The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households. The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures. The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included 1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967. If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986. Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets. Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview. The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income. In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience. With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts: 1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys. Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience etc. were addressed to new respondents. In the case of respondents who had already participated in the panel, a combined contact and main interview was conducted by telephone, after which a self-enumerated questionnaire was sent out to each respondent by mail. The panel sample also included young people in panel households who were born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members who had not previously been interviewed. These individuals, like new respondents, were not interviewed by telephone until they had been interviewed personally. Thus technically they were treated in the same manner as individuals in the supplementary sample. The new supplementary sample was first contacted by telephone and then given a fairly lengthy personal interview, at the conclusion of which each respondent was asked to fill out a written questionnaire. In this respect the survey design for the nonresponse sample was the same as for the supplementary sample. The nonresponse sample also included young people born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members. The time-use interviews were conducted by telephone. For each respondent two days were chosen at random from the period from February 15, 1993 to February 14, 1994 and the respondents were interviewed about their time use during those two days. If possible, the time-use interviews were preceded by the other parts of the survey, but this was not always feasible. In each household the household head and spouse/partner were interviewed, as well as an additional person in certain households. Questions regarding the household as a whole were asked of only one person in the household, preferably the household head. As in earlier surveys, data from the interviews was subsequently supplemented by registry data, but only for those respondents who had given their express consent. There is registry information for 75-80 percent of the sample. The telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; and cars and boats. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1992. The 1996 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and environment. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1995. The 1998 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and municipal service. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: sale of previous home; house value and loans; insurance; home-related expenses; assets; household income; inheritances and gifts; black-market work; and respondent income 1997.

Abstract

From December 2009 to March 2010 the World Bank with the help of Moroccan government conducted a study of the country's young people and their engagement in economic and social activities. Researchers from the World Bank's Sustainable Development Sector of the Middle East and North Africa region utilized a mixed-method approach to study factors that impede the economic and social inclusion of Moroccans aged 15 to 29. The Morocco Household and Youth Survey (MHYS) used two survey instruments to gather quantitative data: Household Questionnaire and Youth Questionnaire.

The study used a nationally representative sample of 2,000 households, in which 1,216 households were located in urban areas and 784 households in the rural areas. The Youth Questionnaire was administered to 2,883 young people between the ages of 15 and 29, representing about 90 percent of the youth in the surveyed households. Information was collected on topics such as economic inclusion, community participation, and use of key public services. The survey was able to examine little studied issues relating to youth such as participation in the labor force, intermediation, career choice, perceived job possibilities, use of time, use of recreational and educational activities targeting young people who have completed formal education.

The focus groups discussions supplemented MHYS.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Households,
• Individuals between the ages of 15 and 29.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample size for the Household Questionnaire was 2,000 households with 1,216 found in urban locations and 784 in rural locations. The 2,000 households were drawn from the 2004 General Census of Population and Housing. For determining the number of households in urban and rural locations, proportionality of the possible locations was used to ensure representativeness. The proportionality was based off the disaggregation of Morocco into primary units in which there are about 600 households. In the end, 125 primary units were randomly selected, with 76 rural primary units and 49 urban primary units. From these 125 primary units, 16 households were randomly selected giving us the total sample size of 2,000 households.

For the Youth Questionnaire, the sample size was 2,883 individuals between the ages of 15 and 29. These 2,883 individuals came from the selected households in the Household Questionnaire. If there was an individual or individuals between the ages of 15 and 29 living at the selected household, the Youth Questionnaire was administrated. More details on sample design are provided in Appendix 2 in "MHYS Basic Information Document".

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Household Questionnaire covers the following topics: Educational Characteristics, Economic Activities in last 12 months, Secondary Economic Activities in last 12 months, Economic Activities in the last 7 days, Unemployment, Health and Social Security, Housing Characteristics and Durables, Agricultural Assets, Climate Change and Shocks in Agriculture,Incidence of Shocks and Household Responses, Assistance from Social Programs, Migration of Household Members, Migration of non-residents, Migration and Climate Change, Decisions on Consumption in the Household, Expenditures on Frequently Consumed Food Items; Less Frequent Non-Food and Food Expenditures Household Consumption expenditures and food source procurement, Expenditure on less frequent non-food and food products,Infrequent Expenditures, Women in Decision Making

Youth Questionnaire includes the following sections: Employment Preferences, Education, Employment during the last 7 days, First Job, Employment History, Entrepreneurship and Independent Farming, Unemployment, Job Search, Job Services Access, Financial Behavior, Participation of Youth in Educational Institutions and in Youth Centers, Participation of Youth in Family, Access of Youth to Recreation and Social Activities, Satisfaction and Communication, and Time Use.

Cleaning operations

The MHYS contains several data files, with each file pertinent to a specific section. For the case in which there are multiple sections per data file, it is because they share similar levels of observations.

The households are identified by the variable "hid" which consists of the region, province, commune, and enumerator area in which the household is located. This allows the household members to remain anonymous yet statistically unique. This is extremely important especially when it comes to merging different datasets.

Merging data sets will depend on which files are being merged. The key to merging the MHYS data files will be to use unique variables.

For the data sets, the "hid" variable will be the unique variable used to perform the merge at household level; "memid" will be the unique variable used to perform the merge at individual level.

The variable "q5" which signifies enumeration area is scrambled to preserve anonymity of sampled households.

The weights are provided in the data file "weights" and can be merged.

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households.

The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures.

The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included 1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967. If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986. Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets. Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview.

The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income.

In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience.

With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts: 1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys. Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience e

The purpose of "The Time Budget Survey 1980-81" is to gather a comprehensive overview over how the population spends its time on different activities. The Time Budget Surveys are our most important source of information about how much and what types of unpaid work are performed in society, who performs this work, and when it is performed. The Time Budget Surveys also contain data not found in other surveys, e.g., information about circadian rhythms, leisure activities, and time people spend with their children and the rest of the family. The Time Budget Survey was first carried out in Norway in 1972-1973 and was originally inspired by the international survey "Comparative Time-Budget Projecet", where the same survey program was used in 12 different countries (A. Szalai (red.): The Use of Time, 1965-66). The 1980-81 survey is the second of its kind in Norway and is carried with a view to secure comparability with the results from the international survey. The data is mainly collected by diaries kept by a selection of the population. In addition, participants are asked to answer questions in a face-to-face interview. The survey consists of questions about the time use in then following areas: 1. Work 2. Work-related travels 3. Private work; hereunder housework, maintenance, childcare, purchasing and travels 4. Personal needs 5. Education 6. Leisure; hereunder sports and outdoor activities, entertainment, social interaction, media og reading This dataset contains the data for the interviews. The diaries are documented in a separate file.

Abstract

The General Household Survey-Panel (GHS-Panel) is implemented in collaboration with the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) team as part of the Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (ISA) program. The objectives of the GHS-Panel include the development of an innovative model for collecting agricultural data, interinstitutional collaboration, and comprehensive analysis of welfare indicators and socio-economic characteristics. The GHS-Panel is a nationally representative survey of approximately 5,000 households, which are also representative of the six geopolitical zones. The 2023/24 GHS-Panel is the fifth round of the survey with prior rounds conducted in 2010/11, 2012/13, 2015/16 and 2018/19. The GHS-Panel households were visited twice: during post-planting period (July - September 2023) and during post-harvest period (January - March 2024).

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households • Individuals • Agricultural plots • Communities

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The original GHS‑Panel sample was fully integrated with the 2010 GHS sample. The GHS sample consisted of 60 Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) or Enumeration Areas (EAs), chosen from each of the 37 states in Nigeria. This resulted in a total of 2,220 EAs nationally. Each EA contributed 10 households to the GHS sample, resulting in a sample size of 22,200 households. Out of these 22,200 households, 5,000 households from 500 EAs were selected for the panel component, and 4,916 households completed their interviews in the first wave.

After nearly a decade of visiting the same households, a partial refresh of the GHS‑Panel sample was implemented in Wave 4 and maintained for Wave 5. The refresh was conducted to maintain the integrity and representativeness of the sample. The refresh EAs were selected from the same sampling frame as the original GHS‑Panel sample in 2010. A listing of households was conducted in the 360 EAs, and 10 households were randomly selected in each EA, resulting in a total refresh sample of approximately 3,600 households.

In addition to these 3,600 refresh households, a subsample of the original 5,000 GHS‑Panel households from 2010 were selected to be included in the new sample. This “long panel” sample of 1,590 households was designed to be nationally representative to enable continued longitudinal analysis for the sample going back to 2010. The long panel sample consisted of 159 EAs systematically selected across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones.

The combined sample of refresh and long panel EAs in Wave 5 that were eligible for inclusion consisted of 518 EAs based on the EAs selected in Wave 4. The combined sample generally maintains both the national and zonal representativeness of the original GHS‑Panel sample.

Sampling deviation

Although 518 EAs were identified for the post-planting visit, conflict events prevented interviewers from visiting eight EAs in the North West zone of the country. The EAs were located in the states of Zamfara, Katsina, Kebbi and Sokoto. Therefore, the final number of EAs visited both post-planting and post-harvest comprised 157 long panel EAs and 354 refresh EAs. The combined sample is also roughly equally distributed across the six geopolitical zones.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The GHS-Panel Wave 5 consisted of three questionnaires for each of the two visits. The Household Questionnaire was administered to all households in the sample. The Agriculture Questionnaire was administered to all households engaged in agricultural activities such as crop farming, livestock rearing, and other agricultural and related activities. The Community Questionnaire was administered to the community to collect information on the socio-economic indicators of the enumeration areas where the sample households reside.

GHS-Panel Household Questionnaire: The Household Questionnaire provided information on demographics; education; health; labour; childcare; early child development; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm enterprises; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; assets; information and communication technology; economic shocks; and other sources of household income. Household location was geo-referenced in order to be able to later link the GHS-Panel data to other available geographic data sets (forthcoming).

GHS-Panel Agriculture Questionnaire: The Agriculture Questionnaire solicited information on land ownership and use; farm labour; inputs use; GPS land area measurement and coordinates of household plots; agricultural capital; irrigation; crop harvest and utilization; animal holdings and costs; household fishing activities; and digital farming information. Some information is collected at the crop level to allow for detailed analysis for individual crops.

GHS-Panel Community Questionnaire: The Community Questionnaire solicited information on access to infrastructure and transportation; community organizations; resource management; changes in the community; key events; community needs, actions, and achievements; social norms; and local retail price information.

The Household Questionnaire was slightly different for the two visits. Some information was collected only in the post-planting visit, some only in the post-harvest visit, and some in both visits.

The Agriculture Questionnaire collected different information during each visit, but for the same plots and crops.

The Community Questionnaire collected prices during both visits, and different community level information during the two visits.

Cleaning operations

CAPI: Wave five exercise was conducted using Computer Assisted Person Interview (CAPI) techniques. All the questionnaires (household, agriculture, and community questionnaires) were implemented in both the post-planting and post-harvest visits of Wave 5 using the CAPI software, Survey Solutions. The Survey Solutions software was developed and maintained by the Living Standards Measurement Unit within the Development Economics Data Group (DECDG) at the World Bank. Each enumerator was given a tablet which they used to conduct the interviews. Overall, implementation of survey using Survey Solutions CAPI was highly successful, as it allowed for timely availability of the data from completed interviews.

DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEM: The data communication system used in Wave 5 was highly automated. Each field team was given a mobile modem which allowed for internet connectivity and daily synchronization of their tablets. This ensured that head office in Abuja had access to the data in real-time. Once the interview was completed and uploaded to the server, the data was first reviewed by the Data Editors. The data was also downloaded from the server, and Stata dofile was run on the downloaded data to check for additional errors that were not captured by the Survey Solutions application. An excel error file was generated following the running of the Stata dofile on the raw dataset. Information contained in the excel error files were then communicated back to respective field interviewers for their action. This monitoring activity was done on a daily basis throughout the duration of the survey, both in the post-planting and post-harvest.

DATA CLEANING: The data cleaning process was done in three main stages. The first stage was to ensure proper quality control during the fieldwork. This was achieved in part by incorporating validation and consistency checks into the Survey Solutions application used for the data collection and designed to highlight many of the errors that occurred during the fieldwork.

The second stage cleaning involved the use of Data Editors and Data Assistants (Headquarters in Survey Solutions). As indicated above, once the interview is completed and uploaded to the server, the Data Editors review completed interview for inconsistencies and extreme values. Depending on the outcome, they can either approve or reject the case. If rejected, the case goes back to the respective interviewer’s tablet upon synchronization. Special care was taken to see that the households included in the data matched with the selected sample and where there were differences, these were properly assessed and documented. The agriculture data were also checked to ensure that the plots identified in the main sections merged with the plot information identified in the other sections. Additional errors observed were compiled into error reports that were regularly sent to the teams. These errors were then corrected based on re-visits to the household on the instruction of the supervisor. The data that had gone through this first stage of cleaning was then approved by the Data Editor. After the Data Editor’s approval of the interview on Survey Solutions server, the Headquarters also reviews and depending on the outcome, can either reject or approve.

The third stage of cleaning involved a comprehensive review of the final raw data following the first and second stage cleaning. Every variable was examined individually for (1) consistency with other sections and variables, (2) out of range responses, and (3) outliers. However, special care was taken to avoid making strong assumptions when resolving potential errors. Some minor errors remain in the data where the diagnosis and/or solution were unclear to the data cleaning team.

Response

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The United Kingdom Time Use Survey, 2014-2015 (UKTUS) is a large-scale household survey that provides data on how people aged 8 years and over in the UK spend their time. At the heart of the survey is a time diary instrument in which respondents record their daily activities. Time diaries record events sequences for prescribed periods, usually a single day. They are an effective means of capturing rich data on how people spend their time, their location throughout the day, and who they spend their time with. The sample was based on households, and household members eight years and over completed time-diaries for one weekday and one weekend day. In addition, those in paid work were asked to complete a weekly work schedule. All individuals who completed a time diary were invited to take part in an interview, and someone in the household was selected to take part in a household interview. These interviews provide additional demographic, economic, and social information about households and individuals.

The UKTUS 2014-15 was designed to be, as far as possible, compatible both with the previous UK Time Use Survey, conducted by ONS in 2000-2001 (see under SN 4504) and with other European time use studies carried out in since 2008 (not currently held at the UK Data Archive). It followed the Eurostat 2008 guidelines on Harmonised European Time Use Studies (HETUS), but was tailored to the needs and requirements of UK users. In particular, specific fields for mobile device use and enjoyment of time were added to the UKTUS 2014-2015 diary. In line with the key aims of the study, all data have been deposited with the UK Data Archive, to be made available for analysis by government and academic users.

Citation format:
The Principal Investigators have requested that the following format is used when citing this dataset:

Gershuny, J., Sullivan, O. (2017). United Kingdom Time Use Survey, 2014-2015. Centre for Time Use Research, University of Oxford. [data collection]. UK Data Service. SN: 8128, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8128-1


Main Topics:

This study provides information about the time use of individuals 8 years and over on a weekday and a weekend day using time-diary instruments. The time-diaries provide information about activities, location, co-presence, the use of computers and mobile devices, and level of enjoyment of time throughout the day. Questionnaire data provides information about characteristics of individuals and households, including employment, education, care, leisure activities and demographic information such as age, gender, marital status, citizenship status and housing.

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households. The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures. The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included 1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967. If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986. Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets. Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview. The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income. In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience. With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts: 1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys. Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience etc. were addressed to new respondents. In the case of respondents who had already participated in the panel, a combined contact and main interview was conducted by telephone, after which a self-enumerated questionnaire was sent out to each respondent by mail. The panel sample also included young people in panel households who were born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members who had not previously been interviewed. These individuals, like new respondents, were not interviewed by telephone until they had been interviewed personally. Thus technically they were treated in the same manner as individuals in the supplementary sample. The new supplementary sample was first contacted by telephone and then given a fairly lengthy personal interview, at the conclusion of which each respondent was asked to fill out a written questionnaire. In this respect the survey design for the nonresponse sample was the same as for the supplementary sample. The nonresponse sample also included young people born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members. The time-use interviews were conducted by telephone. For each respondent two days were chosen at random from the period from February 15, 1993 to February 14, 1994 and the respondents were interviewed about their time use during those two days. If possible, the time-use interviews were preceded by the other parts of the survey, but this was not always feasible. In each household the household head and spouse/partner were interviewed, as well as an additional person in certain households. Questions regarding the household as a whole were asked of only one person in the household, preferably the household head. As in earlier surveys, data from the interviews was subsequently supplemented by registry data, but only for those respondents who had given their express consent. There is registry information for 75-80 percent of the sample. The telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; and cars and boats. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1992. The 1996 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and environment. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1995. The 1998 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and municipal service. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: sale of previous home; house value and loans; insurance; home-related expenses; assets; household income; inheritances and gifts; black-market work; and respondent income 1997.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

For this project, a set of time use variables were calibrated for the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which ran from 1991-2009 (see the BHPS series webpage), using evidence derived from a smaller-scale panel survey that collected time use information by both the survey and diary methods, Home OnLine, 1998-2001 (HoL) (held at the UK Data Archive under SN 4607). Past research has suggested that the time diary method produces more accurate and reliable measures of time use than the survey approach. The diary approach, however, usually has a low response rate and is not practicable for a large-scale panel study like the BHPS. However, direct questioning in survey interviews is a relatively flexible approach to collecting time use data. The project therefore developed a method to combine the strengths of the survey approach and the diary method. The survey part of HoL shared the same questionnaire-derived time use predictor variables with the BHPS. Regression of the predictors on the time diary data in the HoL study was used to calibrate time use in the BHPS by multiplying the resulting regression coefficients with the same BHPS predictor variables. This produced a calibrated index of time use patterns based on BHPS questionnaire items. The calibrated time use variables cover all major categories of daily activities and are available in Wave 4 (1994) to Wave 14 (2004) of the BHPS.


Main Topics:

The variables in the dataset cover time spent on employment, educational courses and associated travel, consumption and leisure, housework and other domestic concerns, sleep and personal care.

Background
The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a unique source of information using international definitions of employment and unemployment and economic inactivity, together with a wide range of related topics such as occupation, training, hours of work and personal characteristics of household members aged 16 years and over. It is used to inform social, economic and employment policy. The LFS was first conducted biennially from 1973-1983. Between 1984 and 1991 the survey was carried out annually and consisted of a quarterly survey conducted throughout the year and a 'boost' survey in the spring quarter (data were then collected seasonally). From 1992 quarterly data were made available, with a quarterly sample size approximately equivalent to that of the previous annual data. The survey then became known as the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS). From December 1994, data gathering for Northern Ireland moved to a full quarterly cycle to match the rest of the country, so the QLFS then covered the whole of the UK (though some additional annual Northern Ireland LFS datasets are also held at the UK Data Archive). Further information on the background to the QLFS may be found in the documentation.

Longitudinal data
The LFS retains each sample household for five consecutive quarters, with a fifth of the sample replaced each quarter. The main survey was designed to produce cross-sectional data, but the data on each individual have now been linked together to provide longitudinal information. The longitudinal data comprise two types of linked datasets, created using the weighting method to adjust for non-response bias. The two-quarter datasets link data from two consecutive waves, while the five-quarter datasets link across a whole year (for example January 2010 to March 2011 inclusive) and contain data from all five waves. A full series of longitudinal data has been produced, going back to winter 1992. Linking together records to create a longitudinal dimension can, for example, provide information on gross flows over time between different labour force categories (employed, unemployed and economically inactive). This will provide detail about people who have moved between the categories. Also, longitudinal information is useful in monitoring the effects of government policies and can be used to follow the subsequent activities and circumstances of people affected by specific policy initiatives, and to compare them with other groups in the population. There are however methodological problems which could distort the data resulting from this longitudinal linking. The ONS continues to research these issues and advises that the presentation of results should be carefully considered, and warnings should be included with outputs where necessary.

LFS Documentation
The documentation available from the Archive to accompany LFS datasets largely consists of the latest version of each user guide volume alongside the appropriate questionnaire for the year concerned. However, volumes are updated periodically by ONS, so users are advised to check the latest documents on the ONS Labour Force Survey - User Guidance pages before commencing analysis. This is especially important for users of older QLFS studies, where information and guidance in the user guide documents may have changed over time.

Occupation data for 2021 and 2022 data files

The ONS has identified an issue with the collection of some occupational data in 2021 and 2022 data files in a number of their surveys. While they estimate any impacts will be small overall, this will affect the accuracy of the breakdowns of some detailed (four-digit Standard Occupational Classification (SOC)) occupations, and data derived from them. Further information can be found in the ONS article published on 11 July 2023: Revision of miscoded occupational data in the ONS Labour Force Survey, UK: January 2021 to September 2022.

2022 Weighting

The population totals used for the latest LFS estimates use projected growth rates from Real Time Information (RTI) data for UK, EU and non-EU populations based on 2021 patterns. The total population used for the LFS therefore does not take into account any changes in migration, birth rates, death rates, and so on since June 2021, and hence levels estimates may be under- or over-estimating the true values and should be used with caution. Estimates of rates will, however, be robust.

The PATH Study was launched in 2011 to inform the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory activities under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The PATH Study is a collaboration between the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The study sampled over 150,000 mailing addresses across the United States to create a national sample of people who use or do not use tobacco. 45,971 adults and youth constitute the first (baseline) wave, Wave 1, of data collected by this longitudinal cohort study. These 45,971 adults and youth along with 7,207 "shadow youth" (youth ages 9 to 11 sampled at Wave 1) make up the 53,178 participants that constitute the Wave 1 Cohort. Respondents are asked to complete an interview at each follow-up wave. Youth who turn 18 by the current wave of data collection are considered "aged-up adults" and are invited to complete the Adult Interview. Additionally, "shadow youth" are considered "aged-up youth" upon turning 12 years old, when they are asked to complete an interview after parental consent. At Wave 4, a probability sample of 14,098 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 10 to 11 was selected from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population (CNP) at the time of Wave 4. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 in the same sampled Primary Sampling Unit (PSU)s and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This "replenishment sample" was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with Wave 4 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 1 Cohort who were in the CNP at the time of Wave 4. This combined set of Wave 4 participants, 52,731 participants in total, forms the Wave 4 Cohort. At Wave 7, a probability sample of 14,863 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 9 to 11 was selected from the CNP at the time of Wave 7. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 or Wave 4 in the same sampled PSUs and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This "second replenishment sample" was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with the Wave 7 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 4 Cohorts who were at least age 15 and in the CNP at the time of Wave 7. This combined set of Wave 7 participants, 46,169 participants in total, forms the Wave 7 Cohort. Please refer to the Restricted-Use Files User Guide that provides further details about children designated as "shadow youth" and the formation of the Wave 1, Wave 4, and Wave 7 Cohorts. Dataset 0002 (DS0002) contains the data from the State Design Data. This file contains 7 variables and 82,139 cases. The state identifier in the State Design file reflects the participant's state of residence at the time of selection and recruitment for the PATH Study. Dataset 1011 (DS1011) contains the data from the Wave 1 Adult Questionnaire. This data file contains 2,021 variables and 32,320 cases. Each of the cases represents a single, completed interview. Dataset 1012 (DS1012) contains the data from the Wave 1 Youth and Parent Questionnaire. This file contains 1,431 variables and 13,651 cases. Dataset 1411 (DS1411) contains the Wave 1 State Identifier data for Adults and has 5 variables and 32,320 cases. Dataset 1412 (DS1412) contains the Wave 1 State Identifier data for Youth (and Parents) and has 5 variables and 13,651 cases. The same 5 variables are in each State Identifier dataset, including PERSONID for linking the State Identifier to the questionnaire and biomarker data and 3 variables designating the state (state Federal Information Processing System (FIPS), state abbreviation, and full name of the state). The State Identifier values in these datasets represent participants' state of residence at the time of Wave 1, which is also their state of residence at the time of recruitment. Dataset 1611 (DS1611) contains the Tobacco Universal Product Code (UPC) data from Wave 1. This data file contains 32 variables and 8,601 cases. This file contains UPC values on the packages of tobacco products used or in the possession of adult respondents at the time of Wave 1. The UPC values can be used to identify and validate the specific products used by respondents and augment the analyses of the characteristics of tobacco products used

Abstract

Panel data possess several advantages over conventional cross-sectional and time-series data, including their power to isolate the effects of specific actions, treatments, and general policies often at the core of large-scale econometric development studies. While the concept of panel data alone provides the capacity for modelling the complexities of human behaviour, the notion of universal panel data - in which time- and situation-driven variances leading to variations in tools, and thus results, are mitigated - can further enhance exploitation of the richness of panel information. The NPS Universal Panel Questionnaire (UPQ) consists of both survey instruments and datasets, meticulously aligned and engineered with the aim of facilitating the use of and improving access to the wealth of panel data offered by the NPS. The NPS-UPQ provides a consistent and straightforward means of conducting not only user-driven analyses using convenient, standardized tools, but also for monitoring MKUKUTA, FYDP II, and other national level development indicators reported by the NPS.

The design of the NPS-UPQ combines the four completed rounds of the NPS - NPS 2008/09 (R1), NPS 2010/11 (R2), NPS 2012/13 (R3), and NPS 2014/15 (R4) - into pooled, module-specific survey instruments and datasets. The panel survey instruments offer the ease of comparability over time, with modifications and variances easily identifiable as well as those aspects of the questionnaire which have remained identical and offer consistent information. By providing all module-specific data over time within compact, pooled datasets, panel datasets eliminate the need for user-generated merges between rounds and present data in a clear, logical format, increasing both the usability and comprehension of complex data.

Geographic coverage

Regional coverage

Analysis unit

Households

Universe

The universe includes all households and individuals in Tanzania with the exception of those residing in military barracks or other institutions.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

SAMPLING PROCEDURE While the same sample of respondents was maintained over the first three rounds of the NPS, longitudinal surveys tend to suffer from bias introduced by households leaving the survey over time, i.e. attrition. Although the NPS maintains a highly successful recapture rate (roughly 96% retention at the household level), minimizing the escalation of this selection bias, a refresh of longitudinal cohorts was done for the NPS 2014/15 to ensure proper representativeness of estimates while maintaining a sufficient primary sample to maintain cohesion within panel analysis. A newly completed Population and Housing Census (PHC) in 2012, providing updated population figures along with changes in administrative boundaries, emboldened the opportunity to realign the NPS sample and abate collective bias potentially introduced through attrition.

To maintain the panel concept of the NPS, the sample design for NPS 2014/2015 consisted of a combination of the original NPS sample and a new NPS sample. A nationally representative sub-sample was selected to continue as part of the “Extended Panel” while an entirely new sample, “Refresh Panel”, was selected to represent national and sub-national domains. Similar to the sample in NPS 2008/2009, the sample design for the “Refresh Panel” allows analysis at four primary domains of inference, namely: Dar es Salaam, other urban areas on mainland Tanzania, rural mainland Tanzania, and Zanzibar. This new cohort in NPS 2014/2015 will be maintained and tracked in all future rounds between national censuses.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The format of the NPS-UPQ survey instrument is similar to previously disseminated NPS survey instruments. Each module has a questionnaire and clearly identifies if the module collects information at the individual or household level. Within each module-specific questionnaire of the NPS-UPQ survey instrument, there are five distinct sections, arranged vertically: (1) the UPQ - “U” on the survey instrument, (2) R4, (3), R3, (4) R2, and (5) R1 – the latter 4 sections presenting each questionnaire in its original form at time of its respective dissemination.

The uppermost section of each module’s questionnaire (“U”) represents the model universal panel questionnaire, with questions generated from the comprehensive listing of questions across all four rounds of the NPS and codes generated from the comprehensive collection of codes. The following sections are arranged vertically by round, considering R4 as most recent. While not all rounds will have data reported for each question in the UPQ and not each question will have reports for each of the UPQ codes listed, the NPS-UPQ survey instrument represents the visual, all-inclusive set of information collected by the NPS over time.

The four round-specific sections (R4, R3, R2, R1) are aligned with their UPQ-equivalent question, visually presenting their contribution to compatibility with the UPQ. Each round-specific section includes the original round-specific variable names, response codes and skip patterns (corresponding to their respective round-specific NPS data sets, and despite their variance from other rounds or from the comprehensive UPQ code listing)4.

• Household identification;
• Survey staff details;
• Household member roster;
• Education,
• Health,
• Labour;
• Food outside the household;
• Subject welfare;
• Food security;
• Housing, water and sanitation;
• Consumption of food over the past one week;
• Non-food expenditures (past one week & one month);
• Non-food expenditures (past twelve months);
• Household assets;
• Family/household non-farm enterprises;
• Assistance and groups;
• Credit;
• Finance;
• Recent shocks to household welfare;
• Deaths in the household;
• Household recontact information;
• Filter questions;
• Anthropometry.

Abstract

In order to develop an effective poverty reduction policies and programs, Iraqi policy makers need to know how large the poverty problem is, what kind of people are poor, and what are the causes and consequences of poverty. Until recently, they had neither the data nor an official poverty line. (The last national income and expenditure survey was in 1988.)

In response to this situation, the Iraqi Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation established the Household Survey and Policies for Poverty Reduction Project in 2006, with financial and technical support of the World Bank. The project has been led by the Iraqi Poverty Reduction Strategy High Committee, a group which includes representatives from Parliament, the prime minister’s office, the Kurdistan Regional Government, and the ministries of Planning and Development Cooperation, Finance, Trade, Labor and Social Affairs, Education, Health, Women’s Affairs, and Baghdad University.

The Project has consisted of three components: - Collection of data which can provide a measurable indicator of welfare, i.e.the Iraq Household Socio Economic Survey (IHSES). - Establishment of an official poverty line (i.e. a cut off point below which people are considered poor) and analysis of poverty (how large the poverty problem is, what kind of people are poor and what are the causes and consequences of poverty). - Development of a Poverty Reduction Strategy, based on a solid understanding of poverty in Iraq.

Geographic coverage

National coverage Domains: Urban/rural/metropolitan; governorates

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Total sample size and stratification

The total effective sample size of the IHSES 2007 is 17,822 households. The survey was nominally designed to visit 18,144 households - 324 in each of 56 major strata. The strata are the rural, urban and metropolitan sections of each of Iraq's 18 governorates, with the exception of Baghdad, which has three metropolitan strata. The IHSES 2007 and the MICS 2006 survey intended to visit the same nominal sample. Variable q0040 indicates whether this was indeed the case.

Sampling strategy and sampling stages

The sample was selected in two stages, with groups of majals (Census Enumeration Areas) as Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) and households as Secondary Sampling Units. In the first stage, 54 PSUs were selected with probability proportional to size (pps) within each stratum, using the number of households recorded by the 1997 Census as a measure of size. In the second stage, six households were selected by systematic equal probability sampling (seps) within each PSU. To these effects, a cartographic updating and household listing operation was conducted in 2006 in all 3,024 PSUs, without resorting to the segmentation of any large PSUs. The total sample is thus nominally composed of 6 households in each of 3,024 PSUs.

Trios, teams and survey waves

The PSUs selected in each governorate (270 in Baghdad and 162 in each of the other governorates) were sorted into groups of three neighboring PSUs called trios -- 90 trios in Baghdad and 54 per governorate elsewhere. The three PSUs in each trio do not necessarily belong to the same stratum. The 12 months of the data collection period were divided into 18 periods of 20 or 21 days called survey waves. Fieldworkers were organized into teams of three interviewers, each team being responsible for interviewing one trio during a survey wave. The survey used 56 teams in total - 5 in Baghdad and 3 per governorate elsewhere. The 18 trios assigned to each team were allocated into survey waves at random. The 'time use' module was administered to two of the six households selected in each PSU: nominally the second and fifth households selected by the seps procedure in the PSU.

(For a formatted version of this field, see "IHSES sampling design and sampling weights.pdf" in "External Resources".) (For a map of Iraq's governorates and districts, see "Iraq governorates and districts.pdf" in "External Resources".)

Sampling deviation

The design did not consider the replacement of any of the randomly selected units (PSUs or households.) However, certain emergency procedures were defined to deal with security situations: If a survey team was unable to visit a trio of PSUs in the originally allocated wave, that trio was to be swapped with the trio from a randomly selected future wave that was secure at the time. If none of the still unvisited trios was secure, one of the secure trios already visited was randomly selected instead, and the team visited in each of its PSUs a new seps sample of six households - different from those interviewed when the trio was visited the first time.

This explains why the survey datasets only contain data from 2,876 of the 3,024 originally selected PSUs, whereas 55 of the PSUs contain more that the six households nominally dictated by the design.

The wave number in the survey datasets is always the nominal wave number, corresponding to the random allocation considered by the design. The effective interview dates can be found in questions 35 to 39 of the survey questionnaires.

Practice deviated from the designed procedures in two cases: In one of the governorates (Suleimaniya,) the survey was fielded for an additional two waves (waves 19 and 20,) in order to visit an extra 18 PSUs, selected from certain metropolitan areas that were not included in the original sample frame. These areas are to be analyzed jointly with the rest of metropolitan Suleimaniya, but from a sampling standpoint they constitute a de facto fourth stratum in the governorate. In another governorate (Kirkuk,) local managers used their judgment rather than the established procedures to select 12 replacement PSUs. To identify the 30 PSUs resulting from these deviations in the survey datasets, their original 'cluster numbers' (ranging from 0001 to 3024) were increased by 5000.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The questionnaire was designed by COSIT in continuous consultation with the WB consultants. It is composed of 18 sections covering household characteristics, government ration, housing, education, health, recreation facilities, employment, expenditure and income, transfers and risks along with the diary and time use. A pre-test of the questionnaire was conducted at an early stage of the project in a small number of households with different characteristics in some governorates.

To facilitate its administration, the questionnaire was divided into 5 physical booklets called "forms". Form 1 gathers socio economic information on household members and housing; Form 2 is to record non food expenditures, Form 3 is for employment, transfers and others;

Form 4 is the diary used to record household's food purchases during 10 days and finally Form 5 with the time use sheet administered to one third of the households in the sample.

All forms where produced in three languages: Arabic, Kurdish and English (all available in "External Resources").

Cleaning operations

Data editing took place at a number of stages throughout the processing, including: 1. Office editing by local supervisors. 2. Based on the validation rules incorporated in the data entry program (CSPro), rejection reports were produced, based on which data are corrected. 3. Structural checking of SPSS data files. 4. Automatic fixing programme at the analysis phase. Detailed documentation of the editing of data can be found in the "Data processing guidelines" document provided as an external resource.

Response rate

The table below gives the response rates by stratum:

Stratum   Rural  Urban  Metro1 Metro2 Metro3 Total
Duhok    93.5%  99.1%  84.6%      92.4%

Mosul    100.%  99.1%  99.4%      99.5%

Sulaimaniya 98.1%  97.5%  94.8%  85.2%    95.6%

Kirkuk   82.7%  94.8%  117.%      98.3%

Erbil    97.8%  95.7%  96.0%      96.5%

Diyala   89.8%  96.9%  91.7%      92.8%

Anbar    86.4%  98.1%  98.5%      94.3%

Baghdad 99.7%  99.4%  99.1%  98.1%  96.9%  98.6%

Babylon   98.5%  98.8%  96.9%      98.0%

Kerbela   99.7%  96.9%  98.5%      98.4%

Wasit    98.5%  98.5%  97.5%      98.1%

Salah Al-Deen  97.2%  99.7%  99.4%      98.8%

Najaf    100.%  98.8%  100.%      99.6%

Qadisiya  98.1%  100.%  100.%      99.4%

Muthanna  99.7%  100.%  99.4%      99.7%

Thi-Qar   97.8%  98.8%  98.8%      98.5%

Maysan   99.7%  99.7%  100.%      99.8%

Basrah   99.7%  98.8%  98.1%      98.9%

Total    96.5%  98.4%  98.3%  94.9%  96.9%  97.6%

Notes: Baghdad has three metropolitan strata by design, whereas an additional metropolitan stratum appeared in Suleimaniya for reasons explained in the field "Deviations from Sample Design".

In Kirkuk the response rate is lower than average in the rural stratum and higher that 100 percent in the metropolitan stratum as a result of the special replacement procedures used there (certain unsecure rural PSUs were replaced by metropolitan PSUs -- see field "Deviations from Sample Design".)

Sampling error estimates

The estimation of standard errors must account for the design features explained in the "Sampling" field. (See also "IHSES sampling design and sample weights" in "External Resources.")

The following variables, included in all datasets, are needed for the estimation of standard errors:

xweight : sampling weight

xstrat: sampling stratum

xcluster: primary sampling unit

Warning: Variable 'xbeea', also present in all datasets, identifies rural, urban and metropolitan environments for tabulation purposes; it is sometimes wrongly referred to as 'stratum', but it should not be used for the estimation of sampling errors. The variable that

Abstract

The General Household Survey-Panel (GHS-Panel) is implemented in collaboration with the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) team as part of the Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (ISA) program. The objectives of the GHS-Panel include the development of an innovative model for collecting agricultural data, interinstitutional collaboration, and comprehensive analysis of welfare indicators and socio-economic characteristics. The GHS-Panel is a nationally representative survey of approximately 5,000 households, which are also representative of the six geopolitical zones. The 2018/19 is the fourth round of the survey with prior rounds conducted in 2010/11, 2012/13, and 2015/16. GHS-Panel households were visited twice: first after the planting season (post-planting) between July and September 2018 and second after the harvest season (post-harvest) between January and February 2019.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals
• Agricultural plots
• Communities

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The original GHS-Panel sample of 5,000 households across 500 enumeration areas (EAs) and was designed to be representative at the national level as well as at the zonal level. The complete sampling information for the GHS-Panel is described in the Basic Information Document for GHS-Panel 2010/2011. However, after a nearly a decade of visiting the same households, a partial refresh of the GHS-Panel sample was implemented in Wave 4.

For the partial refresh of the sample, a new set of 360 EAs were randomly selected which consisted of 60 EAs per zone. The refresh EAs were selected from the same sampling frame as the original GHS-Panel sample in 2010 (the “master frame”). A listing of all households was conducted in the 360 EAs and 10 households were randomly selected in each EA, resulting in a total refresh sample of approximated 3,600 households.

In addition to these 3,600 refresh households, a subsample of the original 5,000 GHS-Panel households from 2010 were selected to be included in the new sample. This “long panel” sample was designed to be nationally representative to enable continued longitudinal analysis for the sample going back to 2010. The long panel sample consisted of 159 EAs systematically selected across the 6 geopolitical Zones. The systematic selection ensured that the distribution of EAs across the 6 Zones (and urban and rural areas within) is proportional to the original GHS-Panel sample. Interviewers attempted to interview all households that originally resided in the 159 EAs and were successfully interviewed in the previous visit in 2016. This includes households that had moved away from their original location in 2010. In all, interviewers attempted to interview 1,507 households from the original panel sample.

The combined sample of refresh and long panel EAs consisted of 519 EAs. The total number of households that were successfully interviewed in both visits was 4,976.

Sampling deviation

While the combined sample generally maintains both national and Zonal representativeness of the original GHS-Panel sample, the security situation in the North East of Nigeria prevented full coverage of the Zone. Due to security concerns, rural areas of Borno state were fully excluded from the refresh sample and some inaccessible urban areas were also excluded. Security concerns also prevented interviewers from visiting some communities in other parts of the country where conflict events were occurring. Refresh EAs that could not be accessed were replaced with another randomly selected EA in the Zone so as not to compromise the sample size. As a result, the combined sample is representative of areas of Nigeria that were accessible during 2018/19. The sample will not reflect conditions in areas that were undergoing conflict during that period. This compromise was necessary to ensure the safety of interviewers.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The GHS-Panel Wave 4 consists of three questionnaires for each of the two visits. The Household Questionnaire was administered to all households in the sample. The Agriculture Questionnaire was administered to all households engaged in agricultural activities such as crop farming, livestock rearing and other agricultural and related activities. The Community Questionnaire was administered to the community to collect information on the socio-economic indicators of the enumeration areas where the sample households reside.

GHS-Panel Household Questionnaire: The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; education; health (including anthropometric measurement for children); labor; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm income-generating activities; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; assets; information and communication technology; and other sources of household income. Household location is geo-referenced in order to be able to later link the GHS-Panel data to other available geographic data sets.

GHS-Panel Agriculture Questionnaire: The Agriculture Questionnaire solicits information on land ownership and use; farm labor; inputs use; GPS land area measurement and coordinates of household plots; agricultural capital; irrigation; crop harvest and utilization; animal holdings and costs; and household fishing activities. Some information is collected at the crop level to allow for detailed analysis for individual crops.

GHS-Panel Community Questionnaire: The Community Questionnaire solicits information on access to infrastructure; community organizations; resource management; changes in the community; key events; community needs, actions and achievements; and local retail price information.

The Household Questionnaire is slightly different for the two visits. Some information was collected only in the post-planting visit, some only in the post-harvest visit, and some in both visits.

The Agriculture Questionnaire collects different information during each visit, but for the same plots and crops.

Cleaning operations

CAPI: For the first time in GHS-Panel, the Wave four exercise was conducted using Computer Assisted Person Interview (CAPI) techniques. All the questionnaires, household, agriculture and community questionnaires were implemented in both the post-planting and post-harvest visits of Wave 4 using the CAPI software, Survey Solutions. The Survey Solutions software was developed and maintained by the Survey Unit within the Development Economics Data Group (DECDG) at the World Bank. Each enumerator was given tablets which they used to conduct the interviews. Overall, implementation of survey using Survey Solutions CAPI was highly successful, as it allowed for timely availability of the data from completed interviews.

DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEM: The data communication system used in Wave 4 was highly automated. Each field team was given a mobile modem allow for internet connectivity and daily synchronization of their tablet. This ensured that head office in Abuja has access to the data in real-time. Once the interview is completed and uploaded to the server, the data is first reviewed by the Data Editors. The data is also downloaded from the server, and Stata dofile was run on the downloaded data to check for additional errors that were not captured by the Survey Solutions application. An excel error file is generated following the running of the Stata dofile on the raw dataset. Information contained in the excel error files are communicated back to respective field interviewers for action by the interviewers. This action is done on a daily basis throughout the duration of the survey, both in the post-planting and post-harvest.

DATA CLEANING: The data cleaning process was done in three main stages. The first stage was to ensure proper quality control during the fieldwork. This was achieved in part by incorporating validation and consistency checks into the Survey Solutions application used for the data collection and designed to highlight many of the errors that occurred during the fieldwork.

The second stage cleaning involved the use of Data Editors and Data Assistants (Headquarters in Survey Solutions). As indicated above, once the interview is completed and uploaded to the server, the Data Editors review completed interview for inconsistencies and extreme values. Depending on the outcome, they can either approve or reject the case. If rejected, the case goes back to the respective interviewer’s tablet upon synchronization. Special care was taken to see that the households included in the data matched with the selected sample and where there were differences, these were properly assessed and documented. The agriculture data were also checked to ensure that the plots identified in the main sections merged with the plot information identified in the other sections. Additional errors observed were compiled into error reports that were regularly sent to the teams. These errors were then corrected based on re-visits to the household on the instruction of the supervisor. The data that had gone through this first stage of cleaning was then approved by the Data Editor. After the Data Editor’s approval of the interview on Survey Solutions server, the Headquarters also reviews and depending on the outcome, can either reject or approve.

The third stage of cleaning involved a comprehensive review of the final raw data following

Abstract

The Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS) is a collaborative project between the Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia (CSA) and the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) team. The objective of the LSMS-ISA is to collect multi-topic, household-level panel data with a special focus on improving agriculture statistics and generating a clearer understanding of the link between agriculture and other sectors of the economy. The project also aims to build capacity, share knowledge across countries, and improve survey methodologies and technology.

ESS is a long-term project to collect panel data. The project responds to the data needs of the country, given the dependence of a high percentage of households in agriculture activities in the country. The ESS collects information on household agricultural activities along with other information on the households like human capital, other economic activities, access to services and resources. The ability to follow the same households over time makes the ESS a new and powerful tool for studying and understanding the role of agriculture in household welfare over time as it allows analyses of how households add to their human and physical capital, how education affects earnings, and the role of government policies and programs on poverty, inter alia. The ESS is the first panel survey to be carried out by the CSA that links a multi-topic household questionnaire with detailed data on agriculture.

Geographic coverage

National Regional Urban and Rural

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Community

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling frame for the new ESS4 is based on the updated 2018 pre-census cartographic database of enumeration areas by CSA. The ESS4 sample is a two-stage stratified probability sample. The ESS4 EAs in rural areas are the subsample of the AgSS EA sample. That means, the first stage of sampling in the rural areas entailed selecting enumeration areas (i.e. the primary sampling units) using simple random sampling (SRS) from the sample of the 2018 AgSS enumeration areas (EAs). The first stage of sampling for urban areas is selecting EAs directly from the urban frame of EAs within each region using systematically with PPS. This is designed in way that automatically results in a proportional allocation of the urban sample by zone within each region. Following the selection of sample EAs, they are allocated by urban rural strata using power allocation which is happened to be closer to proportional allocation.

The second stage of sampling for the ESS4 is the selection of households to be surveyed in each sampled EA using systematic random sampling. From the rural EAs, 10 agricultural households are selected as a subsample of the households selected for the AgSS and 2 non-agricultural households are selected from the non-agriculture households list in that specific EA. The non-agriculture household selection follows the same sampling method i.e. systematic random sampling. One important issue to note in ESS4 sampling is that the total number of agriculture households per EA remains 10 even though there are less than 2 or no non-agriculture households are listed and sampled in that EA.

For urban areas, a total of 15 households are selected per EA regardless of the households’ economic activity. The households are selected using systematic random sampling from the total households listed in that specific EA. Table 3.2 presents the distribution of sample households for ESS4 by region, urban and rural stratum. A total of 7527 households are sampled for ESS4 based on the above sampling strategy.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The survey consisted of five questionnaires, similar with the questionnaires used during the previous rounds with revisions based on the results of the previous rounds as well as on identified areas of need for new data.

The household questionnaire was administered to all households in the sample; multiple modules in the household questionnaire were administered per eligible household members in the sample.

The community questionnaire was administered to a group of community members to collect information on the socio-economic indicators of the enumeration areas where the sample households reside.

The three agriculture questionnaires consisting of a post-planting agriculture questionnaire, post-harvest agriculture questionnaire and livestock questionnaire were administered to all household members (agriculture holders) who are engaged in agriculture activities. A holder is a person who exercises management control over the operations of the agricultural holdings and makes the major decisions regarding the utilization of the available resources. S/he has technical and economic responsibility for the holding. S/he may operate the holding directly as an owner or as a manager. Hence it is possible to have more than one holder in single sampled households. As a result we have administered more than one agriculture questionnaire in a single sampled household if the household has more than one holder.

Household questionnaire: The household questionnaire provides information on education; health (including anthropometric measurement for children); labor and time use; financial inclusion; assets ownership and user right; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm activities and entrepreneurship; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; physical and financial assets; credit; tax and transfer; and other sources of household income. Household location is geo-referenced in order to be able to later link the ESS data to other available geographic data sets (See Appendix 1 for discussion of the geo-data provided with the ESS).

Community questionnaire: The community questionnaire solicits information on infrastructure; community organizations; resource management; changes in the community; key events; community needs, actions and achievements; and local retail price information.

Agriculture questionnaire: The post-planting and post-harvest agriculture questionnaires focus on crop farming activities and solicit information on land ownership and use; land use and agriculture income tax; farm labor; inputs use; GPS land area measurement and coordinates of household fields; agriculture capital; irrigation; and crop harvest and utilization. The livestock questionnaire collects information on animal holdings and costs; and production, cost and sales of livestock by products.

Cleaning operations

Final data cleaning was carried out on all data files. Only errors that could be clearly and confidently fixed by the team were corrected; errors that had no clear fix were left in the datasets. Cleaning methods for these errors are left up to the data user.

Response rate

ESS4 planned to interview 7,527 households from 565 enumeration areas (EAs) (Rural 316 EAs and Urban 249 EAs). A total of 6770 households from 535 EAs were interviewed for both the agriculture and household modules. The household module was not implemented in 30 EAs due to security reasons (See the Basic Information Document for additional information on survey implementation).

analyze the american community survey (acs) with r and monetdb experimental. think of the american community survey (acs) as the united states' census for off-years - the ones that don't end in zero. every year, one percent of all americans respond, making it the largest complex sample administered by the u.s. government (the decennial census has a much broader reach, but since it attempts to contact 100% of the population, it's not a sur vey). the acs asks how people live and although the questionnaire only includes about three hundred questions on demography, income, insurance, it's often accurate at sub-state geographies and - depending how many years pooled - down to small counties. households are the sampling unit, and once a household gets selected for inclusion, all of its residents respond to the survey. this allows household-level data (like home ownership) to be collected more efficiently and lets researchers examine family structure. the census bureau runs and finances this behemoth, of course. the dow nloadable american community survey ships as two distinct household-level and person-level comma-separated value (.csv) files. merging the two just rectangulates the data, since each person in the person-file has exactly one matching record in the household-file. for analyses of small, smaller, and microscopic geographic areas, choose one-, three-, or fiv e-year pooled files. use as few pooled years as you can, unless you like sentences that start with, "over the period of 2006 - 2010, the average american ... [insert yer findings here]." rather than processing the acs public use microdata sample line-by-line, the r language brazenly reads everything into memory by default. to prevent overloading your computer, dr. thomas lumley wrote the sqlsurvey package principally to deal with t his ram-gobbling monster. if you're already familiar with syntax used for the survey package, be patient and read the sqlsurvey examples carefully when something doesn't behave as you expect it to - some sqlsurvey commands require a different structure (i.e. svyby gets called through svymean) and others might not exist anytime soon (like svyolr). gimme some good news: sqlsurvey uses ultra-fast monetdb (click here for speed tests), so follow the monetdb installation instructions before running this acs code. monetdb imports, writes, recodes data slowly, but reads it hyper-fast . a magnificent trade-off: data exploration typically requires you to think, send an analysis command, think some more, send another query, repeat. importation scripts (especially the ones i've already written for you) can be left running overnight sans hand-holding. the acs weights generalize to the whole united states population including individuals living in group quarters, but non-residential respondents get an abridged questionnaire, so most (not all) analysts exclude records with a relp variable of 16 or 17 right off the bat. this new github repository contains four scripts: 2005-2011 - download all microdata.R create the batch (.bat) file needed to initiate the monet database in the future download, unzip, and import each file for every year and size specified by the user create and save household- and merged/person-level replicate weight complex sample designs create a well-documented block of code to re-initiate the monet db server in the future fair warning: this full script takes a loooong time. run it friday afternoon, commune with nature for the weekend, and if you've got a fast processor and speedy internet connection, monday morning it should be ready for action. otherwise, either download only the years and sizes you need or - if you gotta have 'em all - run it, minimize it, and then don't disturb it for a week. 2011 single-year - analysis e xamples.R run the well-documented block of code to re-initiate the monetdb server load the r data file (.rda) containing the replicate weight designs for the single-year 2011 file perform the standard repertoire of analysis examples, only this time using sqlsurvey functions 2011 single-year - variable reco de example.R run the well-documented block of code to re-initiate the monetdb server copy the single-year 2011 table to maintain the pristine original add a new age category variable by hand add a new age category variable systematically re-create then save the sqlsurvey replicate weight complex sample design on this new table close everything, then load everything back up in a fresh instance of r replicate a few of the census statistics. no muss, no fuss replicate census estimates - 2011.R run the well-documented block of code to re-initiate the monetdb server load the r data file (.rda) containing the replicate weight designs for the single-year 2011 file match every nation wide statistic on the census bureau's estimates page, using sqlsurvey functions click here to view these four scripts for more detail about the american community survey (acs), visit: < ul> the us census...

Abstract

The Armenia Demographic and Health Survey (ADHS) was a nationally representative sample survey designed to provide information on population and health issues in Armenia. The primary goal of the survey was to develop a single integrated set of demographic and health data, the first such data set pertaining to the population of the Republic of Armenia. In addition to integrating measures of reproductive, child, and adult health, another feature of the DHS survey is that the majority of data are presented at the marz level.

The ADHS was conducted by the National Statistical Service and the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Armenia during October through December 2000. ORC Macro provided technical support for the survey through the MEASURE DHS+ project. MEASURE DHS+ is a worldwide project, sponsored by the USAID, with a mandate to assist countries in obtaining information on key population and health indicators. USAID/Armenia provided funding for the survey. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)/Armenia provided support through the donation of equipment.

The ADHS collected national- and regional-level data on fertility and contraceptive use, maternal and child health, adult health, and AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. The survey obtained detailed information on these issues from women of reproductive age and, on certain topics, from men as well. Data are presented by marz wherever sample size permits.

The ADHS results are intended to provide the information needed to evaluate existing social programs and to design new strategies for improving the health of and health services for the people of Armenia. The ADHS also contributes to the growing international database on demographic and health-related variables.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-54

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The sample was designed to provide estimates of most survey indicators (including fertility, abortion, and contraceptive prevalence) for Yerevan and each of the other ten administrative regions (marzes). The design also called for estimates of infant and child mortality at the national level for Yerevan and other urban areas and rural areas.

The target sample size of 6,500 completed interviews with women age 15-49 was allocated as follows: 1,500 to Yerevan and 500 to each of the ten marzes. Within each marz, the sample was allocated between urban and rural areas in proportion to the population size. This gave a target sample of approximately 2,300 completed interviews for urban areas exclusive of Yerevan and 2,700 completed interviews for the rural sector. Interviews were completed with 6,430 women. Men age 15-54 were interviewed in every third household; this yielded 1,719 completed interviews.

A two-stage sample was used. In the first stage, 260 areas or primary sampling units (PSUs) were selected with probability proportional to population size (PPS) by systematic selection from a list of areas. The list of areas was the 1996 Data Base of Addresses and Households constructed by the National Statistical Service. Because most selected areas were too large to be directly listed, a separate segmentation operation was conducted prior to household listing. Large selected areas were divided into segments of which two segments were included in the sample. A complete listing of households was then carried out in selected segments as well as selected areas that were not segmented.

The listing of households served as the sampling frame for the selection of households in the second stage of sampling. Within each area, households were selected systematically so as to yield an average of 25 completed interviews with eligible women per area. All women 15-49 who stayed in the sampled households on the night before the interview were eligible for the survey. In each segment, a subsample of one-third of all households was selected for the men's component of the survey. In these households, all men 15-54 who stayed in the household on the previous night were eligible for the survey.

Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX A of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Three questionnaires were used in the ADHS: a Household Questionnaire, a Women’s Questionnaire, and a Men’s Questionnaire. The questionnaires were based on the model survey instruments developed for the MEASURE DHS+ program. The model questionnaires were adapted for use during a series of expert meetings hosted by the Center of Perinatology, Obstetrics, and Gynecology. The questionnaires were developed in English and translated into Armenian and Russian. The questionnaires were pretested in July 2000.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all usual members of and visitors to a household and to collect information on the physical characteristics of the dwelling unit. The first part of the household questionnaire collected information on the age, sex, residence, educational attainment, and relationship to the household head of each household member or visitor. This information provided basic demographic data for Armenian households. It also was used to identify the women and men who were eligible for the individual interview (i.e., women 15-49 and men 15-54). The second part of the Household Questionnaire consisted of questions on housing characteristics (e.g., the flooring material, the source of water, and the type of toilet facilities) and on ownership of a variety of consumer goods.

The Women’s Questionnaire obtained information on the following topics: - Background characteristics - Pregnancy history - Antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care - Knowledge and use of contraception - Attitudes toward contraception and abortion - Reproductive and adult health - Vaccinations, birth registration, and health of children under age five - Episodes of diarrhea and respiratory illness of children under age five - Breastfeeding and weaning practices - Height and weight of women and children under age five - Hemoglobin measurement of women and children under age five - Marriage and recent sexual activity - Fertility preferences - Knowledge of and attitude toward AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections.

The Men’s Questionnaire focused on the following topics: - Background characteristics - Health - Marriage and recent sexual activity - Attitudes toward and use of condoms - Knowledge of and attitude toward AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections.

Cleaning operations

After a team had completed interviewing in a cluster, questionnaires were returned promptly to the National Statistical Service in Yerevan for data processing. The office editing staff first checked that questionnaires for all selected households and eligible respondents had been received from the field staff. In addition, a few questions that had not been precoded (e.g., occupation) were coded at this time. Using the ISSA (Integrated System for Survey Analysis) software, a specially trained team of data processing staff entered the questionnaires and edited the resulting data set on microcomputers. The process of office editing and data processing was initiated soon after the beginning of fieldwork and was completed by the end of January 2001.

Response rate

A total of 6,524 households were selected for the sample, of which 6,150 were occupied at the time of fieldwork. The main reason for the difference is that some of the dwelling units that were occupied during the household listing operation were either vacant or the household was away for an extended period at the time of interviewing. Of the occupied households, 97 percent were successfully interviewed.

In these households, 6,685 women were identified as eligible for the individual interview (i.e., age 15-49). Interviews were completed with 96 percent of them. Of the 1,913 eligible men identified, 90 percent were successfully interviewed. The principal reason for non-response among eligible women and men was the failure to find them at home despite repeated visits to the household. The refusal rate was low.

The overall response rates, the product of the household and the individual response rates, were 94 percent for women and 87 percent for men.

Note: See summarized response rates by residence (urban/rural) in Table 1.1 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) 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 2000 Armenia Demographic and Health Survey (ADHS) to minimize 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 ADHS 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 between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey

Abstract

Panel data possess several advantages over conventional cross-sectional and time-series data, including their power to isolate the effects of specific actions, treatments, and general policies often at the core of large-scale econometric development studies. While the concept of panel data alone provides the capacity for modeling the complexities of human behavior, the notion of universal panel data – in which time- and situation-driven variances leading to variations in tools, and thus results, are mitigated – can further enhance exploitation of the richness of panel information.

The Basic Information Document (BID) provides a brief overview of the Nigerian General Household Survey (GHS) but focuses primarily on the theoretical development and application of panel data, as well as key elements of the universal panel survey instrument and datasets generated by the four rounds of the GHS. As the BID does not describe in detail the background, development, or use of the GHS itself, the wave-specific GHS BIDs should supplement the information provided here.

The Nigeria Universal Panel Data (NUPD) consists of both survey instruments and datasets from the two survey visits of the GHS - Post-Planting (PP) and Post-Harvest (PH) - meticulously aligned and engineered with the aim of facilitating the use of and improving access to the wealth of panel data offered by the GHS. The NUPD provides a consistent and straightforward means of conducting user-driven analyses using convenient, standardized tools.

The design of the NUPD combines the four completed Waves of the GHS Household Post-Planting and Post-Harvest Surveys – Wave 1 (2010/11), Wave 2 (2012/13), Wave 3 (2015/16), and Wave 4 (2018/19) – into pooled, module-specific survey instruments and datasets. The panel survey instruments offer the ease of comparability over time, with modifications and variances easily identifiable as well as those aspects of the questionnaire which have remained identical and offer consistent information. By providing all module-specific data over time within compact, pooled datasets, panel datasets eliminate the need for user-generated merges between rounds and present data in a clear, logical format, increasing both the usability and comprehension of complex data.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Please see the GHS BIDs for each round for detailed descriptions of the sample design used in each round and their respective implementation efforts as this is a compilation of datasets from all previous waves.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The larger GHS-Panel project consists of three questionnaires (Household Questionnaire, Agriculture Questionnaire, Community Questionnaire) for each of the two visits (Post-Planting and Post-Harvest). The GHS-NUPD only consists of the Household Questionnaire.

GHS-Panel Household Questionnaire: The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; education; health (including anthropometric measurement for children); labor; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm income-generating activities; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; assets; information and communication technology; and other sources of household income.

The Household Questionnaire is slightly different for the two visits. Some information was collected only in the post-planting visit, some only in the post-harvest visit, and some in both visits.

Cleaning operations

Please see the GHS BIDs for each round for detailed descriptions of data editing and additional data processing efforts as this is a compilation of datasets from all previous waves.

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households. The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures. The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included 1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967. If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986. Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets. Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview. The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income. In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience. With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts: 1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys. Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience etc. were addressed to new respondents. In the case of respondents who had already participated in the panel, a combined contact and main interview was conducted by telephone, after which a self-enumerated questionnaire was sent out to each respondent by mail. The panel sample also included young people in panel households who were born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members who had not previously been interviewed. These individuals, like new respondents, were not interviewed by telephone until they had been interviewed personally. Thus technically they were treated in the same manner as individuals in the supplementary sample. The new supplementary sample was first contacted by telephone and then given a fairly lengthy personal interview, at the conclusion of which each respondent was asked to fill out a written questionnaire. In this respect the survey design for the nonresponse sample was the same as for the supplementary sample. The nonresponse sample also included young people born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members. The time-use interviews were conducted by telephone. For each respondent two days were chosen at random from the period from February 15, 1993 to February 14, 1994 and the respondents were interviewed about their time use during those two days. If possible, the time-use interviews were preceded by the other parts of the survey, but this was not always feasible. In each household the household head and spouse/partner were interviewed, as well as an additional person in certain households. Questions regarding the household as a whole were asked of only one person in the household, preferably the household head. As in earlier surveys, data from the interviews was subsequently supplemented by registry data, but only for those respondents who had given their express consent. There is registry information for 75-80 percent of the sample. The telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; and cars and boats. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1992. The 1996 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and environment. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1995. The 1998 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and municipal service. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: sale of previous home; house value and loans; insurance; home-related expenses; assets; household income; inheritances and gifts; black-market work; and respondent income 1997.

This dataset is the second of two datasets needed to calculate the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI). It is part of the 2015 Feed the Future Malawi Interim Survey in the Zone of Influence. The survey was designed to monitor program performance by periodic assessments of a number of standardized indicators. A total of 1,021 households were interviewed, which provided data for the target sample size of 1,007 households and ensured the sample is representative of the seven districts covered in the interim assessment. It includes all of the 24-hour time allocation data from Module G6, the time use questionnaire, and thus each respondent in Module G has multiple records—one for each of the 18 time use activities (17,064 records ÷ 18 activities = 948 WEAI respondents). The unique identifiers are pbs_id + idcode + activity.