by calculating the maximum degree of clustering of interviews one can accept in any PSU. Because PSUs (which are usually geographically small EAs) tend to be socially homogenous we do not want to select too many people in any one place. Thus, the Afrobarometer has established a standard of no more than 8 interviews per PSU. For a sample size of 1200, the sample must therefore contain 150 PSUs/EAs (1200 divided by 8). For a sample size of 2400, there must be 300 PSUs/EAs.

These PSUs should then be allocated proportionally to the urban and rural localities within each regional stratum of the sample. Let's take a couple of examples from a country with a sample size of 1200. If the urban locality of Region X in this country constitutes 10 percent of the current national population, then the sample for this stratum should be 15 PSUs (calculated as 10 percent of 150 PSUs). If the rural population of Region Y constitutes 4 percent of the current national population, then the sample for this stratum should be 6 PSU's.

The next step is to select particular PSUs/EAs using random methods. Using the above example of the rural localities in Region Y, let us say that you need to pick 6 sample EAs out of a census list that contains a total of 240 rural EAs in Region Y. But which 6? If the EAs created by the national census bureau are of equal or roughly equal population size, then selection is relatively straightforward. Just number all EAs consecutively, then make six selections using a table of random numbers. This procedure, known as simple random sampling (SRS), will

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau across all standard and custom geographies at statewide summary level where applicable. For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the ACS 2017-2021 Data Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics. Find naming convention prefixes/suffixes, geography definitions and user notes below.Prefixes:NoneCountpPercentrRatemMedianaMean (average)tAggregate (total)chChange in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pchPercent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chpChange in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)sSignificance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computedSuffixes:_e21Estimate from 2017-21 ACS_m21Margin of Error from 2017-21 ACS_e102006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_m10Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_e10_21Change, 2010-21 (holding constant at 2020 geography)GeographiesAAA = Area Agency on Aging (12 geographic units formed from counties providing statewide coverage)ARC21 = Atlanta Regional Commission modeling area (21 counties merged to a single geographic unit)ARWDB7 = Atlanta Regional Workforce Development Board (7 counties merged to a single geographic unit)BeltLine (buffer)BeltLine Study (subareas)Census Tract (statewide)CFGA23 = Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta (23 counties merged to a single geographic unit)City (statewide)City of Atlanta Council Districts (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Unit (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Unit STV (3 NPUs merged to a single geographic unit within City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Statistical Areas (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Statistical Areas E02E06 (2 NSAs merged to single geographic unit within City of Atlanta)County (statewide)Georgia House (statewide)Georgia Senate (statewide)MetroWater15 = Atlanta Metropolitan Water District (15 counties merged to a single geographic unit)Regional Commissions (statewide)SPARCC = Strong, Prosperous And Resilient Communities ChallengeState of Georgia (single geographic unit)Superdistrict (ARC region)US Congress (statewide)UWGA13 = United Way of Greater Atlanta (13 counties merged to a single geographic unit)WFF = Westside Future Fund (subarea of City of Atlanta)ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (statewide)The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2017-2021). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2017-2021Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the data manifest: https://garc.maps.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/34b9adfdcc294788ba9c70bf433bd4c1/data

OverviewWater companies in the UK are responsible for testing the quality of drinking water. This dataset contains the results of samples taken from the taps in domestic households to make sure they meet the standards set out by UK and European legislation. This data shows the location, date, and measured levels of determinands set out by the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI).Key Definitions  AggregationProcess involving summarising or grouping data to obtain a single or reduced set of information, often for analysis or reporting purposes  Anonymisation Anonymised data is a type of information sanitisation in which data anonymisation tools encrypt or remove personally identifiable information from datasets for the purpose of preserving a data subject's privacy Dataset Structured and organised collection of related elements, often stored digitally, used for analysis and interpretation in various fields.  Determinand A constituent or property of drinking water which can be determined or estimated. DWI Drinking Water Inspectorate, an organisation “providing independent reassurance that water supplies in England and Wales are safe and drinking water quality is acceptable to consumers.”  DWI Determinands Constituents or properties that are tested for when evaluating a sample for its quality as per the guidance of the DWI. For this dataset, only determinands with “point of compliance” as “customer taps” are included.   Granularity Data granularity is a measure of the level of detail in a data structure. In time-series data, for example, the granularity of measurement might be based on intervals of years, months, weeks, days, or hours ID Abbreviation for Identification that refers to any means of verifying the unique identifier assigned to each asset for the purposes of tracking, management, and maintenance.  LSOA Lower-Level Super Output Area is made up of small geographic areas used for statistical and administrative purposes by the Office for National Statistics. It is designed to have homogeneous populations in terms of population size, making them suitable for statistical analysis and reporting. Each LSOA is built from groups of contiguous Output Areas with an average of about 1,500 residents or 650 households allowing for granular data collection useful for analysis, planning and policy- making while ensuring privacy.  ONS Office for National Statistics  Open Data Triage The process carried out by a Data Custodian to determine if there is any evidence of sensitivities associated with Data Assets, their associated Metadata and Software Scripts used to process Data Assets if they are used as Open Data.  Sample A sample is a representative segment or portion of water taken from a larger whole for the purpose of analysing or testing to ensure compliance with safety and quality standards.  Schema Structure for organizing and handling data within a dataset, defining the attributes, their data types, and the relationships between different entities. It acts as a framework that ensures data integrity and consistency by specifying permissible data types and constraints for each attribute.  Units Standard measurements used to quantify and compare different physical quantities.  Water Quality The chemical, physical, biological, and radiological characteristics of water, typically in relation to its suitability for a specific purpose, such as drinking, swimming, or ecological health. It is determined by assessing a variety of parameters, including but not limited to pH, turbidity, microbial content, dissolved oxygen, presence of substances and temperature.Data HistoryData Origin  These samples were taken from customer taps. They were then analysed for water quality, and the results were uploaded to a database. This dataset is an extract from this database.Data Triage Considerations Granularity Is it useful to share results as averages or individual? We decided to share as individual results as the lowest level of granularity Anonymisation It is a requirement that this data cannot be used to identify a singular person or household. We discussed many options for aggregating the data to a specific geography to ensure this requirement is met. The following geographical aggregations were discussed: • Water Supply Zone (WSZ) - Limits interoperability with other datasets • Postcode – Some postcodes contain very few households and may not offer necessary anonymisation • Postal Sector – Deemed not granular enough in highly populated areas • Rounded Co-ordinates – Not a recognised standard and may cause overlapping areas • MSOA – Deemed not granular enough • LSOA – Agreed as a recognised standard appropriate for England and Wales • Data Zones – Agreed as a recognised standard appropriate for Scotland Data Triage Review Frequency Annually unless otherwise requested Publish FrequencyAnnuallyData Specifications • Each dataset will cover a year of samples in calendar year • This dataset will be published annually • Historical datasets will be published as far back as 2016 from the introduction of The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2016 • The determinands included in the dataset are as per the list that is required to be reported to the Drinking Water Inspectorate. • A small proportion of samples could not be allocated to an LSOA – these represented less than 0.1% of samples and were removed from the dataset in 2023. • The postcode to LSOA lookup table used for 2022 was not available when 2023 data was processed, see supplementary information for the lookup table applied to each calendar year of data. Context Many UK water companies provide a search tool on their websites where you can search for water quality in your area by postcode. The results of the search may identify the water supply zone that supplies the postcode searched. Water supply zones are not linked to LSOAs which means the results may differ to this dataset. Some sample results are influenced by internal plumbing and may not be representative of drinking water quality in the wider area. Some samples are tested on site and others are sent to scientific laboratories.Supplementary informationBelow is a curated selection of links for additional reading, which provide a deeper understanding of this dataset.   1. Drinking Water Inspectorate Standards and Regulations: https://www.dwi.gov.uk/drinking-water-standards-and-regulations/   2. LSOA (England and Wales) and Data Zone (Scotland): https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/geography/2011-census/geography-bckground-info-comparison-of-thresholds.pdf   3. Description for LSOA boundaries by the ONS: https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ukgeographies/censusgeographies/census2021geographies4. Postcode to LSOA lookup tables (2022 calendar year data): https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/datasets/postcode-to-2021-census-output-area-to-lower-layer-super-output-area-to-middle-layer-super-output-area-to-local-authority-district-august-2023-lookup-in-the-uk/about   5. Postcode to LSOA lookup tables (2023 calendar year data):  https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/datasets/b8451168e985446eb8269328615dec62/about6. Legislation history: https://www.dwi.gov.uk/water-companies/legislation/

Physiological dysregulation may underlie aging and many chronic diseases, but is challenging to quantify because of the complexity of the underlying systems. Recently, we described a measure of physiological dysregulation, DM, that uses statistical distance to assess the degree to which an individual’s biomarker profile is normal versus aberrant. However, the sensitivity of DM to details of the calculation method has not yet been systematically assessed. In particular, the number and choice of biomarkers and the definition of the reference population (RP, the population used to define a “normal” profile) may be important. Here, we address this question by validating the method on 44 common clinical biomarkers from three longitudinal cohort studies and one cross-sectional survey. DMs calculated on different biomarker subsets show that while the signal of physiological dysregulation increases with the number of biomarkers included, the value of additional markers diminishes as more are added and inclusion of 10-15 is generally sufficient. As long as enough markers are included, individual markers have little effect on the final metric, and even DMs calculated from mutually exclusive groups of markers correlate with each other at r~0.4-0.5. We also used data subsets to generate thousands of combinations of study populations and RPs to address sensitivity to differences in age range, sex, race, data set, sample size, and their interactions. Results were largely consistent (but not identical) regardless of the choice of RP; however, the signal was generally clearer with a younger and healthier RP, and RPs too different from the study population performed poorly. Accordingly, biomarker and RP choice are not particularly important in most cases, but caution should be used across very different populations or for fine-scale analyses. Biologically, the lack of sensitivity to marker choice and better performance of younger, healthier RPs confirm an interpretation of DM physiological dysregulation and as an emergent property of a complex system.

These data include the individual responses for the City of Tempe Annual Community Survey conducted by ETC Institute. This dataset has two layers and includes both the weighted data and unweighted data. Weighting data is a statistical method in which datasets are adjusted through calculations in order to more accurately represent the population being studied. The weighted data are used in the final published PDF report.These data help determine priorities for the community as part of the City's on-going strategic planning process. Averaged Community Survey results are used as indicators for several city performance measures. The summary data for each performance measure is provided as an open dataset for that measure (separate from this dataset). The performance measures with indicators from the survey include the following (as of 2023):1. Safe and Secure Communities1.04 Fire Services Satisfaction1.06 Crime Reporting1.07 Police Services Satisfaction1.09 Victim of Crime1.10 Worry About Being a Victim1.11 Feeling Safe in City Facilities1.23 Feeling of Safety in Parks2. Strong Community Connections2.02 Customer Service Satisfaction2.04 City Website Satisfaction2.05 Online Services Satisfaction Rate2.15 Feeling Invited to Participate in City Decisions2.21 Satisfaction with Availability of City Information3. Quality of Life3.16 City Recreation, Arts, and Cultural Centers3.17 Community Services Programs3.19 Value of Special Events3.23 Right of Way Landscape Maintenance3.36 Quality of City Services4. Sustainable Growth & DevelopmentNo Performance Measures in this category presently relate directly to the Community Survey5. Financial Stability & VitalityNo Performance Measures in this category presently relate directly to the Community SurveyMethods:The survey is mailed to a random sample of households in the City of Tempe. Follow up emails and texts are also sent to encourage participation. A link to the survey is provided with each communication. To prevent people who do not live in Tempe or who were not selected as part of the random sample from completing the survey, everyone who completed the survey was required to provide their address. These addresses were then matched to those used for the random representative sample. If the respondent’s address did not match, the response was not used. To better understand how services are being delivered across the city, individual results were mapped to determine overall distribution across the city. Additionally, demographic data were used to monitor the distribution of responses to ensure the responding population of each survey is representative of city population. Processing and Limitations:The location data in this dataset is generalized to the block level to protect privacy. This means that only the first two digits of an address are used to map the location. When they data are shared with the city only the latitude/longitude of the block level address points are provided. This results in points that overlap. In order to better visualize the data, overlapping points were randomly dispersed to remove overlap. The result of these two adjustments ensure that they are not related to a specific address, but are still close enough to allow insights about service delivery in different areas of the city. The weighted data are used by the ETC Institute, in the final published PDF report.The 2023 Annual Community Survey report is available on data.tempe.gov or by visiting https://www.tempe.gov/government/strategic-management-and-innovation/signature-surveys-research-and-dataThe individual survey questions as well as the definition of the response scale (for example, 1 means “very dissatisfied” and 5 means “very satisfied”) are provided in the data dictionary.Additional InformationSource: Community Attitude SurveyContact (author): Adam SamuelsContact E-Mail (author): Adam_Samuels@tempe.govContact (maintainer): Contact E-Mail (maintainer): Data Source Type: Excel tablePreparation Method: Data received from vendor after report is completedPublish Frequency: AnnualPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

Abstract

Survey based Harmonized Indicators (SHIP) files are harmonized data files from household surveys that are conducted by countries in Africa. To ensure the quality and transparency of the data, it is critical to document the procedures of compiling consumption aggregation and other indicators so that the results can be duplicated with ease. This process enables consistency and continuity that make temporal and cross-country comparisons consistent and more reliable.

Four harmonized data files are prepared for each survey to generate a set of harmonized variables that have the same variable names. Invariably, in each survey, questions are asked in a slightly different way, which poses challenges on consistent definition of harmonized variables. The harmonized household survey data present the best available variables with harmonized definitions, but not identical variables. The four harmonized data files are

a) Individual level file (Labor force indicators in a separate file): This file has information on basic characteristics of individuals such as age and sex, literacy, education, health, anthropometry and child survival. b) Labor force file: This file has information on labor force including employment/unemployment, earnings, sectors of employment, etc. c) Household level file: This file has information on household expenditure, household head characteristics (age and sex, level of education, employment), housing amenities, assets, and access to infrastructure and services. d) Household Expenditure file: This file has consumption/expenditure aggregates by consumption groups according to Purpose (COICOP) of Household Consumption of the UN.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Individual level for datasets with suffix _I and _L
• Household level for datasets with suffix _H and _E

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sampling Frame and Units As in all probability sample surveys, it is important that each sampling unit in the surveyed population has a known, non-zero probability of selection. To achieve this, there has to be an appropriate list, or sampling frame of the primary sampling units (PSUs).The universe defined for the GLSS 5 is the population living within private households in Ghana. The institutional population (such as schools, hospitals etc), which represents a very small percentage in the 2000 Population and Housing Census (PHC), is excluded from the frame for the GLSS 5.

The Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) maintains a complete list of census EAs, together with their respective population and number of households as well as maps, with well defined boundaries, of the EAs. . This information was used as the sampling frame for the GLSS 5. Specifically, the EAs were defined as the primary sampling units (PSUs), while the households within each EA constituted the secondary sampling units (SSUs).

Stratification In order to take advantage of possible gains in precision and reliability of the survey estimates from stratification, the EAs were first stratified into the ten administrative regions. Within each region, the EAs were further sub-divided according to their rural and urban areas of location. The EAs were also classified according to ecological zones and inclusion of Accra (GAMA) so that the survey results could be presented according to the three ecological zones, namely 1) Coastal, 2) Forest, and 3) Northern Savannah, and for Accra.

Sample size and allocation The number and allocation of sample EAs for the GLSS 5 depend on the type of estimates to be obtained from the survey and the corresponding precision required. It was decided to select a total sample of around 8000 households nationwide.

To ensure adequate numbers of complete interviews that will allow for reliable estimates at the various domains of interest, the GLSS 5 sample was designed to ensure that at least 400 households were selected from each region.

A two-stage stratified random sampling design was adopted. Initially, a total sample of 550 EAs was considered at the first stage of sampling, followed by a fixed take of 15 households per EA. The distribution of the selected EAs into the ten regions or strata was based on proportionate allocation using the population.

For example, the number of selected EAs allocated to the Western Region was obtained as: 1924577/18912079*550 = 56

Under this sampling scheme, it was observed that the 400 households minimum requirement per region could be achieved in all the regions but not the Upper West Region. The proportionate allocation formula assigned only 17 EAs out of the 550 EAs nationwide and selecting 15 households per EA would have yielded only 255 households for the region. In order to surmount this problem, two options were considered: retaining the 17 EAs in the Upper West Region and increasing the number of selected households per EA from 15 to about 25, or increasing the number of selected EAs in the region from 17 to 27 and retaining the second stage sample of 15 households per EA.

The second option was adopted in view of the fact that it was more likely to provide smaller sampling errors for the separate domains of analysis. Based on this, the number of EAs in Upper East and the Upper West were adjusted from 27 and 17 to 40 and 34 respectively, bringing the total number of EAs to 580 and the number of households to 8,700.

A complete household listing exercise was carried out between May and June 2005 in all the selected EAs to provide the sampling frame for the second stage selection of households. At the second stage of sampling, a fixed number of 15 households per EA was selected in all the regions. In addition, five households per EA were selected as replacement samples.The overall sample size therefore came to 8,700 households nationwide.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

This layer shows Population by Age and Sex. This is shown by state and county boundaries. This service contains the 2018-2022 release of data from the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. This layer is symbolized to show the Total population ages 65 and over. To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right. Current Vintage: 2018-2022ACS Table(s): B01001, B01002, DP05Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: January 18, 2024National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:Boundaries come from the Cartographic Boundaries via US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates, and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico. The Counties (and equivalent) layer contains 3221 records - all counties and equivalent, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico municipios. See Areas Published. Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells.Margin of error (MOE) values of -555555555 in the API (or "*****" (five asterisks) on data.census.gov) are displayed as 0 in this dataset. The estimates associated with these MOEs have been controlled to independent counts in the ACS weighting and have zero sampling error. So, the MOEs are effectively zeroes, and are treated as zeroes in MOE calculations. Other negative values on the API, such as -222222222, -666666666, -888888888, and -999999999, all represent estimates or MOEs that can't be calculated or can't be published, usually due to small sample sizes. All of these are rendered in this dataset as null (blank) values.

2013-2023 Virginia Population by Urban Area. Contains estimates.

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B01001 Data accessed from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey (https://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-sets.html)

The United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS): -What is the American Community Survey? (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about.html) -Geography & ACS (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/geography-acs.html) -Technical Documentation (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation.html)

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Technical Documentation section. (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation/code-lists.html)

Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section. (https://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/sample_size_and_data_quality/)

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation.html). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

Between Oct. 14, 2014, and May 21, 2015, Pew Research Center, with generous funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Neubauer Family Foundation, completed 5,601 face-to-face interviews with non-institutionalized adults ages 18 and older living in Israel.

The survey sampling plan was based on six districts defined in the 2008 Israeli census. In addition, Jewish residents of West Bank (Judea and Samaria) were included.

The sample includes interviews with 3,789 respondents defined as Jews, 871 Muslims, 468 Christians and 439 Druze. An additional 34 respondents belong to other religions or are religiously unaffiliated. Five groups were oversampled as part of the survey design: Jews living in the West Bank, Haredim, Christian Arabs, Arabs living in East Jerusalem and Druze.

Interviews were conducted under the direction of Public Opinion and Marketing Research of Israel (PORI). Surveys were administered through face-to-face, paper and pencil interviews conducted at the respondent's place of residence. Sampling was conducted through a multi-stage stratified area probability sampling design based on national population data available through the Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics' 2008 census.

The questionnaire was designed by Pew Research Center staff in consultation with subject matter experts and advisers to the project. The questionnaire was translated into Hebrew, Russian and Arabic, independently verified by professional linguists conversant in regional dialects and pretested prior to fieldwork.

The questionnaire was divided into four sections. All respondents who took the survey in Russian or Hebrew were branched into the Jewish questionnaire (Questionnaire A). Arabic-speaking respondents were branched into the Muslim (Questionnaire B), Christian (Questionnaire C) or Druze questionnaire (D) based on their response to the religious identification question. For the full question wording and exact order of questions, please see the questionnaire.

Note that not all respondents who took the questionnaire in Hebrew or Russian are classified as Jews in this study. For further details on how respondents were classified as Jews, Muslims, Christians and Druze in the study, please see sidebar in the report titled "http://www.pewforum.org/2016/03/08/israels-religiously-divided-society/" Target="_blank">"How Religious are Defined".

Following fieldwork, survey performance was assessed by comparing the results for key demographic variables with population statistics available through the census. Data were weighted to account for different probabilities of selection among respondents. Where appropriate, data also were weighted through an iterative procedure to more closely align the samples with official population figures for gender, age and education. The reported margins of sampling error and the statistical tests of significance used in the analysis take into account the design effects due to weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error and other practical difficulties, one should bear in mind that question wording also can have an impact on the findings of opinion polls.

These data include the individual responses for the City of Tempe Annual Community Survey conducted by ETC Institute. This dataset has two layers and includes both the weighted data and unweighted data. Weighting data is a statistical method in which datasets are adjusted through calculations in order to more accurately represent the population being studied. The weighted data are used in the final published PDF report.These data help determine priorities for the community as part of the City's on-going strategic planning process. Averaged Community Survey results are used as indicators for several city performance measures. The summary data for each performance measure is provided as an open dataset for that measure (separate from this dataset). The performance measures with indicators from the survey include the following (as of 2023):1. Safe and Secure Communities1.04 Fire Services Satisfaction1.06 Crime Reporting1.07 Police Services Satisfaction1.09 Victim of Crime1.10 Worry About Being a Victim1.11 Feeling Safe in City Facilities1.23 Feeling of Safety in Parks2. Strong Community Connections2.02 Customer Service Satisfaction2.04 City Website Satisfaction2.05 Online Services Satisfaction Rate2.15 Feeling Invited to Participate in City Decisions2.21 Satisfaction with Availability of City Information3. Quality of Life3.16 City Recreation, Arts, and Cultural Centers3.17 Community Services Programs3.19 Value of Special Events3.23 Right of Way Landscape Maintenance3.36 Quality of City Services4. Sustainable Growth & DevelopmentNo Performance Measures in this category presently relate directly to the Community Survey5. Financial Stability & VitalityNo Performance Measures in this category presently relate directly to the Community SurveyMethods:The survey is mailed to a random sample of households in the City of Tempe. Follow up emails and texts are also sent to encourage participation. A link to the survey is provided with each communication. To prevent people who do not live in Tempe or who were not selected as part of the random sample from completing the survey, everyone who completed the survey was required to provide their address. These addresses were then matched to those used for the random representative sample. If the respondent’s address did not match, the response was not used. To better understand how services are being delivered across the city, individual results were mapped to determine overall distribution across the city. Additionally, demographic data were used to monitor the distribution of responses to ensure the responding population of each survey is representative of city population. Processing and Limitations:The location data in this dataset is generalized to the block level to protect privacy. This means that only the first two digits of an address are used to map the location. When they data are shared with the city only the latitude/longitude of the block level address points are provided. This results in points that overlap. In order to better visualize the data, overlapping points were randomly dispersed to remove overlap. The result of these two adjustments ensure that they are not related to a specific address, but are still close enough to allow insights about service delivery in different areas of the city. The weighted data are used by the ETC Institute, in the final published PDF report.The 2023 Annual Community Survey report is available on data.tempe.gov or by visiting https://www.tempe.gov/government/strategic-management-and-innovation/signature-surveys-research-and-dataThe individual survey questions as well as the definition of the response scale (for example, 1 means “very dissatisfied” and 5 means “very satisfied”) are provided in the data dictionary.Additional InformationSource: Community Attitude SurveyContact (author): Adam SamuelsContact E-Mail (author): Adam_Samuels@tempe.govContact (maintainer): Contact E-Mail (maintainer): Data Source Type: Excel tablePreparation Method: Data received from vendor after report is completedPublish Frequency: AnnualPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

2013-2023 Virginia Population by Race by Census Block Group. Contains estimates and margins of error.

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B03002 Data accessed from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey (https://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-sets.html)

The United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS): -What is the American Community Survey? (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about.html) -Geography & ACS (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/geography-acs.html) -Technical Documentation (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation.html)

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Technical Documentation section. (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation/code-lists.html)

Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section. (https://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/sample_size_and_data_quality/)

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation.html). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

These data include the individual responses for the City of Tempe Annual Community Survey conducted by ETC Institute. This dataset has two layers and includes both the weighted data and unweighted data. Weighting data is a statistical method in which datasets are adjusted through calculations in order to more accurately represent the population being studied. The weighted data are used in the final published PDF report.These data help determine priorities for the community as part of the City's on-going strategic planning process. Averaged Community Survey results are used as indicators for several city performance measures. The summary data for each performance measure is provided as an open dataset for that measure (separate from this dataset). The performance measures with indicators from the survey include the following (as of 2023):1. Safe and Secure Communities1.04 Fire Services Satisfaction1.06 Crime Reporting1.07 Police Services Satisfaction1.09 Victim of Crime1.10 Worry About Being a Victim1.11 Feeling Safe in City Facilities1.23 Feeling of Safety in Parks2. Strong Community Connections2.02 Customer Service Satisfaction2.04 City Website Satisfaction2.05 Online Services Satisfaction Rate2.15 Feeling Invited to Participate in City Decisions2.21 Satisfaction with Availability of City Information3. Quality of Life3.16 City Recreation, Arts, and Cultural Centers3.17 Community Services Programs3.19 Value of Special Events3.23 Right of Way Landscape Maintenance3.36 Quality of City Services4. Sustainable Growth & DevelopmentNo Performance Measures in this category presently relate directly to the Community Survey5. Financial Stability & VitalityNo Performance Measures in this category presently relate directly to the Community SurveyMethods:The survey is mailed to a random sample of households in the City of Tempe. Follow up emails and texts are also sent to encourage participation. A link to the survey is provided with each communication. To prevent people who do not live in Tempe or who were not selected as part of the random sample from completing the survey, everyone who completed the survey was required to provide their address. These addresses were then matched to those used for the random representative sample. If the respondent’s address did not match, the response was not used. To better understand how services are being delivered across the city, individual results were mapped to determine overall distribution across the city. Additionally, demographic data were used to monitor the distribution of responses to ensure the responding population of each survey is representative of city population. Processing and Limitations:The location data in this dataset is generalized to the block level to protect privacy. This means that only the first two digits of an address are used to map the location. When they data are shared with the city only the latitude/longitude of the block level address points are provided. This results in points that overlap. In order to better visualize the data, overlapping points were randomly dispersed to remove overlap. The result of these two adjustments ensure that they are not related to a specific address, but are still close enough to allow insights about service delivery in different areas of the city. The weighted data are used by the ETC Institute, in the final published PDF report.The 2023 Annual Community Survey report is available on data.tempe.gov or by visiting https://www.tempe.gov/government/strategic-management-and-innovation/signature-surveys-research-and-dataThe individual survey questions as well as the definition of the response scale (for example, 1 means “very dissatisfied” and 5 means “very satisfied”) are provided in the data dictionary.Additional InformationSource: Community Attitude SurveyContact (author): Adam SamuelsContact E-Mail (author): Adam_Samuels@tempe.govContact (maintainer): Contact E-Mail (maintainer): Data Source Type: Excel tablePreparation Method: Data received from vendor after report is completedPublish Frequency: AnnualPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

Abstract

The primary objective of the 2018 NDHS is to provide up-to-date estimates of basic demographic and health indicators. Specifically, the NDHS collected information on fertility, awareness and use of family planning methods, breastfeeding practices, nutritional status of women and children, maternal and child health, adult and childhood mortality, women’s empowerment, domestic violence, female genital cutting, prevalence of malaria, awareness and behaviour regarding HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), disability, and other health-related issues such as smoking.

The information collected through the 2018 NDHS is intended to assist policymakers and programme managers in evaluating and designing programmes and strategies for improving the health of the country’s population. The 2018 NDHS also provides indicators relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for Nigeria.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Children age 0-5
• Woman age 15-49
• Man age 15-49

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), all women aged 15-49 years resident in the household, and all children aged 0-5 years resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling frame used for the 2018 NDHS is the Population and Housing Census of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (NPHC), which was conducted in 2006 by the National Population Commission. Administratively, Nigeria is divided into states. Each state is subdivided into local government areas (LGAs), and each LGA is divided into wards. In addition to these administrative units, during the 2006 NPHC each locality was subdivided into convenient areas called census enumeration areas (EAs). The primary sampling unit (PSU), referred to as a cluster for the 2018 NDHS, is defined on the basis of EAs from the 2006 EA census frame. Although the 2006 NPHC did not provide the number of households and population for each EA, population estimates were published for 774 LGAs. A combination of information from cartographic material demarcating each EA and the LGA population estimates from the census was used to identify the list of EAs, estimate the number of households, and distinguish EAs as urban or rural for the survey sample frame. Before sample selection, all localities were classified separately into urban and rural areas based on predetermined minimum sizes of urban areas (cut-off points); consistent with the official definition in 2017, any locality with more than a minimum population size of 20,000 was classified as urban.

The sample for the 2018 NDHS was a stratified sample selected in two stages. Stratification was achieved by separating each of the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory into urban and rural areas. In total, 74 sampling strata were identified. Samples were selected independently in every stratum via a two-stage selection. Implicit stratifications were achieved at each of the lower administrative levels by sorting the sampling frame before sample selection according to administrative order and by using a probability proportional to size selection during the first sampling stage.

For further details on sample selection, see Appendix A of the final report.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

Four questionnaires were used for the 2018 NDHS: the Household Questionnaire, the Woman’s Questionnaire, the Man’s Questionnaire, and the Biomarker Questionnaire. The questionnaires, based on The DHS Program’s standard Demographic and Health Survey (DHS-7) questionnaires, were adapted to reflect the population and health issues relevant to Nigeria. Comments were solicited from various stakeholders representing government ministries and agencies, nongovernmental organisations, and international donors. In addition, information about the fieldworkers for the survey was collected through a self-administered Fieldworker Questionnaire.

Cleaning operations

The processing of the 2018 NDHS data began almost immediately after the fieldwork started. As data collection was completed in each cluster, all electronic data files were transferred via the IFSS to the NPC central office in Abuja. These data files were registered and checked for inconsistencies, incompleteness, and outliers. The field teams were alerted to any inconsistencies and errors. Secondary editing, carried out in the central office, involved resolving inconsistencies and coding the open-ended questions. The NPC data processor coordinated the exercise at the central office. The biomarker paper questionnaires were compared with electronic data files to check for any inconsistencies in data entry. Data entry and editing were carried out using the CSPro software package. The concurrent processing of the data offered a distinct advantage because it maximised the likelihood of the data being error-free and accurate. Timely generation of field check tables allowed for effective monitoring. The secondary editing of the data was completed in the second week of April 2019.

Response rate

A total of 41,668 households were selected for the sample, of which 40,666 were occupied. Of the occupied households, 40,427 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 99%. In the households interviewed, 42,121 women age 15-49 were identified for individual interviews; interviews were completed with 41,821 women, yielding a response rate of 99%. In the subsample of households selected for the male survey, 13,422 men age 15-59 were identified and 13,311 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 99%.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: nonsampling errors and sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) to minimise this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2018 NDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability among all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

Sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95% of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2018 NDHS sample is the result of a multistage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulas. Sampling errors are computed in SAS, using programs developed by ICF. These programs use the Taylor linearisation method to estimate variances for survey estimates that are means, proportions, or ratios. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

Note: A more detailed description of estimates of sampling errors are presented in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age distribution - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed men - Completeness of reporting - Births by calendar years - Reporting of age at death in days - Reporting of age at death in months - Standardisation exercise results from anthropometry training - Height and weight data completeness and quality for children - Height measurements from random subsample of measured children - Sibship size and sex ratio of siblings - Pregnancy-related mortality trends - Data collection period - Malaria prevalence according to rapid diagnostic test (RDT)

Note: See detailed data quality tables in APPENDIX C of the report.

Description and PurposeThese data include the individual responses for the City of Tempe Annual Community Survey conducted by ETC Institute. These data help determine priorities for the community as part of the City's on-going strategic planning process. Averaged Community Survey results are used as indicators for several city performance measures. The summary data for each performance measure is provided as an open dataset for that measure (separate from this dataset). The performance measures with indicators from the survey include the following (as of 2022):1. Safe and Secure Communities1.04 Fire Services Satisfaction1.06 Crime Reporting1.07 Police Services Satisfaction1.09 Victim of Crime1.10 Worry About Being a Victim1.11 Feeling Safe in City Facilities1.23 Feeling of Safety in Parks2. Strong Community Connections2.02 Customer Service Satisfaction2.04 City Website Satisfaction2.05 Online Services Satisfaction Rate2.15 Feeling Invited to Participate in City Decisions2.21 Satisfaction with Availability of City Information3. Quality of Life3.16 City Recreation, Arts, and Cultural Centers3.17 Community Services Programs3.19 Value of Special Events3.23 Right of Way Landscape Maintenance3.36 Quality of City Services4. Sustainable Growth & DevelopmentNo Performance Measures in this category presently relate directly to the Community Survey5. Financial Stability & VitalityNo Performance Measures in this category presently relate directly to the Community SurveyMethodsThe survey is mailed to a random sample of households in the City of Tempe. Follow up emails and texts are also sent to encourage participation. A link to the survey is provided with each communication. To prevent people who do not live in Tempe or who were not selected as part of the random sample from completing the survey, everyone who completed the survey was required to provide their address. These addresses were then matched to those used for the random representative sample. If the respondent’s address did not match, the response was not used. To better understand how services are being delivered across the city, individual results were mapped to determine overall distribution across the city. Additionally, demographic data were used to monitor the distribution of responses to ensure the responding population of each survey is representative of city population. Processing and LimitationsThe location data in this dataset is generalized to the block level to protect privacy. This means that only the first two digits of an address are used to map the location. When they data are shared with the city only the latitude/longitude of the block level address points are provided. This results in points that overlap. In order to better visualize the data, overlapping points were randomly dispersed to remove overlap. The result of these two adjustments ensure that they are not related to a specific address, but are still close enough to allow insights about service delivery in different areas of the city. This data is the weighted data provided by the ETC Institute, which is used in the final published PDF report.The 2022 Annual Community Survey report is available on data.tempe.gov. The individual survey questions as well as the definition of the response scale (for example, 1 means “very dissatisfied” and 5 means “very satisfied”) are provided in the data dictionary.Additional InformationSource: Community Attitude SurveyContact (author): Wydale HolmesContact E-Mail (author): wydale_holmes@tempe.govContact (maintainer): Wydale HolmesContact E-Mail (maintainer): wydale_holmes@tempe.govData Source Type: Excel tablePreparation Method: Data received from vendor after report is completedPublish Frequency: AnnualPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

Dataset SummaryAbout this data:This feature layer symbolizes the relative population counts for the City's 12 Data Divisions, aggregating the tract-level estimates from the the Census Bureau's American Community Survey 2021 five-year samples.If you click on each Data Division, you can view other Census demographic information about that Data Division in addition to the population count.About the Census Data:The data comes from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey's 2017-2021 five-year samples. The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing survey conducted by the federal government that provides vital information annually about America and its population. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how more than $675 billion in federal and state funds are distributed each year.For more information about the Census Bureau's ACS data and process of constructing the survey, visit the ACS's About page.About the City's Data Divisions:As a planning analytic tool, an interdepartmental working group divided Rochester into 12 “data divisions.” These divisions are well-defined and static so they are positioned to be used by the City of Rochester for statistical and planning purposes. Census data is tied to these divisions and serves as the basis for analyses over time. As such, the data divisions are designed to follow census boundaries, while also recognizing natural and human-made boundaries, such as the River, rail lines, and highways. Historical neighborhood boundaries, while informative in the division process, did not drive the boundaries. Data divisions are distinct from the numerous neighborhoods in Rochester. Neighborhood boundaries, like quadrant boundaries, police precincts, and legislative districts often change, which makes statistical analysis challenging when looking at data over time. The data division boundaries, however, are intended to remain unchanged. It is hoped that over time, all City data analysts will adopt the data divisions for the purpose of measuring change over time throughout the city.Dictionary: Division: The name of the data division. Total_Popu: The total population of the division. The population is calculated from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2021 five-year samples. Percentage: Represents the percentage of City of Rochester residents which live in the division. Area_in_Sq: The total area in square miles of a given division. Source:City of Rochester Office of Innovation

Abstract

In 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina, one of the six republics in former Yugoslavia, became an independent nation. A civil war started soon thereafter, lasting until 1995 and causing widespread destruction and losses of lives. Following the Dayton accord, BosniaHerzegovina (BiH) emerged as an independent state comprised of two entities, namely, the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (FBiH) and the Republika Srpska (RS), and the district of Brcko. In addition to the destruction caused to the physical infrastructure, there was considerable social disruption and decline in living standards for a large section of the population. Along side these events, a period of economic transition to a market economy was occurring. The distributive impacts of this transition, both positive and negative, are unknown. In short, while it is clear that welfare levels have changed, there is very little information on poverty and social indicators on which to base policies and programs.

In the post-war process of rebuilding the economic and social base of the country, the government has faced the problems created by having little relevant data at the household level. The three statistical organizations in the country (State Agency for Statistics for BiH –BHAS, the RS Institute of Statistics-RSIS, and the FBiH Institute of Statistics-FIS) have been active in working to improve the data available to policy makers: both at the macro and the household level. One facet of their activities is to design and implement a series of household series. The first of these surveys is the Living Standards Measurement Study survey (LSMS). Later surveys will include the Household Budget Survey (an Income and Expenditure Survey) and a Labor Force Survey. A subset of the LSMS households will be re-interviewed in the two years following the LSMS to create a panel data set.

The three statistical organizations began work on the design of the Living Standards Measurement Study Survey (LSMS) in 1999. The purpose of the survey was to collect data needed for assessing the living standards of the population and for providing the key indicators needed for social and economic policy formulation. The survey was to provide data at the country and the entity level and to allow valid comparisons between entities to be made.

The LSMS survey was carried out in the Fall of 2001 by the three statistical organizations with financial and technical support from the Department for International Development of the British Government (DfID), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Japanese Government, and the World Bank (WB). The creation of a Master Sample for the survey was supported by the Swedish Government through SIDA, the European Commission, the Department for International Development of the British Government and the World Bank.

The overall management of the project was carried out by the Steering Board, comprised of the Directors of the RS and FBiH Statistical Institutes, the Management Board of the State Agency for Statistics and representatives from DfID, UNDP and the WB. The day-to-day project activities were carried out by the Survey Mangement Team, made up of two professionals from each of the three statistical organizations.

The Living Standard Measurement Survey LSMS, in addition to collecting the information necessary to obtain a comprehensive as possible measure of the basic dimensions of household living standards, has three basic objectives, as follows:

1. To provide the public sector, government, the business community, scientific institutions, international donor organizations and social organizations with information on different indicators of the population’s living conditions, as well as on available resources for satisfying basic needs.

2. To provide information for the evaluation of the results of different forms of government policy and programs developed with the aim to improve the population’s living standard. The survey will enable the analysis of the relations between and among different aspects of living standards (housing, consumption, education, health, labor) at a given time, as well as within a household.

3. To provide key contributions for development of government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, based on analyzed data.

Geographic coverage

National coverage. Domains: Urban/rural/mixed; Federation; Republic

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A total sample of 5,400 households was determined to be adequate for the needs of the survey: with 2,400 in the Republika Srpska and 3,000 in the Federation of BiH. The difficulty was in selecting a probability sample that would be representative of the country's population. The sample design for any survey depends upon the availability of information on the universe of households and individuals in the country. Usually this comes from a census or administrative records. In the case of BiH the most recent census was done in 1991. The data from this census were rendered obsolete due to both the simple passage of time but, more importantly, due to the massive population displacements that occurred during the war.

At the initial stages of this project it was decided that a master sample should be constructed. Experts from Statistics Sweden developed the plan for the master sample and provided the procedures for its construction. From this master sample, the households for the LSMS were selected.

Master Sample [This section is based on Peter Lynn's note "LSMS Sample Design and Weighting - Summary". April, 2002. Essex University, commissioned by DfID.]

The master sample is based on a selection of municipalities and a full enumeration of the selected municipalities. Optimally, one would prefer smaller units (geographic or administrative) than municipalities. However, while it was considered that the population estimates of municipalities were reasonably accurate, this was not the case for smaller geographic or administrative areas. To avoid the error involved in sampling smaller areas with very uncertain population estimates, municipalities were used as the base unit for the master sample.

The Statistics Sweden team proposed two options based on this same method, with the only difference being in the number of municipalities included and enumerated. For reasons of funding, the smaller option proposed by the team was used, or Option B.

Stratification of Municipalities

The first step in creating the Master Sample was to group the 146 municipalities in the country into three strata- Urban, Rural and Mixed - within each of the two entities. Urban municipalities are those where 65 percent or more of the households are considered to be urban, and rural municipalities are those where the proportion of urban households is below 35 percent. The remaining municipalities were classified as Mixed (Urban and Rural) Municipalities. Brcko was excluded from the sampling frame.

Urban, Rural and Mixed Municipalities: It is worth noting that the urban-rural definitions used in BiH are unusual with such large administrative units as municipalities classified as if they were completely homogeneous. Their classification into urban, rural, mixed comes from the 1991 Census which used the predominant type of income of households in the municipality to define the municipality. This definition is imperfect in two ways. First, the distribution of income sources may have changed dramatically from the pre-war times: populations have shifted, large industries have closed and much agricultural land remains unusable due to the presence of land mines. Second, the definition is not comparable to other countries' where villages, towns and cities are classified by population size into rural or urban or by types of services and infrastructure available. Clearly, the types of communities within a municipality vary substantially in terms of both population and infrastructure.

However, these imperfections are not detrimental to the sample design (the urban/rural definition may not be very useful for analysis purposes, but that is a separate issue). [Note: It may be noted that the percent of LSMS households in each stratum reporting using agricultural land or having livestock is highest in the "rural" municipalities and lowest in the "urban" municipalities. However, the concentration of agricultural households is higher in RS, so the municipality types are not comparable across entities. The percent reporting no land or livestock in RS was 74.7% in "urban" municipalities, 43.4% in "mixed" municipalities and 31.2% in "rural" municipalities. Respective figures for FbiH were 88.7%, 60.4% and 40.0%.]

The classification is used simply for stratification. The stratification is likely to have some small impact on the variance of survey estimates, but it does not introduce any bias.

Selection of Municipalities

Option B of the Master Sample involved sampling municipalities independently from each of the six strata described in the previous section. Municipalities were selected with probability proportional to estimated population size (PPES) within each stratum, so as to select approximately 50% of the mostly urban municipalities, 20% of the mixed and 10% of the mostly rural ones. Overall, 25 municipalities were selected (out of 146) with 14 in the FbiH and 11 in the RS. The distribution of selected municipalities over the sampling strata is shown below.

Stratum / Total municipalities Mi / Sampled municipalities mi 1. Federation, mostly urban / 10 / 5 2. Federation, mostly mixed / 26 / 4 3. Federation, mostly rural / 48 / 5 4. RS, mostly urban /4 / 2 5. RS, mostly mixed /29 / 5 6. RS, mostly rural / 29 / 4

Note: Mi is the total number of municipalities in stratum i (i=1, … , 6); mi is the number of municipalities selected from stratum

This data set contains estimates of the base rates of 550 food safety-relevant food handling practices in European households. The data are representative for the population of private households in the ten European countries in which the SafeConsume Household Survey was conducted (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, UK).

Sampling design

In each of the ten EU and EEA countries where the survey was conducted (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, UK), the population under study was defined as the private households in the country. Sampling was based on a stratified random design, with the NUTS2 statistical regions of Europe and the education level of the target respondent as stratum variables. The target sample size was 1000 households per country, with selection probability within each country proportional to stratum size.

Fieldwork

The fieldwork was conducted between December 2018 and April 2019 in ten EU and EEA countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom). The target respondent in each household was the person with main or shared responsibility for food shopping in the household. The fieldwork was sub-contracted to a professional research provider (Dynata, formerly Research Now SSI). Complete responses were obtained from altogether 9996 households.

Weights

In addition to the SafeConsume Household Survey data, population data from Eurostat (2019) were used to calculate weights. These were calculated with NUTS2 region as the stratification variable and assigned an influence to each observation in each stratum that was proportional to how many households in the population stratum a household in the sample stratum represented. The weights were used in the estimation of all base rates included in the data set.

Transformations

All survey variables were normalised to the [0,1] range before the analysis. Responses to food frequency questions were transformed into the proportion of all meals consumed during a year where the meal contained the respective food item. Responses to questions with 11-point Juster probability scales as the response format were transformed into numerical probabilities. Responses to questions with time (hours, days, weeks) or temperature (C) as response formats were discretised using supervised binning. The thresholds best separating between the bins were chosen on the basis of five-fold cross-validated decision trees. The binned versions of these variables, and all other input variables with multiple categorical response options (either with a check-all-that-apply or forced-choice response format) were transformed into sets of binary features, with a value 1 assigned if the respective response option had been checked, 0 otherwise.

Treatment of missing values

In many cases, a missing value on a feature logically implies that the respective data point should have a value of zero. If, for example, a participant in the SafeConsume Household Survey had indicated that a particular food was not consumed in their household, the participant was not presented with any other questions related to that food, which automatically results in missing values on all features representing the responses to the skipped questions. However, zero consumption would also imply a zero probability that the respective food is consumed undercooked. In such cases, missing values were replaced with a value of 0.