Census Model Transition: Contributions to its Implementation in Portugal

Open access


Given the high cost and complexity of traditional censuses, some countries have started to change the census process. Following this trend, Portugal is also evaluating a new census model as an alternative to an exhaustive collection of all statistical units. The main motivations for the implementation of this census model transition in Portugal are related to the decrease in statistical burden on citizens, improvements in the frequency of outputs, and the reduction of collection costs associated with census operations. This article seeks to systematise and critically review all alternatives to the traditional census methodologies, presenting their advantages and disadvantages and the countries that use them. As a result of the comparison, we conclude that the methods that best meet these objectives are those that use administrative data, either in whole or in part. We also present and discuss the results of an inventory and evaluation of administrative registers in Portugal with the potential to produce statistical census information.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Andersen E. and H. Utne. 2011. “Censuses in a Register-Based Statistical System: Norwegian Experiences.” Paper presented at the 58th World Statistics Congress ISI 2011 IP064.01 21-26 August Dublin Ireland.

  • Ballano C. 2008. “A Census of Population Based on an Administrative Register.” Paper presented at the 24th International Methodology Symposium Statistics Canada 28-31 October Ottawa Canada.

  • Berka C. S. Humer M. Lenk M. Moser H. Rechta and E. Schwerer. 2010. “A Quality Framework for Statistics Based on Administrative Data Sources Using the Example of the Austrian Census 2011.” Austrian Journal of Statistics 39: 299-308.

  • Borchsenius L. 2000. “From a Conventional to a Register-Based Census of Population.” Paper presented at the INSEE/Eurostat Seminar on the Censuses after 2001 20-21 November Paris France.

  • Conti P. D. Marella and M. Scanu. 2012. “Uncertainty Analysis in Statistical Matching.” Journal of Official Statistics 28: 69-88.

  • Daas P. S. Ossen and J. Arends-Tóth. 2009. “Framework of Quality Assurance for Administrative Data Sources.” Paper presented at the 57th World Statistics Congress ISI 2009 16-22 August Durban South Africa.

  • Dolenc D. 2010. “Quality Assessment in a Register-Based Census - Administrative Versus Statistical Concepts in the Case of Households.” Paper presented at the European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics 4-6 May Helsinki Finland.

  • Dugmore K. P. Furness B. Leventhal and C. Moy. 2011. “Beyond the 2011 Census in the United Kingdom - With an International Perspective.” The Market Research Society 53: 619-650.

  • Durr J. and J. Dumais. 2002. “Redesign of the French Census of Population.” Survey Methodology 28: 43-49.

  • Eppmann H. S. Krügener and J. Schäfer. 2006. “First German Register Based Census in 2011.” Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv 90: 465-482. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10182-006-0246-9.

  • Eurostat. 2011. EU legislation on the 2011 Population and Housing Censuses - Explanatory Notes. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

  • Herman E. 2008. “The American Community Survey: An Introduction to the Basics.” Government Information Quarterly 25: 504-519. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.08.006.

  • Houbiers M. 2004. “Towards a Social Statistical Database and Unified Estimates at Statistics Netherlands.” Journal of Official Statistics 20: 55-75.

  • Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE). 2010. Programa de Acção para os Censos 2011. Lisbon Portugal.

  • Kish L. 1986. “Complete Censuses and Sample.” Journal of Official Statistics 2: 381-395.

  • Kish L. 1990. “Rolling Samples and Censuses.” Survey Methodology 16: 63-93.

  • Linder F. 2004. “The Dutch Virtual Census 2001: A New Approach by Combining Administrative Registers and Household Sample Surveys.” Austrian Journal of Statistics 33: 69-88.

  • Maldonado A. D. Scheuregger and K. Ziprik. 2010. “Setting Up the Central Register of Addresses and Buildings of the German Census 2011.” Paper presented at the European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics 4-6 May Helsinki Finland.

  • Mulry M. S. Bean D. Bauder D. Wagner T. Mule and R. Petroni. 2006. “Evaluation of Estimates of Census Duplication Using Administrative Records Information.” Journal of Official Statistics 22: 655-679.

  • Myrskylä P. 1991. “Census by Questionnaire - Census by Registers and Administrative Records: The Experience of Finland.” Journal of Official Statistics 7: 457-474.

  • Nordholt E. 2005. “The Dutch Virtual Census 2001: A New Approach by Combining Different Sources.” Statistical Journal of the United Nations Commission for Europe 22: 25-37.

  • Nordholt E. and F. Linder. 2007. “Record Matching for Census Purposes in the Netherlands.” Statistical Journal of the IAOS 24: 163-171.

  • Nordholt E. S. Ossen and P. Daas. 2011. “Research on the Quality of Registers to Make Data Decisions in the Dutch Virtual Census.” Paper presented at the 58th World Statistics Congress ISI 2011 STS050.01 21-26 August Dublin Ireland. Available at: http://2011.isiproceedings.org/Abstracts/STS050.html (accessed April 2012).

  • Ralphs M. and P. Tutton. 2011. “Beyond 2011: International Models for Census Taking: Current Processes and Future Developments.” Working Paper: Beyond 2011 Project - Office for National Statistics. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/what-we-do/programmes--projects/beyond-2011/news/reports-and-publications/earlyreports-and-research-papers/international-models-for-census-taking.pdf (accessed April 2012).

  • Redfern P. 1986. “Which Countries Will Follow the Scandinavian Lead in Taking a Register-Based Census of Population?” Journal of Official Statistics 2: 415-424.

  • Redfern P. 1989. “Population Registers: Some Administrative and Statistical Pros and Cons.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 152: 1-41. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2982819.

  • Scheuren F. 1999. “Administrative Records and Census Taking.” Survey Methodology 25: 151-160.

  • Statistics Denmark. 1995. Statistics on Persons in Denmark - A Register-Based Statistical System. Luxembourg: Eurostat and Denmark Statistics.

  • Statistics Finland. 2004. Use of Registers and Administrative Data Sources for Statistical Purposes - Best Practices of Statistics Finland. Handbook 45 Helsinki Finland.

  • Statistics Portugal. 2010. “Implementing a Register-Based Census in Portugal: Changing the Paradigm.” Paper presented at Joint UNECE/Eurostat Expert Group Meeting on Register-Based Censuses 10-11 May The Hague The Netherlands.

  • Szenzenstein J. 2005. “The New Method of the Next German Population Census.” Statistical Journal of the United Nations Commission for Europe 22: 59-71.

  • Tönder J.-K. 2008. “The Register-Based Statistical System: Preconditions and Processes.” Paper presented at the International Association for Official Statistics Conference 14-18 October Shanghai China.

  • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 2006. Conference of European Statisticians Recommendations for the 2010 Censuses of Population and Housing Prepared in cooperation with the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat). New York and Geneva: United Nations Publications.

  • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 2007. Register-Based Statistics in the Nordic Countries: Review of Best Practices with Focus on Population and Social Statistics. Geneva Switzerland: United Nations Publications.

  • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 2013. “Census Methodology: Key Results of the UNECE Survey on National Census Practices and First Proposals about the CES Recommendations for the 2020 Census Round.” Paper presented at the Conference of European Statisticians - Group of Experts on Population and Housing Censuses 30 September - 3 October Geneva Switzerland. Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.41/2013/census_meeting/3_E_x_15_Aug_WEB_revised_map.pdf (accessed September 2014).

  • United Nations Statistic Division (UNSD). 2010. Report on the Results of a Survey on Census Methods Used by Countries in the 2010 Census Round. Working Paper: UNSD/DSSB/1. Available at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sources/census/2010_phc/docs/ReportOnSurveyFor2010Census.pdf (accessed April 2012).

  • Valente P. 2010a. “Main Results of the UNECE/UNSD Survey on the 2010/2011 Round of Census in the UNECE Region”. Paper presented at the Working Group on Demography and Census - Eurostat 19-20 April Luxembourg.

  • Valente P. 2010b. “Census Taking in Europe: How Are Populations Counted in 2010?” Population & Societies 467: 1-4.

  • Valente P. 2011. “Innovative Approaches to Census-Taking: Overview of the 2011 Census Round in Europe.” Paper presented at the conference “Statistics in the 150 years from Italian Unification” June 8-10 Bologna Italy.

  • Wallgren A. and B. Wallgren. 2007. Register-Based Statistics - Administrative Data for Statistical Purposes. Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Winkler W. 2011. “Machine Learning and Record Linkage.” Paper presented at the 58th World Statistics Congress ISI 2011 IPS057.01 21-26 August Dublin Ireland. Available at: http://2011.isiproceedings.org/papers/450070.pdf (accessed January 2016).

  • Woods S. 2009. “Evaluating Population Estimates in the United States: Counting the Population Between the Censuses.” Government Information Quarterly 26: 144-147.

  • Zanutto E. and A. Zaslavsky. 2002. “Using Administrative Records to Improve Small Area Estimation: An Example from the U.S. Decennial Census.” Journal of Official Statistics 18: 559-576.

  • Zhang L. 2011. “A United-Error Theory for Register-Based Household Statistics.” Journal of Official Statistics 27: 415-432.

  • Zhang L. 2012. “Topics of Statistical Theory for Register-Based Statistics and Data Integration.” Statistica Neerlandica 66: 41-63. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9574.2011.00508.x.

Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.837
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.934

CiteScore 2018: 1.04

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.963
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.020

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 364 198 1
PDF Downloads 196 130 0