"automated data collection in accommodation statistics: a european overview"...
TRANSCRIPT
"Automated data collection in accommodation statistics: a
European overview"
Rome, 3rd December 2012
• Introduction
• ESSnet project “Automated data collection and reporting in accommodation statistics ”
• Advantages and disadvantages
• Next steps
• Conclusions
Introduction
• Regulation 692/2011, economical situation: more information, key indicators. But…
• Code of practice, regulations: reduce the respondent burden.
• Information available in the management software of accommodation establishments…
• Automated data collection: different formats (XML, XBRL), different uses (accommodation statistics, structural business statistics, social surveys).
Spain
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Belgium
LatviaLithuania
Poland
Bulgaria
SlovakiaHungary
CroatiaSwitzerland
Automated data collection in Europe
Spain
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Belgium Germany
Denmark
NorwaySweden
Finland
LatviaLithuania
Poland
SlovakiaHungary
BulgariaCroatia
ESSnet project I
• In 2011 ESSnet project “Automated data collection and reporting in accommodation statistics” was launched.
• Spain (coordinator), Bulgaria, Belgium, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia.
• Aim: develop a common European XML file => conclusion: each country has developed a XML/XBRL file for accommodation statistics.
ESSnet project II
Work Package 2: To research on the management software packages
Work Package 3: To analyse the automated data collection systems already working
Work Package 4: Definition of a common XML schema for occupancy surveys
Work Package 5: Application to receive XML files
Work Package 6: Evaluation of NSI’s information systems
Work Package 7: Feed-back reports to establishments
Work Package 8: Dissemination
Advantages For establishments:
• A big reduction of the response burden;• The feed-back reports containing customized
information.
For Statistical Organizations:• An increase of the quality of the data (no typing
error, no missing data, validation before including the data into the NSI database);
• A reduction in the costs (no need to type the data, no need for editing or imputation);
• An improvement of timeliness and punctuality.
Disadvantages For establishments:
• Costs in money and/or time to buy/develop the application;
• Establishments can be afraid to technical problems or confidentiality.
For Statistical Organizations:• Costs to implement the new collection system,
although once the system is implemented can be used for other surveys and the use of open-sources software can help.
Next steps
Countries that have already developed the automated data collection system:
• To analyze the possibility to broaden the system to other surveys;
• To increase the number of establishments;• To create synergies with other countries (international
chains).
Countries that have not developed the automated data collection system:
• To take advantage of the work done by the countries using this data collection system.
Conclusions
Automated data collection
Code of PracticeRegulation 223/2009Regulation 692/2011 GSBPM
Non excessive
burden on respondents
Quality, coherence
andcomparability
Costs saving
Feed-back with users
Validation,editing
andimputation
Timeliness