A survey of 1,500 NSW workers during August and September 2020 (2020 Remote Working Survey) and March and April 2021 (2021 Remote Working Survey), commissioned to understand workers' experiences of and attitudes to remote and hybrid working. To be eligible, respondents had to be employed NSW residents with experience of remote working in their current job. After accounting for unemployed people and those whose jobs cannot be done remotely—for example, dentists, cashiers and cleaners—the sample represents around 59 per cent of NSW workers. Workers answered questions on: • their attitudes to remote working • the amount of time they spent working remotely • their employers’ policies, practices, and attitudes • how they spent their time when working remotely • how barriers to remote working have changed • the barriers they faced to hybrid working • their expectations for future remote working

According to the survey results, the majority of respondents were currently working fully remote. However, it is expected that in six months, ********* of respondents will go back to the office.

Before the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 17 percent of U.S. employees worked from home 5 days or more per week, a share that increased to 44 percent during the pandemic. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the remote working trend, as quarantines and lockdowns made commuting and working in an office close to impossible for millions around the world. Remote work, also called telework or working from home (WFH), provided a solution, with employees performing their roles away from the office supported by specialized technology, eliminating the commute to an office to remain connected with colleagues and clients. What enables working from home?

To enable remote work, employees rely on a remote work arrangements that enable hybrid work and make it safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology supporting remote work including laptops saw a surge in demand, video conferencing companies such as Zoom jumped in value, and employers had to consider new communication techniques and resources. Is remote work the future of work?

The response to COVID-19 has demonstrated that hybrid work models are not necessarily an impediment to productivity. For this reason, there is a general consensus that different remote work models will persist post-COVID-19. Many employers see benefits to flexible working arrangements, including positive results on employee wellness surveys, and potentially reducing office space. Many employees also plan on working from home more often, with 25 percent of respondents to a recent survey expecting remote work as a benefit of employment. As a result, it is of utmost importance to acknowledge any issues that may arise in this context to empower a hybrid workforce and ensure a smooth transition to more flexible work models.

Hybrid models of working are on the rise in the United States according to survey data covering worker habits between 2019 and 2024. In the second quarter of 2024, ** percent of U.S. workers reported working in a hybrid manner. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic saw a record number of people working remotely to help curb the spread of the virus. Since then, many workers have found a new shape to their home and working lives, finding that a hybrid model of working is more flexible than always being required to work on-site.

IntroductionThe rapid adoption of telework, accelerated by advancements in ICT and the COVID-19 pandemic, offers potential benefits for wellbeing and environmental impact. However, telework’s effects on work productivity, work-life balance, and social connectedness remain complex, particularly within hybrid models combining work-from-home (WFH) and in office days.MethodsThis study assessed telework’s impact by comparing WFH and office days. A survey of 1,500 full-time workers in Japan’s Tokyo Metropolitan Region focused on daily time allocation, and telework preferences during telework periods. Principal component and cluster analyses were used to identify groups with distinct work and lifestyle patterns.ResultsSix telework-related groups emerged, reflecting diverse experiences in productivity and daily life. Groups such as the “Overall Increase” and “Housework and Rest Increase” reported gains in leisure and family time, positively impacting wellbeing. In contrast, the “Unsuitable for WFH” group faced increased office-day workloads and reduced WFH productivity, indicating that telework’s effectiveness depends on job and individual characteristics.ConclusionThe findings highlight telework’s potential to enhance wellbeing and sustainability but also underscore the need for tailored policies that address diverse job requirements and personal characteristics. This study contributes to sustainable telework strategies by offering insights into effective support systems that balance flexibility, productivity, and environmental sustainability, aiming both for an enhanced personal life and societal benefits.

The commuting survey is a federal survey organised by the FPS Mobility and Transport that has taken place every three years since 2005. It is mandatory for all public or private employers in Belgium who employ, on average, more than 100 people and covers the commuting of their workers. In the Excel file, you will find the national modal split and by region of the workplace for all editions of the survey since 2005.

Graph and download economic data for Multiple Jobholders as a Percent of Employed (LNS12026620) from Jan 1994 to Jul 2025 about multiple jobholders, 16 years +, percent, household survey, employment, and USA.

According to a survey conducted in South Korea in May 2020, more than ** percent of respondents answered that they were satisfied with working from home. The survey results suggest that there have been positive changes toward working conditions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Canada’s rapidly changing demographic profile, along with its accompanying social and economic issues, has led to much discussion concerning the relationship between work, lifestyle and well-being. Gauging the quality of life at work can help diagnose issues relating to productivity, morale, efficiency and equity. Charting patterns of home and leisure activities can take the temperature of Canadian culture. Bringing these two together will provide insight on the health and well-being of Canadians as they meet the challenges of the future. The General Social Survey Program’s new cycle,Canadians at Work and Home, takes a comprehensive look at the way Canadians live by incorporating the realms of work, home, leisure, and overall well-being into a single unit. Data users have expressed a strong interest in knowing more about the lifestyle behaviour of Canadians that impact their health and well-being both in the workplace and at home. The strength of this survey is its ability to take diverse information Canadians provide on various facets of life and combine them in ways not previously possible with surveys that covered one main topic only. The survey includes a multitude of themes. In the work sphere, it explores important topics such as work ethic, work intensity and distribution, compensation and employment benefits, work satisfaction and meaning, intercultural workplace relations, and bullying and harassment. On the home front, questions include family activity time, the division of labour and work-life balance. The survey also covers eating habits and nutritional awareness, the use of technology, sports and outdoor activities, and involvement in cultural activities. New-to-GSS questions on purpose in life, opportunities, life aspirations, outlook and resilience complement previously asked ones on subjective well-being, stress management and other socioeconomic variables. Within Canada, all levels of government, academics and not-for-profit organizations have expressed interest in the results. Data from this survey will assist with program and policy decisions and research of all kinds interested in exploring the workplace, home life and leisure activities of Canadians from all areas of life. In addition, some of the data from this survey will be comparable internationally.

Graph and download economic data for Employed, Usually Work Full Time (LNS12500000) from Jan 1968 to Jul 2025 about full-time, 16 years +, household survey, employment, and USA.

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.

Bolivia Household Survey: Working Age data was reported at 8,958,310.000 Person in 2017. This records an increase from the previous number of 8,716,227.000 Person for 2016. Bolivia Household Survey: Working Age data is updated yearly, averaging 7,799,274.000 Person from Dec 1999 (Median) to 2017, with 17 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 8,958,310.000 Person in 2017 and a record low of 5,922,281.000 Person in 1999. Bolivia Household Survey: Working Age data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Statistics Institute. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Bolivia – Table BO.G006: Household Survey: Working Age (Discontinued).

In June 2025, approximately 12 percent of workers in Great Britain worked from home exclusively, with a further 26 percent working from home and travelling to work, while 43 percent only travelled to work. During this time period, the share of people only travelling to work was highest in March 2022, at 60 percent of respondents, with the peak for only working from home occurring in June 2020. In general, hybrid working has become steadily more popular than fully remote working, with the highest share of people hybrid working in November 2023, when 31 percent of people advising they were hybrid working. What type of workers are most likely to work from home? In 2020, over half of people working in the agriculture sector mainly worked from home, which was the highest share among UK industry sectors at that time. While this industry was one of the most accessible for mainly working at home, just six percent of workers in the accommodation and food services sector mainly did this, the lowest of any sector. In the same year, men were slightly more likely to mainly work from home than women, while the most common age group for mainly working from home was those aged 75 and over, at 45.4 percent. Over a long-term period, the share of people primarily home working has grown from 11.1 percent in 1998, to approximately 17.4 percent in 2020. Growth of Flexible working in the UK According to a survey conducted in 2023, working from home either on a regular, or ad hoc basis was the most common type of flexible working arrangement offered by organizations in the UK, at 62 percent of respondents. Other popular flexible working arrangements include the ability to work flexible hours, work part-time, or take career breaks. Since 2013, for example, the number of employees in the UK that can work flextime has increased from 3.2 million, to around 4.2 million by 2024. When asked why flexible work was important to them, most UK workers said that it supported a better work-life balance, with 41 percent expressing that it made their commute to work more manageable.

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

The STEP (Skills Toward Employment and Productivity) Measurement program is the first ever initiative to generate internationally comparable data on skills available in developing countries. The program implements standardized surveys to gather information on the supply and distribution of skills and the demand for skills in labor market of low-income countries.

The uniquely-designed Household Survey includes modules that measure the cognitive skills (reading, writing and numeracy), socio-emotional skills (personality, behavior and preferences) and job-specific skills (subset of transversal skills with direct job relevance) of a representative sample of adults aged 15 to 64 living in urban areas, whether they work or not. The cognitive skills module also incorporates a direct assessment of reading literacy based on the Survey of Adults Skills instruments. Modules also gather information about family, health and language. The STEP Skills Measurement Survey for Ukraine is integrated into the Ukrainian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (ULMS) 2012.

Geographic coverage

The STEP survey was limited to the urban area of Ukraine.

Analysis unit

The units of analysis are the individual respondents and households. A household roster is undertaken at the start of the survey and the individual respondent is randomly selected among all household members aged 15 to 64 included. The random selection process was designed by the STEP team and compliance with the procedure is carefully monitored during fieldwork.

Universe

The target population for the Ukraine STEP survey comprises all non-institutionalized persons 15 to 64 years of age (inclusive) living in private dwellings in urban areas of the country at the time of data collection. This includes all residents except foreign diplomats and non-nationals working for international organizations.

The sample excluded individuals permanently institutionalized in medical facilities, military quarters, and prisons; these exclusions totalled about 725,000 persons or about 2% of the population. Also excluded from STEP was a 30-km zone around the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, an area with a high level of radiation contamination where public access is restricted and all population was evacuated.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The Ukraine used a stratified sample design comprised of three components: 1) ULMS Panel Sample; 2) New ULMS-2012 subsample; 3) Step Urban Subsample.

In the ULMS Panel Sample and the Step Urban Subsample, the urban sample was selected within 26 strata consisting of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the city of Kiev, and 24 Oblasts, i.e., geographic administrative units. In the New ULMS-2012 subsample, there was no explicit stratification. The Survey Weighting Summary (see related materials) provides more information on the sampling procedure.

Sampling deviation

Some of the sampled households were ineligible for STEP for reasons such as vacant, not habitable, no eligible household member, etc.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The merged ULMS-STEP survey instrument consists of three questionnaires : (i) the merged household questionnaire\roster, including the first block of STEP; (ii) the standard individual questionnaire, including the fifth block of STEP and some parts of the second, third and fourth blocks of STEP; (iii) and the extended individual questionnaire, with an additional module on employment skills and a Reading Literacy Assessment developed by Educational Testing Services (ETS).

All countries adapted and translated both instruments from English, following the STEP Technical Standards: 2 independent translators adapted and translated the Background Questionnaire and Reading Literacy Assessment, while reconciliation was carried out by a third translator. In the Ukraine STEP survey, household and individual questionnaires were prepared in both Ukranian and Russian. However, the literacy assessment was done in Ukrainian only (due to budget constraints).

• The survey instruments were both piloted as part of the survey pretest.
• The adapted Background Questionnaires are provided in English as external resources. The Reading Literacy Assessment is protected by copyright and will not be published.

Country-specific questions on the Household Questionnaire result from a merge of STEP Ukraine survey with ULMS-2012 panel study.

Cleaning operations

STEP Data Management Process 1. Raw data is sent by the survey firm 2. The WB STEP team runs data checks on the Background Questionnaire data. - ETS runs data checks on the Reading Literacy Assessment data. - Comments and questions are sent back to the survey firm. 3. The survey firm reviews comments and questions. When a data entry error is identified, the survey firm corrects the data. 4. The WB STEP team and ETS check the data files are clean. This might require additional iterations with the survey firm. 5. Once the data has been checked and cleaned, the WB STEP team computes the weights. Weights are computed by the STEP team to ensure consistency across sampling methodologies. 6. ETS scales the Reading Literacy Assessment data. 7. The WB STEP team merges the Background Questionnaire data with the Reading Literacy Assessment data and computes derived variables.

Detailed information data processing in STEP surveys is provided in the 'Guidelines for STEP Data Entry Programs' document provided as an external resource. The template do-file used by the STEP team to check the raw background questionnaire data is provided as an external resource.

Response rate

An overall response rate of 60.4% was achieved in the Ukraine STEP Survey.

Sampling error estimates

A weighting documentation was prepared for each participating country and provides some information on sampling errors. All country weighting documentations are provided as an external resource.

This file contains results of the Trend research dealing with rules of conduct. A representative group of people is asked every three weeks whether they comply with the rules of conduct set up in response to the Corona crisis and what they think of the rules of conduct.

The file contains national and per Security region data on: — Compliance with the rules of conduct — Support for the rules of conduct — Self-effectiveness (how difficult or easy do you find it to follow the rules of conduct?) — Response effectiveness (helps if everyone follows the rules of conduct?) — Social norm (do you see most people in your immediate environment following the rules of conduct?) — Affective response (are you worried about the coronavirus?) — Vaccination Preparedness — Corona-related complaints

Rules of conduct Compliance, acceptance, self-effectiveness, response effectiveness and social norm are sought for the following rules of conduct: — At_complaints_stay_at home — At_complaints_late_testing — Wear_mouth cap_in_OV — Wear_mouthcap_in_public_indoor spaces — Cough_niest_in_elbow — Hold_1_5m_distance — Receive_max_visitors_home — Avoid_pressure_places — Was_often_je_handen — Works at home

Data The file contains the following data: — Percentage or average — 95 % lower limit — 95 % upper limit — Change from the previous measurement — Number of respondents in the sample By Security Region, per measurement period by indicator category per indicator

Records The file contains the following set of records per questionnaire round: — A record for each Security Region in the Netherlands by indicator @-@ category per indicator — A record for total percentages in the Netherlands by indicator @-@ category per indicator per gender designation, by age category per educational level

Indicator categories The following indicator categories are distinguished: Compliance: Are the requested rules of conduct observed (current behaviour)? Supporting surface: To what extent do you support the rule of conduct? Help_rules: Supposing everyone would follow the government’s rules of conduct, how well would that help to prevent the spread of the coronavirus? Difficulty: How difficult or easy do you find it to comply with the rule of conduct? Next door_environment: Do most people in the immediate vicinity of the surveyed follow the rules of conduct? Are you worried about the coronavirus? Vaccination readiness: Would you like to be vaccinated if there’s a vaccine later? Complaints: Percentage of people with corona-related symptoms

Variables Description of variables: Date_of_report: Date and time when the data file was created by the RIVM.

Date_of_measurement: Date on which the measurement started. The measuring time is a week. The measurement therefore took place on that date and six days later.

Wave Tracking number of the measurement

Region_code: Netherlands and Security Region Code. The Netherlands has code NL00. See also: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/cijfers/detail/84721NED?q=Veiligheid

Region_name: The Netherlands and the name of the Security Region. This is the name of the Security Regions as used so far in various RIVM reports and reports, and may differ slightly from the naming as indicated in the code list of CBS (see link above for variable Security_region_code). See also: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/veiligheidsregios-en-crisisbeheersing/veiligheidsregios

Subgroup_category: Dimensions in which the figures are broken down: — All (Total; No breakdown) — Sex (Male/Women) — Age (16-24 years/25-39 years/40-54 years/55-69 years/70+) — Educational level (Low/Middle/High)

Subgroup: Title of dimension (see Subgroup_category)

Indicator_category: Categorisation of the indicators: — Compliance — Support surface — Help_rules — Difficulty — Neighboring_environment — Care — Vaccination Preparedness — Complaints

Indicator: Compliance, Support, Help_rules, Moeite and Near_environment for the following rules of conduct: — At_complaints_stay_at home — At_complaints_late_testing — Wear_mouth cap_in_OV — Wear_mouthcap_in_public_indoor spaces — Cough_niest_in_elbow — Hold_1_5m_distance — Receive_max_visitors_home — Avoid_pressure_places — Was_often_je_handen — Works at home Concerns: — Care_over_Coronacrisis Vaccination readiness: — Yes — Yes_first_know_al_corona_gehad — No_al_corona_gehad — No_other_reason — No_care_over_safety_vaccine — Do not know Complaints at the time of completing the questionnaire: — At least_one_corona_related

Sample_sise: Number of respondents who replied to a question

Figure_type: Figure species (Percentage/Average) Value Calculated Value of the Indicator Lower_limit 95 % confidence interval lower limit Upper_limit 95 % confidence interval upper limit Change_wrt_previous_measurement Significant difference from the previous measurement period (-1 = decrease/0 = unchanged/1 = increased)

Thematic Household Survey - Characteristics and Working Conditions of Workers of the Food and Goods Delivery Digital Platforms [Report]

Abstract

The STEP (Skills Toward Employment and Productivity) Measurement program is the first ever initiative to generate internationally comparable data on skills available in developing countries. The program implements standardized surveys to gather information on the supply and distribution of skills and the demand for skills in labor market of low-income countries.

The uniquely-designed Household Survey includes modules that measure the cognitive skills (reading, writing and numeracy), socio-emotional skills (personality, behavior and preferences) and job-specific skills (subset of transversal skills with direct job relevance) of a representative sample of adults aged 15 to 64 living in urban areas, whether they work or not. The cognitive skills module also incorporates a direct assessment of reading literacy based on the Survey of Adults Skills instruments. Modules also gather information about family, health and language.

Geographic coverage

The cities that are covered are La Paz, El Alto, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz de la Sierra.

Analysis unit

The units of analysis are the individual respondents and households. A household roster is undertaken at the start of the survey and the individual respondent is randomly selected among all household members 15 to 64 years old. The random selection process was designed by the STEP team and compliance with the procedure is carefully monitored during fieldwork.

Universe

The STEP target population is the population 15-64 years old, living in urban areas, as defined by each country's statistical office. The following are excluded from the sample: - Residents of institutions (prisons, hospitals, etc.) - Residents of senior homes and hospices - Residents of other group dwellings such as college dormitories, halfway homes, workers' quarters, etc. - Persons living outside the country at the time of data collection

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Stratified 3-stage sample design was implemented in Bolivia. The stratification variable is city-wealth category. There are 20 strata created by grouping the primary sample units (PSUs) into the 4 cities, i.e.,1- La Paz, 2-El Alto, 3-Cochabamba, 4-Santa Cruz de la Sierra, and 5 wealth categories, i.e., 1-Poorest, 2-Moderately Poor, 3-Middle Wealth, 4-Moderately Rich, 5-Rich.

The source of the sample frame of the first stage units is the 2001 National Census of Population and Housing carried out by the National Institute of Statistics. The primary sample unit (PSU) is a Census Sector. A sample of 218 PSUs was selected from the 10,304 PSUs on the sample frame. This sample of PSUs was comprised of 160 'initial' PSUs and 58 'reserve' PSUs. Of the 218 sampled PSUs, there were 169 activated PSUs consisting of 155 Initial Sampled PSUs and 14 Reserve sampled PSUs. Among the 160 'initial' PSUs, 5 PSUs were replaced due to security concerns; also, 14 reserve PSUs were activated to supplement the sample for initial PSUs where the target sample of 15 interviews was not achieved due to high levels of non-response; thus, only 169 PSUs were actually activated during data collection. The PSUs were grouped according to city-wealth strata, and within each city-wealth stratum PSUs were selected with probability proportional to size (PPS), where the measure of size was the number of households in a PSU.

The second stage sample unit (SSU) is a household. The sampling objective was to obtain interviews at 15 households within each of the initial PSU sample, resulting in a final initial sample of 2,400 interviews. At the second stage of sample selection, 45 households were selected in each PSU using a systematic random method. The 45 households were randomly divided into 15 'Initial' households, and 30 'Reserve' households that were ranked according to the random sample selection order. Note: Due to higher than expected levels of non-response in some PSUs, additional households were sampled; thus, the final actual sample in some PSUs exceeded 45 households.

The third stage sample unit was an individual 15-64 years old (inclusive). The sampling objective was to select one individual with equal probability from each selected household.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The STEP survey instruments include:

• The background questionnaire developed by the World Bank (WB) STEP team
• Reading Literacy Assessment developed by Educational Testing Services (ETS).

All countries adapted and translated both instruments following the STEP technical standards: two independent translators adapted and translated the STEP background questionnaire and Reading Literacy Assessment, while reconciliation was carried out by a third translator.

The survey instruments were piloted as part of the survey pre-test.

The background questionnaire covers such topics as respondents' demographic characteristics, dwelling characteristics, education and training, health, employment, job skill requirements, personality, behavior and preferences, language and family background.

The background questionnaire, the structure of the Reading Literacy Assessment and Reading Literacy Data Codebook are provided in the document "Bolivia STEP Skills Measurement Survey Instruments", available in external resources.

Cleaning operations

STEP data management process:

1) Raw data is sent by the survey firm 2) The World Bank (WB) STEP team runs data checks on the background questionnaire data. Educational Testing Services (ETS) runs data checks on the Reading Literacy Assessment data. Comments and questions are sent back to the survey firm. 3) The survey firm reviews comments and questions. When a data entry error is identified, the survey firm corrects the data. 4) The WB STEP team and ETS check if the data files are clean. This might require additional iterations with the survey firm. 5) Once the data has been checked and cleaned, the WB STEP team computes the weights. Weights are computed by the STEP team to ensure consistency across sampling methodologies. 6) ETS scales the Reading Literacy Assessment data. 7) The WB STEP team merges the background questionnaire data with the Reading Literacy Assessment data and computes derived variables.

Detailed information on data processing in STEP surveys is provided in "STEP Guidelines for Data Processing" document, available in external resources. The template do-file used by the STEP team to check raw background questionnaire data is provided as an external resource, too.

Response rate

An overall response rate of 43% was achieved in the Bolivia STEP Survey. All non-response cases were documented (refusal/not found/no eligible household member, etc.) and accounted for during the weighting process. In such cases, a reserve household was activated to replace the initial household. Procedures are described in "Operation Manual" that is provided as an external resource.

Graph and download economic data for Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, Could Only Find Part-Time Work, All Industries (LNS12032196) from May 1955 to Jul 2025 about part-time, 16 years +, household survey, employment, industry, and USA.

Thematic Household Survey - Employment Benefits in the Present Job [Report]