surveys | Economy Data Observatory

Survey Harmonization

Mon, 05 Jul 2021 08:00:00 +0000

We provide retrospecitve, ex post, and ex ante survey harmonization to our partners.

The aim of retrospective survey harmonization is to pool data from pre-existing surveys made with a similar methodology in different points in time and different countries or territories. Ex post survey harmonization is in a way a passive form of pooling research funding because you can utilize information from surveying that were made on somebody else’s expense.

The Arab Barometer surveys do not have a consolidated codebook, but our retroharmonize software created one, and put together data from three years and collected in many countries about various public policy issues.

The aim of ex ante survey harmonization is to maximize the value from future retrospective harmonization; in a way, it is an active form of pooling research funding, because you benefit from money spent on related open governmental and open science survey programs.

In this example we designed a survey representative among music professionals that it can be compared with large-sample, national surveys on living conditions and attitudes, and with occupational groups. Nationally representative surveys do not question enough musicians to allow such specific use; musician only surveys do not allow comparison.

retorhamonize is a peer-reviewed, scientfic statistcal software that allows the programmatic retrospective harmonization of surveys, such as the last 35 years of all Eurobarometer microdata, or all Afrobarometer microdata. Eurobarometer grew out of certain CEE member states’ need for comparable data about their music and audiovisual sectors. We commissioned surveys following ESSNet-Culture guidelines and combined our survey data with open access European microdata-level surveys.

regions solves the problems caused by Europe’s shifting regional boundaries, which have undergone changes in several thousand places over the last twenty years, meaning member states’ and Eurostat’s regional statistics are not comparable over more than two to three years. This software validates and, where possible, changes the regional coding from NUTS1999 until the not yet used NUTS2021, opening up vast, valuable, untapped data sources that can be used for longitudinal analysis or for panel analysis far more precise than what national data alone would allow. It was originally designed in a research project at IVIR in the University of Amsterdam to understand the geographical dynamics of book piracy. Because of the needs this software fills, it had 700 users in the first month after publication. It is particularly useful to re-code old surveys, as regional boundaries are changing in each decade several hundred times in Europe.

Where Are People More Likely To Treat Climate Change as the Most Serious Global Problem?

Sat, 06 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0000

library(regions)
library(lubridate)
library(dplyr)

if ( dir.exists('data-raw') ) {
  data_raw_dir <- "data-raw"
} else {
  data_raw_dir <- file.path("..", "..", "data-raw")
  }

The first results of our longitudinal table were difficult to map, because the surveys used an obsolete regional coding. We will adjust the wrong coding, when possible, and join the data with the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) Air Quality e-Reporting (AQ e-Reporting) data on environmental pollution. We recoded the annual level for every available reporting stations [not shown here] and all values are in μg/m3. The period under observation is 2014-2016. Data file: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/aqereporting-8 (European Environment Agency 2021).

Recoding the Regions

Recoding means that the boundaries are unchanged, but the country changed the names and codes of regions because there were other boundary changes which did not affect our observation unit. We explain the problem and the solution in greater detail in our tutorial that aggregates the data on regional levels.

panel <- readRDS((file.path(data_raw_dir, "climate-panel.rds")))

climate_data_geocode <-  panel %>%
  mutate ( year = lubridate::year(date_of_interview)) %>%
  recode_nuts()

Let’s join the air pollution data and join it by corrected geocodes:

load(file.path("data", "air_pollutants.rda")) ## good practice to use system-independent file.path

climate_awareness_air <- climate_data_geocode %>%
  rename ( region_nuts_codes  = .data$code_2016) %>%
  left_join ( air_pollutants, by = "region_nuts_codes" ) %>%
  select ( -all_of(c("w1", "wex", "date_of_interview", 
                     "typology", "typology_change", "geo", "region"))) %>%
  mutate (
    # remove special labels and create NA_numeric_ 
    age_education = retroharmonize::as_numeric(age_education)) %>%
  mutate_if ( is.character, as.factor) %>%
  mutate ( 
    # we only have responses from 4 years, and this should be treated as a categorical variable
    year = as.factor(year) 
    ) %>%
  filter ( complete.cases(.) )

The climate_awareness_air data frame contains the answers of 75086 individual respondents. 17.07% thought that climate change was the most serious world problem and 33.6% mentioned climate change as one of the three most important global problems.

summary ( climate_awareness_air  )

##                  rowid       serious_world_problems_first
##  ZA5877_v2-0-0_1    :    1   Min.   :0.0000              
##  ZA5877_v2-0-0_10   :    1   1st Qu.:0.0000              
##  ZA5877_v2-0-0_100  :    1   Median :0.0000              
##  ZA5877_v2-0-0_1000 :    1   Mean   :0.1707              
##  ZA5877_v2-0-0_10000:    1   3rd Qu.:0.0000              
##  ZA5877_v2-0-0_10001:    1   Max.   :1.0000              
##  (Other)            :75080                               
##  serious_world_problems_climate_change    isocntry    
##  Min.   :0.000                         BE     : 3028  
##  1st Qu.:0.000                         CZ     : 3023  
##  Median :0.000                         NL     : 3019  
##  Mean   :0.336                         SK     : 3000  
##  3rd Qu.:1.000                         SE     : 2980  
##  Max.   :1.000                         DE-W   : 2978  
##                                        (Other):57058  
##                                    marital_status         age_education  
##  (Re-)Married: without children           :13242   18            :15485  
##  (Re-)Married: children this marriage     :12696   19            : 7728  
##  Single: without children                 : 7650   16            : 5840  
##  (Re-)Married: w children of this marriage: 6520   still studying: 5098  
##  (Re-)Married: living without children    : 6225   17            : 5092  
##  Single: living without children          : 4102   15            : 4528  
##  (Other)                                  :24651   (Other)       :31315  
##    age_exact                      occupation_of_respondent
##  Min.   :15.0   Retired, unable to work       :22911      
##  1st Qu.:36.0   Skilled manual worker         : 6774      
##  Median :51.0   Employed position, at desk    : 6716      
##  Mean   :50.1   Employed position, service job: 5624      
##  3rd Qu.:65.0   Middle management, etc.       : 5252      
##  Max.   :99.0   Student                       : 5098      
##                 (Other)                       :22711      
##             occupation_of_respondent_recoded
##  Employed (10-18 in d15a)   :32763          
##  Not working (1-4 in d15a)  :37125          
##  Self-employed (5-9 in d15a): 5198          
##                                             
##                                             
##                                             
##                                             
##                        respondent_occupation_scale_c_14
##  Retired (4 in d15a)                   :22911          
##  Manual workers (15 to 18 in d15a)     :15269          
##  Other white collars (13 or 14 in d15a): 9203          
##  Managers (10 to 12 in d15a)           : 8291          
##  Self-employed (5 to 9 in d15a)        : 5198          
##  Students (2 in d15a)                  : 5098          
##  (Other)                               : 9116          
##                   type_of_community   is_student      no_education     
##  DK                        :   34   Min.   :0.0000   Min.   :0.000000  
##  Large town                :20939   1st Qu.:0.0000   1st Qu.:0.000000  
##  Rural area or village     :24686   Median :0.0000   Median :0.000000  
##  Small or middle sized town: 9850   Mean   :0.0679   Mean   :0.008151  
##  Small/middle town         :19577   3rd Qu.:0.0000   3rd Qu.:0.000000  
##                                     Max.   :1.0000   Max.   :1.000000  
##                                                                        
##    education       year       region_nuts_codes  country_code  
##  Min.   :14.00   2013:25103   LU     : 1432     DE     : 4531  
##  1st Qu.:17.00   2015:    0   MT     : 1398     GB     : 3538  
##  Median :18.00   2017:25053   CY     : 1192     BE     : 3028  
##  Mean   :19.61   2019:24930   SK02   : 1053     CZ     : 3023  
##  3rd Qu.:22.00                EL30   :  974     NL     : 3019  
##  Max.   :30.00                EE     :  973     SK     : 3000  
##                               (Other):68064     (Other):54947  
##      pm2_5             pm10               o3              BaP        
##  Min.   : 2.109   Min.   :  5.883   Min.   : 66.37   Min.   :0.0102  
##  1st Qu.: 9.374   1st Qu.: 28.326   1st Qu.: 90.89   1st Qu.:0.1779  
##  Median :11.866   Median : 33.673   Median :102.81   Median :0.4105  
##  Mean   :12.954   Mean   : 38.637   Mean   :101.49   Mean   :0.8759  
##  3rd Qu.:15.890   3rd Qu.: 49.488   3rd Qu.:110.73   3rd Qu.:1.0692  
##  Max.   :41.293   Max.   :123.239   Max.   :141.04   Max.   :7.8050  
##                                                                      
##       so2              ap_pc1            ap_pc2             ap_pc3       
##  Min.   : 0.0000   Min.   :-4.6669   Min.   :-2.21851   Min.   :-2.1007  
##  1st Qu.: 0.0000   1st Qu.:-0.4624   1st Qu.:-0.49130   1st Qu.:-0.5695  
##  Median : 0.0000   Median : 0.4263   Median : 0.02902   Median :-0.1113  
##  Mean   : 0.1032   Mean   : 0.1031   Mean   : 0.04166   Mean   :-0.1746  
##  3rd Qu.: 0.0000   3rd Qu.: 0.9748   3rd Qu.: 0.57416   3rd Qu.: 0.3309  
##  Max.   :42.5325   Max.   : 2.0344   Max.   : 3.25841   Max.   : 4.1615  
##                                                                          
##      ap_pc4            ap_pc5        
##  Min.   :-1.7387   Min.   :-2.75079  
##  1st Qu.:-0.1669   1st Qu.:-0.18748  
##  Median : 0.0371   Median : 0.01811  
##  Mean   : 0.1154   Mean   : 0.06797  
##  3rd Qu.: 0.3050   3rd Qu.: 0.34937  
##  Max.   : 3.2476   Max.   : 1.42816  
##

Let’s see a simple CART tree! We remove the regional codes, because there are very serious differences among regional climate awareness. These differences, together with education level, and the year we are talking about, are the most important predictors of thinking about climate change as the most important global problem in Europe.

# Classification Tree with rpart
library(rpart)

# grow tree
fit <- rpart(as.factor(serious_world_problems_first) ~ .,
   method="class", data=climate_awareness_air %>%
     select ( - all_of(c("rowid", "region_nuts_codes"))), 
   control = rpart.control(cp = 0.005))

printcp(fit) # display the results

## 
## Classification tree:
## rpart(formula = as.factor(serious_world_problems_first) ~ ., 
##     data = climate_awareness_air %>% select(-all_of(c("rowid", 
##         "region_nuts_codes"))), method = "class", control = rpart.control(cp = 0.005))
## 
## Variables actually used in tree construction:
## [1] age_education                         isocntry                             
## [3] serious_world_problems_climate_change year                                 
## 
## Root node error: 12817/75086 = 0.1707
## 
## n= 75086 
## 
##          CP nsplit rel error  xerror      xstd
## 1 0.0240566      0   1.00000 1.00000 0.0080438
## 2 0.0082703      3   0.92783 0.92783 0.0078055
## 3 0.0050000      5   0.91129 0.91425 0.0077588

plotcp(fit) # visualize cross-validation results

summary(fit) # detailed summary of splits

## Call:
## rpart(formula = as.factor(serious_world_problems_first) ~ ., 
##     data = climate_awareness_air %>% select(-all_of(c("rowid", 
##         "region_nuts_codes"))), method = "class", control = rpart.control(cp = 0.005))
##   n= 75086 
## 
##            CP nsplit rel error    xerror        xstd
## 1 0.024056592      0 1.0000000 1.0000000 0.008043837
## 2 0.008270266      3 0.9278302 0.9278302 0.007805478
## 3 0.005000000      5 0.9112897 0.9142545 0.007758824
## 
## Variable importance
## serious_world_problems_climate_change                              isocntry 
##                                    31                                    26 
##                          country_code                                   BaP 
##                                    20                                     8 
##                                 pm2_5                                ap_pc1 
##                                     4                                     3 
##                         age_education                                  pm10 
##                                     2                                     2 
##                             education                                ap_pc2 
##                                     2                                     1 
##                                  year 
##                                     1 
## 
## Node number 1: 75086 observations,    complexity param=0.02405659
##   predicted class=0  expected loss=0.1706976  P(node) =1
##     class counts: 62269 12817
##    probabilities: 0.829 0.171 
##   left son=2 (25229 obs) right son=3 (49857 obs)
##   Primary splits:
##       serious_world_problems_climate_change < 0.5          to the right, improve=2214.2040, (0 missing)
##       isocntry                              splits as  RRLLLRRRLLRLRLLLLLLLLLLRRLLLRLL, improve= 728.0160, (0 missing)
##       country_code                          splits as  RRLLLRRLLRLLLLLLLLLLRRLLLRLL, improve= 673.3656, (0 missing)
##       BaP                                   < 0.4300347    to the right, improve= 310.6229, (0 missing)
##       pm2_5                                 < 13.38264     to the right, improve= 296.4013, (0 missing)
##   Surrogate splits:
##       age_education splits as  ----RRRRRR-RRRRRRRRRR-RRRRRRRRRR-RRRRRRRRRR-RRRRRRRRRR-RRRRRL-RRR-RRRRRRRRR--RRRLLR--R-R, agree=0.664, adj=0, (0 split)
##       pm10          < 7.491315     to the left,  agree=0.664, adj=0, (0 split)
## 
## Node number 2: 25229 observations
##   predicted class=0  expected loss=0  P(node) =0.3360014
##     class counts: 25229     0
##    probabilities: 1.000 0.000 
## 
## Node number 3: 49857 observations,    complexity param=0.02405659
##   predicted class=0  expected loss=0.2570752  P(node) =0.6639986
##     class counts: 37040 12817
##    probabilities: 0.743 0.257 
##   left son=6 (34631 obs) right son=7 (15226 obs)
##   Primary splits:
##       isocntry     splits as  RRLLLRRRLLRLRLLLLLLLLLLRRLLLRLL, improve=1454.9460, (0 missing)
##       country_code splits as  RRLLLRRLLRLLLLLLLLLLRRLLLRLL, improve=1359.7210, (0 missing)
##       BaP          < 0.4300347    to the right, improve= 629.8844, (0 missing)
##       pm2_5        < 13.38264     to the right, improve= 555.7484, (0 missing)
##       ap_pc1       < -0.005459537 to the left,  improve= 533.3579, (0 missing)
##   Surrogate splits:
##       country_code splits as  RRLLLRRLLRLLLLLLLLLLRRLLLRLL, agree=0.987, adj=0.957, (0 split)
##       BaP          < 0.1749425    to the right, agree=0.775, adj=0.264, (0 split)
##       pm2_5        < 5.206993     to the right, agree=0.737, adj=0.140, (0 split)
##       ap_pc1       < 1.405527     to the left,  agree=0.733, adj=0.126, (0 split)
##       pm10         < 25.31211     to the right, agree=0.718, adj=0.076, (0 split)
## 
## Node number 6: 34631 observations
##   predicted class=0  expected loss=0.1769802  P(node) =0.4612178
##     class counts: 28502  6129
##    probabilities: 0.823 0.177 
## 
## Node number 7: 15226 observations,    complexity param=0.02405659
##   predicted class=0  expected loss=0.4392487  P(node) =0.2027808
##     class counts:  8538  6688
##    probabilities: 0.561 0.439 
##   left son=14 (11607 obs) right son=15 (3619 obs)
##   Primary splits:
##       isocntry      splits as  LL---LLR--L-L----------LL---R--, improve=337.5462, (0 missing)
##       country_code  splits as  LL---LR--L-L--------LL---R--, improve=337.5462, (0 missing)
##       age_education splits as  ----LLLLLL-LLLRRRRRRR-RRRRRRRRRL-RRRRRRLLRR-RRRRLLRLRL-RRLRRR-RRR-LLLLRRR-----LR-----L-R, improve=294.0807, (0 missing)
##       education     < 22.5         to the left,  improve=262.3747, (0 missing)
##       BaP           < 0.053328     to the right, improve=232.7043, (0 missing)
##   Surrogate splits:
##       BaP           < 0.053328     to the right, agree=0.878, adj=0.485, (0 split)
##       pm2_5         < 4.810361     to the right, agree=0.827, adj=0.271, (0 split)
##       ap_pc2        < 0.8746175    to the left,  agree=0.792, adj=0.124, (0 split)
##       so2           < 0.3302972    to the left,  agree=0.781, adj=0.078, (0 split)
##       age_education splits as  ----LLLLLL-LLLLLLLRLR-LRRLRRRRRR-RRRRLLLLLR-LRLRLLRRLL-LLRLLR-LLR-RRLLLLL-----RR-----R-L, agree=0.779, adj=0.071, (0 split)
## 
## Node number 14: 11607 observations,    complexity param=0.008270266
##   predicted class=0  expected loss=0.3804601  P(node) =0.1545827
##     class counts:  7191  4416
##    probabilities: 0.620 0.380 
##   left son=28 (7462 obs) right son=29 (4145 obs)
##   Primary splits:
##       age_education                    splits as  ----LLLLLL-LRRRRRRRRR-RRLRRLRRLL-RRRRLRLLRR-RLRLLLRLRL-RR-RR--RRL-L-LLRRR------------L-R, improve=123.71070, (0 missing)
##       year                             splits as  R-LR, improve=107.79460, (0 missing)
##       education                        < 20.5         to the left,  improve= 90.28724, (0 missing)
##       occupation_of_respondent         splits as  LRRLRRRRRLRLLLRLLL, improve= 84.62865, (0 missing)
##       respondent_occupation_scale_c_14 splits as  LRLLLRRL, improve= 68.88653, (0 missing)
##   Surrogate splits:
##       education                        < 20.5         to the left,  agree=0.950, adj=0.861, (0 split)
##       occupation_of_respondent         splits as  LLLLRLLRRLRLLLRLLL, agree=0.738, adj=0.267, (0 split)
##       respondent_occupation_scale_c_14 splits as  LRLLLLRL, agree=0.733, adj=0.251, (0 split)
##       is_student                       < 0.5          to the left,  agree=0.709, adj=0.186, (0 split)
##       age_exact                        < 23.5         to the right, agree=0.676, adj=0.094, (0 split)
## 
## Node number 15: 3619 observations
##   predicted class=1  expected loss=0.3722023  P(node) =0.04819807
##     class counts:  1347  2272
##    probabilities: 0.372 0.628 
## 
## Node number 28: 7462 observations
##   predicted class=0  expected loss=0.326052  P(node) =0.09937938
##     class counts:  5029  2433
##    probabilities: 0.674 0.326 
## 
## Node number 29: 4145 observations,    complexity param=0.008270266
##   predicted class=0  expected loss=0.4784077  P(node) =0.05520337
##     class counts:  2162  1983
##    probabilities: 0.522 0.478 
##   left son=58 (2573 obs) right son=59 (1572 obs)
##   Primary splits:
##       year                     splits as  L-LR, improve=40.13885, (0 missing)
##       occupation_of_respondent splits as  LRLLRRRRRLRLLLRLLL, improve=18.33254, (0 missing)
##       marital_status           splits as  LRRRLRRRLRRLRLLRRRRRRLRLRLLRR, improve=17.86888, (0 missing)
##       type_of_community        splits as  LRLRL, improve=17.55254, (0 missing)
##       age_education            splits as  ------------LLRRRRRRR-RR-RL-RR---LRRR-R--LR-R-R---R-R--RR-RR--RR------RRR--------------R, improve=14.66121, (0 missing)
##   Surrogate splits:
##       type_of_community splits as  LLLRL, agree=0.777, adj=0.412, (0 split)
##       marital_status    splits as  RRLLLLLRLLLLLLLRRRLLLLLLRLRLL, agree=0.680, adj=0.155, (0 split)
##       isocntry          splits as  LL---LL---L-R----------LL------, agree=0.669, adj=0.127, (0 split)
##       country_code      splits as  LL---L---L-R--------LL------, agree=0.669, adj=0.127, (0 split)
##       o3                < 83.06345     to the right, agree=0.650, adj=0.076, (0 split)
## 
## Node number 58: 2573 observations
##   predicted class=0  expected loss=0.4240187  P(node) =0.03426737
##     class counts:  1482  1091
##    probabilities: 0.576 0.424 
## 
## Node number 59: 1572 observations
##   predicted class=1  expected loss=0.43257  P(node) =0.02093599
##     class counts:   680   892
##    probabilities: 0.433 0.567

# plot tree
plot(fit, uniform=TRUE,
   main="Classification Tree: Climate Change Is The Most Serious Threat")
text(fit, use.n=TRUE, all=TRUE, cex=.8)

## Warning in labels.rpart(x, minlength = minlength): more than 52 levels in a
## predicting factor, truncated for printout

saveRDS ( climate_awareness_air , file.path(tempdir(), "climate_panel_recoded.rds"), version = 2)

# not evaluated
saveRDS( climate_awareness_air, file = file.path("data-raw", "climate-panel_recoded.rds"))

What is Retrospective Survey Harmonization?

Thu, 04 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Reproducible ex post harmonization of survey microdata

Retrospective survey harmonization allows the comparison of opinion poll data conducted in different countries or time. In this example we are working with data from surveys that were ex ante harmonized to a certain degree – in our tutorials we are choosing questions that were asked in the same way in many natural languages. For example, you can compare what percentage of the European people in various countries, provinces and regions thought climate change was a serious world problem back in 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2019.

We developed the retroharmonize R package to help this process. We have tested the package with about 80 Eurobarometer, 5 Afrobarometer survey files extensively, and a bit with Arabbarometer files. This allows the comparison of various survey answers in about 70 countries. This policy-oriented survey programs were designed to be harmonized to a certain degree, but their ex post harmonization is still necessary, challenging and errorprone. Retrospective harmonization includes harmonization of the different coding used for questions and answer options, post-stratification weights, and using different file formats.

Eurobarometer, Afrobaromer, Arab Barometer and Latinobarómetro make survey files that are harmonized across countries available for research with various terms. Our retroharmonize is not affiliated with them, and to run our examples, you must visit their websites, carefully read their terms, agree to them, and download their data yourself. What we add as a value is that we help to connect their files across time (from different years) or across these programs.

The survey programs mentioned above publish their data in the proprietary SPSS format. This file format can be imported and translated to R objects with the haven package; however, we needed to re-design haven’s labelled_spss class to maintain far more metadata, which, in turn, a modification of the labelled class. The haven package was designed and tested with data stored in individual SPSS files.

The author of labelled, Joseph Larmarange describes two main approaches to work with labelled data, such as SPSS’s method to store categorical data in the Introduction to labelled.

Two main approaches of labelled data conversion.

Our approach is a further extension of Approach B. Survey harmonization in our case always means the joining data from several SPSS files, which requires a consistent coding among several data sources. This means that data cleaning and recoding must take place before conversion to factors, character or numeric vectors. This is particularly important with factor data (and their simple character conversions) and numeric data that occasionally contains labels, for example, to describe the reason why certain data is missing. Our tutorial vignette labelled_spss_survey gives you more information about this.

In the next series of tutorials, we will deal with an array of problems. These are not for the faint heart – you need to have a solid intermediate level of R to follow.

Tidy, joined survey data

The original files identifiers may not be unique, we have to create new, truly unique identifiers. Weighting may not be straightforward.
Neither the number of observations or the number of variables (which represents the survey questions and their translation to coded data) is the same. Certain data may be only present in one survey and not the other. This means that you will likely to run loops on lists and not data.frames, but eventually you must carefully join them.

Class conversion

Similar questions may be imported from a non-native R format, in our case, from an SPSS files, in an inconsistent manner. SPSS’s variable formats cannot be translated unambiguously to R classes. retroharmonize introduced a new S3 class system that handles this problem, but eventually you will have to choose if you want to see a numeric or character coding of each categorical variable.
The harmonized surveys, with harmonized variable names and harmonized value labels, must be brought to consistent R representations (most statistical functions will only work on numeric, factor or character data) and carefully joined into a single data table for analysis.

Harmonization of variables and variable labels

Same variables may come with dissimilar variable names and variable labels. It may be a challenge to match age with age. We need to harmonize the names of variables.
The harmonized variables may have different labeling. One may call refused answers as declined and the other refusal. On a simple choice, climate change may be ‘Climate change’ or Problem: Climate change. Binary choices may have survey-specific coding conventions. Value labels must be harmonized. There are good tools to do this in a single file - but we have to work with several of them.

Missing value harmonization

There are likely to be various types of missing values. Working with missing values is probably where most human judgment is needed. Why are some answers missing: was the question not asked in some questionnaires? Is there a coding error? Did the respondent refuse the question, or sad that she did not have an answer? retroharmonize has a special labeled vector type that retains this information from the raw data, if it is present, but you must make the judgment yourself – in R, eventually you will either create a missing category, or use NA_character_ or NA_real_.

That’s a lot to put on your plate.

It is unlikely that you will be able to work with completely unfamiliar survey programs if you do not have a strong intermediate level of R. Our package comes with tutorials for Eurobarometer, Afrobarometer and our development version already covers Arab Barometer, highlighting some peculiar issues with these survey programs, that we hope to give a head start for less experienced R users.

Eurobarometer Surveys Used In Our Project

Wed, 03 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0000

In our tutorial series, we are going to harmonize the following questionnaire items from five Eurobarometer harmonized survey files. The Eurobarometer survey files are harmonized across countries, but they are only partially harmonized in time.

All data must be downloaded from the GESIS Data Archive in Cologne. We are not affiliated with GESIS and you must read and accept their terms to use the data.

Eurobarometer 80.2 (2013)

GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5877 Data file Version 2.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12792

Data file: ZA6595 data file (European Commission 2017).
Questionnaire: Eurobarometer 83.4 Basic Bilingual Questionnaire
Citation: ZA6595 Bibtex

QA1a Which of the following do you consider to be the single most serious problem facing the world as a whole? (single choice)

QA1b Which others do you consider to be serious problems? (multiple choice)

QA2 And how serious a problem do you think climate change is at this moment? Please use a scale from 1 to 10, with '1' meaning it is "not at all a serious problem (scale 1-10)

QA4 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Fighting climate change and using energy more efficiently can boost the economy and jobs in the EU (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

QA4 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Reducing fossil fuel imports from outside the EU could benefit the EU economically (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

QA5 Have you personally taken any action to fight climate change over the past six months? (binary)

Eurobarometer 83.4 (2015)

European Commission, Brussels; Directorate General Communication COMM.A.1 ´Strategy, Corporate Communication Actions and Eurobarometer´GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA6595 Data file Version 3.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13146

Data file: ZA6595 data file (European Commission 2018).
Questionnaire: Eurobarometer 83.4 Basic Bilingual Questionnaire
Citation: ZA6595 Bibtex

Eurobarometer 87.1 (2017)

European Commission, Brussels; Directorate General Communication, COMM.A.1 ‘Strategic Communication’; European Parliament, Directorate-General for Communication, Public Opinion Monitoring Unit GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA6861 Data file Version 1.2.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12922

Data file: ZA6861 data file.
Questionnaire: Eurobarometer 90.2 Basic Bilingual Questionnaire
Citation: ZA6861 Bibtex

QC1a Which of the following do you consider to be the single most serious problem facing the world as a whole? (single choice)

QC1b Which others do you consider to be serious problems? (multiple choice)

QC2 And how serious a problem do you think climate change is at this moment? Please use a scale from 1 to 10, with '1' meaning it is "not at all a serious problem (scale 1-10)

Qc4 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Fighting climate change and using energy more efficiently can boost the economy and jobs in the EU (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

Qc4 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Promoting EU expertise in new clean technologies to countries outside the EU can benefit the EU economically (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

Qc4 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Reducing fossil fuel imports from outside the EU can benefit the EU economically (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

Qc4 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Reducing fossil fuel imports from outside the EU can increase the security of EU energy supplies (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

Qc4 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - More public financial support should be given to the transition to clean energies even if it means subsidies to fossil fuels should be reduced. (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

Qc5 Have you personally taken any action to fight climate change over the past six months? (binary)

Eurobarometer 90.2 (2018)

European Commission, Brussels; Directorate General Communication, COMM.A.3 ‘Media Monitoring and Eurobarometer’ GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7488 Data file Version 1.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13289

Data file: ZA7488 data file (European Commission 2019a)
Questionnaire: Eurobarometer 90.2 Basic Bilingual Questionnaire
Citation: ZA7488 Bibtex

QB5 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Fighting climate change and using energy more efficiently can boost the economy and jobs in the EU (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

QB5 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Promoting EU expertise in new clean technologies to countries outside the EU can benefit the EU economically (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

QB5 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Reducing fossil fuel imports from outside the EU can benefit the EU economically (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

QB5 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Reducing fossil fuel imports from outside the EU can increase the security of EU energy supplies (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

QB5 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - More public financial support should be given to the transition to clean energies even if it means subsidies to fossil fuels should be reduced. (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

Eurobarometer 91.3 (2019)

European Commission, Brussels; Directorate General Communication, COMM.A.3 ‘Media Monitoring and Eurobarometer’ GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7572 Data file Version 1.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13372

Data file: ZA7572 data file (European Commission 2019b).
Questionnaire: Eurobarometer 91.3 Basic Bilingual Questionnaire
Citation: ZA7572 Bibtex

QB4 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Taking action on climate change will lead to innovation that will make EU companies more competitive (N) (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

QB4 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Promoting EU expertise in new clean technologies to countries outside the EU can benefit the EU economically (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

QB4 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Reducing fossil fuel imports from outside the EU can benefit the EU economically (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

QB4 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? - Adapting to the adverse impacts of climate change can have positive outcomes for citizens in the EU (agreement-disagreement 4-scale)

QB5 Have you personally taken any action to fight climate change over the past six months? (binary)

References

European Commission, Brussels. 2017. “Eurobarometer 80.2 (2013).” GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5877 Data file Version 2.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12792. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12792.

———. 2018. “Eurobarometer 83.4 (2015).” GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA6595 Data file Version 3.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13146. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13146.

———. 2019a. “Eurobarometer 90.2 (2018).” GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7488 Data file Version 1.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13289. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13289.

———. 2019b. “Eurobarometer 91.3 (2019).” GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7572 Data file Version 1.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13372. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13372.