|
|
For any question on data and metadata, please contact: Eurostat user support |
|
|||
1.1. Contact organisation | Statistics Belgium |
||
1.2. Contact organisation unit | Thematic Direction Territory |
||
1.5. Contact mail address | Koning Albert II Laan 16, 1000 Brussels, Belgium |
|
|||
2.1. Data description | |||
Data are partly based on surveys, administrative data and estimations |
|||
2.2. Classification system | |||
EWC-STAT4 for type of waste, NACE rev 2 for the economical sectors |
|||
2.3. Coverage - sector | |||
All economical sectors + households |
|||
2.4. Statistical concepts and definitions | |||
We used the concepts and definitions as demanded in the manual |
|||
2.5. Statistical unit | |||
Households and local units |
|||
2.6. Statistical population | |||
The population includes all economical activities + households |
|||
2.7. Reference area | |||
Belgium |
|||
2.8. Coverage - Time | |||
One year |
|||
2.9. Base period | |||
2020 |
|
|||
3.1. Source data | |||
Surveys in all economical sectors, administrative data for capacities, waste treatment, households, services and waste treatment sector |
|||
3.2. Frequency of data collection | |||
Every two years |
|||
3.3. Data collection | |||
Survey every two years + administrative data |
|||
3.4. Data validation | |||
Validation happens by the validations service, especially based on historical data |
|||
3.5. Data compilation | |||
For several data points, the final result was the aggregation of data from three regions. For the industrial sector for instance, data from the flanders region were added to data from our survey in Wallonia and Brussels to obtain the Belgian total. |
|||
3.6. Adjustment | |||
Adjustments can be made if data seem incorrect |
|
|||
4.1. Quality assurance | |||
Through the whole process the highest possible quality is the aim |
|||
4.2. Quality management - assessment | |||
Through the whole process the highest possible quality is the aim |
|
|||
5.1. Relevance - User Needs | |||
We think we fulfill the user needs |
|||
5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction | |||
Users seem te be satisfied by our waste statistics, although a higher quality must be the aim |
|||
5.3. Completeness | |||
Data are complete |
|||
5.3.1. Data completeness - rate | |||
100% |
|
|||
6.1. Accuracy - overall | |||
not applicable |
|||
6.2. Sampling error | |||
not applicable |
|||
6.2.1. Sampling error - indicators | |||
not applicable |
|||
6.3. Non-sampling error | |||
not applicable |
|||
6.3.1. Coverage error | |||
None |
|||
6.3.1.1. Over-coverage - rate | |||
None |
|||
6.3.1.2. Common units - proportion | |||
not applicable |
|||
6.3.2. Measurement error | |||
When there's suspicion that measurement errors are made, data are evaluated again |
|||
6.3.3. Non response error | |||
not applicable |
|||
6.3.3.1. Unit non-response - rate | |||
not applicable |
|||
6.3.3.2. Item non-response - rate | |||
not applicable |
|||
6.3.4. Processing error | |||
When there's suspicion that processing errors are made, data are evaluated again |
|||
6.3.4.1. Imputation - rate | |||
No imputation is done |
|||
6.3.5. Model assumption error | |||
not applicable |
|||
6.4. Seasonal adjustment | |||
None |
|||
6.5. Data revision - policy | |||
Data are revised when there are updates or errors found |
|||
6.6. Data revision - practice | |||
Data are revised when there are updates or errors found |
|||
6.6.1. Data revision - average size | |||
not applicable |
|
|||
7.1. Timeliness | |||
t+18 months |
|||
7.1.1. Time lag - first result | |||
18 months |
|||
7.1.2. Time lag - final result | |||
Updates or corrections are always possible |
|||
7.2. Punctuality | |||
Delivery was made on time |
|||
7.2.1. Punctuality - delivery and publication | |||
Delivery was on time, publication will occur in September |
|
|||
8.1. Comparability - geographical | |||
Concepts and definitions are same for the three geographical units (regions) |
|||
8.1.1. Asymmetry for mirror flow statistics - coefficient | |||
not applicable |
|||
8.2. Comparability - over time | |||
We aim to use the same sources and methodologies for every reporting |
|||
8.2.1. Length of comparable time series | |||
Time series are available from 2004 on |
|||
8.3. Coherence - cross domain | |||
Coherence could be enhanced when data from other reportings will be used |
|||
8.4. Coherence - sub annual and annual statistics | |||
Everything is coherent
|
|||
8.5. Coherence - National Accounts | |||
-N/A |
|||
8.6. Coherence - internal | |||
Everything is coherent |
|
|||
9.1. Dissemination format - News release | |||
Data are published approximately three months after they were send to Eurostat |
|||
9.2. Dissemination format - Publications | |||
Data are published on our website statbel.fgov.be |
|||
9.3. Dissemination format - online database | |||
Data are available on statbel.fgov.be |
|||
9.3.1. Data tables - consultations | |||
+/- 20.000 pageviews per year for all waste related data |
|||
9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access | |||
Micro data are available after the demand passes authorisation |
|||
9.5. Dissemination format - other | |||
not applicable |
|||
9.6. Documentation on methodology | |||
Some information methodology is available on the website |
|||
9.7. Quality management - documentation | |||
Documents are available after request |
|||
9.7.1. Metadata completeness - rate | |||
Close to 100% |
|||
9.7.2. Metadata - consultations | |||
not applicable |
|
|||
It takes approximately one hour for respondents to answer the survey, no additional costs are made |
|
|||
11.1. Confidentiality - policy | |||
Before data are published they pass another validation procedure. Data are published on a whole, but also aggregated in larger groups of waste types and NACEs. When in certain NACES the number of companies is too low they should be left out because of confidentiality. |
|||
11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment | |||
Before data are published they pass another validation procedure. Data are published on a whole, but also aggregated in larger groups of waste types and NACEs. When in certain NACES the number of companies is too low they should be left out because of confidentiality. |
|
|||
None |
|
|||
|
|||