All cities with a population > 1000 or seats of adm div (ca 80.000)Sources and ContributionsSources : GeoNames is aggregating over hundred different data sources. Ambassadors : GeoNames Ambassadors help in many countries. Wiki : A wiki allows to view the data and quickly fix error and add missing places. Donations and Sponsoring : Costs for running GeoNames are covered by donations and sponsoring.Enrichment:add country name

Experimental public transit transport performance statistics by 200 metre grids for a subset of urban centres in France, with the following fields (Note: These data are experimental, please see the Methods and Known Limitations/Caveats Sections for more details).AttributeDescriptionidUnique IdentifierpopulationGlobal Human Settlement Layer population estimate downsampled to 200 metre (represents the total population across adjacent 100 metre cells)access_popThe total population that can reach the destination cell within 45 minutes using the public transit network (origins within 11.25 kilometres of the destination cell)proxim_popThe total population within an 11.25 kilometre radius of the destination celltrans_perfThe transport performance of the 200 metre cell. The percentage ratio of accessible to proximal populationcity_nmName of the urban centrecountry_nmName of the country that the urban centre belongs toMethods:

For more information please visit:

· Python Package: https://github.com/datasciencecampus/transport-network-performance

· Docker Image: https://github.com/datasciencecampus/transport-performance-docker

Known Limitations/Caveats:

These data are experimental – see the ONS guidance on experimental statistics for more details. They are being published at this early stage to involve potential users and stakeholders in assessing their quality and suitability. The known caveats and limitations of these experimental statistics are summarised below.

Urban Centre and Population Estimates:

· Population estimates are derived from data using a hybrid method of satellite imagery and national censuses. The alignment of national census boundaries to gridded estimates introduce measurement errors, particularly in newer housing and built-up developments. See section 2.5 of the GHSL technical report release 2023A for more details.

Public Transit Schedule Data (GTFS):

· Does not include effects due to delays (such as congestion and diversions).

· Common GTFS issues are resolved during preprocessing where possible, including removing trips with unrealistic fast travel between stops, cleaning IDs, cleaning arrival/departure times, route name deduplication, dropping stops with no stop times, removing undefined parent stations, and dropping trips, shapes, and routes with no stops. Certain GTFS cleaning steps were not possible in all instances, and in those cases the impacted steps were skipped. Additional work is required to further support GTFS validation and cleaning.

Transport Network Routing:

· “Trapped” centroids: the centroid of destination cells on very rare occasions falls on a private road/pathway. Routing to these cells cannot be performed. This greatly decreases the transport performance in comparison with the neighbouring cells. Potential solutions include interpolation based on neighbouring cells or snapping to the nearest public OSM node (and adjusting the travel time accordingly). Further development to adapt the method for this consideration is necessary.

Please also visit the Python package and Docker Image GitHub issues pages for more details.

How to Contribute:

We hope that the public, other public sector organisations, and National Statistics Institutions can collaborate and build on these data, to help improve the international comparability of statistics and enable higher frequency and more timely comparisons. We welcome feedback and contribution either through GitHub or by contacting datacampus@ons.gov.uk.

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.

A global database of population segmentation data that provides an understanding of population distribution at administrative and zip code levels over 55 years, past, present, and future.

Leverage up-to-date audience targeting data trends for market research, audience targeting, and sales territory mapping.

Self-hosted consumer data curated based on trusted sources such as the United Nations or the European Commission, with a 99% match accuracy. The Consumer Data is standardized, unified, and ready to use.

Use cases for the Global Population Database (Consumer Data Data/Segmentation data)

• Ad targeting

• B2B Market Intelligence

• Customer analytics

• Marketing campaign analysis

• Demand forecasting

• Sales territory mapping

• Retail site selection

• Reporting

• Audience targeting

Segmentation data export methodology

Our location data packages are offered in CSV format. All geospatial data are optimized for seamless integration with popular systems like Esri ArcGIS, Snowflake, QGIS, and more.

Product Features

• Historical population data (55 years)

• Changes in population density

• Urbanization Patterns

• Accurate at zip code and administrative level

• Optimized for easy integration

• Easy customization

• Global coverage

• Updated yearly

• Standardized and reliable

• Self-hosted delivery

• Fully aggregated (ready to use)

• Rich attributes

Why do companies choose our Population Databases

• Standardized and unified demographic data structure

• Seamless integration in your system

• Dedicated location data expert

Note: Custom population data packages are available. Please submit a request via the above contact button for more details.

In the United Kingdom, Dartford Warblers (Sylvia undata) are mainly confined to the remaining fragments of lowland heath and, as a consequence of the interest in the flora and fauna of this much-threatened habitat, their populations and ecology have been well studied. Historically, the Dartford Warbler had a much wider distribution, and was presumably more abundant, than in recent years. Since the nineteenth century, the population went into steep decline, at least in part due to habitat loss and fragmentation. The most recent survey in 2006, however, recorded a major expansion in range and population size. The UK population has been well monitored, with full surveys in 1974, 1984, 1994 and 2006. The first two surveys were funded by RSPB; the 1994 survey was funded by RSPB and English Nature (now Natural England); the 2006 survey was funded by RSPB, BTO, Natural England and the Forestry Commission (England) under the Statutory Conservation Agencies and RSPB Breeding Bird Scheme (SCARABBS).
Though the population in the UK is small compared with that of southern and western France and Spain, the species is considered to be of conservation concern in Europe because of losses in some of the most valuable habitats in Spain, including the Mediterranean maquis. 1974 Survey: This dataset includes every recorded territory. However, in the New Forest, although 203 pairs were actually found, two large areas thought to support about 40 pairs were not recorded at all and another area was only partially covered. Therefore, the total population count includes an element of estimation. The total population was estimated to be 557 pairs, which was close to the 460 pairs estimated at the last peak in 1960-61. However, the centre of the distribution had moved further west. The species is very susceptible to cold winters, but the population was high in 1974 after a long run of mild winter weather. The preferred habitat was mature heather with a generous mixture of gorse of medium height. Small fragments of heath were found to be less densely occupied than larger ones. For more information see Bibby & Tubbs (1975), British Birds 68: p177-195.
1984 Survey: The number of territories recorded in 1984 was 423. The totals recorded in this dataset represent the minimum number of breeding males, taken as equivalent to pairs, which were counted on two or more visits between April and June. Increases in territory numbers were especially noted in Surrey, which had a strong population after recovery from extinction in 1961, and Cornwall was occupied after a 40-year absence. In the centre of the range, about 10-15% of the population decline is attributed to the fact that colder winters preceded the 1984 survey compared with the mild winters preceding the 1974 survey. A loss of 75 territories was due to growth of forestry plantations, temporarily suitable in 1974 but by 1984 too old (and permanently unsuitable), and unfortunately not replaced by other new plantings. The amount of suitable habitat remained about the same in the New Forest, but declined by about 10% in Dorset. Further losses in Dorset were due to degradation of sites, and the effects of fragmentation and isolation. For more information, see Robbins & Bibby (1985), British Birds 78: 269-280.
1994 Survey: A total of 1,600-1,670 territories was recorded, though it is likely that the actual population was slightly higher (1,800-1,890 territories), representing a near four-fold increase in population since the 1984 survey. Observers were asked to visit each site (or 1km grid square in the New Forest) at least twice, once during April to mid-May and once during mid-May to the end of June. This dataset includes every territory recorded by the observers. The observers recorded the number of singing males and information such as whether the bird was calling or carrying nest material etc. They used this to information to provide their best estimate

Please Note A bug was found in the code. As a consequence, we have withdrawn the download while the issues are being examined. A new version will be published in due course. Marine Scotland will retain a copy of the code released under this DOI, but does not recommend using it. The Interim Population Consequences of Disturbance (iPCoD) framework was developed by SMRU Consulting and the University of St Andrews in 2013 to forecast the potential effects on marine mammal populations in UK waters of any disturbance, hearing damage or collisions that might result from the construction or operation of offshore renewable energy devices. A detailed description of the approach can be found in Harwood et al. (2013) and King et al. (2015). The iPCoD framework was designed to cope with the current situation, in which there is only limited knowledge about the potential effects of these developments on marine mammals. It should be recognised that it is very much an interim solution to the evaluation of these effects, and that there remains an urgent need for additional scientific research to address the knowledge gaps that were identified by Harwood et al. (2014). Since its initial release (v1.0) in February 2014 on the Marine Scotland website: http://data.marine.gov.scot/dataset/protocol-implementing-interim-popula..., the tool was updated with amendments to the code and helpfiles in October 2014 (v1.1). Since then, the iPCoD tool has been used for a number of offshore wind developments in Germany, Netherlands, France and the UK (and possibly others) and has been used to explore the potential population level effects of collisions of a range of species with marine renewable energy devices in Scotland and Wales. Also during this time, SMRU Consulting and John Harwood have explored developing the tool further to improve the model framework. Since the release of v1.1 there have been several internal iterations of the code (leading to a version 2). This release marks a significant material increase in the efficiency and capability of the interim PCoD framework (version 3). References: Harwood, J., S. King, R. Schick, C. Donovan & C. Booth 2013. A Protocol for Implementing the Interim Population Consequences of Disturbance (PCoD) Approach: Quantifying and Assessing the Effects of UK Offshore Renewable Energy Developments on Marine Mammal Populations. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science 5(2). <http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0044/00443360.pdf > Harwood, J. and King, S.L. (2017). The Sensitivity of UK Marine Mammal Populations to Marine Renewables Developments - Revised Version. Report number SMRUC-MSS-2017-005. (See downloadable resource below). King, S. L., Schick, R. S., Donovan, C., Booth, C. G., Burgman, M., Thomas, L., et al. (2015). An interim framework for assessing the population consequences of disturbance. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6(10), 1150e1158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12411

Demographics Analysis with Consumer Edge Credit & Debit Card Transaction Data

Consumer Edge is a leader in alternative consumer data for public and private investors and corporate clients. CE Transact Signal is an aggregated transaction feed that includes consumer transaction data on 100M+ credit and debit cards, including 14M+ active monthly users. Capturing online, offline, and 3rd-party consumer spending on public and private companies, data covers 12K+ merchants and deep demographic and geographic breakouts. Track detailed consumer behavior patterns, including retention, purchase frequency, and cross shop in addition to total spend, transactions, and dollars per transaction.

Consumer Edge’s consumer transaction datasets offer insights into industries across consumer and discretionary spend such as: • Apparel, Accessories, & Footwear • Automotive • Beauty • Commercial – Hardlines • Convenience / Drug / Diet • Department Stores • Discount / Club • Education • Electronics / Software • Financial Services • Full-Service Restaurants • Grocery • Ground Transportation • Health Products & Services • Home & Garden • Insurance • Leisure & Recreation • Limited-Service Restaurants • Luxury • Miscellaneous Services • Online Retail – Broadlines • Other Specialty Retail • Pet Products & Services • Sporting Goods, Hobby, Toy & Game • Telecom & Media • Travel

This data sample illustrates how Consumer Edge data can be used to compare demographics breakdown (age and income excluded in this free sample view) for one company vs. a competitor for a set period of time (Ex: How do demographics like wealth, ethnicity, children in the household, homeowner status, and political affiliation differ for Walmart vs. Target shopper?).

Inquire about a CE subscription to perform more complex, near real-time demographics analysis functions on public tickers and private brands like: • Analyze a demographic, like age or income, within a state for a company in 2023 • Compare all of a company’s demographics to all of that company’s competitors through most recent history

Consumer Edge offers a variety of datasets covering the US and Europe (UK, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Spain), with subscription options serving a wide range of business needs.

Use Case: Demographics Analysis

Problem A global retailer wants to understand company performance by age group.

Solution Consumer Edge transaction data can be used to analyze shopper transactions by age group to understand: • Overall sales growth by age group over time • Percentage sales growth by age group over time • Sales by age group vs. competitors

Impact Marketing and Consumer Insights were able to: • Develop weekly reporting KPI's on key demographic drivers of growth for company-wide reporting • Reduce investment in underperforming age groups, both online and offline • Determine retention by age group to refine campaign strategy • Understand how different age groups are performing compared to key competitors

Corporate researchers and consumer insights teams use CE Vision for:

Corporate Strategy Use Cases • Ecommerce vs. brick & mortar trends • Real estate opportunities • Economic spending shifts

Marketing & Consumer Insights • Total addressable market view • Competitive threats & opportunities • Cross-shopping trends for new partnerships • Demo and geo growth drivers • Customer loyalty & retention

Investor Relations • Shareholder perspective on brand vs. competition • Real-time market intelligence • M&A opportunities

Most popular use cases for private equity and venture capital firms include: • Deal Sourcing • Live Diligences • Portfolio Monitoring

Public and private investors can leverage insights from CE’s synthetic data to assess investment opportunities, while consumer insights, marketing, and retailers can gain visibility into transaction data’s potential for competitive analysis, understanding shopper behavior, and capturing market intelligence.

Most popular use cases among public and private investors include: • Track Key KPIs to Company-Reported Figures • Understanding TAM for Focus Industries • Competitive Analysis • Evaluating Public, Private, and Soon-to-be-Public Companies • Ability to Explore Geographic & Regional Differences • Cross-Shop & Loyalty • Drill Down to SKU Level & Full Purchase Details • Customer lifetime value • Earnings predictions • Uncovering macroeconomic trends • Analyzing market share • Performance benchmarking • Understanding share of wallet • Seeing subscription trends

Fields Include: • Day • Merchant • Subindustry • Industry • Spend • Transactions • Spend per Transaction (derivable) • Cardholder State • Cardholder CBSA • Cardholder CSA • Age • Income • Wealth • Ethnicity • Political Affiliation • Children in Household • Adults in Household • Homeowner vs. Renter • Business Owner • Retention by First-Shopped Period ...

The empirical dataset is derived from a survey carried out on 25 estates in 14 cities in nine different European countries: France (Lyon), Germany (Berlin), Hungary (Budapest and Nyiregyha´za), Italy (Milan), the Netherlands (Amsterdam and Utrecht), Poland (Warsaw), Slovenia (Ljubljana and Koper), Spain (Barcelona and Madrid), and Sweden (Jo¨nko¨ping and Stockholm). The survey was part of the EU RESTATE project (Musterd & Van Kempen, 2005). A similar survey was constructed for all 25 estates.

The survey was carried out between February and June 2004. In each case, a random sample was drawn, usually from the whole estate. For some estates, address lists were used as the basis for the sample; in other cases, the researchers first had to take a complete inventory of addresses themselves (for some deviations from this general trend and for an overview of response rates, see Musterd & Van Kempen, 2005). In most cities, survey teams were hired to carry out the survey. They worked under the supervision of the RESTATE partners. Briefings were organised to instruct the survey teams. In some cases (for example, in Amsterdam and Utrecht), interviewers were recruited from specific ethnic groups in order to increase the response rate among, for example, the Turkish and Moroccan residents on the estates. In other cases, family members translated questions during a face-to-face interview. The interviewers with an immigrant background were hired in those estates where this made sense. In some estates it was not necessary to do this because the number of immigrants was (close to) zero (as in most cases in CE Europe).

The questionnaire could be completed by the respondents themselves, but also by the interviewers in a face-to-face interview.

Data and Representativeness

The data file contains 4756 respondents. Nearly all respondents indicated their satisfaction with the dwelling and the estate. Originally, the data file also contained cases from the UK.

However, UK respondents were excluded from the analyses because of doubts about the reliability of the answers to the ethnic minority questions. This left 25 estates in nine countries. In general, older people and original populations are somewhat over-represented, while younger people and immigrant populations are relatively under-represented, despite the fact that in estates with a large minority population surveyors were also employed from minority ethnic groups. For younger people, this discrepancy probably derives from the extent of their activities outside the home, making them more difficult to reach. The under-representation of the immigrant population is presumably related to language and cultural differences. For more detailed information on the representation of population in each case, reference is made to the reports of the researchers in the different countries which can be downloaded from the programme website. All country reports indicate that despite these over- and under-representations, the survey results are valuable for the analyses of their own individual situation.

This dataset is the result of a team effort lead by Professor Ronald van Kempen, Utrecht University with funding from the EU Fifth Framework.

Depicted on this map is the extent of New France at its territorial height circa 1740 prior to its great territorial losses to British North America. Also shown on the map are the territorial claims, administrative divisions, and the distribution of population and settlement (including fur trading posts) circa 1740. This map along with British North America circa 1823 shows the settlement and population in Canada for two important periods in Canadian history prior to Confederation.

In 2019, there were approximately 302,020 British citizens living in Spain, with a further 293,061 in Ireland and 176,672 in France. By comparison, there were only 604 British people living in Slovenia, the fewest of any European Union member state. As a member of the European Union, British citizens had the right to live and work in any EU member state. Although these rights were lost for most British citizens after the UK left the EU in 2020, Britons already living in EU states were able to largely retain their previous rights of residence. EU citizens living in the UK EU citizens living in the UK face the same dilemma that British nationals did regarding their legal status after Brexit. In the same year, there were 902,000 Polish citizens, 404,000 Romanians, and 322,000 people from the Republic of Ireland living in the UK in that year, along with almost 2 million EU citizens from the other 24 EU member states. To retain their rights after Brexit, EU citizens living in the UK were able to apply for the EU settlement scheme. As of March 2024, there have been around 7.9 million applications to this scheme, with Romanian and Polish nationals the most common nationality at 1.71 million applications, and 1.23 million applications respectively. Is support for Brexit waning in 2024? As of May 2024, the share of people in the UK who think leaving the EU was the wrong decision stood at 55 percent, compared with 31 percent who think it was the correct choice. In general, support for Brexit has gradually eroded since April 2021, when 46 percent of people supported Brexit, compared with 43 percent who regretted it. What people think Britain's relationship with the EU should be is, however, still unclear. A survey from November 2023 indicated that just 31 percent thought the UK should rejoin the EU, with a further 11 percent supporting rejoining the single market, but not the EU. Only ten percent of respondents were satisfied with the current relationship, while nine percent wished to reduce ties even further.

Abstract

EU-SILC has become the EU reference source for comparative statistics on income distribution and social exclusion at European level, particularly in the context of the "Program of Community action to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion" and for producing structural indicators on social cohesion for the annual spring report to the European Council. The first priority is to be given to the delivery of comparable, timely and high quality cross-sectional data.

There are two types of datasets: 1) Cross-sectional data pertaining to fixed time periods, with variables on income, poverty, social exclusion and living conditions. 2) Longitudinal data pertaining to individual-level changes over time, observed periodically - usually over four years.

Social exclusion and housing-condition information is collected at household level. Income at a detailed component level is collected at personal level, with some components included in the "Household" section. Labour, education and health observations only apply to persons 16 and older. EU-SILC was established to provide data on structural indicators of social cohesion (at-risk-of-poverty rate, S80/S20 and gender pay gap) and to provide relevant data for the two 'open methods of coordination' in the field of social inclusion and pensions in Europe.

The 7th version of the 2008 Cross-Sectional User Database (UDB) as released in July 2015 is documented here.

Geographic coverage

The survey covers following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Iceland, Norway.

Small parts of the national territory amounting to no more than 2% of the national population and the national territories listed below may be excluded from EU-SILC: France - French Overseas Departments and territories; Netherlands - The West Frisian Islands with the exception of Texel; Ireland - All offshore islands with the exception of Achill, Bull, Cruit, Gorumna, Inishnee, Lettermore, Lettermullan and Valentia; United kingdom - Scotland north of the Caledonian Canal, the Scilly Islands.

Analysis unit

• Households;
• Individuals 16 years and older.

Universe

The survey covered all household members over 16 years old. Persons living in collective households and in institutions are generally excluded from the target population.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

On the basis of various statistical and practical considerations and the precision requirements for the most critical variables, the minimum effective sample sizes to be achieved were defined. Sample size for the longitudinal component refers, for any pair of consecutive years, to the number of households successfully interviewed in the first year in which all or at least a majority of the household members aged 16 or over are successfully interviewed in both the years.

For the cross-sectional component, the plans are to achieve the minimum effective sample size of around 131.000 households in the EU as a whole (137.000 including Iceland and Norway). The allocation of the EU sample among countries represents a compromise between two objectives: the production of results at the level of individual countries, and production for the EU as a whole. Requirements for the longitudinal data will be less important. For this component, an effective sample size of around 98.000 households (103.000 including Iceland and Norway) is planned.

Member States using registers for income and other data may use a sample of persons (selected respondents) rather than a sample of complete households in the interview survey. The minimum effective sample size in terms of the number of persons aged 16 or over to be interviewed in detail is in this case taken as 75 % of the figures shown in columns 3 and 4 of the table I, for the cross-sectional and longitudinal components respectively.

The reference is to the effective sample size, which is the size required if the survey were based on simple random sampling (design effect in relation to the 'risk of poverty rate' variable = 1.0). The actual sample sizes will have to be larger to the extent that the design effects exceed 1.0 and to compensate for all kinds of non-response. Furthermore, the sample size refers to the number of valid households which are households for which, and for all members of which, all or nearly all the required information has been obtained. For countries with a sample of persons design, information on income and other data shall be collected for the household of each selected respondent and for all its members.

At the beginning, a cross-sectional representative sample of households is selected. It is divided into say 4 sub-samples, each by itself representative of the whole population and similar in structure to the whole sample. One sub-sample is purely cross-sectional and is not followed up after the first round. Respondents in the second sub-sample are requested to participate in the panel for 2 years, in the third sub-sample for 3 years, and in the fourth for 4 years. From year 2 onwards, one new panel is introduced each year, with request for participation for 4 years. In any one year, the sample consists of 4 sub-samples, which together constitute the cross-sectional sample. In year 1 they are all new samples; in all subsequent years, only one is new sample. In year 2, three are panels in the second year; in year 3, one is a panel in the second year and two in the third year; in subsequent years, one is a panel for the second year, one for the third year, and one for the fourth (final) year.

According to the Commission Regulation on sampling and tracing rules, the selection of the sample will be drawn according to the following requirements:

1. For all components of EU-SILC (whether survey or register based), the cross-sectional and longitudinal (initial sample) data shall be based on a nationally representative probability sample of the population residing in private households within the country, irrespective of language, nationality or legal residence status. All private households and all persons aged 16 and over within the household are eligible for the operation.
2. Representative probability samples shall be achieved both for households, which form the basic units of sampling, data collection and data analysis, and for individual persons in the target population.
3. The sampling frame and methods of sample selection shall ensure that every individual and household in the target population is assigned a known and non-zero probability of selection.
4. By way of exception, paragraphs 1 to 3 shall apply in Germany exclusively to the part of the sample based on probability sampling according to Article 8 of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1177/2003 concerning

Community Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. Article 8 of the EU-SILC Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council mentions: 1. The cross-sectional and longitudinal data shall be based on nationally representative probability samples. 2. By way of exception to paragraph 1, Germany shall supply cross-sectional data based on a nationally representative probability sample for the first time for the year 2008. For the year 2005, Germany shall supply data for one fourth based on probability sampling and for three fourths based on quota samples, the latter to be progressively replaced by random selection so as to achieve fully representative probability sampling by 2008. For the longitudinal component, Germany shall supply for the year 2006 one third of longitudinal data (data for year 2005 and 2006) based on probability sampling and two thirds based on quota samples. For the year 2007, half of the longitudinal data relating to years 2005, 2006 and 2007 shall be based on probability sampling and half on quota sample. After 2007 all of the longitudinal data shall be based on probability sampling.

Detailed information about sampling is available in Quality Reports in Related Materials.

Mode of data collection

Mixed

Abstract

In 2010, the EU-SILC instrument covered 32 countries, that is, all EU Member States plus Iceland, Turkey, Norway, Switzerland and Croatia. EU-SILC has become the EU reference source for comparative statistics on income distribution and social exclusion at European level, particularly in the context of the "Program of Community action to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion" and for producing structural indicators on social cohesion for the annual spring report to the European Council. The first priority is to be given to the delivery of comparable, timely and high quality cross-sectional data.

There are two types of datasets: 1) Cross-sectional data pertaining to fixed time periods, with variables on income, poverty, social exclusion and living conditions. 2) Longitudinal data pertaining to individual-level changes over time, observed periodically - usually over four years.

Social exclusion and housing-condition information is collected at household level. Income at a detailed component level is collected at personal level, with some components included in the "Household" section. Labor, education and health observations only apply to persons aged 16 and over. EU-SILC was established to provide data on structural indicators of social cohesion (at-risk-of-poverty rate, S80/S20 and gender pay gap) and to provide relevant data for the two 'open methods of coordination' in the field of social inclusion and pensions in Europe.

The 6th version of the 2010 Cross-Sectional User Database as released in July 2015 is documented here.

Geographic coverage

The survey covers following countries: Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Spain; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Hungary; Malta; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovenia; Slovakia; Sweden; United Kingdom; Iceland; Norway; Turkey; Switzerland

Small parts of the national territory amounting to no more than 2% of the national population and the national territories listed below may be excluded from EU-SILC: France - French Overseas Departments and territories; Netherlands - The West Frisian Islands with the exception of Texel; Ireland - All offshore islands with the exception of Achill, Bull, Cruit, Gorumna, Inishnee, Lettermore, Lettermullan and Valentia; United kingdom - Scotland north of the Caledonian Canal, the Scilly Islands.

Analysis unit

• Households;
• Individuals 16 years and older.

Universe

The survey covered all household members over 16 years old. Persons living in collective households and in institutions are generally excluded from the target population.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

On the basis of various statistical and practical considerations and the precision requirements for the most critical variables, the minimum effective sample sizes to be achieved were defined. Sample size for the longitudinal component refers, for any pair of consecutive years, to the number of households successfully interviewed in the first year in which all or at least a majority of the household members aged 16 or over are successfully interviewed in both the years.

For the cross-sectional component, the plans are to achieve the minimum effective sample size of around 131.000 households in the EU as a whole (137.000 including Iceland and Norway). The allocation of the EU sample among countries represents a compromise between two objectives: the production of results at the level of individual countries, and production for the EU as a whole. Requirements for the longitudinal data will be less important. For this component, an effective sample size of around 98.000 households (103.000 including Iceland and Norway) is planned.

Member States using registers for income and other data may use a sample of persons (selected respondents) rather than a sample of complete households in the interview survey. The minimum effective sample size in terms of the number of persons aged 16 or over to be interviewed in detail is in this case taken as 75 % of the figures shown in columns 3 and 4 of the table I, for the cross-sectional and longitudinal components respectively.

The reference is to the effective sample size, which is the size required if the survey were based on simple random sampling (design effect in relation to the 'risk of poverty rate' variable = 1.0). The actual sample sizes will have to be larger to the extent that the design effects exceed 1.0 and to compensate for all kinds of non-response. Furthermore, the sample size refers to the number of valid households which are households for which, and for all members of which, all or nearly all the required information has been obtained. For countries with a sample of persons design, information on income and other data shall be collected for the household of each selected respondent and for all its members.

At the beginning, a cross-sectional representative sample of households is selected. It is divided into say 4 sub-samples, each by itself representative of the whole population and similar in structure to the whole sample. One sub-sample is purely cross-sectional and is not followed up after the first round. Respondents in the second sub-sample are requested to participate in the panel for 2 years, in the third sub-sample for 3 years, and in the fourth for 4 years. From year 2 onwards, one new panel is introduced each year, with request for participation for 4 years. In any one year, the sample consists of 4 sub-samples, which together constitute the cross-sectional sample. In year 1 they are all new samples; in all subsequent years, only one is new sample. In year 2, three are panels in the second year; in year 3, one is a panel in the second year and two in the third year; in subsequent years, one is a panel for the second year, one for the third year, and one for the fourth (final) year.

According to the Commission Regulation on sampling and tracing rules, the selection of the sample will be drawn according to the following requirements:

1. For all components of EU-SILC (whether survey or register based), the crosssectional and longitudinal (initial sample) data shall be based on a nationally representative probability sample of the population residing in private households within the country, irrespective of language, nationality or legal residence status. All private households and all persons aged 16 and over within the household are eligible for the operation.
2. Representative probability samples shall be achieved both for households, which form the basic units of sampling, data collection and data analysis, and for individual persons in the target population.
3. The sampling frame and methods of sample selection shall ensure that every individual and household in the target population is assigned a known and non-zero probability of selection.
4. By way of exception, paragraphs 1 to 3 shall apply in Germany exclusively to the part of the sample based on probability sampling according to Article 8 of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1177/2003 concerning

Community Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. Article 8 of the EU-SILC Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council mentions: 1. The cross-sectional and longitudinal data shall be based on nationally representative probability samples. 2. By way of exception to paragraph 1, Germany shall supply cross-sectional data based on a nationally representative probability sample for the first time for the year 2008. For the year 2005, Germany shall supply data for one fourth based on probability sampling and for three fourths based on quota samples, the latter to be progressively replaced by random selection so as to achieve fully representative probability sampling by 2008. For the longitudinal component, Germany shall supply for the year 2006 one third of longitudinal data (data for year 2005 and 2006) based on probability sampling and two thirds based on quota samples. For the year 2007, half of the longitudinal data relating to years 2005, 2006 and 2007 shall be based on probability sampling and half on quota sample. After 2007 all of the longitudinal data shall be based on probability sampling.

Detailed information about sampling is available in Quality Reports in Related Materials.

Mode of data collection

Mixed

This study explores the causal relationship between the economy and the elderly population in 15 European countries. The economy was measured by the Per Capita Gross Domestic Product growth rate, while the population aged above 65 as a percentage of the total was considered the elderly population. The data were obtained from a time series dataset published by the World Bank for six decades from 1961 to 2021. The Granger causality test was employed in the study to analyse the impact between the economy and the elderly population. An alternate approach, wavelet coherence, was used to demonstrate the changes to the relationship between the two variables in Europe over the 60 years. The findings from the Granger causality test indicate a unidirectional Granger causality from the economy to the elderly population for Luxembourg, Austria, Denmark, Spain, and Sweden, while vice versa for Greece and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, for Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Turkey, Granger causality does not exist between the said variables. Moreover, wavelet coherence analysis depicts that for Europe, the elderly population negatively affected the economic growth in the 1960s, and vice versa in the 1980s.

This dataset provides values for GDP PER CAPITA PPP reported in several countries. The data includes current values, previous releases, historical highs and record lows, release frequency, reported unit and currency.

Depicted on this map is British North America less than one hundred years after the fall of New France. It also shows the emergence of British influence prior to Confederation. British North America circa 1823 was comprised of Lower Canada, Upper Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland (including the Labrador Coast). The Northwest Territories were considered British possessions, while the Hudson’s Bay Company controlled Rupert’s Land. The United States and Britain jointly administered the Oregon Territory. This map along with New France circa 1740 shows the settlement and population in Canada for two important periods in Canadian history prior to Confederation.

Measures of predictive performance of the model at ~80% sensitivity.

This study explores the causal relationship between the economy and the elderly population in 15 European countries. The economy was measured by the Per Capita Gross Domestic Product growth rate, while the population aged above 65 as a percentage of the total was considered the elderly population. The data were obtained from a time series dataset published by the World Bank for six decades from 1961 to 2021. The Granger causality test was employed in the study to analyse the impact between the economy and the elderly population. An alternate approach, wavelet coherence, was used to demonstrate the changes to the relationship between the two variables in Europe over the 60 years. The findings from the Granger causality test indicate a unidirectional Granger causality from the economy to the elderly population for Luxembourg, Austria, Denmark, Spain, and Sweden, while vice versa for Greece and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, for Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Turkey, Granger causality does not exist between the said variables. Moreover, wavelet coherence analysis depicts that for Europe, the elderly population negatively affected the economic growth in the 1960s, and vice versa in the 1980s.

Year refers to the first year in official trials. Empty cells: year unknown. ID refers to ID in PCA-plot (Figure 4). NG refers to no genotype data.*Breeders varieties and lines have not been assigned accession number. Seeds are available from breeders on request. Some varieties were obtained from IPK gene bank (Gene bank Information System of the IPK Gatersleben) and accession-ID is given in brackets.ASpring variety.