2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates
Republic of the Philippines Philippine Statistics Authority
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates
CAR Region I Region II
Region III Region IV-A
NCR Region V Region VIII Region IV-B
Region VI
Region VII
Region X Caraga
Region IX Region XI
ARMM
Region XII
The 2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates is a major output of the Project on the Generation of 2012 Small Area Estimates of Poverty implemented by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA).
31 May 2016 Philippines 2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates
is a publication prepared by the Poverty and Human Development Statistics Division
of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA).
For technical inquiries, please contact us at: (632) 376-1991 or email us at [email protected].
TERMS OF USE OF PSA PUBLICATIONS The PSA reserves its exclusive right to reproduce all its publications in whatever form. Any part of this publication should not be reproduced, recopied, lent or repackaged for other parties for any commercial purposes without written permission from the PSA. Any part of this publication may only be reproduced for internal use of the recipient/customer company. Should any portion of the data in this publication be included in a report/article, the title of the publication and the PSA as publisher should be cited as the source of the data. Any information derived from the processing of data contained in this publication will not be the responsibility of PSA.
Published by the Philippine Statistics Authority PSA CVEA Building East Avenue, Diliman Quezon City Philippines
31 May 2016
The 2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates is available in electronic formats (Excel/Word/PDF in CDRom).
For details, please contact us at (632) 890-8456 or at [email protected].
FOREWORD
This report features the 2012 municipal and city level poverty estimates in the country as part of the output of the Project on the Generation of the 2012 Small Area Estimates of Poverty, which is a government-funded project implemented by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). It is a follow-up study to the earlier projects of the former National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB, now part of the PSA) on Poverty Mapping in the Philippines Project, the Intercensal Updating of Small Area Poverty Estimates Project, and the Project on the Generation of 2006 and 2009 Small Area Estimates of Poverty. These earlier projects were funded through the World Bank (WB) - Asia Europe Meeting Trust Fund, WB Trust Fund for Statistical Capacity Building, Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and the Philippine Government. These projects generated municipal and city level poverty estimates for 2000, 2003, and 2006 and 2009 respectively, using small area estimation (SAE) technique.
Similar to the earlier projects, the SAE technique used is the Elbers, Lanjouw and Lanjouw (ELL), a method developed by the WB wherein the survey and census data conducted on the same year are combined to produce reliable poverty estimates at lower levels of geographic disaggregation. As in the previous projects, the ELL method was modified to come up with estimates even during intercensal years.
We would like to express our deepest appreciation to our Project Technical Resource Person, Dr. Zita VJ. Albacea of the Philippine Statistical Research and Training Institute (PSRTI) for her valuable guidance and assistance and to our Project’s Technical Adviser, Dr. Romulo A. Virola, for his significant recommendations and active participation in the Project activities. We acknowledge their untiring efforts in helping us with this Project, which will hopefully contribute to the improvement of the Philippine Statistical System (PSS).
This report also highlights the validation exercises and consultations done with the local government units, and provides the actual policy uses of the small area poverty estimates in the Philippines emphasizing the relevance of the project outputs to national and local policymaking. More specifically, the municipal and city level poverty estimates were used by several national and local government agencies in their policymaking and program planning, e.g., the Department of Social Welfare and Development’s (DSWD) use of the SAE of poverty as basis for the identification of areas for the Kapit- Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan- Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI- CIDSS), the Pantawid Pamilya Program and the Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP). It is hoped that the results of this project will further help local communities, policymakers and program implementers in the formulation of appropriate programs and improvements in targeting schemes aimed at reducing poverty.
LISA GRACE S. BERSALES, PhD National Statistician and Civil Registrar General
.
Table of Contents Page I. Introduction 1 II. 2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates 5 III. Actual Policy Uses A. Policy Formulation, Planning and Monitoring 11 B. Targeting Beneficiaries of Programs/Projects 12 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 14 V. Annex A. Definition of Terms 19 B. Methodology 1. Background 20 2. Data Sources 23
3. Implementation of the Methodology a. Introduction/Background 25
b. Selection of Explanatory Variables 26
c. Statistical Modeling 35 d. Development and Selection of Regional Models 36 e. Comparison of Estimates 38 4. Limitations of the Study 38 C. Validation Workshops 1. Objectives 42 2. Mechanics 42 3. Forms Used 45 4. Findings 47 D. Advocacy 47 E. Lessons Learned 51 F. 2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates 52
References Project Staff
I. Introduction
Poverty reduction remains the overarching goal of the Philippine government. The main vision of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2011-2016 is to achieve rapid, sustainable and inclusive growth that will generate employment opportunities and reduce poverty. The PDP 2011-2016 Midterm Update further recognized the need for fine- tuning strategies on poverty reduction to unleash the potential of all sectors in the areas and communities where the poorest and most vulnerable are found. This is also in consonance with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and its successor, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which embodies specific targets and milestones in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide. While MDG 1 aims to halve the poverty rate in 2015 from its baseline rate in 1990, the SDG 1 envisions eradicating extreme poverty for all people everywhere by 2030. Recognizing that poverty reduction is a long-term program that requires uninterrupted growth over a reasonable length of time, the generation of more frequent, timely and relevant national and sub-national poverty statistics are deemed critical inputs to achieve this objective.
Official poverty statistics in the country are generated by the former National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), now part of the Philippine Statistics Authority1 (PSA), in accordance with Executive Order (EO) No. 352, Designation of Statistical Activities that will Generate Critical Data for Decision-making of the Government and Private Sector. The official poverty estimation methodology is developed by the Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics, which has a multi-sectoral representation consisting of noted experts in poverty measurement coming from the academe, producers and users of poverty statistics from both government and non-government organizations. Official poverty statistics released by the PSA include national, regional and provincial poverty estimates directly estimated from the triennial Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES). Further, starting 2013, national poverty estimates are also generated using the results of the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS), which is conducted in years when the FIES is not conducted. These poverty estimates are defined and estimated in line with Republic Act (RA) 8425, the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act, which refers to
1 The Philippine Statistics Authority was established on 12 September 2013 by virtue of Republic Act 10625, otherwise known as the “Philippine Statistical Act of 2013”, which merged the major statistical agencies engaged in primary data collection and compilation of secondary data, namely: National Statistics Office (NSO); National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB); Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS); and Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics (BLES).
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 1
the poor as those families and individuals whose income fall below the poverty threshold and who cannot afford to provide for their minimum basic needs in a sustained manner.
The increasing clamour for lower disaggregation of poverty statistics for better targeted poverty reduction programs has been recognized by the former NSCB as it embarked on a Poverty Mapping Project with funding assistance from the World Bank Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) Trust Fund in 2004. This Project made possible the release of 2000 poverty estimates for all the 1,622 municipalities and cities in the country through small area estimation in 2005. Small area estimation is a statistical methodology that allows the estimation at lower levels of disaggregation by combining information collected from a survey with data from other sources such as the census. A variant of this methodology, called the Elbers, Lanjouw and Lanjouw (ELL) Method, was applied in the Project using the 2000 Census of Population and Housing (CPH), 4th Round of the 2000 Labor Force Survey (LFS) and 2000 FIES.
Recognizing the need to update these 2000 municipal and city level poverty estimates, the former NSCB implemented the “Intercensal Updating of Small Area Poverty Estimates Project” in 2006 through the World Bank Trust Fund for Statistical Capacity Building (WB TFSCB). The study aimed to explore the possibility of generating reliable 2003 municipal and city level poverty estimates using a slight modification of the ELL Methodology used in the earlier Project, but still using 2000 census data. The results of these projects were utilized in a number of projects by the government and private sector, including the identification of municipalities where household information for the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR) of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) will be collected. The NHTS- PR serves as the DSWD guide in the identification and updating of their beneficiaries for the flagship program of the government, called the Pantawid Pamilya Program.
The continuing demand for updated municipal and city level poverty estimates as well as trend analysis on local level poverty estimates were further addressed by the former NSCB, with funding assistance from Australian Government, WB and the national government, by undertaking the project on the generation of the 2006 and 2009 municipal and city level poverty estimates. Furthermore, in 2014, the national government recognized the need for sustainability and regular updating of these estimates as it solely funded the project on the generation of the 2012 municipal and city level poverty estimates. It is hoped that the results of this Project, like the earlier
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 2
initiatives of the former NSCB, will be a useful guide to local government units, policy makers and program implementers in formulating/designing intervention programs aimed at reducing poverty.
The clamour for sustaining the efforts for the generation of lower level disaggregation of poverty statistics was recognized by the Philippine Statistical System. The Philippine Statistical Development Program (PSDP) 2011-2017 and the Updated PSDP 2011-2017, similar to the PSDP 2005-2010, reflected statistical programs and activities related to SAE of poverty, i.e., regular generation of poverty statistics at the municipal and city levels and improvement of the estimation methodology on city and municipal level poverty statistics towards the adoption of an official methodology.
Sub-national statistics like the municipal and city level estimates were commonly obtained using a model-based approach. Hence, the estimates from this approach are based on certain assumptions which play vital role in the limitation of its use. Like other estimates, these are presented with their measures of precision and reliability, specifically their standard error and coefficient of variation. This is done to caution users that this set of estimates is just one of the many possible estimates that could be obtained and as these are not exact values but rather, most likely values. These estimates are very useful in targeting the poor localities, especially if the estimates are with small standard error and coefficient of variation.
Recognizing that some of the estimated poverty incidence of municipalities may have overlapping confidence intervals with other municipalities, hence, it may not be accurate to rank the cities and municipalities, , the estimates were grouped instead so that the municipalities and cities within a group are more likely to have the same level of poverty status. There are five groups identified which are referred to as (1) Level 1; (2) Level 2; (3) Level 3; (4) Level 4; and (5) Level 5. It is deemed that those in Level 1 is the group of municipalities and cities with low poverty estimates having estimated poverty incidence of at most 20%. Those in Level 2 are municipalities and cities with estimated poverty incidence greater than 20% but at most 40%. Level 3 are municipalities and cities with poverty incidence greater than 40% but at most 60%; while Level 4 are municipalities and cities with poverty incidence greater than 60% but at most 80%. The municipalities and cities which need help the most, are those in Level 5 with poverty incidence greater than 80%.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 3
Knowing to which group a specific municipality or city belongs is useful for national planners in targeting the rightful beneficiaries of a poverty alleviation program. On the other hand, local chief executives of the country’s municipalities and cities will have the useful information describing poverty in their localities based on these estimates. In terms of monitoring the performance of a municipality or city, its membership to a group could be observed if there is a change in the grouping to where the municipality or city belongs. A shift in the group where a municipality or city belongs, from a higher to lower group in terms of poverty incidence, signals that the municipality or a city has improved its poverty status. Such information on poverty dynamics is useful for both the national and local executives in monitoring the performance of a municipality or city in relation to their poverty alleviation programs or initiatives.
Grouping, instead of ranking of the estimates was prescribed to consider municipality or city with overlapping poverty estimates. This is the same practice observed in releasing the official provincial poverty statistics wherein the PSA does not encourage ranking of provinces based on point estimate of the poverty incidence and instead releases the provinces by clusters based on the confidence intervals of the poverty incidence. It is deemed that while the rank of the estimates could be used in monitoring the performance of a municipality or city relative to others, it should be emphasized that the observed difference might not be statistically significant . Likewise, there could be observed changes in the estimates across time but those changes may not be declared statistically significant. In such cases, it could be said that the change is not large enough to indicate a significant difference based on the random sample used in the estimation. Thus data users need to be aware of these technical matters in interpreting data.
Also, it should be noted that municipal and city level poverty estimates are income-based indicators. It is encouraged that other non-monetary based poverty related indicators be also utilized in assessing the poverty situation in a locality. But in general, when used appropriately, these small area estimates may serve as useful information in targeting and monitoring the poor municipalities and cities in the country.
In addition to this Report, user-friendly information materials highlighting the results in each region of the country will be made available.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 4
II. Highlights of the 2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates
The distribution of the 1,633 municipality and city level estimates of poverty incidence among population in 2012 is presented in the following table and figure. On the average, about 33.4% of municipalities and cities are classified in Level 1 or those with poverty incidences of at most 20%. For Level 2, with poverty incidences between 20% and 40%, about 38.9% of municipalities and cities are classified in this group. For Levels 3 and 4, with poverty incidences between 40% and 60% and between 60% and 80%, about 21.4% and 6.1% of municipalities and cities belong to these groups, respectively. On the extreme end of distribution, which is Level 5 consisting of municipalities and cities with poverty incidences greater than 80%, about 0.3% or five municipalities are classified in this group. The municipalities which belong to Level 5 are found in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM); two of which (Datu Saudi-Ampatuan and Talayan) are in the Province of Maguindanao and the other three (Bacolod-kalawi, Lumbayanaque and Piagapo) are in the Province of Lanao del Sur. It may be noted that on the average, eight out of every 10 residents of any of these five municipalities are considered poor. In 2012, the municipality with the highest poverty incidence among population is the Municipality of Bacolod-Kalawi in the Province of Lanao del Sur with poverty incidence of 84.8%. This is a reliable estimate since the estimate’s coefficient of variation is only 6.7%. The area graph in Figure 1 shows that one-third of all the municipalities and cities in the country are in Level 1. In terms of count, this means that there are 545 municipalities and cities categorized in the Level 1.
Table 1. Distribution of 2012 municipal and city level poverty incidence estimates by poverty classification. Poverty Poverty Incidence Count % < RCF* Classification Among Population (%)
Level 1 At most 20.0 545 33.4 33
Level 2 21.0 to 40.0 635 38.9 72
Level 3 41.0 to 60.0 349 21.4 94
Level 4 61.0 to 80.0 99 6.1 99
Level 5 Greater than 80.0 5 0.3 100 Figure 1. Area graph of the distribution of the 2012 municipal and city level poverty incidence Cumulative relative frequency estimates by poverty classification. 2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 5
For year 2009, the distribution of the poverty incidence estimates for the 1,634 municipalities and cities is presented in Table 2 and Figure 2. On the average, about 25.6% of municipalities and cities are classified in Level 1 or those with poverty incidences of at most 20%. For Level 2, with poverty incidences between 20% and 40%, about 38.4% of municipalities and cities are classified in this group. For Levels 3 and 4, with poverty incidences between 40% and 60% and between 60% and 80%, about 32.1% and 3.9% of municipalities and cities belong to these groups, respectively. It is worth noting that there was no municipality or city that was classified in Level 5. The poorest municipality in 2009, which is the Municipality of Siayan in the Province of Zamboanga del Norte, has a poverty incidence estimate of 79.9% with coefficient of variation of 5.63%. This classified the municipality in Level 4.
Table 2. Distribution of 2009 municipal and city level poverty incidence estimates by poverty classification. Poverty Incidence Poverty Among Count % < RCF* Classification Population (%)
Level 1 At most 20.0 419 25.6 26
Level 2 21.0 to 40.0 628 38.4 64
Level 3 41.0 to 60.0 524 32.1 96
Level 4 61.0 to 80.0 63 3.9 100 Figure 2. Area graph of the distribution of the 2009 municipal and city level poverty incidence Greater than estimates by poverty Level 5 0 0.0 100 80.0 classification.
*Cumulative relative frequency
For the year 2006, the distribution of the 1,628 municipality or city level estimates of poverty incidence among population is presented Table 3 and Figure 3. On the average, about 21.9% of municipalities and cities are classified in Level 1 or those with poverty incidences of at most 20%. For Level 2, with poverty incidences between 20% and 40%, about 44.0% of municipalities and cities are classified in this group. For Levels 3 and 4, with poverty incidences between 40% and 60% and between 60% and 80%, about 29.7% and 4.3% of municipalities and cities belong to these groups, respectively. Similar in 2009, there were no municipalities or cities that were classified in Level 5. The bulk of the estimates are within the range of 21% to 60% which classified most of the
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 6
municipalities and cities in either Levels 2 or 3. There was a total of 1,201 municipalities and cities in these two levels. The municipality with the highest poverty incidence among population is the Municipality of San Andres in the Province of Quezon with poverty incidence of 78%. This is a reliable estimate since the estimate’s coefficient of variation is only 8.17%. With this measure of poverty incidence, the Municipality of San Andres is classified in Level 4.
Table 3. Distribution of 2006 municipal and city level poverty incidence estimates by poverty classification. Poverty Poverty Incidence < Count % Classification Among RCF* Population (%) Level 1 At most 20.0 357 21.9 22
Level 2 21.0 to 40.0 717 44.0 66
Level 3 41.0 to 60.0 484 29.7 96
Level 4 61.0 to 80.0 70 4.3 100
Greater than Level 5 0 0.0 100 Figure 3. Area graph of the 80.0 distribution of the 2006 municipal and city level poverty incidence estimates *Cumulative relative frequency by poverty classification.
Comparing graphically the distributions of the estimates across the years from 2006 to 2012 (see figure below) indicates that there is a trend for the shapes to shift to the left which means having more municipalities and cities on the lower level of poverty in 2012 compared to 2006 and 2009. The percentage of municipalities classified in Level 5 remains zero for two years. Also, there is an increase in the percentage of least poor municipalities and cities or those in Level 1 from 2006 to 2012. However, a decrease in the percentage of municipalities and cities in Level 2 from 2006 to 2009 and 2012 was observed.
2006 2009 2012 Figure 4. Area graph of the distributions of the 2006, 2009 and 2012 municipal and city level poverty incidence estimates by poverty classification. 2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 7
The poverty map at the municipal and city level estimates by levels also illustrate the same observations as presented in the graphs shown above. (Please refer to page 15 for the poverty maps as Figure 5.) The municipalities and cities clustered on this classification and are represented by the same color indicate similarities in the groupings across the years. It could be noticed that there are more green-shaded areas in Luzon for the year 2012 compared to the other two years. This indicates that the poverty incidences in the municipalities and cities in Luzon are declining which supports the observation of having more municipalities and cities classified in Level 1. Although there is still a municipality in CAR that is shaded orange indicating its classification as Level 4.
In the case of Visayas, there are less yellow shaded areas in the year 2012 and additional green-shaded areas could be observed indicating that the poverty condition of the municipalities and cities in the Visayas are improving. Orange-shaded municipalities are sparsely found in the Visayas area and specifically they are found in Region VIII. However, there are more orange-shaded regions or those in Level 4 that are found in the Mindanao area. This indicates that the poverty incidences of the municipalities in Mindanao are increasing showing that the condition of the people in Mindanao is worsening through time. Also, it is only in 2012 where there are municipalities which are in red-shaded areas and are classified in Level 5.
The 40 poorest municipalities in the year 2012 have estimated poverty incidences from 69.8 to 84.8 with an average of 75.03 which means that 75 people for every 100 residents of these municipalities are said to be in poverty. Five of these 40 municipalities are in Level 5 while the rest are in Level 4. In terms of geographical location, Table 4 shows that majority of them are found in ARMM and specifically from the Provinces of Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao. Out of the six regions where these forty poorest municipalities could be found, four of them are found in Mindanao area, there is one region each for Luzon and Visayas. Also, only two of these 40 poorest municipalities are found in provinces outside Mindanao. Thus, the poorest municipalities are mostly found in Mindanao. All the estimates for these forty municipalities are with coefficients of variation at most 15%. Hence, the estimates are with acceptable measures of reliability.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 8
Table 4. Frequency distribution of the 40 poorest municipalities in 2012 by region and province. REGION PROVINCE NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES Lanao del Sur 15 ARMM Maguindanao 15 CAR Abra 1 Region VIII Northern Samar 1 Region IX Zamboanga del Norte 1 Lanao del Norte 4 Region X Misamis Occidental 1 Region XI Davao del Sur 2
Focusing on the five municipalities classified under Level 5, the poorest level, Table 5 shows the poverty incidence estimates of these municipalities in years 2006 and 2009. Note that their poverty conditions in years 2006 and 2009 are not severe and they were classified in lower poverty levels. However, the estimates in 2006 have to be used with caution as three of the estimates have coefficients of variation greater than 20%. (The estimates are marked with *). Comparing only the estimates in 2009 and 2012, there are significant increases in poverty incidences of these five municipalities resulting to a jump in poverty level from Level 2 or 3 to Level 5. This observation indicates that indeed the conditions of these five municipalities deteriorated in 2012.
Table 5.Poverty incidence estimates of municipalities classified in Level 5 in Year 2012. MUNCIPALITY, PROVINCE, REGION 2006 2009 2012 33.6* 29.4 84.8 Bacolod-Kalawi, Lanao del Sur, ARMM Level 2 Level 2 Level 5 53.2 43.4 83.0 Datu Saudi-Ampatuan, Maguindanao, ARMM Level 3 Level 3 Level 5 30.1* 55.7 81.9 Lumbayanague, Lanao del Sur, ARMM Level 2 Level 3 Level 5 38.6* 37.0 81.4 Piagapo, Lanao del Sur, ARMM Level 2 Level 2 Level 5 56.7 50.9 80.3 Talayan, Maguindanao, ARMM Level 3 Level 3 Level 5 *Estimate with CV greater than 20%.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 9
Figure 5. Map of the 2006, 2009 and 2012 municipal and city level poverty incidence estimates by poverty level
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 10
III. Actual Policy Uses of the 2006 and 2009 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates
In the past releases of the municipal and city level poverty estimates, various government agencies have demonstrated actual policy uses of these estimates. Given the relevance and importance of these estimates for targeting beneficiaries of programs/projects, policy formulation and planning, and poverty monitoring, the PSA responds to the need for more updated poverty statistics. The updated municipal and city level poverty estimates for 2006, 2009 and 2012 have likewise exhibited actual policy uses.
A list of the actual policy uses of the 2006, 2009 and 2012 municipal and city level poverty estimates has been compiled below to serve as reference for other policy- and decision- makers, and program implementers.
A. Policy Formulation, Planning and Monitoring
1. The 2012 SAE of poverty was used by the Municipality of Nabas in Aklan in the development of municipal economic profile and local planning in the area. The poverty estimates served as basis for formulating poverty reduction program in the area.
2. The Provincial Government of Negros Occidental used the SAE of Poverty for the development of provincial economic profile. The poverty estimates served as basis for local planning on poverty reduction in the area.
3. The Provincial Government of Pangasinan used the 2006, 2009 and 2012 small area estimates of poverty in the assessment of the progress of municipalities in their implementation of poverty reduction programs. The SAE estimates were also included in their provincial socio-economic profile.
4. The La Union Provincial Government used the 2006, 2009 and 2012 estimates in the assessment of the progress of municipalities in their implementation of poverty reduction programs. The PSA RSSO I has also been requested to present the estimates during the La Union Anti-Poverty Summit (Poverty Diagnostic and Anti- Poverty Program Tagging Planning Workshop). The objective of the summit is to identify the causative factors behind the poverty situation in the province as basis for the formulation of a more focused 5-Year Anti-Poverty Plan.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 11
5. The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Regional Office I used the 2006, 2009 and 2012 estimates as inputs of the Regional Development Council in the annual selection of the Best LGU Poverty Program Implementer at the municipal level.
6. The NEDA/Regional Development Council in CAR used SAE in preparing the profile and situationer of the BLISTT areas (Baguio, La Trinidad, Itogon, Sablan, Tuba and Tublay) during the BLISTT master planning activity. In the presentation and analysis of the region's poverty and macro-economy situationer, the SAE is used in identifying areas needing poverty reduction programs.
B. Targeting Beneficiaries of Programs/Projects
1. The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in Western Visayas used the SAE results for the Phase II of the Pantawid Pamilyang Piipino Program (4P’s) in Western Visayas.
2. DSWD-CAR used the SAE as a guide for the 2nd round of the National Household Targeting System (NHTS) operations. When DSWD researchers were also tasked to prepare the provincial Social Protection Development Report (SPDR), the SAE of poverty statistics were suggested to be included in the list of criteria in lieu of the regional poverty data in order to come up with a better picture of "poverty" in the locality and for better risk and vulnerability assessment.
3. The Department of Agriculture (DA) used the SAE in the Panay Island Sustainable Agricultural Upland Development Project. The poverty estimates shall serve as basis to determine recipients of the projects to be undertaken in 2016 to 2020 in the pilot communities in the Municipalities of Alimodian in Iloilo, Tapaz and Jamindan in Capiz, Libacao in Aklan and Patnongon in Antique. The project addresses the upland communities’ need for nutritious and healthy food by building the capability of people in implementing upland agricultural and forest development programs.
4. The DA also used the SAE for determining top priority LGUs in Region VI as recipients of the Philippine Rural Development Project (PRDP) funded by World Bank in partnership with the LGUs and the private sector. It is a six-year (6) project designed to establish the government platform for a modern, climate-smart and market-oriented agri-fishery sector.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 12
5. The 2009 SAE data was also used in the World Food Program of the UN in collaboration with DSWD in identifying beneficiaries among affected families of typhoon Yolanda in Western Visayas.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 13
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations:
A. Technical
1. Using the modified ELL methodology, poverty statistics were generated for all municipalities in the country where 1,425 out of 1,633 (87.3%) city and municipal level estimates for 2012 are with acceptable measure of reliability or have coefficient of variation (CV) not greater than 20 percent. Thus, the possibility of generating municipal and city level statistics was again shown to hold true.
2. In addition to survey and census data, the following information were initially considered in the pool of possible predictors:
a. Presence or absence of airport in the province; b. Presence or absence of malls (i.e., Shoemart, Gaisano, Ayala and Robinson’s) in the municipality; c. Presence or absence of Jollibee in the municipality; d. Percent of households with unpaid family worker in the barangay; and e. Average number of unpaid family worker.
However, none of these indicators entered the final model of the regions. There may be a need to reconstruct these variables, e.g. number of Jollibee stores instead of presence or absence in the municipality. Or one can explore other variables that may have significant association with income, such as migration and tourism-related variables.
3. It may be noted that the adjusted R-square provides the information on how much of the variation is explained by the model taking into consideration the number of variables. Hence, we would want a high adjusted R-square. However, it may be observed from the table below that the adjusted R-square for some of the regions were relatively low, e.g., 33.4 for the National Capital Region (NCR). These were based on the model derived upon the adoption of the Elbers, Lanjouw and Lanjouw (ELL) Methodology, which made use of the multiple linear regression analysis. In view of this, the use of alternative forms of the model, e.g., assuming a Poisson distribution in estimating income may be explored to further improve the models and ultimately the
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 14
estimates, particularly for regions with relatively very low or very high poverty incidence.
Table 6. Adjusted R-square and poverty incidence estimates of regions in 2012 Adjusted R-Square Official Poverty Incidence REGION (%) National Capital Region 33.4 3.9 Cordillera Autonomous Region 54.2 22.8 Region I 33.2 18.5 Region II 36.5 22.1 Region III 37.0 12.9 Region IV-A 42.3 10.9 Region IV-B 42.2 31.0 Region V 48.8 41.1 Region VI 43.3 29.1 Region VII 45.8 30.2 Region VIII 51.5 45.2 Region IX 47.4 40.1 Region X 50.9 39.5 Region XI 47.4 30.7 Region XII 50.2 44.7 Autonomous Region of Muslim 30.9 55.8 Mindanao Caraga 42.5 40.3
B. For the PSA and the PSS
1. Cognizant of the importance of small area estimates of poverty for policymaking and targeting, it is important that conduct of exercises and discussion towards the adoption of an official methodology for estimating municipal and city level poverty estimates be undertaken soon. And this is where the Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics (TC PovStat) and the members of the PSA Board can play crucial parts, particularly in providing valuable inputs, reviewing and approving the methodology for adoption and implementation.
2. Also, it is crucial that statistical capacity building among the producers, users and the providers of statistics be continuously done to ensure that these poverty statistics remains to be relevant and serve as useful input to evidence-based decision-making at
the national and local government units, as well as, the private sector.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 15
3. Strong manpower and financial support would ensure regular updating of the estimates
and maximized use of these poverty statistics and resources.
4. More subnational dissemination fora on the small area estimates of poverty should be conducted using user-friendly communication tools such as infographics.
5. The generation of regional versions of the national report on the SAE of poverty should be institutionalized.
6. Small area estimation techniques should be used to generate lower level disaggregation of other key indicators produced in the Philippine Statistical System.
7. Validation of city and municipal poverty estimates should have been conducted in areas with large deterioration of poverty in order to personally assess the poverty condition on the ground. For instance, the poverty deterioration from 2009 to 2012 for the 5 poorest municipalities in the country, which are located in ARMM, should have been validated.
8. While a number of local government units have already made use of the SAE of poverty estimates in local policymaking and program planning, there are still areas which have not demonstrated actual policy uses of the SAE. Hence, it is recommended that future dissemination fora be conducted in these regions.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 16
Annex
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 17
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 18
A. Definition of Terms
1. Poor – Based on Republic Act 8425, otherwise known as Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act, dated 11 December 1997, the poor refers to individuals and families whose income fall below the poverty threshold as defined by the government and/or those that cannot afford in a sustained manner to provide their basic needs of food, health, education, housing and other amenities of life. It may be estimated in terms of percentages (poverty incidence) and total number of poor families (magnitude of poor families).
2. Poverty Threshold - the minimum income/expenditure required for a family/individual to meet the basic food and non-food requirements. Basic food requirements are currently based on 100% adequacy for the Recommended Energy and Nutrient Intake (RENI) for protein and energy equivalent to an average of 2000 kilocalories per capita, and 80% adequacy for other nutrients. On the other hand, basic non-food requirements are indirectly estimated by obtaining the ratio of food to total basic expenditures from a reference group of families, to cover expenditure on: 1) clothing and footwear; 2) housing; 3) fuel, light, water; 4) maintenance and minor repairs; 5) rental of occupied dwelling units; 6) medical care; 7) education; 8) transportation and communication; 9) non-durable furnishings; 10) household operations; and 11) personal care & effects. Mathematically, poverty threshold is computed as:
Food Expenditure is actual food expenditure of families within the +/- ten percentile of the food threshold while Total Basic Expenditure is total expenditures of families within the +/- ten percentile of the food threshold.
3. Poverty Incidence - the proportion of families/individuals with per capita income/expenditure less than the per capita poverty threshold to the total number of families/individuals. Poverty incidence (usually expressed in percent) is estimated as ratio of the number of families/individuals with per capita annual income/expenditure less than the per capita poverty threshold to the total number of families/individuals.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 19
4. Standard Error (SE) – a measure of the precision of the estimate. SE is inversely proportional to the sample size, that is, the larger the sample size, the smaller the standard error.
5. Coefficient of Variation (CV) – a measure of the reliability of an estimate. CV (usually expressed in percent) is estimated as the ratio of the standard deviation/error relative to the mean. Smaller CV of an estimate reflects smaller variability between repeated measures and thus, indicates a more reliable or consistent measurement.
6. Confidence Interval (CI) – a range of values that describes the uncertainty surrounding an estimate. The CI provides an interval estimate of the true mean, i.e., the true value of the parameter will fall within the range. The CI is computed using the sample mean and standard error; the wider the interval, the more caution is required when using the estimated sample mean.
B. Methodology
This section presents a general description on small area estimation following the Elbers, Lanjouw and Lanjouw (ELL) methodology implemented in the Philippines for the intercensal year 2012 using the PovMap software. As the methodology used in this updating is similar to the previous poverty mapping project undertaken by the former NSCB, up to a certain extent, some parts of this section are lifted directly from the previous Estimation of Local Poverty in the Philippines report.
1. Background
In this study, the main consideration is to identify local areas that need to be prioritized in poverty alleviation programs. These areas, which have uncontained pockets of poverty, are often sought through the use of nationwide survey data that provide information on poverty indicators. These surveys usually have a great deal of information, such as income and expenditure, but have limited sample size that can only provide reliable estimates at larger geographic disaggregation such as regions, but not at smaller geographic level such as provinces or municipalities or cities. The census, on the other hand, has complete coverage and therefore can produce statistics at smaller geographic levels. However, the census
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 20
usually has limited information and does not contain data on income and expenditure, which are the variables usually needed as inputs in poverty estimation.
A solution to this problem is the use of small area estimation (SAE) technique. There are numerous SAE techniques that can actually be used to generate statistics at the local area. One of these techniques is a methodology developed by Elbers, Lanjouw and Lanjouw (ELL). Such methodology requires the use of census and survey data sets conducted on the same year. For the case of the Philippines, the use of ELL for poverty estimation started in the year 2000. Consequently, a Poverty Mapping Project implemented by the former NSCB in 2005 with funding assistance from the World Bank, used the ELL method to generate the municipal and city level poverty statistics for 2000. The project made use of the survey and census data sets that were all gathered in the same year, 2000, as required in the methodology. More so, the methodology in the project made use of a single regression model2 for the whole country to predict the family income per capita in logarithmic form.
An update of the 2000 municipal and city level poverty estimates was again generated by the former NSCB with funding assistance from the WB. This time, however, the methodology is slightly different from the previous project since municipal and city level poverty estimates were generated for 2003, a year when there was no census and only a nationwide survey was conducted, which is the usual source of poverty statistics. Thus, in updating the small area poverty estimates from the census year 2000 to the intercensal year 2003, a slightly different approach was used.
The information from the 2003 Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES), 2004 January Labor Force Survey (LFS) and 2000 Census of Population and Housing (CPH) were combined to estimate poverty incidence at the municipal and city levels. Statistical regression is again used to predict per capita family income, expressed in natural logarithmic form Y, using explanatory variables, which are denoted as Xi’s.
Similar with the 2000 poverty mapping project, X can be classified into two types: the survey-obtainable variables, at the household or individual level (e.g., educational attainment of household head); and the census-derivable location variables, which correspond to barangay or municipal means (e.g. average family size in the barangay). It is
2 Regression is a statistical tool used to predict one variable using other variables/information. For example, one can predict a salesperson’s total yearly sales using information on age, education and years of experience of the sales person.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 21
important that the X’s used in modelling should be comparable both in the survey and the census. In general, comparability means that X has the same definition in both survey and census.
However, in the 2000 poverty mapping project, comparability assessment was more straightforward because the data sets used (i.e., FIES, LFS and CPH) have the same reference period: the year 2000. Selection of survey-obtainable variables was done by examining the survey and census questionnaires to identify which questions elicit equivalent information. In several cases, equivalence was achieved by collapsing some categories of answers. When common variables had been identified, the appropriate summary statistics were compared for the survey and the census data.
It is ideal that the summary statistics for the census data be within the confidence interval for the survey. Comparability assessment is not required for the case of location-effect variables because these are essentially sourced from the census, which were only merged with the survey; and as long as the geographic configurations between survey and census are the same, this will be consistent.
Assessing comparability in the case of updating small area poverty statistics for non-census years, however, requires more attention. It should be noted that the survey data were conducted in 2003 while census data were obtained in 2000, and the goal is to come up with 2003 poverty statistics at the small area level. Hence, there is a time component that should be taken into consideration. Using the same methodology as in the 2000 poverty mapping project will result to ambiguity since such procedure captures relationship between Y and X, through regression modelling using 2003 survey information but fitting the model using 2000 census data, which is of a different reference period.
This was the same concern in the generation of 2006 and 2009 municipal and city level poverty estimates, which used the 2000 Census of Population and Housing (CPH) and 2007 Population Census, respectively, since 2006 and 2009 are non-census years like 2003. Furthermore in this project, as 2012 is again not a census year, the same technique was implemented, this time using the 2010 CPH data. To remedy this problem, a solution is to use or redefine variables so that the X’s will not be affected by time. Hence, in the 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2012 SAE on poverty, variables that were utilized were limited to those that were considered to be time invariant variables.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 22
For reference years 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2012, different SAE of poverty regression models were developed. However, it should be noted that the same ELL methodology was implemented across the reference years to generate small area poverty estimates. The models may be different but the methodology utilized is the same. Using the standard errors generated, one can compare the estimates. However, it must be noted that in 2011, refinements in the computation of the poverty threshold was adopted and back estimates were only generated and utilized in the project starting with the 2006 SAE on poverty. Hence, the poverty statistics series for municipalities and cities that are considered comparable are for 2006, 2009 and 2012.
2. Data Sources
In the generation of the 2012 municipal and city level poverty estimates in the Philippines using the modified ELL methodology, the following data sets were used:
2012 Official Provincial Poverty Thresholds (disaggregated by urban and rural areas). These were generated by the former NSCB for each of the provinces, urban and rural areas, based on the methodology per NSCB Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011 - Approving the Refinements in the Official Poverty Estimation Methodology.
2012 Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) 3 The FIES is a nationwide survey conducted by the former National Statistics Office (also now part of the Philippine Statistics Authority) every three years, which consists of 70 pages of information on household income and expenditure, as well as, some socio-demographic characteristics of the family. It is the main source of income and expenditure data in the estimation of official poverty statistics in the country. The FIES is conducted in two rounds, i.e., the first visit held in July as a rider to the July round of the LFS while the second visit is in January of the following year as a rider to the January round of the LFS. The 2012 FIES is a regular module of the Integrated Survey of Households (ISH), which contains 40,056 sample households, distributed across the 17 regions of the country.
3 Recognizing the clamor for more frequent release of official poverty statistics, the PSA, through the recommendation of the former NEDA Director General Arsenio M. Balisacan, used the 2013 and 2014 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) as a tool for collecting income information similar to the FIES. Hence, the release of the 2013 and 2014 first semester official poverty statistics based on the APIS.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 23
January 2013 Labor Force Survey (LFS) The LFS is another regular module of the ISH of the former NSO conducted every quarter of the year. It collects data on the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of population 15 years old and over and the major source of official employment data of the country. The FIES is actually a rider to the LFS. Hence, most, if not all, of sample households in the 2012 FIES are also available in the January 2013 LFS.
2010 Census of Population and Housing (CPH) The CPH is a complete enumeration of the population in the country conducted every ten years. It is a vital source of information on the composition of the population and characteristics of their housing units. It covers all areas under the jurisdiction of the Philippines as defined by the 1987 Constitution.
The table below summarizes the data sources used in the generation of the 2012 Municipality and City level poverty estimates:
Table A1. Data Sources Included in the Reference Source Frequency System of Data Period Institution of Conduct Designated Statistics (SDS) Census of Population 2010 PSA Decennially Included in the and Housing SDS Family Income and 2012 PSA Triennially Included in the Expenditure Survey SDS Labor Force Survey January PSA Quarterly Included in the 2013 SDS Official Provincial Per 2012 PSA Triennially Included in the Capita Poverty (for full year SDS Thresholds (PT) PT) Note: The SDS is a mechanism that identifies and generates the most critical and essential statistics required for social and economic planning/analysis based on approved criteria.
3. Implementation of Methodology
This section presents a general perspective on small area estimation following the ELL method implemented in the Philippines for the intercensal year 2012. As the methodology used in this updating is similar to the previous poverty mapping project up to a certain extent,
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 24
most part of this section are lifted directly from the previous Estimation of Local Poverty in the Philippines (2005) report.
a. Introduction/Background
In introducing the concept of small area estimation, we consider the thrust of the national government of alleviating the poverty status of the country. To maximize the effect of any poverty alleviation program, there are a number of factors that have to be carefully taken into account before implementation. One of the most common considerations is the proper identification of priority areas. Answers to questions such as which areas need most help and assistance from the government are often sought from national surveys that provide information on poverty indicators. Needless to say, users want surveys to have as much coverage as that of a census. However, this is not usually feasible because survey coverage is directly proportional to the amount of administrative and financial resources required to carry out the survey. Thus, surveys being incomplete enumeration of all population units, have limitations and sampling errors. Due to the sampling design, surveys may not be representative at the province and district level, such that estimates may tend to be biased. In this context, survey domains provide information on the level of disaggregation of direct estimates that can be derived from a survey which are theoretically reliable. For example, the domain of the 2012 FIES conducted by former NSO corresponds to the geographic region. Therefore, it is not surprising to get relatively high standard errors for some poverty estimates at the provincial level. This could imply that the sample is not representative at that level, and so, the estimates may tend to be biased. Further, analogous estimates at the municipal and city level are expected to be less reliable should these be generated directly from the survey. In this example, the sets of geographic provinces and municipalities are referred to as statistical small areas. Hence, small area estimation is a collection of statistical techniques designed to provide reliable estimates beyond the survey domain. There are a number of small area techniques available and among them is the ELL method used to generate the municipal and city poverty statistics.
In updating the small area poverty estimates during non-censal year like 2012, a similar approach was used. The information from the 2012 FIES, 2012 Labor Force Survey (LFS), and 2010 Census of Population and Housing (CPH) were combined to estimate poverty incidence, poverty gap, and severity of poverty at the provincial, city and municipal levels.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 25
Statistical regression was used to predict per capita income, expressed in natural logarithmic
4 form , Y, using explanatory variables denoted as X. b. Selection of Explanatory Variables
Similar to the earlier poverty mapping project, X can be classified into two types: the survey- obtainable variables, at the household or individual level (e.g., educational attainment of household head, etc.); and the census-derivable location variables, which correspond to barangay or municipal means (e.g., existence of a market in the barangay). It is important that X used in modelling should be (a) available both in the survey and census; (b) comparable and/or consistent with both the survey and census (i.e., X follows the same definition in both survey and census) and (c) have survey and census statistics (mean value) that match.
It may be noted that the overall objective is to compute city and municipal level poverty statistics, with reliable and/or acceptable levels of precision. This can be done by modelling income using X and fitting the resulting model using its census counterpart. Once this has been done, predicted (per capita) income for all family units in the population will be derived. Effectively, strength is borrowed from the census which has a larger coverage than the survey. Note that such procedure requires that the variables constituting X should also be available from the census. In addition to availability, comparability is also an essential component in order to make the substitution of X with its census counterpart to compute predicted (per capita) family income become valid.
In the earlier poverty mapping project, comparability assessment is more straightforward as the data sets used (i.e., FIES, LFS and CPH) were collected in the same year (i.e., 2000). Selection of survey-obtainable explanatory data can be done by examining the survey and census questionnaires to identify which questions elicit equivalent information. In several cases, equivalence may be achieved by collapsing some categories of responses. When common variables have been identified, the appropriate summary statistics are compared for the survey and the census data. For variables to be considered as consistent, summary statistics of the census data should be within the confidence interval estimates observed from the survey data. Comparability assessment is not required for the case of location-
4 Using natural logarithmic form of income is a usual approach in a number of econometric models. This is done because log of income has symmetric distribution (while income has a highly skewed distribution). The error term in the model, which denotes the unexplained part of the dependent variable, is also assumed symmetric. Such that a model specification where the dependent variable and the error term have a similar distribution will be preferred to a model where they have very different distributions. For a more thorough discussion of this approach, the readers are referred to statistical regression theory texts. 2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 26
effect variables as these are sourced from the census, which were merged with the survey; and as long as the geographic configurations between survey and census are the same.
Assessing comparability in the case of updating small area poverty statistics requires more attention. Note that survey data is for 2012 while census data is for 2010, and our goal is to come up with 2012 poverty statistics at the small area level. Hence, the time component has to be taken into consideration, otherwise ambiguity may arise when the relationship between Y and X is captured through regression modelling using 2012 survey information but fitting the model using 2010 census data. To address the issue, survey-obtainable variables were carefully screened by examining the survey and census questionnaires not only to identify which questions elicit equivalent information but also those, which are time-invariant. Time invariance, as used in this Project, means that the characteristic is not likely to change from time to time (i.e., stable over time), e.g., material of the wall. For some of the variables, this can be done by purposely collapsing some categories of responses to pre-defined categories. For example, a binary variable hea_ategrad can be created, with value 1 if the head of the household is at least elementary graduate, and 0 otherwise. If the head of the household has completed elementary education in 2010, the value of hea_ategrad will be equal to 1 in 2012 even if he is already in college.
When as many as possible of these “at least” type of variables have been created, appropriate summary statistics are compared for the survey and census data. A variable will be included in the list of explanatory variables X if the summary statistics for the census data is within the confidence interval of the survey data. Likewise, we also include in the list of explanatory variables X, location-effect variables represented by the census means.
In addition, a number of administrative variables were considered, such as the following:
Presence or absence of airport in the province Presence or absence of malls (i.e., Shoemart, Gaisano, Ayala and Robinson’s) in the municipality Presence or absence of Jollibee in the municipality Percent of households with unpaid family worker in the barangay Average number of unpaid family worker
It is hoped that inclusion of these variables may help improve the model in terms of adequacy that will be used to generate the municipal and city level poverty estimates.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 27
Further, the use of alternative forms of the model, e.g., assuming a Poisson distribution, may be explored to possibly improve the Adjusted R-square of the regression models, and ultimately, the accuracy of the poverty estimates
Table A2 presents the complete list of variables considered in the model building process.
Table A2. Complete List of Variables Considered in the model building process
Variable Name Description 1. Household Characteristics all_atcoll Proportion of household members who have at least college education all_atcollgrad Proportion of household members who are at least college graduate all_ategrad Proportion of household members who are at least elementary graduate all_athsgrad Proportion of household members who are at least high school graduate all_atleasthh Proportion of household members who have at least high school education all_atlowed Proportion of household members who have at least elementary education all_noed Proportion of household members who have no education but with preschool all_nograde Proportion of household members who have no grade (without preschool) all_postbacc Proportion of household members who have finished post graduate studies dom_help 1 if household has domestic help, and 0 otherwise extended_fam 1 if the household has family members other than the nuclear family, and 0 otherwise hea_atcoll 1 if the household head has at least college education, and 0 otherwise hea_atcollgrad 1 if the household head is at least college graduate, and 0 otherwise hea_ategrad 1 if the household head is at least elementary graduate, and 0 otherwise hea_athsgrad 1 if the household head is at least high school graduate, and 0 otherwise hea_atleasthh 1 if the household head has at least high school education, and 0 otherwise hea_atlowed 1 if the household head has at least elementary education, and 0 otherwise hea_noed 1 if the household head has no education but with preschool, and 0 otherwise hea_nograde 1 if the household head has no education (without preschool) , and 0 otherwise hea_postbacc 1 if the household head has finished post graduate studies, and 0 otherwise head_male 1 if head is male, and 0 otherwise hh_kids 1 if household has at least 1 member who is son or daughter of the household head, and 0 otherwise hh_ofw 1 if household has at least 1 member who is an overseas Filipino worker (OFW) , and 0 otherwise hms_divorced 1 if the marital status of household head is divorced, and 0 otherwise hms_married 1 if the marital status of household head is married, and 0 otherwise hms_single 1 if the marital status of household head is single, and 0 otherwise hms_widowed 1 if the marital status of household head is widowed, and 0 otherwise lot_own 1 if family owns the lot where they reside, and 0 otherwise lot_rent 1 if family rents the lot where they reside, and 0 otherwise lot_rentfwc 1 if family resides in a lot that is rent-free but with consent of owner, and 0 otherwise lot_rentfwoc 1 if family resides in a lot that is rent-free without consent of owner, and 0 otherwise men_atcoll Proportion of male members in the household who have at least college (undergrad) education men_atcollgrad Proportion of male members in the household who completed at least college education men_ategrad Proportion of male members in the household who have finished at least elementary education
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 28
Variable Name Description men_athsgrad Proportion of male members in the household who have finished at least high school men_atleasthh Proportion of male members in the household who have at least high school undergrad education men_atlowed Proportion of male members in the household who have at least elementary education men_noed Proportion of male members who do not have education (with preschool) men_postbacc Proportion of male members in the household who have finished post graduate studies No_spouse 1 if household head has no spouse, and 0 otherwise Roof_light 1 if roof is made of light materials (cogon, nipa, anahaw) , and 0 otherwise roof_light_old 1 if roof is made of light materials (cogon, nipa, anahaw) without wood, and 0 otherwise roof_mixtr_old 1 if roof is made of predominantly strong materials, and 0 otherwise roof_oth 1 if roof is made of other materials, and 0 otherwise roof_salvaged 1 if roof is made of salvaged materials (makeshift/improvised) , and 0 otherwise roof_salvaged_old 1 if roof is made of salvaged materials (makeshift/improvised) , and 0 otherwise roof_strong 1 if roof is made of strong materials (galvanized, iron, al, tile, concrete, brick, stone, asbestos) , and 0 otherwise roof_strong_old 1 if roof is made of strong materials (galvanized, iron, al, tile, concrete, brick, stone, asbestos) without half-galvanized iron and half concrete, and 0 otherwise single_fam 1 if the household is a nuclear family, and 0 otherwise spo_atcoll 1 if the spouse of the household head has at least college education, and 0 otherwise spo_atcollgrad 1 if the spouse of the household head has completed at least college education, and 0 otherwise spo_ategrad 1 if the spouse of the household head is at least elementary graduate, and 0 otherwise spo_athsgrad 1 if the spouse of the household head is at least high school graduate, and 0 otherwise spo_atleasthh 1 if the spouse of the household head has at least high school education, and 0 otherwise spo_atlowed 1 if the spouse of the household head has at least elementary education , and 0 otherwise spo_noed 1 if the spouse of the household head has no education (with preschool) , and 0 otherwise spo_nograde 1 if the spouse of the household head has no education (without preschool) , and 0 otherwise spo_postbacc 1 if the spouse of the household head has finished post graduate studies, and 0 otherwise urb 1 if household resides in an urban community, and 0 otherwise wall_light 1 if wall is made of light materials, and 0 otherwise
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 29
Variable Name Description wall_makeshift_old 1 if wall is made of salvaged materials (makeshift/improvised) , and 0 otherwise wall_mix_old 1 if wall is made of predominantly strong materials, and 0 otherwise wall_oth 1 if wall is made of other materials, and 0 otherwise wall_salvaged 1 if wall is made of salvaged materials (makeshift/improvised) , and 0 otherwise wall_strong 1 if wall is made of strong materials (galvanized, iron, al, tile, concrete, brick, stone, asbestos) , and 0 otherwise wall_strong_old 1 if wall is made of strong materials (galvanized, iron, al, tile, concrete, brick, stone, asbestos) without glass and half concrete brick, stone and wood, and 0 otherwise wom_atcoll Proportion of female members in the household who have at least college undergrad education wom_atcollgrad Proportion of female members in the household who have completed at least college education wom_ategrad Proportion of female members in the household who have finished at least elementary education wom_athsgrad Proportion of female members in the household who have finished at least high school wom_atleasthh Proportion of female members in the household who have at least high school education wom_atlowed Proportion of female members in the household who have at least elementary education wom_noed Proportion of female members who do not have education (but with preschool) wom_nograde Proportion of female members in the household who have no grade completed wom_postbacc Proportion of female members in the household who have finished post graduate studies building_commercial 1 if the type of house is a commercial/industrial/agricultural, and 0 otherwise building_duplex 1 if the type of house is a duplex, and 0 otherwise building_multiresident 1 if the type of house is a multi-unit residential/apartment/accessoria/ condo/ ial townhouse, and 0 otherwise building_others 1 if the type of house is other housing unit, and 0 otherwise building_single 1 if the type of house is a single detached house, and 0 otherwise
2. Barangay Characteristics bgy_all_coed Average proportion of household members with college education in the barangay bgy_agri 1 if the barangay has at least 50 percent of the 10 years old and over population are farmers, farm laborers, fishermen, loggers and forest product gatherers, and 0 otherwise bgy_capitol 1 if the barangay has a town/city hall or provincial capitol, and 0 otherwise
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 30
Variable Name Description bgy_cellphone 1 if the barangay has cellular phone signal, and 0 otherwise bgy_cemetery 1 if the barangay has a cemetery, and 0 otherwise bgy_church 1 if the barangay has a church, chapel or mosque with religious service at least once a month, and 0 otherwise bgy_college 1 if the barangay has college, and 0 otherwise bgy_elem 1 if the barangay has elementary school, and 0 otherwise bgy_finest_w10 Number of financial establishments in the barangay with less than 10 employees (Q10a1) bgy_finest_w100 Number of financial establishments in the barangay with at least 100 employees (Q10a3) bgy_fire 1 if the barangay has public fire-protection service, and 0 otherwise bgy_finest_w99 Number of financial establishments in the barangay with at least 10 but less than 100 employees (Q10a2) bgy_famsize Average family size in the barangay bgy_per_61up Average proportion of household members aged 61 and above in the barangay bgy_per_gkid Average proportion of household members who are grandsons/granddaughters of head in the barangay bgy_health 1 if the barangay has a puericulture center/barangay health center, and 0 otherwise bgy_highsch 1 if the barangay has a high school, and 0 otherwise bgy_highway 1 if the barangay is accessible to national highway, and 0 otherwise bgy_hosp 1 if the barangay has a hospital, and 0 otherwise bgy_per_hhall1 Average proportion of members age <1 in the barangay bgy_per_hhall1524 Average proportion of members aged 15-24 in the barangay bgy_per_hhall16 Average proportion of members aged 1-6 in the barangay bgy_per_hhall2560 Average proportion of members aged 25-60 in the barangay bgy_per_hhall25up Average proportion of members aged 25 and up in the barangay bgy_per_hhall714 Average proportion of members aged 7-14 in the barangay bgy_per_kids Average proportion of household members who are children of the household head in the barangay bgy_per_kidsinlaw Average proportion of household members who are sons/daughters in law of head in the barangay bgy_per_nonrel Average proportion of members who are non-relatives: boarders, domestic help, other in the barangay
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 31
Variable Name Description bgy_per_othrel Average proportion of household members who are other relatives of head in the barangay bgy_per-parent Average proportion of household members who are parents of head in the barangay bgy_per_sib Average proportion of household members who are brother/sister of head in the barangay bgy_post 1 if the barangay has postal service, and 0 otherwise bgy_streets 1 if the barangay has a street pattern, i.e. networks of streets of at least three (3) streets or roads bgy_teleg 1 if the barangay has telegraph, and 0 otherwise bgy_telep 1 if the barangay has telephone, and 0 otherwise bgy_towncity 1 if barangay is a part of the town/city proper or former poblacion of the municipality, or poblacion/city district, and 0 otherwise bgy_wom_coed Average proportion of women household members with college education in the barangay bgy_wom_eled Average proportion of women household members with elementary education in the barangay bgy_wom_hsed Average proportion of women household members with high school education in the barangay bgy_w2comest_w10 Number of commercial establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with less than 10 employees (Q6b1) bgy_comest_w10 Number of commercial establishments in the barangay with less than 10 employees (Q6a1) bgy_w2comest_W100 Number of commercial establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 100 employees (Q6b3) bgy_comest_W100 Number of commercial establishments in the barangay with at least 100 employees (Q6a3) bgy_w2comest_W99 Number of commercial establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 10 but less than 100 employees (Q6b2) bgy_comest_W99 Number of commercial establishments in the barangay with at least 10 but less than 100 employees (Q6a2) bgy_comwork 1 if the barangay has community works system, and 0 otherwise bgy_w2finest_W10 Number of financial establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with less than 10 employees (Q10b1) bgy_w2finest_W100 Number of financial establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 100 employees (Q10b3) bgy_ w2finest_W99 Number of financial establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 10 but less than 100 employees (Q10b2) bgy_ w2lodest_W10 Number of lodging establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with less than 10 employees (Q9b1)
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 32
Variable Name Description bgy_ w2lodest_W100 Number of lodging establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 100 employees (Q9b3) bgy_w2lodest_W99 Number of lodging establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 10 but less than 100 employees (Q9b2) bgy_ w2manest_W10 Number of manufacturing establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with less than 10 employees (Q8b1) bgy_ w2manest_W100 Number of manufacturing establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 100 employees (Q8b3) bgy_w2manest_W99 Number of manufacturing establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 10 but less than 100 employees (Q8b2) bgy_ w2recest_W10 Number of recreational establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with less than 10 employees (Q7b1) bgy_w2recest_W100 Number of recreational establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 100 employees (Q7b3) bgy_ w2recest_W99 Number of recreational establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 10 but less than 100 employees (Q7b2) bgy_ w2repest_W10 Number of repair establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with less than 10 employees (Q11b1) bgy_ w2repest_W100 Number of repair establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 100 employees (Q11b3) bgy_ w2repest_W99 Number of repair establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 10 but less than 100 employees (Q11b2) bgy_ w2serest_W10 Number of service establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with less than 10 employees (Q12b1) bgy_ w2serest_W100 Number of service establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 100 employees (Q12b3) bgy_ w2serest_W99 Number of service establishments outside the barangay but within 2 kms with at least 10 but less than 100 employees (Q12b2) bgy_drecest_W10 Descriptive distance of the nearest recreational establishments with less than 10 employees (if Q7a1=0 & Q7b1=0 then value to take is Q7c1; Otherwise, value to take is 0 which represents that a recreational establishment is at most 2 kms from barangay hall) bgy_drecest_W100 Descriptive distance of the nearest recreational establishments at least 100 employees (if Q7a3=0 & Q7b3=0 then value to take is Q7c3; Otherwise, value to take is 0 which represents that a recreational establishment is at most 2 kms from barangay hall ) bgy_drecest_W99 Descriptive distance of the nearest recreational establishments with at least 10 but less than 100 employees (if Q7a2=0 & Q7b2=0 then value to take is Q7c2; Otherwise, value to take is 0 which represents that a recreational establishment is at most 2 kms from barangay hall) hea_rel_mus proportion of household heads in the barangay whose religion is Islam hea_rel_oth proportion of household heads in the barangay whose religion is not Islam but is not unknown head_abroad proportion of household heads in the barangay who lived in a foreign country, five
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 33
Variable Name Description years ago head_nohere proportion of household heads in the barangay who did not live in the same city/municipality five years ago hou_9600 proportion of houses/building in the barangay which were constructed in 1996 or later hou_nrprtd proportion of houses in the barangay whose state of repair was not reported hou_reno proportion of houses in the barangay that require/ are under renovation hou_repair proportion of houses in the barangay that need major repair hou_unfconst proportion of houses in the barangay which can be considered as unfinished construction per_disa proportion of household members in the barangay who have disability per_indig proportion of household members in the barangay who are considered indigenous people 3. Municipality Characteristics hou_acq_2 % of houses constructed by owner hou_coelpg % of households that use electricity or lpg for cooking hou_const proportion of houses in the barangay that are under construction hou_dilap proportion of houses in the barangay that are condemned/dilapidated hou_gar_tru % of households with pick-up by truck hou_lan_ag1 % of households that own agricultural lands hou_lan_ag2 % of households that own agricultural lands acquired through CARP hou_lan_oth % of households that own other agricultural lands hou_lan_res % of households that own other residential lands hou_li_ele % of households that use electricity for lighting hou_notoi % of households with no toilet hou_own_rad % of households who have radio hou_own_ref % of households who have refrigerator hou_own_tel % of households who have telephone hou_own_tv % of households who have TV hou_own_vcr % of households who have VCR hou_own_veh % of households who have motorized vehicle hou_own_was % of households who have washing machine hou_ren % of houses that are rented hou_renf1 % of houses that are rent-free with consent of owner hou_renf2 % of houses that are rent-free without consent of owner hou_untoi % of households with unsanitory (open pit) toilet hou_waduns % of households that use an unsanitary water source for drinking per_eng % of persons 5 and older who speak English per_ind_1t5 % of persons employed in agriculture, hunting and forest per_ind_45 % of persons employed in construction per_ind_52 % of persons employed in retail trade per_ind_60 % of persons employed in land transport per_lit % of persons 5 and older who can read in some language per_nonphi % of non-Philippine citizens per_sch_abr % of persons ages 5 to 18 who attended school in foreign country per_sch_cit % of persons ages 5 to 18 who attended school in same city/municipality per_school % of persons ages 5 to 18 who attended school from June 99-March 2000 per_taga % of persons 5 and older who speak Filipino/Tagalog
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 34
Variable Name Description per_wor_abr % of persons who worked overseas per_wor_gov % who worked for private government per_wor_pre % who worked for private establishment per_wor_prh % who worked for private household
c. Statistical Modelling5
Since there is a limited number of time invariant variables at the household level, the explanatory variables X is dominated more by the location-effect variables. Recall that the dependent variable Y is expressed at the household level. To capture a significant amount of variability of Y, it is operationally useful to construct more time-invariant variables. This was done by computing two-way interactions among variables in X. Interactions of explanatory variables with urbanity were also computed. These approaches created more household- level auxiliary data.
Separate models were fitted for each geographic region. The objective is to tailor the model to account for the differences of geographic regions in the country, such as spatial peculiarities. The set of geographic barangays comprise the clusters. Per geographic region, computing through PovMap6 begins in the estimation of the income function,
ln Yij = E[ln Yij | Xij] + uij (1)
th th where Yij is the per capita income of j household in i cluster, X is the matrix explanatory
variable and u is the error component. This error component uij can be attributed into two components: variability among the clusters and variability among households. Thus, we can
represent uij as,
uij = hi + eij (2)
5 This section provides a brief discussion of the regression modelling for per capita income (Note: Please refer to the Estimation of Local Poverty in the Philippines released in 2005 for a discussion of more advanced statistical concepts such as multicollinearity, heteroscedasticity, modeling, and bootstrapping.).
6 A software package developed by World Bank specifically designed for poverty mapping/small area estimation method, specifically the Elbers, Lanjouw, Lanjouw methodology.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 35
where hi is the cluster component and eij is the household component. For each region, a number of candidate models were estimated. As mentioned earlier, estimation of these models was implemented using PovMap.
d. Development and Selection of Final Model
After model estimation and fitting of parameter estimates to census, it is necessary to undo the log transform used for Y, also implemented through PovMap. The set of official provincial poverty thresholds for the year 2012 was thus used to compute poverty estimates. These estimates were determined at the municipal, provincial and regional levels. Bootstrap estimates were summarized by their mean and standard deviation giving a point estimate and standard error for the desired level of disaggregation. Bootstrapping is used to provide estimates of the standard errors. As imputed income depends on the non-linearity of the stochastic variables involved (the estimated model parameters, the correlated error terms), computing the standard errors analytically is a little bit complicated.
Assessment of candidate models for each region involved comparison of similarity of the parameter estimates and that of small area estimates, in addition to basic statistical criterion such as adjusted R-squared, among others. This approach of assessment is also useful in identifying over-fitted models, aberrant fluctuations as well as robustly significant variables. Further, the resulting model-based poverty estimates at the regional levels were also compared to direct survey estimates.
Selection of a reasonable model for a specific region was done by considering the following criteria: The relationship of the variables, whether positive or negative, on Y is generally consistent with earlier researches on poverty (e.g. education should have a positive effect on income). The models should be robust, which means that small changes to the model do not greatly affect the significance or signs of the regression coefficients pertaining to a particular variable. Estimated regional poverty incidence does not largely differ from the official regional poverty estimates. Ranking of provinces based on the derived provincial poverty
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 36
estimates based on SAE should as much as possible be consistent with the ranking of provinces within the region based on official poverty statistics. The model should have “good” statistical properties, e.g., acceptable model adequacy, significant regression coefficients, significant regression coefficients and parsimony.
Figure A1. Comparison of official regional poverty estimates with estimates derived from 2012 SAE
As illustrated in Figure A1, regional poverty incidences based on SAE are relatively close to the official poverty estimates although when they differ, SAE tends to underestimate poverty a bit.
This was also observed in a similar exercise in Vietnam. Possible reasons could be the following:
i. Since variables used in model-building were limited to those that are considered to be time-invariant, variables such as household size and number of children were replaced with proxy indicators such as cluster means (i.e. average household size in
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 37
a barangay). These variables, however, were not always significant. In cases that they are found to be significant, it was noted that these proxy indicators are not able to capture the dependency variables adequately, which are negatively correlated with income. Hence, it is expected to over-predict income, resulting to an underestimation of poverty.
ii. The assumption that the geographic distribution of households (household characteristics) has been stable over time may have been optimistic. It is possible that migration, and/or variations in birth and death rates between the poor and non- poor may have altered the picture. e. Comparison of Estimates
It may be noted that refinements in the official poverty estimation methodology was undertaken in 2011 and revised poverty estimates were only generated for 1991, 2006 and 2009 for comparison with 2012. Hence, methodology used in the estimation of the poverty lines used for the 2000 and 2003 city and municipal level poverty estimates are not consistent with those used in 2006, 2009 and 2012 city and municipal level poverty estimates.
4. Limitation of the Study i. Data
In the absence of a census, as well as panel data in 2012, in which case, survey household per capita income from 2012 can be linked to X variables in 2010 while, only time-invariant variables or location effect variables/census means were used in the development of the regression models to predict per capita income of households in 2012. Hence, as mentioned in the earlier section, variables such as household size and number of children were replaced with proxy indicators such as cluster means of these variables (i.e., average household size in a barangay). These were not always significant or if significant, are not able to capture the dependency adequately that tends to over-predict income, resulting to an underestimation of poverty.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 38
ii. Dropped observations in the PovMap modelling process
The PovMap only proceeds if the barangay clusters have at least two observations. A solution that was made is to filter the data set by keeping the clusters with at least two observations, causing some observations to be dropped in the modelling process.
iii. Regional model may not necessarily capture the unique characteristics of provinces/municipalities
As models specified are at the regional level, characteristics atypical of the province may not be fully captured by the model.
iv. Non-inclusion of other relevant variables such as migration and tourism
The Project Team recognizes that there may be other variables that are significantly correlated with income, such as migration and tourism, which were not included in the model due to data constraints. (Note: Tourism was somehow incorporated in the model building through the census variable “number of hotel or accommodation establishments in the barangay”). Nevertheless, the PSA plans to consider these in the future endeavours on SAE once data on these areas of concern becomes available. v. Trend analysis can only be done for 2006, 2009 and 2012
It may be noted that refinements in the official poverty estimation methodology was undertaken in 2011 and revised poverty estimates were only generated for 1991, 2006 and 2009 for comparison with 2012. Hence, methodology used in the estimation of the poverty lines used for the 2000 and 2003 city and municipal level poverty estimates are not comparable with those used in 2006, 2009 and 2012 city and municipal level poverty estimates.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 39
Table A3. Complete List of Variables in 2012 SAE Models (Note: Green refers to positive correlation and red otherwise)
VARIABLES
CAR
NCR
ARMM
Caraga
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region
Region 4a Region 4b Region 10 Region 11 Region 12 Region HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS ALL_ATCOLL All household members have at least college education ALL_ATLEASTHH All household members are at least high school graduate DOM_HELP With domestic helper HH_KIDS Household has at least one son or daughter HMS_MARRIED Hhead is married HMS_SINGLE Hhead is single MEN_ATCOLL Male hh members who have at least college education MEN_ATLEASTHH Male hh members who have at least finished high school education ROOF_LIGHT Roof made of cogon, nipa, anahaw ROOF_STRONG Roof made of galvanized, iron, al, tile, concrete, brick, stone, asbestos Roof made of galvanized, iron, al, tile, concrete, brick, stone, asbestos. ROOF_STRONG_OLD without half-galvanized iron and half concrete URB Urban community WALL_LIGHT Wall made of light materials WALL_MAKESHIFT_OLD Wall made of makeshift/improvised materials WALL_STRONG Wall made of strong materials WOM_ATCOLL Female hh members have at least college education WOM_ATCOLLGRAD Female hh members who have at least finished college education WOM_ATHSGRAD Female hh members who have at least finished high school education BUILDING_COMMERCIAL House type is commercial/industrial/agricultural BARANGAY CHARACTERISTICS BGY_FAMSIZE Ave number of family members in the barangay BGY_PER_HHALL2560 Household members ages 25-60 in the barangay household members who are children of the household head in the BGY_PER_KIDS barangay
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 40
VARIABLES
CAR
NCR
egion 6 egion
ARMM
Caraga
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 5 Region R 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region
Region 4a Region 4b Region 10 Region 11 Region 12 Region
BARANGAY LISTINGS
at least 50% of working population are farmers, farm labourers, fishermen, BGY_AGRI loggers and forest product gatherers BGY_COMWORK has community works system BGY_HIGHWAY accessible to national highway BGY_PLAZA has public plaza BGY_POST has postal service
BGY_STREETS has a street pattern
BGY_TELEP has a telephone system BGY_TOWNCITY part of the town/city proper BGY_COMEST_100 commercial establishments with at least 100 employees BGY_RECEST_10 recreational establishments in the barangay with less than 10 employees BGY_SEREST_10 service establishments in the barangay with less than 10 employees BGY_SWEEPER has a public street sweeper MUNICIPAL CHARACTERISTICS HOU_LI_ELE households that use electricity for lighting HOU_OWN_TV households who have TV HOU_OWN_VEH have motorized vehicle HOU_OWN_WAS have washing machine HOU_REN houses that are rented MUN_OCC_CLERKS HHmembers who are clerks in the municipality HHmembers who are farmers, forestry workers and fishermen in the MUN_OCC_FARMERS municipality MUN_OCC_PROF HHmembers who are professionals in the municipality HHmembers who are technicians and associate professionals in the MUN_OCC_TECH municipality CLASS_UNPAID households that are under the class of unpaid workers
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 41
C. Validation Workshop
1. Objectives
Similar to the past poverty mapping projects that were conducted, validation activities on the 2012 municipal and city level poverty statistics through a one-day workshop and ocular assessment in a selected region/province, in this case Region VI in the province of Aklan, was undertaken. The validation activities were conducted by the PSA Technical Staff with the Project Consultant and the Project Technical Adviser. The main objective of the validation activities is to assess the acceptability and consistency of the estimates generated. These exercises were done to evaluate how well the estimates relate to the assessment of local government units, the academe, civil society organizations, as well as local communities in the region/province. Specifically, the validation activities aim to: a. Solicit the workshop participants’ expert opinion and intimate knowledge of the poverty situation in Aklan and in its specific localities by providing assessment on the status of their respective municipalities in the province based on identified poverty indicators; b. Present the initial results of the Project on the Generation of the 2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Statistics, including some background on the methodology, variables used, and the assessments undertaken; c. Serve as a forum for the exchange of ideas and discussion of the provincial and municipal level poverty estimates produced through the project and to evaluate how well they relate to the assessment of the local participants; and d. Conduct ocular assessment of the socio-economic, demographic, and housing characteristics of cities/municipalities vis-à-vis the results of the regional model and city/municipality poverty estimates in the Region.
2. Mechanics a. Validation Workshop
Invited workshop participants were composed of:
Provincial key informants with detailed knowledge of all the municipalities in the province, e.g., provincial planning and development coordinator.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 42
Municipal key informants, e.g., representatives from the municipal planning and development offices. Some representatives from the academic institutions and civil society organizations in Aklan Representatives from government agencies’ regional/provincial offices
The participants were asked to accomplish the validation form, which included the indicators significant in the SAE model for Region VI. Specifically, the indicators are:
Educational attainment of the male and female household members Barangay being part of the town/city proper or former poblacion of the municipality Marital status of the household head Household members who are working as clerks in the municipality Number of immediate (nuclear) family members in the household
3. Workshop Design a. Validation Workshop
The validation workshop was held in Kalibo, Aklan. Twelve out of the 17 provinces were represented by public and private institutions during the validation workshop. The participants were asked to provide their assessment on the poverty situation of the municipalities in the province.
In Part I of the validation form, the participants were asked to assess the indicators that turned out to be significant in the SAE model of Region VI. Specifically, the participants were asked to provide their “best” estimate of selected poverty-related characteristics of households from their respective city/municipality.
In Part II of the validation form, the participants were asked to provide information on the average number of poor per 10 persons/individuals residing in their respective city/municipality and other cities/municipalities where they have some reasonable knowledge of.
The poverty estimates of the cities/municipalities in the province based on the participants’ scoring were compared with the poverty estimates of cities/municipalities based on the SAE.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 43
b. Ocular Assessment
In addition to the validation workshop, the Project Technical Team conducted ocular assessments of the community and housing characteristics of some barangays in the three municipalities in Aklan. These were done to gain better insights on the province and validate whether the variables are truly reflective of the actual poverty situation in the municipalities. The Team were asked to fill out the Ocular Assessment Form (see Form in the next section) based on their observations.
The ocular assessment was conducted in the municipalities of Kalibo, New Washington and Malay in Aklan. The community and housing characteristics of some barangays in these municipalities were observed and noted in the ocular assessment form.
Kalibo, New Washington and Malay have poverty incidences below 15.0 percent. Based on the ocular exercises, it was observed that the three municipalities are generally urban areas, with commercial establishments and offices present in the vicinity. Primary and secondary schools are present in all the municipalities. There are also tertiary education institutions in Kalibo and New Washington.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 44
4. Forms a. Validation Workshop
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 45
b. Ocular Assessment
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 46
5. Findings
Listed below are some of the general insights and findings on the conduct of the validation exercises:
The participants found the definitions of some indicators being assessed confusing, thus, requiring further explanations from the Project Team members. The results of the accomplished validation forms were presented after the workshop proper, hence, providing insights/clarifications to the participants on the rankings of cities/municipalities based on SAE and participants’ own assessment. Upon the presentation of the assessment results, it was noted that the participants’ assessment on the poverty classifications of the municipalities were more consistent with the 2009 SAE than with 2012 estimates. This was because according to the participants, their major reference in filling up the Form for the validation workshop is the result of the assessment undertaken by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in 2011 and not their own observation for 2012. It was noted that a number of typhoons were experienced by the province from 2011-2012, which resulted to flood and damages to properties.
D. Advocacy
1. National Dissemination Forum
A National Dissemination Forum was held on 10 April 2015 at the BSA Twin Towers, Mandaluyong City. During the forum, the 2012 municipal and city level poverty estimates, as well as the methodology and variables used, were presented. The forum also served as a venue for the exchange and discussion of ideas among various stakeholders and users regarding the small area poverty estimates and methodology.
Some of the important points raised during the forum are:
An initial poverty classification of municipalities and cities proposed to be adopted in the project was presented, i.e., least poor, mildly poor, moderately poor, highly poor, and severely poor, which was based on a Ph.D. research study on communications. However, it was recommended that further review be done on the classification and
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 47
more politically acceptable terminologies be adopted for the poverty analysis of municipalities and cities.
There is a need to reduce the time lag on the generation and release of small area poverty estimates to be more relevant to data users, program planners and stakeholders. The suggestion made by the participants was to improve the efficiency of collection of data inputs, i.e., the census and survey data, through the use of tablets and other gadgets.
Government statistics should be packaged in such a way that users will be able to appreciate and use the data as effective tool for policies, programs and evidence- based decision-making. The use of infographics and other visualization tools in disseminating statistics are recommended to reach out to a greater audience of users of statistics, particularly the policy-makers, the politicians and the media.
Explore the possibility of coming up with small area poverty estimates for other marginalized sector, e.g. women, which will serve as inputs to women empowerment.
2. Regional Dissemination Forum a. Iloilo City
On 30 June 2015, the first regional dissemination forum on the 2012 Municipal and City Level Estimates of Poverty was held in Iloilo City. The forum was attended by users and stakeholders from the local government agencies and academic institutions from various parts of Visayas.
Following are essential comments raised during the forum:
The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) VI used the SAE of poverty for identifying who and where are the poor. They also used the estimates for their Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP), Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan- Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS), and Listahanan Program. Hence, shorter time lag will be appreciated.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 48
The local chief executives used the estimates in decision making and policy formulation and emphasize the importance of generating lower disaggregates of statistics. There is clamour for the timely release of small area estimates, so that they can use the data more efficiently and effectively.
There is also recommendation to invest in small and medium scale industries to generate employment, and further alleviate poverty in the Region.
The proposition to utilize other resources to aid and further enhance the determination of poverty levels, aside from income and expenditure data was also raised during the forum. b. Laoag City
The second regional dissemination forum on the 2012 Municipal and City Level Estimates of Poverty was held in Laoag City on 22 September 2015. The forum was attended by users and stakeholders from the local government agencies and academic institutions from various parts of Northern Luzon.
Below are the salient points raised during the forum:
The Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte has been one of the active local government units to localize the monitoring of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and the first goal of MDG is to eradicate poverty. To achieve this goal, the provincial government utilized the small area estimates of poverty produced by the PSA, along with the Listahanan Program of DSWD, to determine the poor families and communities. They were able to determine two levels of poverty. The first level includes the poorest of the poor and they are the ones that receive poverty alleviating programs like the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program. The second level is the transformative poor wherein they are the ones that receive the community driven development programs. The local government provides capital for the families who wants to become entrepreneurs and put up a business.
There were inquiries raised on the generation of poverty thresholds that determines whether an individual or a family is considered poor and the inquiries were met from 2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 49
further discussions on the food and non-food needs of an individual or a family. It has been cleared that poverty incidences are obtained in consideration with the local characteristics of a province.
There was also a suggestion from one of the resource persons, Dr. Romulo Virola, regarding the presentation of poverty estimates for least poor regions like Ilocos Region. He suggested that instead of presenting the poverty estimates of the region, it would be ideal to present the indicators that drive the region to be less poor and encourage the region to explore other indicators to improve. Also, he urges the province to serve as a leader in spearheading other provinces to alleviate poverty.
There was a suggestion on conducting the survey of prices for all municipalities and cities with markets for a more accurate data on pricing which will help generate more accurate results for poverty threshold but this is still considered a challenge for the PSA since this will need more labor and cost resources.
It was also accentuated by Dr. Virola that poverty incidences and indicators should be viewed as a tool by the policy-makers to create innovative programs that can alleviate poverty at the municipal and city level.
c. Davao City
The third regional dissemination forum on the 2012 Municipal and City Level Estimates of Poverty was conducted in Davao City on 2 December 2015. The forum was attended by users and stakeholders from the local government agencies and academic institutions from various parts of Mindanao.
Following are the relevant comments raised during the forum:
The DSWD XI used the small area estimates of poverty in the identification of areas for the Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS), the Pantawid Pamilya Program and the Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP). The City Planning and Development Office of Davao City used the municipal and city level estimates of poverty as basis for programming and planning the City’s projects. The city government also conducted their own participatory resource appraisals, where they did poverty profiling for each barangay. They considered variables other than
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 50
income such as access to electricity, survival and development indicators of children, access to sanitary toilets and water, land tenure, structure of the house, among others. For policy purposes, the policy-makers should be concerned with the data such as the poverty statistics, which are used for the allocation of funds. In the context of DSWD programs, poverty statistics are important for better targeting, which can also linked with the programs of the Department of Health (DOH) and Department of Education (DepEd). These line agencies should review the implementation of their programs to better serve the programs’ objectives. Further, it is suggested to revisit the institutional arrangements on planning and budgeting. There is still persistent demand/request for the timely release of data. Further, there was a suggestion to forecast or project the poverty incidence, however, there are limited data points available. Hence, the results will be unreliable. Validation exercises or ocular assessments were done to validate/cross-check the results. There were focused-group discussions with the municipal/city coordinators. Relatedly, there was an invitation to do validation exercises in North Cotabato. There are clamor on the barangay-level poverty estimates for more deterministic and more focused planning and targeting. Since there is a wealth of human resources at the academe, the state universities and colleges offering statistics program can take a look at various research agenda e.g., generating barangay-level or smaller area poverty statistics.
E. Lessons Learned
There is a need to clearly define the variables. There is a need to further improve the design of the validation workshop to ensure that the main objective of the workshop, which is to validate the estimates will be fully achieved. There is a need to dovetail the focus/context/substance of the subnational dissemination forum to the poverty situation in the area (region/province/municipality/city). There is a need to seriously consider addressing the time lag of the data to be able to accurately validate whether the generated SAE reflects the latest poverty situation in the municipality. There may be a need to explore other SAE techniques to be able to generate more reliable poverty estimates.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 51
Annex F 2006, 2009 and 2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 52
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 53
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit NCR
1st district Tondo 4.1 2.9 3.1 12.6 27.5 20.4 3.3 5.0 1.6 4.2 2.1 4.2 Binondo 1.8 1.0 1.5 18.1 68.0 41.9 1.2 2.3 0.0 2.2 0.5 2.5 Quiapo 5.3 2.1 2.1 7.9 42.4 28.1 4.6 6.0 0.6 3.5 1.1 3.1 San Nicolas 4.9 2.4 3.0 9.6 57.0 53.6 4.1 5.7 0.1 4.7 0.4 5.5 Santa Cruz 4.3 1.7 1.5 14.3 32.5 19.5 3.3 5.3 0.8 2.5 1.0 2.0 Sampaloc 5.8 1.3 0.8 11.9 23.6 24.7 4.7 6.9 0.8 1.8 0.5 1.1 San Miguel 3.1 1.4 1.2 47.2 67.4 73.1 0.7 5.5 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.6 Ermita 4.4 1.5 0.9 56.4 68.7 47.8 0.3 8.5 0.0 3.1 0.2 1.6 Intramuros 3.0 2.5 2.5 20.9 48.0 49.6 2.0 4.1 0.5 4.5 0.5 4.5 Malate 6.4 1.8 1.3 8.9 29.1 26.7 5.5 7.3 0.9 2.6 0.7 1.9 Paco 6.0 1.8 0.9 5.8 31.3 31.1 5.5 6.6 0.9 2.8 0.4 1.4 Pandacan 6.0 1.9 1.6 7.8 33.0 25.6 5.2 6.8 0.9 2.9 0.9 2.2 Port Area 13.2 11.9 10.0 15.2 57.5 45.2 9.9 16.5 0.6 23.1 2.6 17.5 Santa Ana 4.7 2.2 1.3 17.8 29.0 27.6 3.3 6.0 1.1 3.2 0.7 1.8 2nd district Mandaluyong City 6.1 1.8 1.3 17.6 45.1 32.8 4.3 7.9 0.5 3.2 0.6 2.0 Marikina City 6.0 2.2 1.4 11.9 41.1 30.5 4.9 7.2 0.7 3.8 0.7 2.1 Pasig City 5.0 2.2 1.8 9.5 37.3 24.6 4.2 5.7 0.9 3.5 1.1 2.6 Quezon City 4.1 2.4 1.6 16.0 25.3 18.5 3.0 5.1 1.4 3.4 1.1 2.1 San Juan City 2.9 1.5 0.3 67.0 42.5 60.7 0.0 6.2 0.4 2.5 0.0 0.6 3rd district Caloocan City 5.0 3.1 2.8 19.1 28.2 19.4 3.5 6.6 1.7 4.5 1.9 3.7 Malabon City 6.1 4.0 3.8 15.8 41.4 22.9 4.5 7.7 1.3 6.7 2.4 5.3 Navotas City 6.2 3.8 6.0 22.6 48.4 27.2 3.9 8.6 0.8 6.8 3.3 8.7 Valenzuela City 5.1 3.7 2.3 21.1 33.4 23.1 3.3 6.9 1.7 5.8 1.4 3.2 4th district Las Piñas City 3.9 2.8 1.4 25.5 37.8 32.1 2.3 5.5 1.0 4.5 0.6 2.1
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 54
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Makati City 2.9 1.4 0.5 20.5 42.3 47.8 1.9 3.9 0.4 2.3 0.1 0.8 Muntinlupa City 4.9 2.4 1.9 20.3 49.6 29.6 3.3 6.5 0.4 4.4 1.0 2.8 Parañaque City 5.5 2.0 1.1 8.6 41.9 37.2 4.7 6.2 0.4 3.6 0.4 1.8 Pasay City 5.3 1.7 1.9 11.0 26.4 16.0 4.3 6.2 1.0 2.5 1.4 2.4 Pateros 8.2 3.0 2.4 27.3 64.9 43.2 4.5 11.9 0.0 6.2 0.7 4.1 Taguig City 4.3 2.7 2.4 19.3 41.5 23.5 2.9 5.6 0.8 4.5 1.5 3.3 CAR Abra Bangued 16.6 16.8 10.9 26.9 12.7 26.6 10.9 22.2 13.2 20.3 6.1 15.6 Boliney 76.0 50.6 66.0 22.9 18.9 11.5 60.9 91.1 34.9 66.2 53.5 78.4 Bucay 42.6 36.2 37.6 22.1 16.1 15.3 32.2 53.1 26.6 45.8 28.2 47.1 Bucloc 58.0 77.2 42.1 26.4 13.0 20.7 42.5 73.6 60.6 93.7 27.8 56.4 Daguioman 46.8 32.2 37.0 32.4 27.3 23.5 29.4 64.1 17.7 46.6 22.7 51.3 Danglas 40.2 32.0 32.7 25.5 22.8 20.0 29.4 51.0 20.0 44.0 21.9 43.4 Dolores 23.7 33.5 23.6 28.7 15.0 20.9 15.3 32.1 25.2 41.7 15.5 31.7 La Paz 37.6 36.0 28.1 25.4 14.9 19.2 26.4 48.7 27.1 44.8 19.2 37.0 Lacub 58.8 67.2 57.8 22.5 14.2 13.4 45.3 72.4 51.6 82.9 45.1 70.4 Lagangilang 30.1 27.5 28.5 27.9 16.5 18.0 20.1 40.1 20.0 34.9 20.0 36.9 Lagayan 35.0 41.4 42.2 34.3 18.8 18.8 21.0 48.9 28.6 54.3 29.2 55.3 Langiden 44.1 46.0 40.8 29.8 17.6 19.3 29.7 58.5 32.7 59.4 27.8 53.7 Licuan-Baay (Licuan) 39.7 46.7 45.9 26.5 18.0 14.2 26.6 52.7 32.9 60.5 35.1 56.6 Luba 50.5 36.2 44.8 26.3 18.5 15.5 36.6 64.4 25.2 47.2 33.4 56.2 Malibcong 48.9 55.6 51.5 20.2 15.8 12.8 37.6 60.1 41.1 70.0 40.7 62.4 Manabo 33.3 34.9 30.8 29.6 19.8 18.3 22.2 44.4 23.5 46.3 21.5 40.1 Peñarrubia 29.6 35.7 31.0 33.7 19.6 18.1 17.0 42.2 24.2 47.2 21.7 40.2 Pidigan 22.7 25.9 23.1 32.9 18.9 21.5 13.3 32.1 17.8 33.9 14.9 31.2
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 55
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Pilar 41.0 42.8 38.4 23.0 14.4 14.9 29.8 52.2 32.7 53.0 29.0 47.9 Sallapadan 25.5 62.0 43.2 31.3 13.2 16.6 15.7 35.3 48.6 75.4 31.4 55.0 San Isidro 50.8 42.3 42.3 21.3 15.9 16.4 39.2 62.3 31.3 53.4 30.9 53.8 San Juan 40.2 33.7 22.0 23.0 19.7 21.6 29.6 50.7 22.8 44.6 14.1 29.8 San Quintin 21.0 28.7 22.5 41.0 23.3 26.5 9.8 32.2 17.7 39.7 12.7 32.3 Tayum 23.4 23.7 23.4 32.6 18.7 21.5 14.1 32.8 16.4 31.0 15.1 31.7 Tineg 62.9 43.2 78.3 20.4 19.9 7.9 50.5 75.2 29.1 57.4 68.1 88.5 Tubo 53.3 56.4 51.7 23.3 16.6 14.3 39.7 67.0 41.0 71.7 39.5 63.8 Villaviciosa 49.7 49.1 39.2 25.2 15.7 17.6 36.0 63.3 36.4 61.8 27.8 50.5 Benguet Atok 7.6 39.7 16.6 51.4 24.9 28.1 2.6 12.5 23.4 56.0 8.9 24.3 Baguio City 1.2 2.4 0.9 55.6 31.3 40.0 0.4 2.1 1.2 3.7 0.3 1.4 Bakun 17.0 53.7 26.5 38.5 17.9 22.6 9.2 24.8 37.9 69.4 16.6 36.3 Bokod 5.1 21.5 9.2 59.3 22.4 33.4 1.5 8.8 13.6 29.5 4.1 14.2 Buguias 6.4 42.0 13.1 50.0 19.2 25.5 2.4 10.5 28.7 55.2 7.6 18.5 Itogon 5.8 8.9 4.8 52.9 29.0 41.6 2.0 9.6 4.7 13.2 1.5 8.0 Kabayan 18.0 58.6 15.7 37.7 12.5 23.2 9.7 26.3 46.6 70.7 9.7 21.7 Kapangan 25.9 37.7 17.7 27.9 17.5 20.1 16.7 35.0 26.8 48.5 11.8 23.5 Kibungan 22.3 67.9 26.1 32.5 16.7 27.1 13.1 31.6 49.3 86.5 14.5 37.7 La Trinidad 1.6 5.4 1.7 56.5 27.3 44.2 0.4 2.8 3.0 7.9 0.4 2.9 Mankayan 6.6 16.5 6.2 46.6 26.2 39.2 2.8 10.3 9.4 23.5 2.2 10.2 Sablan 14.1 19.3 9.2 32.7 27.7 34.5 7.9 20.3 10.5 28.1 4.0 14.4 Tuba 6.4 14.2 4.6 40.7 22.7 38.9 3.0 9.9 8.9 19.5 1.7 7.5 Tublay 11.3 30.4 11.7 39.3 22.7 31.8 5.6 16.9 19.1 41.8 5.6 17.8 Ifugao Banaue 29.3 20.9 30.8 22.4 16.3 14.2 21.4 37.3 15.3 26.5 23.6 38.0 Hungduan 43.9 29.9 40.6 23.0 19.3 16.1 32.1 55.6 20.4 39.4 29.9 51.3
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 56
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Kiangan 20.6 22.9 25.3 24.7 21.9 17.6 14.2 26.9 14.6 31.1 18.0 32.6 Lagawe 27.4 19.9 17.6 15.1 17.4 16.5 22.2 32.6 14.2 25.5 12.8 22.4 Lamut 20.4 18.2 17.2 20.0 18.3 16.9 15.1 25.7 12.7 23.7 12.4 22.0 Mayoyao 38.5 34.1 34.3 18.0 11.9 13.0 30.6 46.4 27.4 40.8 27.0 41.7 Alfonso Lista (Potia) 30.6 37.1 21.5 19.1 12.2 19.1 23.5 37.6 29.6 44.5 14.8 28.3 Aguinaldo 42.2 33.2 53.6 19.3 18.1 13.1 32.7 51.8 23.3 43.0 42.0 65.1 Hingyon 25.4 25.2 29.9 26.5 22.7 19.9 16.9 33.9 15.8 34.7 20.1 39.7 Tinoc 52.0 49.6 53.5 21.8 15.0 13.1 39.7 64.4 37.3 61.9 41.9 65.0 Asipulo 55.0 47.5 55.3 22.2 19.5 14.8 42.3 67.8 32.2 62.8 41.9 68.7 Kalinga Balbalan 35.4 30.1 33.9 22.3 19.1 19.6 26.0 44.9 20.6 39.5 23.0 44.8 Lubuagan 35.6 24.8 26.1 21.7 21.2 22.6 26.2 45.0 16.1 33.5 16.4 35.8 Pasil 44.8 26.5 41.2 22.0 16.9 19.6 34.1 55.5 19.2 33.9 27.9 54.5 Pinukpuk 33.9 29.9 31.9 20.4 14.5 17.9 25.5 42.2 22.8 37.0 22.5 41.3 Rizal (Liwan) 28.0 25.3 9.1 24.8 21.2 31.3 19.5 36.5 16.5 34.1 4.4 13.7 Tabuk City 18.1 17.3 8.8 22.3 16.3 21.3 12.9 23.3 12.7 22.0 5.7 11.9 Tanudan 66.6 30.7 40.7 21.5 20.0 17.4 52.5 80.7 20.6 40.7 29.1 52.3 Tinglayan 72.0 34.1 26.4 24.8 15.5 18.0 56.4 87.7 25.4 42.7 18.6 34.2 Mountain Province Barlig 20.2 27.4 16.7 33.7 30.4 23.6 12.6 27.8 13.7 41.1 10.2 23.1 Bauko 13.4 34.4 21.1 28.4 22.7 17.8 8.7 18.0 21.6 47.2 14.9 27.3 Besao 19.2 26.9 16.3 29.9 28.7 22.3 12.3 26.0 14.2 39.6 10.3 22.3 Bontoc 15.1 16.7 10.9 41.6 29.4 25.6 6.6 23.5 8.6 24.8 6.3 15.4 Natonin 59.2 37.4 39.7 25.4 24.5 14.8 43.6 74.7 22.4 52.5 30.1 49.4 Paracelis 43.1 46.7 40.6 17.5 21.4 14.8 34.1 52.0 30.3 63.2 30.7 50.5 Sabangan 11.4 26.0 10.9 36.3 31.1 24.9 6.5 16.2 12.7 39.4 6.4 15.4 Sadanga 55.1 39.0 42.7 23.2 27.8 18.4 41.5 68.6 21.2 56.9 29.8 55.6
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 57
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Sagada 11.2 35.4 10.2 29.1 25.4 24.5 7.1 15.3 20.6 50.2 6.1 14.3 Tadian 23.9 36.2 21.6 23.5 20.0 17.4 17.4 30.3 24.3 48.0 15.4 27.8 Apayao Calanasan (Bayag) 34.6 32.9 62.6 29.2 21.4 12.0 22.2 47.0 21.3 44.4 50.2 75.0 Conner 35.1 30.3 56.3 20.0 15.2 10.1 26.3 43.9 22.7 37.8 46.9 65.7 Flora 23.0 26.2 35.7 24.9 20.1 17.1 15.7 30.4 17.6 34.9 25.7 45.8 Kabugao 39.2 40.6 63.9 19.9 13.0 9.3 30.0 48.4 31.9 49.2 54.1 73.7 Luna 16.8 28.8 33.4 22.4 16.4 13.6 11.9 21.7 21.0 36.5 25.9 40.9 Pudtol 26.1 29.8 41.1 19.2 18.3 14.5 19.5 32.6 20.8 38.7 31.3 50.9 Santa Marcela 18.2 23.8 32.6 27.4 20.7 17.7 11.9 24.6 15.7 31.9 23.1 42.2 Region I Ilocos Norte Adams 39.9 29.4 17.1 33.3 8.5 62.3 39.2 40.6 27.6 31.3 0.0 34.6 Bacarra 11.7 13.2 4.5 16.4 11.7 34.2 10.9 12.5 9.4 17.0 1.9 7.0 Badoc 19.6 19.6 17.5 11.5 11.3 13.1 18.8 20.3 17.2 21.9 13.7 21.3 Bangui 24.5 12.6 10.6 12.0 13.6 19.1 23.8 25.2 9.2 16.0 7.3 13.9 Batac City 11.2 15.3 10.9 15.4 9.6 13.0 10.6 11.7 12.6 17.9 8.6 13.2 Burgos 27.6 16.8 13.6 12.7 23.5 19.4 21.8 33.4 8.1 25.6 9.3 18.0 Carasi 26.4 22.6 16.1 30.1 8.7 41.3 13.3 39.5 20.4 24.8 5.1 27.0 Currimao 21.5 15.2 7.0 11.1 13.1 26.0 17.6 25.5 11.7 18.7 4.0 9.9 Dingras 19.5 16.3 15.6 11.4 9.8 14.6 15.8 23.1 11.9 20.6 11.8 19.4 Dumalneg 31.6 21.6 25.7 37.0 26.3 53.0 12.3 50.8 12.3 30.9 3.3 48.0 Banna 21.8 17.8 21.3 10.7 12.2 15.4 17.9 25.6 14.2 21.4 15.9 26.7 Laoag City 6.5 9.9 3.8 18.8 8.2 25.1 4.5 8.5 8.6 11.2 2.2 5.3 Marcos 27.8 18.7 23.7 13.1 10.9 16.0 21.8 33.8 15.4 22.0 17.5 30.0 Nueva Era 37.7 24.9 25.2 12.5 10.7 15.2 29.9 45.5 20.5 29.3 18.9 31.5 Pagudpud 29.6 20.2 17.8 10.3 6.3 13.8 24.6 34.6 18.1 22.3 13.7 21.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 58
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Paoay 12.2 14.9 6.8 17.6 7.9 21.8 8.7 15.7 12.9 16.8 4.4 9.2 Pasuquin 22.2 14.1 10.4 11.2 11.4 21.0 18.1 26.3 11.5 16.7 6.8 14.0 Paiddig 20.6 16.3 13.6 10.2 16.1 17.8 17.1 24.0 12.0 20.6 9.6 17.5 Painili 21.9 17.6 23.7 11.7 13.0 13.3 17.6 26.1 13.9 21.4 18.5 28.8 San Nicolas 7.3 12.3 6.2 24.0 9.2 23.3 4.4 10.2 10.4 14.1 3.8 8.6 Sarrat 20.2 14.0 9.0 13.0 13.5 19.5 15.9 24.5 10.9 17.1 6.1 11.9 Solsona 21.6 15.0 13.7 11.4 8.7 16.2 17.6 25.7 12.8 17.1 10.1 17.4 Vintar 18.7 16.8 15.3 11.0 12.0 15.6 15.3 22.1 13.5 20.1 11.4 19.2 Ilocos Sur Alilem 37.5 27.4 33.4 15.5 8.6 14.7 28.0 47.1 23.5 31.3 25.3 41.4 Banayoyo 19.2 20.9 23.1 16.9 12.6 15.8 13.8 24.5 16.6 25.2 17.1 29.1 Bantay 13.2 16.4 15.7 18.4 11.3 16.5 9.2 17.1 13.4 19.5 11.4 19.9 Burgos 26.4 26.5 31.6 9.9 12.2 13.3 22.1 30.7 21.2 31.8 24.7 38.5 Cabugao 23.5 20.7 22.5 9.2 11.4 11.0 19.9 27.0 16.8 24.5 18.4 26.5 Candon City 17.5 17.8 14.1 12.6 11.0 12.4 13.9 21.1 14.5 21.0 11.2 17.0 Caoayan 12.5 14.4 15.2 17.1 9.9 17.1 9.0 16.0 12.0 16.7 10.9 19.5 Cervantes 38.2 24.5 33.1 13.2 14.6 11.7 29.9 46.5 18.6 30.3 26.8 39.4 Galimuyod 33.5 20.6 26.9 11.0 13.8 12.3 27.4 39.6 15.9 25.2 21.4 32.3 Gregorio del Pilar 29.3 26.1 26.6 21.0 13.1 18.4 19.2 39.5 20.5 31.7 18.5 34.6 Lidlida 21.6 17.3 34.4 16.4 19.9 15.8 15.8 27.5 11.6 22.9 25.4 43.4 Magsingkal 18.9 18.1 21.8 14.4 13.9 12.5 14.4 23.3 14.0 22.3 17.3 26.3 Nagbukel 26.0 28.4 30.3 16.7 16.0 13.9 18.9 33.2 20.9 35.9 23.4 37.2 Narvacan 17.2 17.7 11.0 11.7 11.0 16.3 13.9 20.6 14.5 20.9 8.0 13.9 Quirino 35.8 27.2 35.2 16.2 15.8 14.3 26.3 45.3 20.1 34.2 26.9 43.5 Salcedo 30.8 22.7 26.8 12.2 12.5 13.2 24.6 36.9 18.0 27.4 21.0 32.7 San Emilio 33.8 23.7 24.4 14.6 19.9 18.0 25.6 41.9 15.9 31.4 17.2 31.6
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 59
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
San Esteban 19.0 15.7 18.6 19.6 18.6 17.5 12.8 25.1 10.9 20.5 13.2 23.9 San Ildefonson 16.8 15.4 10.4 15.9 15.4 21.6 12.4 21.2 11.5 19.3 6.7 14.0 San Juan 13.9 18.0 17.0 16.7 12.8 11.7 10.1 17.7 14.2 21.8 13.7 20.2 San Vicente 10.7 12.9 14.1 24.8 21.5 21.1 6.3 15.1 8.4 17.5 9.2 18.9 Santa 20.0 13.6 12.6 12.0 16.9 16.9 16.1 24.0 9.8 17.4 9.1 16.2 Santa Catalina 6.3 11.7 16.7 35.2 19.6 20.2 2.6 9.9 7.9 15.5 11.1 22.3 Santa Cruz 33.2 24.0 21.2 7.0 9.7 11.1 29.4 37.1 20.2 27.8 17.3 25.0 Santa Lucia 21.8 25.1 21.9 10.6 11.2 9.8 18.0 25.6 20.5 29.8 18.4 25.4 Santa Maria 17.2 16.9 18.5 13.0 12.7 10.2 13.5 20.9 13.4 20.4 15.4 21.6 Santiago 24.0 20.9 24.7 11.1 11.4 11.5 19.6 28.3 17.0 24.8 20.0 29.3 Santo Domingo 17.1 16.4 21.1 11.5 12.3 10.4 13.9 20.3 13.1 19.7 17.4 24.7 Sigay 36.2 27.2 22.9 20.7 20.1 26.7 23.8 48.5 18.2 36.1 12.9 33.0 Sinait 16.7 18.7 20.0 15.5 13.2 11.7 12.5 21.0 14.6 22.7 16.2 23.8 Sugpon 51.7 35.4 42.4 14.0 20.9 15.5 39.8 63.6 23.2 47.6 31.6 53.2 Suyo 39.8 24.4 24.7 13.2 18.1 18.7 31.2 48.5 17.1 31.7 17.1 32.3 Tagudin 23.7 20.6 22.6 8.9 9.3 9.1 20.2 27.1 17.4 23.7 19.2 26.0 Vigan City 6.9 12.4 7.1 23.2 12.9 22.2 4.3 9.5 9.8 15.1 4.5 9.7 La Union Agoo 23.2 21.3 8.5 8.8 10.3 15.4 19.8 26.5 17.7 24.9 6.3 10.7 Aringay 32.9 26.0 11.7 9.6 13.4 17.4 27.7 38.0 20.3 31.7 8.4 15.1 Bacnotan 18.6 21.1 9.0 10.3 8.4 15.3 15.4 21.7 18.2 24.0 6.7 11.2 Bagulin 49.5 35.1 27.6 11.2 10.2 16.2 40.3 58.6 29.2 41.0 20.2 35.0 Balaoan 27.8 26.6 12.1 10.6 8.2 15.8 23.0 32.7 23.0 30.2 8.9 15.2 Bangar 27.3 27.9 14.9 8.3 11.9 14.4 23.5 31.0 22.4 33.4 11.4 18.5 Bauang 20.5 20.3 6.0 9.9 10.7 20.8 17.1 23.8 16.8 23.9 3.9 8.0 Burgos 40.8 26.2 16.7 12.5 10.6 21.6 32.4 49.2 21.6 30.8 10.8 22.6
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 60
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Caba 29.6 25.2 8.5 11.7 7.2 29.5 23.9 35.3 22.2 28.2 4.4 12.7 Luna 23.5 24.7 12.1 8.8 11.8 15.2 20.1 26.9 19.9 29.5 9.0 15.1 Naguilian 27.0 21.9 5.1 9.0 12.9 24.1 23.0 31.0 17.3 26.5 3.1 7.1 Pugo 27.6 27.4 7.5 12.2 9.4 26.0 22.1 33.2 23.1 31.6 4.3 10.8 Rosario 26.0 24.8 8.2 8.2 14.4 18.5 22.5 29.5 18.9 30.6 5.7 10.7 San Fernando City 14.4 15.0 3.8 11.7 8.9 25.7 11.6 17.2 12.8 17.1 2.2 5.4 San Gabriel 39.9 29.7 15.0 10.0 13.6 19.1 33.3 46.5 23.0 36.3 10.3 19.7 San Juan 25.6 22.7 7.1 9.1 12.3 21.4 21.8 29.4 18.1 27.3 4.6 9.7 Santo Tomas 33.4 22.7 12.3 9.7 6.3 15.3 28.1 38.7 20.4 25.0 9.2 15.4 Santol 39.7 32.7 20.6 12.8 9.8 18.4 31.3 48.0 27.4 38.0 14.4 26.9 Sudipen 33.1 25.8 14.7 10.4 14.0 15.3 27.4 38.8 19.9 31.8 11.0 18.4 Tubao 31.4 26.2 17.0 10.8 13.3 18.4 25.8 37.0 20.5 32.0 11.9 22.1 Pangasinan Agno 32.1 28.4 11.3 9.0 11.5 22.1 27.3 36.9 23.0 33.7 7.2 15.4 Aguilar 31.1 26.0 15.0 9.9 8.1 16.1 26.0 36.1 22.5 29.4 11.0 19.0 Alaminos City 24.8 19.9 8.6 8.8 10.1 16.6 21.2 28.4 16.6 23.2 6.3 11.0 Alcala 24.4 20.3 13.6 11.5 7.5 19.9 19.7 29.0 17.8 22.8 9.2 18.1 Anda 31.6 25.9 8.9 10.0 8.0 23.9 26.4 36.8 22.5 29.3 5.4 12.4 Asungan 22.2 20.4 10.6 11.5 10.0 20.0 18.0 26.4 17.0 23.7 7.1 14.0 Balungo 31.7 21.4 12.2 11.1 10.0 18.2 25.9 37.5 17.9 24.9 8.6 15.9 Bani 29.9 21.0 17.6 9.4 5.3 14.1 25.2 34.5 19.1 22.8 13.5 21.6 Basista 29.9 24.6 11.6 13.6 5.0 21.1 23.2 36.6 22.6 26.6 7.6 15.6 Bautista 30.1 23.4 10.0 11.8 9.4 23.2 24.2 35.9 19.8 27.0 6.2 13.8 Bayambang 27.4 24.2 19.5 7.1 7.9 10.0 24.2 30.6 21.0 27.3 16.3 22.7 Binalonan 17.3 14.8 7.8 11.6 9.7 21.0 14.0 20.6 12.4 17.2 5.1 10.5 Binmaley 22.7 17.5 7.5 8.8 9.6 16.1 19.4 26.0 14.8 20.3 5.5 9.4
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 61
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Bolinao 35.7 28.7 12.5 8.4 9.7 18.0 30.7 40.6 24.1 33.2 8.8 16.2 Bugallon 30.1 24.8 15.2 9.5 7.6 14.1 25.4 34.8 21.6 27.9 11.6 18.7 Burgos 33.5 28.7 9.5 10.1 9.8 30.6 27.9 39.0 24.1 33.3 4.7 14.2 Calasiao 23.1 17.2 9.9 10.7 11.1 18.7 19.0 27.1 14.1 20.4 6.8 12.9 Dagupan City 15.7 13.9 6.0 15.9 7.0 20.6 11.6 19.8 12.3 15.5 3.9 8.0 Dasol 31.0 25.3 17.6 9.9 9.6 16.9 26.0 36.0 21.3 29.3 12.7 22.5 Infanta 39.0 24.0 9.5 9.8 11.0 30.3 32.7 45.3 19.6 28.3 4.8 14.2 Labrador 31.7 18.6 8.7 12.2 9.9 25.7 25.3 38.0 15.5 21.6 5.0 12.4 Lingayen 24.0 18.3 9.4 11.0 5.8 14.4 19.6 28.3 16.6 20.1 7.2 11.6 Mabini 40.3 21.5 12.1 8.8 7.6 20.4 34.5 46.2 18.8 24.2 8.0 16.2 Malasiqui 28.2 24.5 19.1 7.2 6.3 9.5 24.9 31.6 21.9 27.0 16.1 22.1 Manaoag 22.4 22.3 8.9 10.4 11.2 20.7 18.5 26.2 18.2 26.4 5.9 11.9 Mangaldan 22.7 17.8 12.5 9.7 7.0 17.5 19.1 26.3 15.8 19.9 8.9 16.1 Mangatarem 30.8 25.5 10.6 6.0 8.0 15.7 27.7 33.8 22.2 28.8 7.9 13.4 Mapandan 23.8 21.3 12.9 13.4 10.0 20.7 18.6 29.0 17.8 24.8 8.5 17.3 Natividad 19.9 21.5 11.9 14.1 12.8 19.9 15.3 24.5 17.0 26.1 8.0 15.8 Possorubio 24.3 20.0 15.4 8.7 7.2 12.6 20.8 27.8 17.6 22.3 12.2 18.5 Rosales 26.4 17.9 8.8 8.2 10.4 16.4 22.8 30.0 14.8 21.0 6.4 11.1 San Carlos City 29.5 26.4 16.0 6.2 7.3 10.0 26.5 32.5 23.2 29.6 13.3 18.6 San Fabian 32.8 22.1 11.7 7.5 10.3 14.6 28.7 36.8 18.3 25.8 8.9 14.4 San Jacinto 24.2 21.1 13.6 11.6 12.3 17.6 19.5 28.8 16.9 25.4 9.7 17.6 San Manuel 28.2 21.3 9.1 11.7 10.0 26.4 22.8 33.6 17.8 24.8 5.1 13.0 San Nicolas 25.3 18.9 13.9 8.3 6.6 16.9 21.9 28.8 16.8 20.9 10.0 17.8 San Quintin 26.0 20.5 11.8 11.3 11.2 18.6 21.2 30.8 16.7 24.3 8.2 15.4 Santa Barbara 28.2 20.4 12.3 8.4 10.2 15.5 24.3 32.1 16.9 23.8 9.2 15.5
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 62
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Santa Maria 24.2 18.3 16.6 10.5 13.8 17.9 20.0 28.4 14.1 22.4 11.7 21.5 Santo Tomas 22.8 17.5 13.0 16.3 6.6 24.3 16.7 29.0 15.6 19.4 7.8 18.2 Sison 29.2 18.9 7.9 9.1 8.8 20.1 24.8 33.5 16.1 21.6 5.3 10.5 Sual 36.7 26.7 11.8 8.8 4.9 17.8 31.4 42.0 24.5 28.9 8.3 15.3 Tayug 15.5 16.4 6.7 16.9 7.3 21.3 11.2 19.8 14.5 18.4 4.4 9.1 Umingan 38.5 22.9 21.6 6.5 9.6 9.8 34.3 42.6 19.3 26.5 18.2 25.1 Urbiztondo 33.2 31.7 13.0 9.3 9.6 14.4 28.1 38.3 26.7 36.7 9.9 16.1 Urdaneta City 18.9 14.4 6.8 11.1 8.4 20.4 15.5 22.4 12.4 16.3 4.5 9.0 Villasis 19.4 17.0 14.4 14.0 9.8 19.1 14.9 23.8 14.3 19.7 9.9 18.9 Laoac 26.5 21.0 14.2 10.0 5.9 15.2 22.1 30.9 19.0 23.0 10.6 17.7 Region II Batanes Basco 4.1 5.1 16.9 49.4 36.8 19.3 0.8 7.4 2.0 8.2 11.5 22.2 Itbayat 18.2 12.6 34.1 35.0 33.4 15.2 7.7 28.6 5.7 19.5 25.6 42.6 Ivana 21.9 8.9 16.4 54.8 42.2 26.6 2.1 41.7 2.7 15.1 9.2 23.6 Mahatao 13.5 8.9 21.4 34.6 42.8 20.1 5.8 21.2 2.6 15.1 14.4 28.5 Sabtang 10.0 11.4 30.7 50.0 33.8 15.2 1.8 18.2 5.1 17.8 23.0 38.3 Uyugan 6.0 8.1 18.1 54.3 39.6 22.7 0.6 11.3 2.8 13.3 11.4 24.9 Cagayan Abulog 18.0 21.6 20.9 17.6 12.1 9.9 12.8 23.2 17.3 25.9 17.5 24.3 Alcala 22.3 21.8 18.9 9.7 10.4 12.0 18.7 25.9 18.1 25.5 15.2 22.6 Allacapan 23.8 21.2 18.0 16.1 12.4 10.5 17.5 30.2 16.9 25.5 14.9 21.1 Amulung 36.7 27.9 25.2 11.5 7.5 10.2 29.8 43.7 24.4 31.3 20.9 29.4 Aparri 17.1 15.4 21.9 17.1 11.2 9.2 12.3 21.9 12.6 18.3 18.5 25.2 Baggao 30.0 22.6 22.0 8.3 8.6 10.3 25.9 34.1 19.4 25.8 18.2 25.7 Ballesteros 16.7 22.7 17.9 15.8 11.1 13.8 12.4 21.1 18.5 26.9 13.8 22.0 Buguey 20.8 22.4 18.6 12.4 10.2 10.6 16.6 25.0 18.6 26.1 15.3 21.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 63
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Calayan 24.2 27.7 47.4 19.7 14.9 10.9 16.4 32.1 20.9 34.4 38.9 55.9 Camalaniugan 19.5 16.9 17.1 13.9 11.5 10.1 15.0 24.0 13.7 20.1 14.2 19.9 Claveria 10.8 15.1 14.6 19.3 12.1 11.9 7.3 14.2 12.1 18.1 11.7 17.4 Enrile 24.8 19.8 19.7 13.8 11.5 10.7 19.2 30.5 16.0 23.5 16.2 23.1 Gattaran 24.6 19.2 16.7 9.5 9.9 11.2 20.7 28.4 16.1 22.4 13.6 19.8 Gonzaga 19.9 16.6 13.4 15.2 14.5 12.3 14.9 24.9 12.6 20.6 10.7 16.1 Iguig 22.3 19.5 14.3 16.4 11.7 13.6 16.3 28.3 15.8 23.3 11.1 17.5 Lal-lo 15.3 16.7 15.5 16.1 13.1 12.6 11.2 19.3 13.1 20.3 12.3 18.8 Lasam 18.5 18.2 13.6 12.1 11.8 11.8 14.8 22.2 14.7 21.8 11.0 16.3 Pamplona 19.7 20.7 26.7 17.9 12.4 10.3 13.9 25.5 16.4 24.9 22.2 31.3 Penablanca 24.5 18.2 20.1 16.1 13.0 9.1 18.0 31.0 14.3 22.1 17.1 23.1 Piat 29.3 22.5 15.6 13.7 12.5 14.6 22.7 35.8 17.9 27.1 11.8 19.3 Rizal 28.1 26.1 18.8 11.8 10.9 11.0 22.7 33.5 21.5 30.8 15.4 22.2 Sanchez-Mira 12.8 13.4 17.2 18.0 16.6 11.7 9.0 16.6 9.8 17.1 13.9 20.5 Santa Ana 14.7 16.3 20.6 25.4 16.2 12.3 8.6 20.9 12.0 20.7 16.5 24.8 Santa Praxedes 12.2 17.2 17.5 29.8 21.4 19.5 6.2 18.2 11.1 23.2 11.9 23.1 Santa Teresita 18.6 18.6 16.2 16.3 16.5 12.3 13.6 23.6 13.6 23.7 12.9 19.4 Santo Nino 28.0 26.3 22.1 12.1 11.2 11.3 22.4 33.6 21.5 31.2 18.0 26.2 Solana 32.8 22.5 22.7 11.5 8.8 8.5 26.6 39.0 19.3 25.8 19.5 25.9 Tuao 32.3 22.7 17.9 12.4 10.2 11.5 25.7 38.9 18.9 26.5 14.5 21.3 Tuguegarao City 7.7 8.5 9.3 27.0 12.9 11.8 4.3 11.1 6.7 10.3 7.5 11.1 Isabela Alicia 18.3 17.2 15.2 11.1 11.8 13.2 15.0 21.6 13.8 20.5 11.9 18.5 Angadanan 26.9 18.9 17.6 11.1 9.4 9.0 22.0 31.9 16.0 21.8 15.0 20.2 Aurora 15.9 16.4 13.1 14.2 11.9 14.0 12.1 19.6 13.2 19.6 10.1 16.1 Benito Soliven 32.0 25.4 23.6 15.5 11.3 9.3 23.9 40.2 20.7 30.1 20.0 27.2
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 64
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Burgos 19.1 18.2 14.0 15.7 18.1 18.1 14.1 24.0 12.8 23.6 9.8 18.2 Cabagan 22.9 16.6 19.3 13.6 11.0 12.1 17.8 28.0 13.6 19.5 15.5 23.2 Cabatuan 13.7 12.7 14.2 15.5 16.8 15.0 10.2 17.2 9.2 16.3 10.7 17.6 Cauayan City 16.8 15.9 17.3 11.4 9.6 9.4 13.7 20.0 13.4 18.4 14.6 20.0 Cordon 20.4 16.3 18.6 12.5 12.4 11.4 16.2 24.6 13.0 19.6 15.1 22.1 Dinapigue 13.6 13.8 25.8 39.2 35.3 19.7 4.8 22.3 5.8 21.7 17.5 34.2 Divilican 25.3 23.6 45.7 26.7 17.4 12.4 14.2 36.4 16.8 30.3 36.4 55.0 Echague 20.4 15.2 17.5 9.1 9.2 7.5 17.3 23.4 12.9 17.5 15.3 19.6 Gamu 14.8 14.8 16.2 18.1 17.7 13.5 10.4 19.2 10.5 19.1 12.6 19.8 Ilagan City 21.6 15.3 17.9 10.1 8.3 7.7 18.0 25.1 13.2 17.4 15.6 20.1 Jones 20.5 15.5 12.6 13.9 13.7 14.3 15.8 25.2 12.0 19.0 9.6 15.5 Luna 16.1 13.8 10.4 15.2 16.2 21.7 12.1 20.1 10.2 17.5 6.7 14.1 Maconacon 10.1 9.9 29.3 29.0 24.3 15.3 5.3 14.9 5.9 13.8 21.9 36.6 Delfin Albano 19.1 19.9 16.3 12.0 11.2 11.9 15.4 22.9 16.2 23.5 13.1 19.5 Mallig 23.6 23.8 18.7 13.1 11.4 12.1 18.5 28.7 19.3 28.3 14.9 22.4 Naguilian 22.9 18.7 19.2 11.6 10.5 9.9 18.5 27.2 15.4 21.9 16.1 22.4 Palanan 21.3 19.8 48.6 19.6 14.9 10.5 14.4 28.2 14.9 24.6 40.2 57.0 Quezon 21.4 23.8 24.2 13.9 14.2 11.9 16.5 26.3 18.2 29.4 19.5 28.9 Quirino 24.8 20.4 15.9 14.8 10.8 13.4 18.7 30.8 16.8 24.0 12.4 19.4 Ramon 15.7 16.3 18.1 17.3 13.1 11.6 11.2 20.2 12.8 19.8 14.6 21.5 Reina Mercedes 23.5 14.0 16.2 15.3 17.9 13.2 17.6 29.4 9.9 18.1 12.7 19.8 Roxas 16.1 15.8 15.6 14.3 13.2 12.0 12.3 19.9 12.4 19.3 12.5 18.7 San Agustin 19.6 11.8 14.6 13.7 17.1 14.5 15.2 24.0 8.5 15.1 11.1 18.1 San Guillermo 36.1 21.6 27.6 18.2 11.6 12.0 25.3 46.9 17.5 25.7 22.2 33.0 San Isidro 18.5 17.3 14.6 15.6 15.6 13.8 13.7 23.2 12.9 21.7 11.3 18.0
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 65
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
San Manuel 22.7 20.5 16.2 12.9 11.9 12.6 17.9 27.5 16.5 24.5 12.8 19.5 San Mariano 29.8 24.2 30.6 15.0 8.3 7.1 22.4 37.2 20.9 27.5 27.0 34.2 San Mateo 14.3 14.6 12.7 13.9 14.2 14.3 11.0 17.5 11.2 18.1 9.7 15.7 San Pablo 24.9 19.7 24.4 14.8 16.7 13.5 18.8 30.9 14.3 25.1 19.0 29.8 Santa Maria 28.3 24.4 31.3 14.4 11.8 10.3 21.6 35.0 19.6 29.2 26.0 36.6 Santiago City 9.8 10.8 15.0 22.1 14.3 11.3 6.2 13.3 8.3 13.4 12.2 17.8 Santo Tomas 23.5 18.5 23.4 14.5 12.9 10.0 17.9 29.1 14.5 22.4 19.5 27.2 Tumaini 23.8 19.8 20.3 10.6 9.0 8.5 19.6 28.0 16.8 22.7 17.5 23.2 Nueva Vizcaya Ambaguio 17.8 15.5 38.9 25.3 25.1 14.1 10.4 25.2 9.1 21.9 29.9 47.9 Aritao 12.7 16.2 11.9 19.0 13.1 16.8 8.7 16.7 12.7 19.7 8.6 15.2 Bagabag 12.9 13.4 9.8 16.8 16.2 20.5 9.3 16.5 9.8 16.9 6.5 13.1 Bambang 10.8 11.3 10.3 15.8 13.6 14.1 8.0 13.6 8.8 13.8 7.9 12.7 Bayombong 7.1 8.6 8.7 22.9 16.7 14.8 4.4 9.7 6.3 11.0 6.6 10.9 Diadi 18.8 17.6 16.5 14.8 12.1 13.6 14.2 23.4 14.0 21.1 12.8 20.2 Dupax del Norte 16.5 11.4 14.6 18.2 21.6 13.3 11.5 21.4 7.4 15.4 11.4 17.7 Dupax del Sur 15.0 15.4 17.0 20.5 16.4 12.5 9.9 20.1 11.2 19.6 13.5 20.5 Kasibu 15.8 13.6 22.8 18.4 15.5 12.2 11.0 20.6 10.1 17.1 18.2 27.3 Kayapa 15.8 16.1 32.9 19.5 14.9 10.9 10.7 20.8 12.2 20.1 27.0 38.8 Quezon 18.5 16.6 21.0 17.9 19.6 14.9 13.1 24.0 11.2 22.0 15.9 26.2 Santa Fe 15.2 11.4 23.7 33.4 23.1 13.4 6.8 23.5 7.1 15.8 18.4 28.9 Solano 6.9 10.1 9.5 20.8 17.3 16.6 4.5 9.2 7.2 12.9 6.9 12.1 Villaverde 12.3 11.1 9.6 25.1 24.4 22.3 7.2 17.3 6.6 15.5 6.1 13.1 Alfonso Castaneda 14.1 14.0 33.5 27.4 33.1 19.1 7.8 20.5 6.4 21.6 22.9 44.0 Quirino Aglipay 22.0 16.3 18.2 14.3 14.8 12.2 16.9 27.2 12.4 20.3 14.5 21.8 Cobarronguis 12.1 11.8 15.2 21.0 19.5 14.9 7.9 16.2 8.0 15.5 11.5 18.9
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 66
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Diffun 23.0 17.5 15.8 12.6 10.6 11.0 18.2 27.7 14.4 20.5 12.9 18.6 Madella 17.5 14.4 13.7 15.4 13.9 12.8 13.1 21.9 11.1 17.7 10.8 16.6 Saguday 20.1 18.8 12.6 16.8 17.5 22.0 14.6 25.7 13.4 24.1 8.0 17.2 Nagtipunan 23.4 15.4 26.2 22.6 20.1 13.4 14.7 32.1 10.3 20.5 20.4 32.0 Region III Bataan Abucay 8.7 7.0 4.0 24.9 29.5 25.8 5.2 12.3 3.6 10.4 2.3 5.6 Bagac 15.7 19.7 9.4 21.0 16.8 13.4 10.3 21.1 14.2 25.1 7.3 11.4 Balanga City 7.8 5.9 4.3 21.4 21.1 18.2 5.0 10.5 3.8 7.9 3.0 5.6 Dinalupihan 12.6 11.7 5.7 16.5 16.2 14.1 9.2 16.1 8.6 14.9 4.4 7.1 Hermosa 13.5 12.6 10.7 18.1 16.0 10.9 9.5 17.5 9.3 15.9 8.8 12.6 Limay 6.6 7.4 5.8 34.5 32.5 19.4 2.8 10.3 3.4 11.3 3.9 7.6 Mariveles 12.1 7.2 2.6 18.3 24.7 21.8 8.5 15.8 4.3 10.1 1.6 3.5 Morong 16.1 20.8 12.7 28.0 22.9 17.8 8.7 23.5 13.0 28.7 9.0 16.4 Orani 11.3 10.4 7.4 16.0 17.6 14.4 8.3 14.2 7.4 13.4 5.6 9.1 Orion 9.5 9.5 9.8 19.9 19.0 12.6 6.4 12.7 6.6 12.5 7.8 11.9 Pilar 7.2 8.9 7.7 23.5 23.0 15.7 4.4 10.0 5.5 12.2 5.7 9.6 Samal 15.3 12.0 4.6 21.2 18.0 16.4 9.9 20.6 8.4 15.5 3.3 5.8 Bulacan Angat 11.4 7.8 7.2 19.9 24.9 17.2 7.6 15.1 4.6 10.9 5.1 9.2 Balagtas 4.7 5.5 4.2 38.3 33.9 29.4 1.7 7.6 2.4 8.5 2.2 6.2 Baliuag 4.3 5.7 5.4 29.1 22.6 15.3 2.3 6.4 3.6 7.8 4.0 6.7 Bocaue 4.0 3.4 4.2 38.5 40.6 23.0 1.5 6.6 1.1 5.7 2.6 5.8 Bulacan 5.2 3.6 5.7 33.2 36.9 18.8 2.4 8.1 1.4 5.8 3.9 7.5 Bustos 10.0 8.1 5.9 25.7 24.3 18.6 5.8 14.3 4.9 11.4 4.1 7.7 Calumpit 5.3 6.4 5.2 19.2 22.8 17.6 3.6 6.9 4.0 8.8 3.7 6.7 Guiguinto 5.0 4.1 4.3 28.2 31.3 26.6 2.7 7.4 2.0 6.2 2.4 6.2
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 67
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Hagonoy 6.7 8.6 8.6 22.5 18.4 12.4 4.2 9.2 6.0 11.3 6.8 10.3 Malolos City 3.6 5.2 4.1 24.0 15.5 13.6 2.2 5.1 3.9 6.5 3.2 5.0 Marilao 6.6 3.4 2.8 26.1 37.1 30.0 3.8 9.5 1.3 5.4 1.4 4.2 Meycauayan City 4.2 4.5 1.7 28.3 27.9 30.4 2.2 6.1 2.4 6.6 0.9 2.6 Norzagaray 10.2 10.0 6.7 33.1 24.0 23.0 4.6 15.7 6.1 13.9 4.2 9.2 Obando 6.2 6.8 4.1 32.9 30.8 27.8 2.8 9.5 3.4 10.3 2.2 5.9 Pandi 14.1 7.6 6.9 18.1 22.0 16.4 9.9 18.2 4.8 10.3 5.0 8.7 Paombong 7.6 7.1 10.4 28.2 25.5 14.7 4.0 11.1 4.1 10.1 7.9 12.9 Plaridel 5.2 5.0 6.0 27.3 29.4 15.0 2.9 7.5 2.6 7.4 4.5 7.5 Pulilan 10.6 6.9 4.8 20.2 20.8 16.7 7.1 14.2 4.6 9.3 3.5 6.1 San Idelfonso 18.2 12.3 11.9 11.9 12.0 8.7 14.6 21.7 9.9 14.8 10.2 13.7 San Jose Del Monte City 5.0 5.8 5.1 18.8 19.0 17.5 3.5 6.5 4.0 7.6 3.7 6.6 San Miguel 13.8 11.8 12.6 13.3 13.5 8.9 10.8 16.9 9.2 14.4 10.7 14.4 San Rafael 11.4 8.3 7.3 16.6 16.3 13.6 8.3 14.5 6.1 10.5 5.7 8.9 Santa Maria 5.6 5.0 4.1 21.5 26.2 19.0 3.6 7.5 2.8 7.1 2.8 5.4 Dona Remedios Trinidad 48.3 35.2 24.6 15.0 15.4 13.4 36.4 60.1 26.3 44.1 19.2 30.0 Nueva Ecija Allaga 30.5 25.4 19.0 13.1 14.2 9.8 23.9 37.1 19.5 31.4 15.9 22.1 Bongabon 29.5 21.7 16.5 9.3 13.0 9.2 25.0 34.1 17.1 26.4 14.0 19.0 Cabanatuan City 12.2 10.9 10.6 9.8 9.9 8.4 10.2 14.2 9.1 12.7 9.1 12.1 Cabiao 17.2 15.2 15.2 15.7 16.4 12.9 12.8 21.7 11.1 19.3 12.0 18.4 Carranglan 38.4 32.3 28.8 11.5 12.4 8.0 31.2 45.7 25.7 38.9 25.0 32.6 Cuyapo 26.1 27.2 21.3 9.4 8.9 7.4 22.1 30.2 23.3 31.2 18.7 23.9 Gabaldon 32.4 29.2 24.1 12.1 11.6 8.2 26.0 38.8 23.7 34.8 20.9 27.4 Gapan City 14.9 14.0 12.5 16.5 14.3 11.8 10.9 18.9 10.7 17.3 10.0 14.9 Gen Mamerio Natividad 33.2 26.8 18.1 12.9 11.4 8.6 26.2 40.3 21.8 31.8 15.5 20.6
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 68
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Gen Tinio 19.7 15.7 15.4 24.8 20.8 13.2 11.7 27.7 10.3 21.1 12.0 18.7 Guimba 35.1 25.2 20.7 9.5 9.1 7.3 29.6 40.6 21.4 28.9 18.2 23.2 Jaen 22.5 19.0 17.7 11.9 14.2 9.2 18.1 26.9 14.5 23.4 15.0 20.4 Laur 30.5 31.2 25.4 11.6 11.1 8.4 24.6 36.3 25.5 36.9 21.9 28.9 Licab 22.2 25.5 16.3 15.8 16.1 11.3 16.4 27.9 18.8 32.3 13.3 19.4 Llanera 32.1 25.7 18.0 12.6 11.8 8.6 25.4 38.8 20.7 30.8 15.5 20.5 Lupao 34.6 26.4 18.9 10.8 12.3 10.6 28.5 40.8 21.1 31.8 15.6 22.2 Munoz City 26.0 21.4 15.1 10.4 12.0 8.7 21.5 30.4 17.1 25.6 12.9 17.3 Nampicuan 28.1 25.8 16.3 14.6 12.9 10.8 21.3 34.8 20.3 31.3 13.4 19.2 Palayan City 15.4 16.0 16.9 17.0 13.0 9.8 11.1 19.6 12.6 19.4 14.2 19.7 Pantabangan 34.1 21.8 19.5 12.8 14.5 9.3 26.9 41.3 16.6 27.1 16.5 22.5 Penafranda 16.4 11.3 15.0 23.5 27.1 15.3 10.0 22.7 6.3 16.3 11.2 18.8 Quezon 29.2 26.7 24.1 12.9 12.2 9.1 23.0 35.4 21.4 32.1 20.5 27.7 Rizal 30.2 19.3 18.2 10.9 12.5 9.0 24.8 35.6 15.4 23.3 15.5 20.9 San Antonio 23.4 17.2 18.1 17.5 18.9 10.8 16.7 30.1 11.9 22.6 14.8 21.3 San Isidro 14.6 11.8 12.6 20.9 22.5 14.5 9.6 19.6 7.4 16.1 9.6 15.6 San Jose City 24.5 19.1 14.2 13.1 11.7 8.8 19.2 29.8 15.5 22.8 12.1 16.2 San Leonardo 19.8 13.6 12.2 17.4 18.6 14.0 14.1 25.5 9.5 17.8 9.4 15.0 Santa Rosa 24.6 15.0 15.6 11.5 13.0 9.7 20.0 29.3 11.8 18.2 13.1 18.1 Santo Domingo 30.8 20.3 18.7 13.8 12.3 10.1 23.8 37.8 16.2 24.4 15.6 21.8 Talavera 21.2 18.3 17.4 11.4 10.1 7.1 17.2 25.2 15.3 21.3 15.4 19.4 Talugtug 42.2 36.0 28.5 10.2 8.3 6.2 35.1 49.3 31.1 40.9 25.6 31.4 Zaragoza 20.2 19.3 18.2 15.0 13.6 8.8 15.3 25.2 15.0 23.6 15.6 20.9 Pampanga Angeles City 5.5 5.0 1.3 19.3 22.4 30.8 3.8 7.3 3.2 6.9 0.7 2.0 Apalit 9.6 9.1 4.0 24.3 22.7 26.5 5.8 13.4 5.7 12.5 2.3 5.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 69
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Arayat 9.4 8.7 7.3 20.6 18.3 15.7 6.2 12.6 6.1 11.3 5.4 9.2 Bacolor 5.5 6.2 4.4 38.0 28.3 23.9 2.0 8.9 3.3 9.1 2.6 6.1 Candaba 22.5 17.7 6.6 13.3 15.3 13.9 17.6 27.4 13.2 22.1 5.1 8.1 Floridablanca 8.1 13.4 6.8 20.0 11.6 11.8 5.4 10.7 10.9 16.0 5.5 8.1 Guagua 4.1 7.4 3.8 23.9 17.9 16.4 2.5 5.8 5.3 9.6 2.8 4.9 Lubao 10.5 10.6 5.4 16.3 13.9 13.2 7.7 13.3 8.2 13.1 4.2 6.5 Mabalacat City 7.0 7.2 1.9 33.4 29.5 36.8 3.2 10.8 3.7 10.6 0.7 3.0 Macabebe 10.2 9.2 4.8 20.9 20.9 16.6 6.7 13.7 6.0 12.3 3.5 6.1 Magalang 10.8 8.1 5.0 18.8 23.4 15.9 7.5 14.2 5.0 11.2 3.7 6.3 Masantol 14.9 9.1 8.1 16.8 24.0 15.9 10.8 19.0 5.5 12.7 6.0 10.2 Mexico 7.4 7.7 3.9 21.4 18.5 16.3 4.8 10.0 5.4 10.1 2.9 5.0 Minalin 6.4 9.0 6.0 31.6 22.8 19.1 3.1 9.8 5.7 12.4 4.1 7.8 Porac 11.1 11.3 7.1 20.7 18.3 14.3 7.3 14.8 7.9 14.7 5.4 8.7 San Fernando City 4.3 4.8 2.5 22.8 22.9 19.7 2.7 5.8 3.0 6.6 1.7 3.3 San Luis 20.3 16.2 6.0 20.0 17.7 19.1 13.6 27.0 11.5 20.9 4.1 7.9 San Simon 8.7 9.1 4.4 23.8 25.8 26.7 5.3 12.1 5.2 13.0 2.4 6.3 Santa Ana 13.0 11.0 6.1 23.0 22.0 19.5 8.1 18.0 7.0 14.9 4.1 8.1 Santa Rita 5.7 9.4 4.9 40.5 30.3 28.1 1.9 9.4 4.7 14.1 2.6 7.2 Santo Tomas 5.1 6.0 2.6 40.4 39.3 43.5 1.7 8.4 2.1 9.8 0.7 4.5 Sasmuan 12.1 11.5 6.7 20.3 20.3 18.7 8.1 16.2 7.6 15.3 4.7 8.8 Tarlac Anao 13.9 18.0 9.8 17.3 18.1 14.3 10.0 17.9 12.6 23.3 7.5 12.0 Bamban 7.6 10.6 4.6 37.2 32.0 27.8 2.9 12.2 5.0 16.2 2.5 6.7 Camiling 10.7 15.8 9.5 12.1 11.6 8.3 8.6 12.9 12.8 18.8 8.2 10.8 Capas 11.3 13.2 14.3 25.9 19.3 11.6 6.5 16.1 9.0 17.3 11.5 17.0 Concepcion 12.4 13.5 6.7 17.5 13.9 14.6 8.9 16.0 10.4 16.6 5.1 8.3
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 70
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Gerona 13.9 17.6 10.9 12.0 12.4 10.1 11.1 16.6 14.0 21.2 9.1 12.7 La Paz 21.2 17.0 6.4 13.9 14.5 17.1 16.3 26.0 13.0 21.1 4.6 8.2 Mayantoc 24.2 28.3 12.6 12.1 14.0 9.9 19.4 29.0 21.8 34.8 10.6 14.7 Moncada 14.5 15.9 11.3 16.0 13.4 11.7 10.7 18.3 12.4 19.4 9.1 13.4 Paniqui 8.4 12.8 10.7 16.5 12.5 10.1 6.1 10.6 10.1 15.4 8.9 12.4 Pura 13.3 14.7 10.8 22.4 18.1 13.9 8.4 18.2 10.3 19.0 8.3 13.3 Ramos 19.0 16.7 13.0 20.7 19.2 15.5 12.5 25.5 11.4 22.0 9.7 16.3 San Clemente 24.2 18.2 11.8 19.9 17.3 15.0 16.3 32.2 13.0 23.3 8.9 14.7 San Manuel 16.7 17.0 10.0 19.6 18.4 13.9 11.3 22.1 11.9 22.1 7.7 12.3 Santa Ignacia 23.9 21.8 12.7 12.6 13.1 11.4 18.9 28.8 17.1 26.5 10.3 15.1 Tarlac City 7.1 8.7 8.5 14.6 9.5 9.1 5.4 8.8 7.4 10.1 7.2 9.8 Victoria 21.6 20.2 11.3 13.1 13.3 10.8 17.0 26.3 15.8 24.6 9.3 13.3 San Jose 37.8 32.1 24.0 15.3 12.1 8.8 28.3 47.2 25.7 38.4 20.5 27.5 Zambales Botolan 22.4 17.4 23.7 19.2 14.0 9.1 15.3 29.4 13.4 21.4 20.2 27.3 Cabangan 9.2 21.2 17.3 24.2 12.5 9.8 5.6 12.9 16.9 25.6 14.5 20.1 Candelabra 13.1 18.2 15.8 20.5 16.1 10.0 8.7 17.6 13.4 23.0 13.2 18.3 Castillejos 6.2 12.5 7.8 34.4 21.1 17.4 2.7 9.6 8.1 16.8 5.5 10.0 Iba 10.9 12.5 13.3 27.1 22.2 13.4 6.0 15.7 7.9 17.1 10.4 16.3 Masinloc 15.1 18.2 18.0 16.4 18.4 11.8 11.0 19.2 12.7 23.8 14.5 21.5 Olongapo City 4.7 4.5 3.1 28.2 35.1 30.6 2.5 6.8 1.9 7.0 1.5 4.7 Paluig 19.2 21.3 20.8 17.2 12.7 9.2 13.8 24.7 16.8 25.7 17.6 23.9 San Antonio 11.4 12.0 11.2 26.8 17.8 14.4 6.4 16.4 8.5 15.5 8.6 13.8 San Felipe 7.7 14.5 13.7 28.5 25.4 14.4 4.1 11.3 8.4 20.5 10.4 16.9 San Marcelino 12.5 14.8 14.1 19.9 13.5 10.3 8.4 16.6 11.5 18.1 11.7 16.5 San Narciso 9.0 10.7 11.5 19.0 19.4 14.1 6.2 11.8 7.3 14.1 8.8 14.1
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 71
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Santa Cruz 18.2 18.7 18.9 14.3 14.3 8.4 13.9 22.5 14.3 23.1 16.3 21.5 Subic 7.9 11.5 11.7 24.3 21.8 14.4 4.7 11.0 7.4 15.6 8.9 14.5 Aurora Baler 11.6 9.6 10.0 22.2 23.4 16.3 7.4 15.8 5.9 13.2 7.3 12.7 Casiguran 29.1 19.7 18.4 13.7 17.5 9.3 22.5 35.6 14.0 25.4 15.6 21.3 Dilasag 34.8 19.2 13.9 16.0 20.4 15.6 25.6 43.9 12.7 25.6 10.4 17.5 Dinalungan 31.0 25.6 13.8 16.2 19.2 15.1 22.8 39.3 17.5 33.7 10.4 17.2 Dingalan 29.3 14.5 13.5 18.9 28.8 17.8 20.2 38.5 7.6 21.3 9.5 17.4 Dipaculao 28.5 17.9 14.5 12.9 17.3 10.4 22.5 34.5 12.8 23.0 12.0 17.0 Maria Aurora 18.4 13.2 10.1 12.3 15.4 10.1 14.7 22.2 9.9 16.6 8.5 11.8 San Luis 26.0 13.8 13.2 14.9 22.0 12.7 19.6 32.3 8.8 18.9 10.4 16.0 Region IV-A Batangas Agoncillo 19.3 15.4 16.2 16.6 12.1 10.1 14.0 24.6 12.3 18.4 13.5 18.9 Alitagtag 7.5 8.6 6.5 28.8 17.0 10.0 3.9 11.0 6.2 11.1 5.4 7.6 Balayan 17.2 14.1 8.7 12.2 9.0 10.1 13.7 20.6 12.0 16.1 7.3 10.2 Balete 24.6 17.2 10.6 18.0 16.2 9.7 17.3 31.9 12.6 21.8 8.9 12.3 Batangas City 8.1 7.1 3.6 11.7 9.7 19.9 6.6 9.7 6.0 8.3 2.4 4.8 Bauan 6.1 2.7 4.3 23.8 24.4 22.9 3.7 8.5 1.6 3.8 2.7 5.9 Calaca 28.1 17.8 20.0 12.5 9.4 15.0 22.4 33.9 15.1 20.6 15.0 24.9 Calatagan 28.8 21.9 24.0 11.0 10.8 15.1 23.5 34.0 18.0 25.7 18.0 29.9 Cuenca 8.7 9.9 8.6 29.2 16.5 21.3 4.5 12.9 7.2 12.6 5.6 11.6 Ibaan 14.8 12.1 8.6 17.3 15.0 19.6 10.6 19.0 9.1 15.0 5.8 11.3 Laurel 29.8 21.8 31.3 15.1 11.3 18.7 22.4 37.2 17.7 25.8 21.7 40.9 Lemery 19.6 14.3 13.7 11.6 8.9 13.8 15.9 23.4 12.2 16.4 10.6 16.8 Lian 25.6 16.5 18.0 13.6 14.7 16.2 19.9 31.4 12.5 20.5 13.2 22.8 Lipa City 5.1 3.9 5.2 20.9 16.3 16.1 3.4 6.9 2.8 4.9 3.8 6.6
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 72
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Lobo 39.5 19.1 25.9 13.1 10.7 16.0 31.0 48.0 15.7 22.4 19.0 32.7 Mabini 12.6 11.7 6.6 15.8 12.9 19.3 9.3 15.9 9.2 14.2 4.5 8.7 Malvar 7.5 6.5 6.6 27.6 22.2 25.1 4.1 10.8 4.1 8.9 3.9 9.4 Mataas Na Kahoy 8.7 9.8 4.8 24.8 20.1 29.4 5.2 12.3 6.5 13.0 2.5 7.1 Nasugbu 17.9 17.3 15.3 13.7 11.3 14.3 13.9 22.0 14.1 20.6 11.7 18.9 Padre Garcia 17.3 16.5 13.8 21.1 15.4 17.6 11.3 23.3 12.3 20.6 9.8 17.8 Rosario 22.3 16.8 14.9 12.0 8.1 14.5 17.9 26.7 14.5 19.0 11.4 18.5 San Jose 11.6 11.2 8.6 22.1 15.3 17.2 7.4 15.8 8.4 14.1 6.2 11.1 San Juan 24.1 15.4 21.2 10.8 11.0 13.5 19.8 28.4 12.6 18.2 16.5 25.9 San Luis 14.9 9.5 10.3 19.1 17.1 18.8 10.3 19.6 6.9 12.2 7.1 13.5 San Nicolas 8.5 5.3 10.6 26.2 27.5 22.6 4.8 12.1 2.9 7.8 6.7 14.6 San Pascual 7.4 5.8 3.0 23.9 20.1 27.4 4.5 10.3 3.9 7.7 1.6 4.3 Santa Teresita 12.5 9.4 6.0 22.0 20.8 29.9 8.0 17.0 6.2 12.6 3.1 9.0 Santo Tomas 10.0 8.6 5.4 19.7 16.3 21.4 6.7 13.2 6.3 10.9 3.5 7.3 Taal 4.6 4.1 7.0 25.4 23.2 19.5 2.7 6.5 2.6 5.7 4.7 9.2 Talisay 7.5 5.6 10.1 25.5 26.3 20.3 4.4 10.7 3.2 8.1 6.7 13.5 Tanauan City 7.1 4.0 5.9 17.4 16.6 16.2 5.0 9.1 2.9 5.1 4.3 7.4 Taysan 21.2 16.6 14.9 16.1 12.2 17.8 15.6 26.8 13.3 19.9 10.6 19.3 Tingloy 44.0 26.2 31.6 11.4 10.5 17.1 35.7 52.2 21.7 30.7 22.7 40.5 Tuy 26.6 18.0 19.8 12.9 10.6 17.0 20.9 32.2 14.9 21.2 14.2 25.3 Cavite Alfonso 17.3 13.8 6.0 14.1 11.9 14.7 13.3 21.3 11.1 16.5 4.5 7.4 Amadeo 13.4 6.3 1.9 17.8 19.2 24.1 9.5 17.3 4.3 8.2 1.1 2.6 Bacoor City 5.2 3.6 1.1 19.7 17.1 30.9 3.5 6.8 2.6 4.6 0.5 1.7 Carmona 5.0 3.4 3.0 37.3 48.4 19.0 1.9 8.0 0.7 6.2 2.1 3.9 Cavite City 4.7 5.5 5.4 16.7 15.5 14.9 3.4 6.0 4.1 6.9 4.1 6.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 73
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Dasmariñas City 5.2 5.3 4.8 21.5 15.8 16.7 3.4 7.0 3.9 6.6 3.5 6.1 General Emilio Aguinaldo 22.0 13.7 7.3 15.9 15.4 12.1 16.2 27.7 10.2 17.2 5.9 8.8 General Trias 4.8 3.5 3.2 34.2 29.3 30.5 2.1 7.5 1.8 5.2 1.6 4.8 Imus City 3.0 2.3 1.1 19.7 16.2 30.9 2.0 4.0 1.7 3.0 0.5 1.7 Indang 9.6 6.7 3.1 17.6 13.5 27.2 6.8 12.3 5.2 8.2 1.7 4.4 Kawit 5.8 4.8 5.9 23.7 22.5 22.3 3.5 8.0 3.0 6.6 3.7 8.0 Magallanes 28.7 19.4 13.5 16.1 13.8 24.3 21.1 36.3 15.0 23.8 8.1 18.9 Maragondon 22.2 16.3 8.9 14.1 13.3 21.3 17.1 27.3 12.7 19.9 5.8 12.0 Mendez (Mendez-Nuñez) 7.6 4.5 5.2 27.6 23.5 22.8 4.1 11.1 2.8 6.3 3.3 7.2 Naic 11.6 8.4 8.3 17.3 18.1 19.7 8.3 14.9 5.9 10.8 5.6 11.0 Noveleta 2.9 3.0 3.4 39.4 34.8 32.5 1.0 4.7 1.3 4.7 1.6 5.2 Rosario 7.8 5.9 7.5 25.8 22.4 22.7 4.5 11.1 3.7 8.1 4.7 10.3 Silang 11.6 11.0 5.5 15.4 11.6 14.7 8.7 14.6 8.9 13.1 4.2 6.9 Tagaytay City 7.6 5.6 6.6 21.9 18.4 19.2 4.9 10.3 3.9 7.3 4.5 8.6 Tanza 8.3 5.4 6.8 16.5 17.8 20.1 6.0 10.6 3.8 7.0 4.6 9.1 Ternate 12.0 16.5 9.0 30.0 16.8 31.1 6.1 17.9 11.9 21.0 4.4 13.7 Trece Martires City 3.9 4.3 4.6 35.6 30.9 31.9 1.6 6.2 2.1 6.5 2.2 7.0 Gen. Mariano Alvarez 4.4 5.7 6.0 28.0 19.7 25.3 2.4 6.4 3.8 7.5 3.5 8.6 Laguna Alaminos 5.4 6.4 2.1 30.4 25.5 23.2 2.7 8.0 3.7 9.1 1.3 2.9 Bay 6.3 2.8 3.2 28.8 36.5 16.1 3.3 9.2 1.1 4.4 2.4 4.1 Biñan City 2.0 1.7 7.9 40.9 43.1 12.4 0.7 3.4 0.5 2.9 6.3 9.5 Cabuyao City 2.9 1.7 11.0 38.1 38.9 10.9 1.1 4.7 0.6 2.7 9.1 13.0 Calamba City 2.4 2.0 3.4 29.8 25.9 20.2 1.2 3.6 1.2 2.9 2.3 4.6 Calauan 16.6 12.0 13.0 19.2 16.1 25.7 11.3 21.8 8.8 15.2 7.5 18.5 Cavinti 13.5 11.5 14.0 24.2 16.5 24.9 8.1 18.9 8.4 14.6 8.3 19.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 74
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Famy 15.8 11.0 15.7 24.7 22.6 21.3 9.4 22.2 6.9 15.0 10.2 21.1 Kalayaan 17.7 12.8 14.5 39.4 39.4 39.6 6.2 29.1 4.5 21.0 5.1 24.0 Liliw 10.5 7.6 9.9 19.1 19.2 19.7 7.2 13.8 5.2 10.0 6.7 13.1 Los Baños 2.6 1.6 2.7 41.3 46.0 35.5 0.8 4.4 0.4 2.9 1.1 4.3 Luisiana 8.7 8.2 7.3 29.6 17.9 30.4 4.5 13.0 5.7 10.6 3.6 10.9 Lumban 6.9 7.2 8.7 26.0 23.5 23.2 3.9 9.8 4.4 9.9 5.4 12.0 Mabitac 11.4 14.4 22.5 27.0 18.7 24.0 6.4 16.5 10.0 18.9 13.6 31.4 Magdalena 12.4 13.8 19.5 21.1 15.2 17.2 8.1 16.7 10.3 17.2 14.0 25.0 Majayjay 24.4 13.4 15.2 17.4 12.7 18.5 17.4 31.3 10.6 16.2 10.6 19.9 Nagcarlan 9.4 7.3 10.0 19.4 16.9 19.6 6.4 12.4 5.2 9.3 6.8 13.3 Paete 2.2 3.2 7.7 61.8 53.3 33.2 0.0 4.4 0.4 6.1 3.5 11.9 Pagsanjan 2.8 2.8 7.2 38.2 32.9 24.7 1.0 4.6 1.3 4.4 4.3 10.1 Pakil 14.4 8.9 12.7 21.8 24.6 21.7 9.2 19.6 5.3 12.5 8.1 17.2 Pangil 11.8 7.4 16.2 32.8 29.3 25.8 5.5 18.2 3.8 11.0 9.3 23.0 Pila 5.3 3.4 8.4 35.6 30.4 19.8 2.2 8.3 1.7 5.1 5.6 11.1 Rizal 5.7 5.8 4.9 41.8 30.1 35.0 1.8 9.5 2.9 8.7 2.1 7.7 San Pablo City 3.5 2.7 5.6 19.9 19.8 16.6 2.4 4.7 1.8 3.6 4.1 7.1 San Pedro 1.9 1.4 1.0 49.0 41.1 52.9 0.4 3.5 0.5 2.4 0.1 1.9 Santa Cruz 3.4 2.3 5.3 32.7 33.5 25.1 1.6 5.2 1.0 3.6 3.1 7.4 Santa Maria 20.6 16.8 20.6 15.0 12.2 16.8 15.5 25.6 13.4 20.2 14.9 26.2 Santa Rosa City 1.7 1.5 1.9 46.0 40.1 36.1 0.4 3.1 0.5 2.4 0.8 3.0 Siniloan 9.5 11.4 11.0 22.6 19.7 18.5 6.0 13.1 7.7 15.1 7.7 14.4 Victoria 5.6 3.7 8.6 45.5 39.1 27.5 1.4 9.8 1.3 6.1 4.7 12.5 Quezon Agdangan 41.9 19.8 21.6 13.4 12.9 9.7 32.7 51.2 15.6 24.0 18.2 25.1 Alabat 30.0 17.0 13.4 13.3 11.3 11.6 23.5 36.6 13.9 20.2 10.8 16.0
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 75
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Atimonan 16.6 12.7 37.3 14.5 11.1 8.0 12.7 20.5 10.4 15.0 32.4 42.3 Buenavista 74.4 34.9 46.6 7.2 6.5 9.5 65.6 83.2 31.2 38.6 39.3 53.9 Burdeos 52.3 39.3 50.8 10.5 9.6 12.2 43.3 61.3 33.1 45.5 40.6 60.9 Calauag 43.4 25.8 28.1 8.9 6.8 11.8 37.0 49.7 22.9 28.6 22.7 33.6 Candelaria 10.0 10.6 12.8 22.0 15.1 20.5 6.4 13.6 8.0 13.3 8.5 17.1 Catanauan 50.0 27.8 30.6 9.4 7.1 9.8 42.3 57.7 24.6 31.1 25.6 35.5 Dolores 16.6 13.3 13.7 24.4 18.4 25.1 9.9 23.3 9.3 17.4 8.1 19.4 General Luna 42.4 27.5 32.5 9.0 9.0 13.6 36.1 48.7 23.4 31.6 25.2 39.7 General Nakar 49.7 27.8 43.3 11.1 10.9 14.0 40.6 58.8 22.8 32.8 33.4 53.2 Guinayangan 46.9 27.5 29.1 9.6 6.5 12.7 39.5 54.3 24.5 30.4 23.0 35.1 Gumaca 19.7 16.7 13.1 11.7 9.3 19.5 15.9 23.5 14.2 19.3 8.9 17.3 Infanta 26.4 15.0 13.7 13.1 15.2 18.1 20.7 32.1 11.3 18.8 9.6 17.7 Jomalig 74.9 39.0 57.6 10.1 13.2 16.0 62.5 87.3 30.5 47.4 42.4 72.8 Lopez 38.9 21.7 23.1 9.3 6.5 12.8 32.9 44.8 19.4 24.1 18.2 28.0 Lucban 12.2 5.2 5.3 19.5 24.7 36.9 8.3 16.1 3.1 7.2 2.1 8.5 Lucena City 5.4 3.6 6.6 27.3 24.7 21.0 2.9 7.8 2.1 5.1 4.3 8.8 Macalelon 55.7 29.5 30.0 10.3 8.3 12.4 46.3 65.1 25.4 33.5 23.9 36.1 Mauban 29.3 21.5 26.5 10.9 9.0 13.9 24.1 34.6 18.3 24.7 20.5 32.6 Mulanay 66.3 31.5 39.7 9.7 7.9 10.8 55.8 76.8 27.4 35.6 32.6 46.7 Padre Burgos 33.6 17.2 27.0 13.1 13.7 13.2 26.4 40.8 13.3 21.1 21.1 32.8 Pagbilao 12.9 13.4 12.1 17.5 14.9 20.2 9.2 16.7 10.1 16.7 8.1 16.1 Panukulan 54.9 34.5 42.4 11.5 9.5 13.6 44.5 65.3 29.1 39.9 32.9 51.9 Patnanungan 71.2 36.0 55.4 11.3 15.8 14.9 58.0 84.4 26.7 45.3 41.8 69.0 Perez 50.5 29.7 37.7 12.2 11.2 13.6 40.4 60.6 24.2 35.2 29.3 46.2 Pitogo 37.0 24.2 28.1 9.7 8.2 12.3 31.1 42.9 20.9 27.4 22.4 33.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 76
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Plaridel 15.6 12.3 16.6 24.8 17.7 21.3 9.2 21.9 8.7 15.9 10.8 22.4 Polillo 36.5 27.0 30.8 12.2 8.3 15.1 29.1 43.8 23.3 30.6 23.1 38.4 Quezon 49.8 29.2 26.4 9.2 8.6 16.1 42.3 57.3 25.0 33.3 19.4 33.4 Real 26.0 17.1 29.8 14.9 11.8 15.0 19.6 32.4 13.8 20.4 22.4 37.1 Sampaloc 18.7 11.9 15.2 23.1 18.8 24.8 11.6 25.9 8.3 15.6 9.0 21.4 San Andres 78.3 39.0 54.7 8.1 13.3 14.0 67.8 88.8 30.5 47.5 42.1 67.3 San Antonio 15.8 16.7 24.0 18.1 14.4 15.8 11.1 20.5 12.7 20.6 17.8 30.3 San Francisco (Aurora) 63.5 41.4 45.1 9.2 7.9 10.9 53.9 73.1 36.0 46.8 37.0 53.1 San Narciso 68.7 41.1 44.0 7.3 8.1 10.8 60.4 76.9 35.7 46.6 36.2 51.8 Sariaya 21.0 14.5 23.2 13.6 11.8 12.4 16.3 25.7 11.7 17.3 18.5 28.0 Tagkawayan 41.8 23.7 31.0 10.2 8.3 11.4 34.8 48.8 20.4 26.9 25.1 36.8 Tayabas City 12.4 10.5 9.6 16.6 13.0 22.0 9.1 15.8 8.2 12.7 6.1 13.0 Tiaong 16.2 13.8 13.9 17.5 13.5 17.1 11.5 20.8 10.7 16.8 10.0 17.8 Unisan 40.4 21.2 23.9 10.7 7.6 13.3 33.3 47.6 18.5 23.8 18.7 29.1 Rizal Angono 2.5 2.4 3.3 62.2 49.4 20.8 0.0 5.1 0.5 4.4 2.2 4.5 Antipolo City 4.7 3.6 4.1 33.0 29.3 28.9 2.1 7.2 1.8 5.3 2.1 6.0 Baras 9.0 11.4 9.1 36.1 24.8 27.8 3.7 14.3 6.8 16.1 5.0 13.3 Binangonan 5.0 4.0 6.1 26.1 19.5 17.8 2.8 7.1 2.7 5.3 4.3 7.9 Cainta 2.8 1.4 0.7 59.4 56.6 84.8 0.1 5.6 0.1 2.8 0.0 1.6 Cardona 6.5 5.5 9.2 30.7 28.3 25.9 3.2 9.8 3.0 8.1 5.3 13.2 Jala-Jala 14.9 15.7 19.7 23.5 16.0 19.9 9.2 20.7 11.6 19.8 13.3 26.2 Rodriguez (Montalban) 5.8 4.5 5.1 38.5 35.3 41.5 2.1 9.5 1.9 7.1 1.6 8.6 Morong 4.8 2.2 3.5 44.9 50.0 46.3 1.3 8.4 0.4 4.1 0.8 6.2 Pililla 5.7 5.9 10.8 35.1 33.3 29.3 2.4 9.0 2.7 9.1 5.6 16.0 San Mateo 3.6 2.2 3.1 38.0 37.6 32.6 1.4 5.9 0.8 3.5 1.4 4.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 77
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Tanay 10.4 10.5 10.2 25.5 18.9 23.7 6.0 14.7 7.3 13.8 6.2 14.2 Taytay 2.8 3.2 4.1 63.7 47.1 47.8 0.0 5.8 0.7 5.7 0.9 7.3 Teresa 2.7 3.3 5.4 55.1 47.3 36.2 0.3 5.2 0.7 5.9 2.2 8.6 Region IV-B Marinduque Boac 24.7 26.5 7.5 10.4 8.6 21.2 19.9 29.4 22.8 30.3 4.9 10.1 Buenavista 50.3 36.9 22.1 7.9 13.0 15.5 42.0 58.6 29.0 44.8 16.5 27.8 Gasan 39.4 30.7 16.2 12.2 12.4 13.3 31.6 47.2 24.4 37.0 12.6 19.7 Mogpog 31.8 26.8 10.5 15.7 11.1 15.3 26.1 37.5 21.9 31.7 7.9 13.2 Santa Cruz 40.9 30.6 12.7 16.3 8.5 12.9 33.9 47.8 26.3 34.8 10.0 15.3 Torrijos 50.0 35.2 17.3 22.3 12.0 12.7 43.6 56.5 28.2 42.1 13.7 20.9 Occidental Mindoro Abra de Ilog 54.8 37.5 32.3 11.7 16.4 13.8 43.8 65.8 27.4 47.5 25.0 39.6 Calintaan 41.5 34.2 31.1 17.6 18.7 12.9 30.8 52.2 23.6 44.7 24.5 37.6 Looc 30.4 32.4 22.3 8.7 17.0 16.4 22.2 38.6 23.3 41.5 16.2 28.3 Lubang 18.3 23.8 14.8 11.5 15.7 17.6 11.6 25.0 17.6 29.9 10.5 19.0 Magsaysay 51.4 38.3 34.3 8.9 15.8 12.8 41.6 61.3 28.3 48.2 27.1 41.5 Mamburao 30.8 28.9 17.5 12.1 18.2 20.1 21.9 39.7 20.3 37.6 11.7 23.3 Paluan 58.7 38.0 29.6 12.2 15.6 14.6 50.3 67.1 28.2 47.8 22.5 36.7 Rizal 48.1 36.0 31.2 7.2 15.0 12.0 39.0 57.2 27.2 44.9 25.0 37.3 Sablayan 46.3 34.8 28.0 11.6 12.9 10.6 39.5 53.0 27.5 42.2 23.1 32.9 San Jose 30.1 29.8 21.2 8.9 10.2 11.4 24.2 36.1 24.8 34.8 17.2 25.2 Santa Cruz 50.8 38.1 35.2 7.9 16.0 12.6 40.6 61.0 28.1 48.1 27.9 42.5 Oriental Mindoro Baco 57.2 44.5 22.8 14.3 8.8 11.0 50.4 64.0 38.0 50.9 18.6 26.9 Bansud 45.2 39.0 19.9 14.2 14.4 15.6 36.6 53.8 29.8 48.2 14.8 25.0 Bongabong 45.2 35.8 25.1 8.6 9.4 10.0 38.6 51.8 30.2 41.4 21.0 29.3 Bulalacao 71.3 51.5 40.0 6.0 12.3 8.9 62.0 80.5 41.1 61.9 34.1 45.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 78
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Calapan City 21.6 23.0 7.1 9.3 10.4 20.7 16.5 26.7 19.0 26.9 4.7 9.5 Gloria 31.3 35.5 18.3 10.3 10.5 11.5 24.0 38.7 29.4 41.7 14.8 21.8 Mansalay 54.5 41.8 35.5 17.0 13.2 9.7 46.8 62.1 32.7 50.9 29.9 41.2 Naujan 43.2 38.4 20.5 16.5 8.3 9.3 38.9 47.5 33.2 43.7 17.4 23.6 Pinamalayan 33.0 31.7 17.0 15.2 9.7 11.2 28.0 38.0 26.6 36.7 13.9 20.2 Pola 41.9 37.9 29.2 11.4 11.7 10.4 34.8 49.0 30.6 45.3 24.2 34.1 Puerto Galera 35.4 23.9 11.0 10.5 17.4 19.4 25.5 45.2 17.1 30.7 7.5 14.5 Roxas 24.3 29.7 21.1 12.0 12.9 12.6 17.7 30.8 23.4 36.0 16.7 25.5 San Teodoro 40.8 33.6 14.8 19.0 15.8 21.2 30.6 51.1 24.8 42.3 9.7 20.0 Socorro 36.6 36.8 15.4 14.1 11.5 11.7 29.7 43.4 29.8 43.8 12.4 18.3 Victoria 34.4 35.2 18.0 14.3 9.6 10.1 28.4 40.4 29.6 40.7 15.0 21.0 Palawan Aborlan 37.3 23.4 22.4 13.0 17.7 12.4 30.0 44.7 16.6 30.2 17.8 26.9 Agutaya 42.8 36.1 33.4 12.8 23.9 18.9 29.4 56.2 21.9 50.3 23.0 43.7 Araceli 43.9 35.1 27.7 14.5 16.5 13.0 33.7 54.1 25.5 44.6 21.8 33.6 Balabac 52.4 44.2 38.1 9.8 18.0 13.3 40.1 64.8 31.1 57.3 29.7 46.4 Bataraza 44.2 27.5 30.6 14.7 16.2 10.2 34.7 53.7 20.2 34.8 25.5 35.7 Brooke's Point 36.1 26.7 27.0 13.5 13.7 10.7 28.5 43.7 20.6 32.7 22.2 31.7 Busuanga 40.2 26.5 34.9 9.8 18.0 9.9 30.6 49.7 18.6 34.3 29.2 40.6 Cagayancillo 74.5 36.6 22.5 11.7 21.1 20.6 62.6 86.5 23.9 49.4 14.9 30.2 Coron 33.2 28.4 23.5 11.9 16.1 11.1 25.2 41.2 20.9 35.9 19.2 27.7 Cuyo 28.8 20.4 13.8 16.1 17.2 18.2 22.4 35.1 14.6 26.1 9.7 18.0 Dumaran 62.2 41.6 30.8 15.1 13.8 10.4 52.2 72.3 32.1 51.0 25.5 36.1 El Nido 47.3 29.7 27.1 21.2 16.9 12.6 38.2 56.4 21.4 37.9 21.5 32.7 Linapacan 63.4 18.1 39.6 20.3 29.5 12.3 51.1 75.8 9.3 26.9 31.5 47.6 Magsaysay 34.8 17.6 15.9 11.7 20.6 18.6 25.5 44.0 11.7 23.6 11.0 20.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 79
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Narra 27.5 21.4 20.6 16.1 17.5 12.7 20.7 34.3 15.2 27.6 16.3 24.9 Puerto Princesa City 9.2 15.5 7.8 8.0 14.2 18.5 6.0 12.4 11.9 19.1 5.4 10.2 Quezon 25.4 34.0 36.0 217.0 16.5 11.4 16.9 33.8 24.8 43.3 29.3 42.7 Roxas 29.4 24.9 21.0 14.8 13.6 11.8 23.7 35.1 19.3 30.5 16.9 25.1 San Vicente 38.4 25.6 30.1 13.9 18.2 14.9 28.2 48.5 18.0 33.2 22.8 37.5 Taytay 54.5 35.1 33.4 13.8 11.6 9.1 47.3 61.7 28.4 41.8 28.4 38.3 Culion 40.8 28.5 23.6 11.2 16.3 15.2 30.9 50.7 20.8 36.1 17.7 29.5 Rizal 43.7 32.7 36.7 11.8 18.2 13.0 33.7 53.7 22.9 42.5 28.9 44.6 Sofronio Espanola 42.0 30.1 32.9 13.4 19.8 11.9 32.4 51.5 20.3 40.0 26.5 39.4 Romblon Alcantara 32.8 37.3 35.4 14.6 17.4 11.7 24.2 41.3 26.6 48.0 28.6 42.2 Banton 42.4 38.0 30.7 10.2 15.6 13.1 34.6 50.3 28.2 47.7 24.1 37.2 Cajidiocan 47.4 50.4 38.1 13.6 12.8 11.5 38.2 56.6 39.8 61.0 30.9 45.4 Calatrava 47.3 47.4 35.5 11.6 17.2 14.0 36.9 57.7 34.0 60.8 27.3 43.6 Concepcion 40.3 41.9 27.9 12.2 11.6 15.8 30.6 49.9 33.9 49.9 20.7 35.2 Corcuera 60.4 46.6 47.4 14.8 13.0 10.1 50.2 70.6 36.6 56.6 39.5 55.3 Looc 33.3 48.8 27.6 12.2 12.9 13.0 25.9 40.8 38.4 59.1 21.7 33.5 Magdiwang 48.8 45.9 37.5 12.2 14.5 12.8 39.4 58.1 35.0 56.9 29.7 45.4 Odiongan 27.6 35.9 15.4 11.2 12.6 19.0 22.1 33.2 28.5 43.3 10.6 20.1 Romblon 51.4 39.2 26.9 10.4 13.8 12.4 38.9 64.0 30.3 48.1 21.4 32.4 San Agustin 42.5 43.5 33.4 9.3 14.0 12.0 34.0 51.0 33.4 53.6 26.8 40.0 San Andres 45.1 45.5 30.9 16.5 14.7 12.5 36.0 54.1 34.6 56.5 24.6 37.2 San Fernando 53.1 47.4 35.4 14.2 14.5 13.0 43.3 62.9 36.1 58.7 27.8 43.0 San Jose 65.8 50.5 41.0 16.6 16.6 14.5 54.5 77.0 36.7 64.3 31.2 50.8 Santa Fe 53.5 50.1 37.0 12.7 12.7 11.1 45.3 61.7 39.6 60.7 30.2 43.7 Ferrol 42.9 45.7 30.7 16.6 16.6 16.1 31.3 54.5 33.3 58.2 22.5 38.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 80
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Santa Maria 48.8 45.7 26.7 17.5 17.5 20.3 37.4 60.2 32.5 58.8 17.8 35.7 Region V Albay Bacacay 40.3 40.1 29.7 7.4 6.0 7.2 35.4 45.2 36.2 44.0 26.2 33.2 Camalig 42.1 38.7 29.3 6.2 5.8 7.4 37.8 46.4 35.0 42.3 25.7 32.9 Daraga (Locsin) 29.4 29.7 17.9 9.1 6.7 9.5 25.0 33.8 26.4 33.0 15.1 20.7 Guinobatan 39.1 37.2 26.9 6.4 5.9 7.2 35.0 43.2 33.6 40.8 23.7 30.0 Jovellar 58.3 52.7 46.3 6.6 7.1 7.0 52.0 64.6 46.6 58.8 40.9 51.6 Legazpi City 26.2 30.7 17.3 12.3 6.7 9.1 20.9 31.5 27.3 34.1 14.7 19.9 Libon 55.8 48.3 37.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 50.7 60.9 43.8 52.7 33.9 41.0 Ligao City 45.9 40.5 29.1 6.5 5.3 6.2 41.0 50.8 37.0 44.1 26.2 32.0 Malilipot 34.9 37.3 22.3 11.7 9.0 12.3 28.2 41.6 31.7 42.8 17.8 26.7 Malinao 47.3 40.2 32.9 6.8 7.0 7.3 42.0 52.5 35.6 44.9 29.0 36.8 Manito 49.0 45.4 39.0 8.3 9.1 8.7 42.4 55.7 38.6 52.2 33.4 44.5 Oas 48.4 42.9 36.3 5.7 5.1 5.7 43.9 53.0 39.4 46.5 32.9 39.7 Pio Duran 57.7 51.3 45.1 6.2 5.8 5.9 51.8 63.6 46.4 56.1 40.7 49.5 Polangui 39.2 37.8 26.7 7.0 6.2 7.0 34.7 43.7 34.0 41.7 23.6 29.8 Rapu-Rapu 53.5 58.6 50.3 6.9 5.5 5.4 47.4 59.6 53.3 64.0 45.8 54.8 Santo Domingo 32.1 34.2 25.5 10.3 8.3 10.3 26.7 37.5 29.5 38.8 21.1 29.8 Tabacco City 33.3 35.1 23.8 10.2 6.5 7.4 27.7 38.9 31.4 38.9 20.9 26.7 Tiwi 38.1 37.9 27.4 9.3 7.6 8.6 32.3 44.0 33.1 42.6 23.5 31.3 Camarines Norte Basud 36.9 38.3 25.1 10.0 7.4 12.3 30.8 42.9 33.6 42.9 20.0 30.2 Capalonga 48.4 48.2 40.9 8.9 6.8 11.6 41.4 55.5 42.8 53.6 33.1 48.7 Daet 16.6 21.0 11.4 17.0 9.9 17.0 12.0 21.3 17.5 24.4 8.2 14.6 San Lorenzo Ruiz 43.4 45.4 23.7 13.7 11.3 18.9 33.6 53.2 37.0 53.8 16.3 31.1 Jose Panganiban 32.9 37.3 23.5 9.9 7.9 13.4 27.5 38.2 32.5 42.2 18.3 28.7
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 81
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Labo 34.9 36.5 29.9 6.5 5.8 11.0 31.1 38.6 33.0 40.0 24.5 35.3 Mercedes 42.4 43.4 27.9 8.8 7.0 11.4 36.3 48.6 38.4 48.4 22.6 33.1 Paracale 36.2 35.6 24.0 8.9 7.8 14.7 30.9 41.5 31.0 40.1 18.2 29.8 San Vicente 35.3 34.7 21.6 15.2 12.4 16.8 26.5 44.2 27.6 41.8 15.6 27.6 Santa Elena 50.3 43.1 30.4 10.3 8.7 14.3 41.9 58.8 36.9 49.2 23.2 37.5 Talisay 32.1 28.6 17.9 13.2 10.9 16.3 25.1 39.0 23.5 33.7 13.1 22.7 Vinzons 42.9 42.1 32.2 9.7 8.1 11.8 36.1 49.8 36.4 47.7 26.0 38.5 Camarines Sur Baao 40.1 37.4 26.8 8.7 9.7 34.4 45.9 31.8 42.9 22.6 31.1 Balatan 50.6 50.0 51.5 10.1 8.1 5.9 42.2 59.1 43.3 56.6 46.5 56.5 Bato 38.9 40.1 40.3 9.8 7.1 6.3 32.6 45.2 35.4 44.8 36.1 44.5 Bombon 35.4 35.1 27.2 16.8 14.4 16.6 25.6 45.1 26.8 43.4 19.7 34.6 Buhi 41.0 44.0 34.1 7.1 6.2 6.1 36.2 45.8 39.5 48.4 30.6 37.5 Bulaa 46.0 46.0 41.3 7.7 6.9 5.3 40.2 51.9 40.8 51.2 37.7 44.9 Cabusao 43.8 46.1 33.6 13.0 12.0 10.4 34.5 53.2 37.0 55.2 27.9 39.3 Calabanga 38.8 42.7 33.4 7.3 6.1 6.0 34.1 43.4 38.4 47.0 30.1 36.7 Camaligan 22.6 29.4 18.5 19.2 13.5 16.4 15.4 29.7 22.9 35.9 13.5 23.4 Canaman 27.3 32.4 24.2 10.9 8.5 8.9 22.4 32.2 27.9 37.0 20.7 27.8 Caramoan 51.7 53.5 46.2 5.6 5.4 5.0 47.0 56.5 48.7 58.3 42.5 50.0 Del Gallego 51.6 52.4 37.5 8.2 6.6 7.0 44.6 58.6 46.8 58.1 33.1 41.8 Gainza 41.3 46.0 33.8 14.5 13.5 13.0 31.4 51.1 35.7 56.2 26.6 41.0 Garchitorena 58.4 59.0 56.1 8.7 5.4 5.3 50.1 66.7 53.7 64.2 51.2 61.0 Goa 33.9 41.2 27.5 10.1 6.8 8.3 28.3 39.5 36.6 45.8 23.7 31.2 Iriga City 25.8 31.5 23.0 10.4 7.8 8.0 21.4 30.2 27.5 35.6 20.0 26.1 Lagonoy 37.8 46.7 37.6 8.1 6.6 5.7 32.8 42.9 41.6 51.8 34.0 41.1 Libmanan 51.1 46.9 38.0 5.1 5.7 4.5 46.8 55.4 42.5 51.3 35.2 40.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 82
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Lupi 57.5 49.9 37.0 6.4 6.7 6.2 51.5 63.5 44.4 55.4 33.2 40.7 Magarao 32.7 40.3 27.8 11.3 11.7 10.9 26.6 38.8 32.5 48.0 22.8 32.8 Milaor 36.9 36.6 27.1 9.6 8.9 9.1 31.1 42.7 31.3 42.0 23.1 31.2 Minalabac 51.5 48.4 40.1 7.7 7.4 7.8 45.0 58.1 42.5 54.3 34.9 45.2 Nabua 31.9 35.5 29.5 9.7 8.6 6.1 26.8 37.1 30.5 40.5 26.5 32.4 Naga City 16.6 24.4 15.7 15.3 9.8 11.7 12.4 20.8 20.5 28.3 12.7 18.7 Ocampo 51.1 43.8 31.5 7.1 7.1 9.0 45.2 57.1 38.7 49.0 26.8 36.1 Pamplona 48.1 46.7 32.9 9.2 8.1 9.4 40.9 55.4 40.5 53.0 27.8 38.0 Pasacao 50.0 48.7 44.6 9.6 9.6 6.9 42.1 57.9 41.0 56.4 39.5 49.6 Pili 34.0 33.1 24.6 9.8 7.4 7.9 28.5 39.5 29.0 37.1 21.4 27.8 Presentacion 52.8 50.2 48.8 10.6 9.1 8.0 43.5 62.0 42.7 57.7 42.4 55.2 Ragay 47.6 46.4 37.4 7.2 6.6 5.7 41.9 53.2 41.3 51.5 33.9 40.9 Sagnay 48.3 51.8 37.3 8.2 7.0 6.4 41.8 54.8 45.8 57.7 33.3 41.2 San Fernando 40.0 41.6 34.9 9.3 7.6 8.5 33.9 46.1 36.4 46.7 30.1 39.8 San Jose 35.2 39.1 29.2 9.4 8.1 8.0 29.8 40.7 33.9 44.3 25.3 33.0 Sipocot 44.0 43.8 33.6 5.9 6.2 6.0 39.7 48.3 39.4 48.3 30.3 37.0 Siruma 56.3 58.1 58.1 7.8 6.8 6.0 49.0 63.6 51.6 64.6 52.4 63.8 Tigaon 39.3 41.9 27.9 10.0 6.9 9.6 32.8 45.8 37.1 46.6 23.5 32.3 Tinambac 51.3 53.2 47.4 6.4 6.3 5.2 45.9 56.7 47.7 58.7 43.4 51.4 Catanduanes Bagamanoc 38.8 38.0 37.4 10.2 10.4 7.1 32.3 45.3 31.5 44.5 33.0 41.8 Baras 48.2 39.0 32.0 9.1 7.0 7.7 41.0 55.3 34.5 43.5 27.9 36.0 Bato 33.1 30.9 23.5 11.3 8.6 9.3 27.0 39.3 26.5 35.3 19.9 27.2 Caramoran 48.4 49.7 40.8 7.9 7.8 6.8 42.1 54.8 43.3 56.0 36.2 45.3 Gigmoto 44.2 41.5 32.8 11.5 10.0 11.6 35.8 52.6 34.6 48.3 26.5 39.1 Pandan 45.9 45.0 43.7 7.9 7.1 6.4 39.9 51.8 39.7 50.2 39.1 48.3
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 83
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Panganiban 38.8 35.0 31.4 9.1 11.3 9.4 33.0 44.7 28.5 41.5 26.5 36.3 San Andres 39.2 36.6 29.9 8.8 7.1 7.0 33.5 44.9 32.4 40.9 26.5 33.4 San Miguel 52.2 36.5 32.1 8.4 7.9 9.1 45.0 59.4 31.7 41.2 27.3 36.9 Viga 40.3 41.2 39.4 8.1 6.7 6.3 34.9 45.6 36.6 45.7 35.3 43.5 Virac 19.9 22.7 16.6 11.1 6.4 8.3 16.2 23.5 20.3 25.1 14.3 18.8 Masbate Aroroy 49.0 45.5 43.3 6.6 7.0 5.6 43.6 54.3 40.3 50.8 39.2 47.3 Baleno 41.2 39.7 43.2 10.1 8.7 6.5 34.3 48.0 34.0 45.4 38.6 47.9 Balud 55.1 43.1 46.7 7.1 8.7 6.7 48.6 61.5 36.9 49.2 41.5 51.8 Batuan 34.5 37.0 46.1 12.2 11.4 8.2 27.6 41.5 30.1 44.0 39.9 52.3 Cataingan 52.5 41.5 40.9 7.1 6.6 6.8 46.4 58.6 36.9 46.0 36.3 45.4 Cawayan 50.9 47.6 49.3 6.8 6.7 5.3 45.1 56.6 42.3 52.9 44.9 53.6 Claveria 47.9 46.7 52.4 7.2 8.8 5.9 42.3 53.6 39.9 53.4 47.3 57.5 Dimasalang 46.0 41.3 49.2 9.0 7.9 6.6 39.2 52.7 35.9 46.7 43.8 54.5 Esperanza 49.9 45.5 44.2 8.2 7.6 7.4 43.2 56.6 39.8 51.2 38.8 49.7 Mandaon 52.3 41.1 44.7 7.7 8.1 5.9 45.7 58.9 35.6 46.5 40.3 49.0 Masbate City 29.1 28.9 22.2 10.5 8.0 9.5 24.1 34.1 25.1 32.7 18.7 25.7 Milagros 52.1 45.3 49.6 6.5 7.0 5.3 46.5 57.6 40.1 50.5 45.3 53.9 Mobo 45.8 37.4 43.5 7.9 8.0 5.1 39.9 51.8 32.5 42.4 39.9 47.1 Monreal 54.9 44.7 57.9 9.0 9.4 7.3 46.8 63.1 37.8 51.6 51.0 64.8 Palanas 53.0 40.4 45.0 7.8 8.0 6.5 46.2 59.8 35.1 45.7 40.1 49.8 Pio V. Corpuz 40.5 43.8 40.7 11.5 8.6 7.8 32.8 48.1 37.7 50.0 35.5 46.0 Placer 59.0 47.0 47.7 6.5 6.8 5.9 52.6 65.3 41.7 52.2 43.0 52.3 San Fernando 34.6 38.1 40.5 9.7 7.9 7.0 29.0 40.1 33.2 43.1 35.9 45.2 San Jacinto 39.6 39.1 38.8 10.4 9.5 7.6 32.8 46.4 33.0 45.2 33.9 43.6 San Pascual 61.7 52.7 52.8 7.1 6.5 6.3 54.5 68.9 47.0 58.3 47.3 58.3
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 84
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Uson 54.5 42.9 50.9 7.4 6.8 5.9 47.8 61.1 38.1 47.8 46.0 55.8 Sorsogon Barcelona 37.2 39.1 29.4 8.8 7.9 7.8 31.8 42.6 34.0 44.1 25.6 33.1 Bulan 40.7 38.8 32.7 6.2 6.6 5.3 36.5 44.8 34.6 43.1 29.8 35.5 Bulusan 35.3 32.9 30.8 10.2 8.0 7.4 29.3 41.2 28.6 37.2 27.0 34.6 Casiguran 41.8 38.9 28.7 7.6 7.9 8.3 36.6 47.0 33.9 44.0 24.8 32.6 Castilla 52.9 44.4 42.2 7.4 6.8 6.5 46.4 59.3 39.4 49.4 37.7 46.7 Donsol 54.6 47.3 44.1 5.6 6.6 5.6 49.5 59.6 42.2 52.4 40.1 48.2 Gubat 31.7 33.6 25.6 7.9 7.2 7.5 27.6 35.8 29.6 37.6 22.4 28.8 Irosin 33.4 34.2 28.5 10.2 7.9 8.2 27.8 38.9 29.7 38.6 24.6 32.3 Juban 44.1 41.6 37.3 8.8 8.0 6.8 37.7 50.5 36.1 47.0 33.1 41.5 Magallanes 53.4 44.6 44.1 6.6 7.8 5.7 47.6 59.2 38.8 50.3 40.0 48.2 Matnog 46.7 43.2 45.2 6.1 6.6 5.5 42.0 51.4 38.5 47.8 41.1 49.3 Pilar 54.8 44.3 42.5 5.8 5.5 4.9 49.5 60.0 40.3 48.3 39.1 45.9 Prieto Diaz 40.1 36.7 30.7 9.1 8.5 8.4 34.1 46.2 31.6 41.8 26.5 34.9 Santa Magdalena 32.4 35.8 35.5 12.8 10.6 10.5 25.6 39.1 29.6 42.0 29.4 41.7 Sorsogon City 23.6 27.6 19.5 13.6 8.3 7.8 18.3 28.9 23.8 31.3 17.0 22.0 Region VI Aklan Altavas 34.3 48.9 19.2 10.8 9.4 17.4 28.3 40.4 41.3 56.4 13.7 24.7 Balete 45.1 52.7 25.6 12.3 9.5 18.7 36.0 54.2 44.5 60.9 17.7 33.5 Banga 23.4 39.6 11.3 11.2 7.4 17.6 19.1 27.6 34.8 44.4 8.0 14.6 Batan 27.7 45.7 23.3 14.7 9.2 15.8 21.0 34.4 38.8 52.6 17.2 29.3 Buruanga 33.8 47.0 18.5 13.0 9.5 17.9 26.6 41.0 39.7 54.4 13.1 24.0 Ibajay 36.3 39.6 20.0 8.0 8.7 12.6 31.6 41.1 33.9 45.2 15.9 24.1 Kalibo 7.8 24.9 5.8 21.1 13.2 31.2 5.1 10.5 19.5 30.3 2.8 8.8 Lezo 16.0 39.1 8.4 16.3 10.6 24.9 11.7 20.2 32.3 45.9 5.0 11.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 85
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Libacao 43.3 62.3 26.0 11.2 6.9 11.6 35.3 51.2 55.2 69.4 21.0 31.0 Madalag 51.2 63.3 33.2 8.4 6.6 11.2 44.1 58.2 56.5 70.2 27.0 39.3 Makato 25.6 48.9 18.9 10.4 7.8 15.4 21.3 30.0 42.7 55.2 14.1 23.7 Malay 27.6 24.8 12.1 17.3 19.0 27.5 19.7 35.5 17.0 32.5 6.6 17.6 Malinao 37.0 43.3 19.6 9.6 9.2 14.1 31.2 42.8 36.7 49.8 15.1 24.2 Nabas 36.6 36.9 25.4 9.3 9.5 13.2 31.0 42.2 31.1 42.6 19.9 30.9 New Washington 28.3 42.0 14.7 11.7 10.1 17.1 22.9 33.7 35.1 49.0 10.5 18.8 Numancia 11.0 24.4 9.1 20.3 11.7 24.2 7.3 14.7 19.7 29.0 5.5 12.7 Tangalan 43.6 42.5 21.6 10.6 11.2 16.2 36.0 51.2 34.7 50.3 15.9 27.4 Antique Anini-Y 37.9 45.4 18.5 10.4 8.9 16.0 31.4 44.4 38.8 52.1 13.6 23.3 Barbaza 28.5 46.3 23.4 10.6 7.7 12.5 23.5 33.5 40.4 52.1 18.6 28.2 Belizon 20.3 25.8 11.2 21.0 19.6 31.2 13.3 27.3 17.5 34.2 5.4 16.9 Bugasong 31.5 39.7 22.5 10.7 8.3 12.6 26.0 37.0 34.2 45.1 17.8 27.2 Caluya 43.4 49.7 24.7 11.6 11.3 16.9 35.2 51.7 40.5 58.9 17.8 31.6 Culasi 33.6 37.2 22.1 8.6 8.6 11.7 28.9 38.3 31.9 42.5 17.8 26.3 Tobias Fornier 31.1 44.1 20.9 9.7 8.1 11.9 26.1 36.0 38.2 50.0 16.8 25.0 Hamtic 30.6 38.5 15.5 9.8 8.9 12.3 25.7 35.6 32.9 44.1 12.4 18.7 Lauan-an 36.1 42.1 25.9 10.1 9.5 11.5 30.1 42.1 35.5 48.7 21.0 30.8 Libertad 36.4 37.3 21.7 12.0 13.2 16.3 29.2 43.6 29.1 45.4 15.9 27.5 Pandan 33.9 40.1 20.9 8.9 9.2 13.1 28.9 38.9 34.0 46.1 16.4 25.4 Patnongon 33.7 41.8 26.4 11.4 9.8 11.8 27.4 40.0 35.0 48.6 21.3 31.5 San Jose 12.6 23.8 8.3 14.0 12.5 24.3 9.7 15.6 18.9 28.7 5.0 11.6 San Remigio 52.0 55.5 35.9 7.3 7.3 9.4 45.7 58.3 48.8 62.1 30.4 41.4 Sebaste 35.1 43.0 24.2 15.5 14.4 20.0 26.2 44.1 32.8 53.1 16.2 32.1 Sibalom 33.1 37.5 21.2 8.3 7.5 10.9 28.6 37.6 32.9 42.1 17.4 25.0
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 86
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Tibiao 31.7 49.6 22.2 12.0 8.7 14.0 25.4 37.9 42.5 56.7 17.1 27.3 Valderama 34.2 43.5 30.2 11.5 8.4 11.6 27.7 40.7 37.5 49.5 24.4 35.9 Capiz Cuartero 40.9 27.3 33.5 9.6 17.3 11.3 34.4 47.3 19.5 35.0 27.2 39.7 Dao 30.2 26.2 28.2 13.6 18.5 12.0 23.4 36.9 18.2 34.2 22.6 33.8 Dumalag 38.4 15.6 24.7 10.6 24.4 11.6 31.7 45.1 9.4 21.9 20.0 29.4 Dumarao 41.2 26.7 33.4 7.9 16.7 10.7 35.9 46.6 19.4 34.0 27.5 39.3 Ivisan 28.0 20.2 31.7 15.3 22.6 13.6 21.0 35.1 12.7 27.7 24.6 38.7 Jamindan 47.3 32.8 35.5 8.2 13.6 9.5 41.0 53.7 25.5 40.1 29.9 41.0 Ma-ayon 49.7 25.5 39.9 6.3 15.7 8.6 44.6 54.9 18.9 32.1 34.3 45.6 Mambusao 40.2 19.4 26.5 9.0 18.5 12.1 34.2 46.1 13.5 25.4 21.2 31.7 Panay 23.9 23.1 30.8 16.6 15.0 8.6 17.4 30.4 17.4 28.8 26.5 35.1 Panitan 28.0 22.1 29.7 9.7 18.6 10.8 23.5 32.4 15.3 28.8 24.4 34.9 Pilar 45.9 22.2 36.6 7.5 18.7 10.3 40.2 51.5 15.3 29.0 30.4 42.8 Pontevedra 33.6 17.8 29.1 10.2 19.5 12.7 28.0 39.2 12.1 23.4 23.0 35.1 President Roxas 31.8 20.4 28.6 12.8 21.7 13.5 25.1 38.5 13.1 27.7 22.3 35.0 Roxas City 17.3 12.1 12.6 10.2 22.4 14.7 14.4 20.2 7.6 16.5 9.5 15.6 Sapi-An 40.1 24.3 29.7 10.7 20.1 16.8 33.1 47.2 16.2 32.3 21.5 37.9 Sigma 36.5 17.5 28.2 10.3 21.0 11.7 30.3 42.7 11.4 23.5 22.8 33.6 Tapaz 47.9 29.0 33.8 7.2 12.3 8.3 42.2 53.6 23.1 34.8 29.2 38.5 Iloilo Ajuy 34.8 30.9 30.6 10.6 11.5 10.3 28.7 40.9 25.1 36.7 25.4 35.8 Alimodian 36.5 30.4 26.6 8.6 13.2 10.4 31.4 41.7 23.8 37.0 22.1 31.2 Anilao 30.3 31.5 27.3 12.4 14.2 12.3 24.1 36.5 24.1 38.9 21.8 32.9 Badiangan 23.1 18.5 16.8 10.9 15.8 12.2 19.0 27.2 13.7 23.3 13.4 20.2 Balasan 24.0 30.4 24.1 10.5 12.9 12.8 19.9 28.1 24.0 36.9 19.0 29.2 Banate 26.6 19.8 24.2 15.1 16.6 14.2 20.0 33.1 14.4 25.2 18.5 29.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 87
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Barotac Nuevo 19.7 15.9 17.6 10.6 15.9 11.0 16.3 23.1 11.7 20.1 14.4 20.8 Barotac Viejo 35.2 26.2 25.4 9.5 14.5 12.0 29.7 40.7 20.0 32.5 20.4 30.4 Batad 46.9 33.1 34.5 9.7 14.3 14.4 39.4 54.4 25.3 40.9 26.4 42.7 Bingawan 38.4 26.8 26.3 12.6 20.7 17.5 30.5 46.4 17.7 35.9 18.7 33.9 Cabatuan 24.6 15.2 15.9 8.3 13.1 10.5 21.3 28.0 11.9 18.5 13.1 18.6 Calinog 29.8 29.6 27.0 8.2 11.8 9.7 25.7 33.8 23.9 35.4 22.7 31.3 Carles 51.5 46.8 35.8 7.4 11.1 9.8 45.2 57.7 38.2 55.3 30.0 41.6 Concepcion 47.4 48.4 36.8 9.1 9.6 11.2 40.3 54.5 40.8 56.0 30.0 43.6 Dingle 22.7 17.3 21.8 9.6 16.2 11.1 19.1 26.2 12.7 22.0 17.8 25.7 Duenas 30.7 22.3 25.3 8.4 13.9 11.0 26.5 35.0 17.2 27.4 20.7 29.9 Dumangas 25.2 16.0 21.4 7.7 14.5 11.2 22.0 28.4 12.2 19.8 17.4 25.3 Estancia 30.3 22.1 26.1 11.3 14.3 12.2 24.7 35.9 16.9 27.3 20.9 31.3 Guimbal 21.0 15.8 11.4 12.9 15.0 15.2 16.6 25.5 11.9 19.7 8.6 14.3 Igbaras 33.0 29.2 22.5 11.0 12.8 10.5 27.0 39.0 23.0 35.4 18.6 26.4 Iloilo City 4.9 7.6 6.0 17.4 13.3 19.2 3.5 6.4 5.9 9.2 4.1 7.9 Janiuay 27.1 25.8 25.3 9.5 10.9 9.1 22.9 31.3 21.2 30.5 21.5 29.0 Lambunao 40.7 23.2 26.6 8.3 14.1 9.4 35.1 46.2 17.8 28.5 22.5 30.7 Leganes 14.0 15.2 10.1 16.2 18.8 24.7 10.3 17.7 10.5 19.9 6.0 14.2 Lemery 34.8 33.8 28.3 10.2 12.3 11.1 29.0 40.7 27.0 40.7 23.1 33.5 Leon 35.3 33.7 24.0 8.0 13.1 8.4 30.6 39.9 26.4 40.9 20.6 27.3 Maasin 37.4 22.6 28.3 7.4 12.1 9.7 32.9 42.0 18.1 27.0 23.8 32.8 Miag-ao 28.1 26.1 18.8 7.9 11.0 9.8 24.4 31.7 21.4 30.8 15.8 21.8 Mina 21.2 15.5 24.3 14.9 18.5 13.4 16.0 26.4 10.8 20.3 19.0 29.6 New Lucena 26.9 16.8 16.6 12.9 17.3 15.5 21.2 32.6 12.0 21.6 12.3 20.8 Oton 18.0 15.8 10.5 12.4 14.2 16.8 14.4 21.7 12.1 19.5 7.6 13.4
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 88
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Passi City 36.5 24.5 25.1 7.3 12.0 9.3 32.1 40.8 19.6 29.3 21.3 29.0 Pavia 10.6 10.2 8.6 18.1 20.3 23.8 7.4 13.7 6.8 13.6 5.2 12.0 Pototan 18.8 17.3 18.9 10.8 13.9 9.7 15.5 22.2 13.4 21.3 15.9 21.9 San Dionisio 43.2 42.3 32.7 9.2 10.9 10.1 36.6 49.7 34.7 49.8 27.3 38.1 San Enrique 34.5 28.3 26.2 8.7 13.0 11.6 29.5 39.4 22.3 34.4 21.2 31.2 San Joaquin 36.1 38.3 28.1 7.2 10.8 9.1 31.8 40.4 31.4 45.1 23.9 32.3 San Miguel 18.4 17.9 14.3 15.0 15.9 16.9 13.9 23.0 13.2 22.6 10.3 18.2 San Rafael 39.0 30.1 28.4 14.3 17.5 17.1 29.9 48.2 21.4 38.7 20.4 36.4 Santa Barbara 14.7 13.5 13.1 12.3 14.5 13.5 11.7 17.6 10.3 16.8 10.2 16.1 Sara 31.7 24.1 26.1 8.1 12.9 10.8 27.5 35.9 19.0 29.2 21.4 30.7 Tigbauan 24.9 23.3 19.1 7.9 12.9 10.6 21.6 28.1 18.4 28.3 15.8 22.5 Tubungan 37.4 35.5 28.4 6.5 11.8 9.5 33.4 41.4 28.6 42.4 24.0 32.9 Zarraga 12.2 15.4 16.8 19.4 16.7 14.1 8.3 16.1 11.2 19.7 12.9 20.7 Negros Occidental Bacolod City 3.4 11.2 3.2 29.3 18.2 30.7 1.8 5.1 7.8 14.5 1.6 4.8 Bago City 21.2 20.7 20.6 13.6 14.5 15.5 16.5 26.0 15.8 25.7 15.3 25.8 Binalbagan 23.4 28.9 16.6 17.0 15.1 18.9 16.9 30.0 21.7 36.1 11.4 21.7 Cadiz City 26.2 27.3 24.7 16.0 12.5 15.2 19.3 33.1 21.7 32.9 18.5 30.8 Calatrava 38.3 39.1 33.0 8.4 8.7 11.4 33.0 43.6 33.5 44.7 26.8 39.2 Candoni 45.0 41.9 29.4 13.7 12.4 14.9 34.9 55.2 33.3 50.4 22.2 36.6 Cauayan 44.2 55.2 31.2 10.3 8.6 10.8 36.7 51.6 47.4 62.9 25.6 36.7 Enrique B. Magalona 21.9 24.7 20.3 12.6 12.8 14.0 17.4 26.4 19.5 29.8 15.6 25.0 Escalante City 27.8 25.6 23.5 13.8 14.8 15.1 21.5 34.2 19.3 31.8 17.7 29.4 Himamaylan City 30.5 31.4 23.5 11.8 11.4 15.6 24.5 36.4 25.5 37.3 17.5 29.5 Hinigaran 29.1 30.6 16.6 11.1 12.6 17.2 23.8 34.4 24.2 36.9 11.9 21.3 Hinoba-An (Asia) 34.0 52.8 30.4 14.3 10.9 14.8 26.0 42.0 43.4 62.3 23.0 37.7
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 89
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Ilog 27.0 39.1 24.2 13.7 12.4 16.5 20.9 33.0 31.1 47.0 17.6 30.8 Isabela 36.1 33.8 27.3 8.6 11.7 12.1 31.0 41.2 27.3 40.3 21.9 32.7 Kabankalan City 35.4 40.9 25.8 10.3 7.8 13.2 29.4 41.4 35.6 46.1 20.2 31.4 La Carlota City 17.9 19.3 10.3 15.4 17.5 21.0 13.3 22.4 13.7 24.8 6.8 13.9 La Castellana 32.4 29.7 29.6 16.9 17.6 16.1 23.4 41.5 21.1 38.3 21.7 37.4 Manapla 26.9 28.4 24.6 18.6 16.8 18.5 18.7 35.2 20.5 36.2 17.1 32.1 Moises Padilla (Magallon) 40.4 40.6 32.5 14.0 13.5 15.9 31.1 49.7 31.6 49.7 24.0 41.1 Murcia 25.1 20.7 23.3 13.5 18.4 15.6 19.5 30.7 14.5 27.0 17.3 29.2 Pontevedra 20.1 20.4 18.3 18.5 16.1 17.3 14.0 26.2 15.0 25.8 13.1 23.6 Pulupandan 17.8 24.6 10.3 11.8 13.1 20.8 14.3 21.3 19.3 29.9 6.8 13.8 Sagay City 27.7 28.0 25.2 14.9 11.6 13.9 20.9 34.6 22.6 33.3 19.4 30.9 San Carlos City 28.0 34.0 23.2 14.1 12.8 18.0 21.5 34.5 26.9 41.2 16.3 30.0 San Enrique 21.3 21.8 12.3 21.0 23.4 27.9 14.0 28.7 13.4 30.2 6.7 17.9 Silay City 18.7 17.6 14.0 17.3 21.2 21.3 13.4 24.0 11.4 23.7 9.1 18.8 Sipalay City 39.4 45.9 29.1 11.2 11.0 15.8 32.2 46.7 37.6 54.2 21.6 36.7 Talisay City 11.1 15.7 10.4 18.1 18.7 21.9 7.8 14.4 10.9 20.5 6.6 14.1 Toboso 34.5 31.8 31.4 18.1 19.2 18.5 24.2 44.7 21.8 41.8 21.8 40.9 Valladolid 14.4 21.2 10.7 18.7 16.3 21.4 10.0 18.8 15.5 26.8 6.9 14.4 Victorias City 18.4 19.2 15.6 16.2 15.4 19.7 13.5 23.4 14.3 24.0 10.5 20.7 Salvador Benedicto 50.1 55.9 40.7 15.7 14.6 21.1 37.1 63.1 42.5 69.2 26.5 54.8 Guimaras Buenavista 22.5 23.9 16.3 10.6 10.4 13.6 18.5 26.4 19.8 28.0 12.6 19.9 Jordan 24.6 17.7 17.5 13.9 18.4 17.3 19.0 30.2 12.3 23.0 12.5 22.5 Nueva Valencia 29.7 36.4 19.0 11.4 10.7 14.4 24.2 35.3 30.0 42.8 14.5 23.6 San Lorenzo 45.4 44.0 28.7 11.3 12.5 16.7 37.0 53.8 34.9 53.1 20.8 36.6 Sibunag 42.1 49.3 28.4 11.0 11.6 12.5 34.5 49.7 39.9 58.8 22.6 34.2
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 90
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Region VII Bohol Alburquerque 24.8 25.4 15.9 15.8 13.1 15.8 18.4 31.2 20.0 30.9 11.8 20.1 Alicia 49.5 53.7 33.9 10.9 8.4 11.1 40.6 58.4 46.3 61.2 27.8 40.1 Anda 47.4 49.6 30.9 9.6 8.5 11.0 39.9 54.8 42.7 56.5 25.3 36.5 Antequera 49.9 36.8 18.5 10.4 8.4 11.5 41.4 58.4 31.7 41.9 15.0 21.9 Baclayon 25.1 23.9 15.1 14.1 11.3 14.7 19.3 30.9 19.4 28.3 11.4 18.7 Balilihan 48.3 51.9 31.3 7.3 5.5 8.1 42.4 54.1 47.1 56.6 27.2 35.4 Batuan 75.3 46.8 32.3 7.4 7.3 9.2 66.1 84.4 41.2 52.5 27.4 37.2 Bilar 43.9 47.9 22.6 9.7 7.4 11.0 36.9 51.0 42.1 53.7 18.5 26.6 Buenavista 56.2 55.9 45.5 5.7 5.5 6.0 50.9 61.5 50.8 61.0 40.9 50.0 Calape 39.9 40.4 25.4 7.0 6.6 9.8 35.4 44.5 36.0 44.8 21.3 29.5 Canduay 38.0 52.3 34.5 10.8 5.8 7.9 31.3 44.8 47.3 57.3 30.0 39.0 Carmen 75.0 55.2 38.4 7.7 5.9 7.6 65.5 84.5 49.8 60.5 33.6 43.2 Catigbian 64.3 51.3 37.0 10.4 6.7 8.2 53.3 75.3 45.6 56.9 32.0 42.0 Clarin 40.5 39.2 26.4 8.6 8.4 9.5 34.8 46.3 33.8 44.6 22.2 30.5 Corella 27.1 32.0 17.9 18.2 12.9 17.2 19.0 35.2 25.2 38.7 12.8 22.9 Cortes 26.4 26.9 15.9 13.7 13.4 15.2 20.5 32.3 21.0 32.8 11.9 19.8 Dagohoy 65.9 56.0 40.7 7.1 7.5 10.2 58.2 73.6 49.0 62.9 33.8 47.5 Danao 64.7 62.1 42.7 7.4 6.4 9.9 56.8 72.6 55.5 68.6 35.7 49.7 Dauis 40.5 30.1 17.0 9.5 12.1 15.6 34.2 46.8 24.1 36.1 12.7 21.4 Dimiao 45.1 42.4 30.6 7.0 8.4 8.5 39.9 50.3 36.6 48.3 26.3 34.9 Duero 38.0 51.7 29.6 8.0 6.2 9.8 33.0 43.0 46.4 57.0 24.9 34.4 Garcia Hernandez 35.3 46.8 28.0 8.8 6.0 9.9 30.2 40.4 42.2 51.4 23.5 32.6 Guindulman 41.2 47.2 30.3 7.9 7.1 10.2 35.8 46.6 41.7 52.7 25.2 35.3 Inabanga 48.5 47.1 34.7 5.9 5.0 6.9 43.8 53.2 43.2 51.0 30.8 38.7
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 91
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Jagna 34.2 36.4 19.6 8.0 6.1 11.2 29.7 38.7 32.8 40.1 16.0 23.2 Jetafe 50.1 60.1 43.5 7.7 4.8 6.5 43.8 56.5 55.4 64.9 38.9 48.1 Lila 36.6 42.6 19.6 11.1 8.9 14.4 29.9 43.3 36.3 48.9 15.0 24.3 Loay 29.7 28.4 19.3 11.5 10.4 11.3 24.1 35.4 23.5 33.2 15.7 22.9 Loboc 26.0 32.8 21.5 10.5 8.7 10.4 21.5 30.5 28.1 37.5 17.8 25.2 Loon 39.4 38.8 22.0 7.6 5.6 7.3 34.5 44.3 35.2 42.3 19.3 24.6 Mabini 46.5 58.4 46.8 8.5 5.5 7.4 40.0 52.9 53.1 63.7 41.0 52.5 Maribojoc 25.2 24.9 17.3 13.6 11.7 13.4 19.6 30.8 20.1 29.7 13.5 21.1 Panglao 30.2 33.3 16.4 15.1 12.5 17.4 22.7 37.7 26.4 40.1 11.7 21.0 Pilar 62.2 67.1 38.8 6.5 5.8 7.3 55.5 68.8 60.7 73.4 34.2 43.4 Pres. Carlos P. Garcia 49.8 62.1 51.8 7.6 5.9 6.9 43.6 56.0 56.0 68.1 45.9 57.7 Sagbayan 57.1 48.8 24.0 10.6 7.7 10.9 47.2 67.0 42.6 55.0 19.7 28.3 San Isidro 47.8 64.0 44.9 10.9 7.6 9.9 39.2 56.4 56.0 72.0 37.6 52.2 San Miguel 64.2 53.6 42.7 6.0 7.6 8.9 57.9 70.5 46.9 60.3 36.5 48.9 Sevilla 59.9 52.2 31.7 7.5 6.9 9.9 52.5 67.3 46.3 58.2 26.6 36.9 Sierra Bullones 47.7 54.4 35.1 8.4 7.9 9.4 41.2 54.3 47.3 61.4 29.6 40.5 Sikatuna 38.0 45.9 29.0 14.8 10.3 13.0 28.7 47.2 38.1 53.7 22.8 35.2 Tagbilaran City 10.4 11.0 7.9 18.3 19.5 18.5 7.3 13.6 7.5 14.6 5.5 10.2 Talibon 43.9 51.4 36.4 8.7 6.2 7.4 37.6 50.1 46.2 56.6 31.9 40.8 Trinidad 57.9 56.6 39.7 7.0 6.7 7.8 51.3 64.6 50.4 62.8 34.6 44.8 Tubigon 41.5 37.4 26.7 7.7 6.8 7.9 36.2 46.7 33.2 41.5 23.2 30.2 Ubay 57.2 50.1 39.6 5.7 5.8 5.5 51.9 62.5 45.3 54.9 36.1 43.2 Valencia 43.0 50.4 28.5 6.8 5.7 8.0 38.2 47.8 45.7 55.2 24.8 32.2 Bien Unido 45.2 63.7 48.8 10.3 6.2 7.3 37.5 52.8 57.2 70.3 43.0 54.6 Cebu Alcantara 47.9 51.2 34.0 13.2 8.8 12.5 37.5 58.4 43.7 58.6 27.1 41.0
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 92
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Alcoy 53.0 47.1 24.5 11.2 10.9 18.0 43.3 62.7 38.6 55.5 17.3 31.8 Alegria 62.7 62.4 40.0 8.0 7.5 13.0 54.4 70.9 54.6 70.1 31.4 48.5 Aloguinsan 61.7 49.4 29.1 9.8 9.9 12.5 51.7 71.7 41.3 57.4 23.1 35.1 Argao 41.7 43.6 24.7 6.0 5.4 9.1 37.5 45.8 39.7 47.4 21.0 28.4 Asturias 52.3 44.2 30.8 8.8 7.9 10.5 44.7 59.8 38.5 49.9 25.4 36.1 Badian 60.5 53.5 38.3 5.8 5.9 7.9 54.6 66.3 48.2 58.7 33.3 43.3 Balamban 41.6 37.6 20.0 8.9 9.2 11.6 35.5 47.7 31.9 43.3 16.2 23.9 Bantayan 48.9 55.1 36.0 6.9 5.5 7.0 43.3 54.4 50.2 60.1 31.9 40.2 Barili 51.3 40.7 26.4 6.6 6.5 8.4 45.7 56.9 36.3 45.0 22.8 30.1 Bogo City 37.7 37.0 20.2 8.7 8.5 12.0 32.3 43.0 31.8 42.1 16.2 24.1 Boljoon 52.1 48.6 33.6 11.0 9.0 12.3 42.6 61.5 41.4 55.8 26.8 40.4 Borbon 51.2 43.7 27.4 8.1 7.8 11.6 44.4 58.1 38.1 49.3 22.2 32.7 Carcar City 35.0 27.2 17.0 12.0 13.1 14.2 28.1 41.9 21.3 33.1 13.0 21.0 Carmen 32.6 31.4 20.0 10.6 10.2 12.0 26.9 38.3 26.1 36.6 16.0 23.9 Catmon 43.7 39.9 27.5 8.8 9.6 9.4 37.4 50.0 33.6 46.2 23.2 31.7 Cebu City 14.5 13.9 6.8 13.0 10.7 15.3 11.4 17.6 11.5 16.4 5.1 8.5 Compostela 29.0 27.8 18.2 13.8 14.5 15.5 22.4 35.6 21.1 34.4 13.6 22.8 Consolacion 22.7 17.4 9.3 15.1 18.0 22.0 17.1 28.4 12.3 22.6 5.9 12.6 Cordoba 29.0 25.9 14.3 15.9 14.7 17.7 21.4 36.6 19.6 32.2 10.1 18.5 Daanbantayan 42.1 42.9 28.4 7.7 7.4 10.7 36.8 47.4 37.7 48.1 23.4 33.3 Dalaguete 54.2 55.6 42.3 6.7 5.4 7.6 48.2 60.1 50.7 60.5 37.0 47.6 Danao City 30.7 31.6 16.6 10.5 9.0 10.0 25.4 36.1 26.9 36.2 13.9 19.3 Dumanjug 48.0 47.6 33.2 7.3 6.6 8.2 42.3 53.8 42.5 52.8 28.7 37.7 Ginatilan 41.5 58.0 40.5 11.5 6.9 8.0 33.6 49.4 51.4 64.6 35.1 45.8 Lapu-Lapu City 16.6 19.6 9.1 14.2 12.2 19.3 12.8 20.5 15.7 23.6 6.2 12.0
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 93
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Liloan 22.0 18.0 10.5 17.8 17.3 21.6 15.5 28.4 12.9 23.0 6.8 14.3 Madridejos 45.1 50.6 36.3 8.8 8.0 8.8 38.5 51.7 43.9 57.3 31.0 41.5 Malabuyoc 59.4 50.7 37.1 8.1 8.4 10.3 51.5 67.3 43.7 57.7 30.9 43.4 Mandaue City 14.5 14.1 5.5 17.4 14.4 21.9 10.3 18.6 10.7 17.4 3.5 7.5 Medellin 39.6 35.8 23.9 10.9 9.0 11.4 32.5 46.6 30.5 41.1 19.4 28.4 Minglanilla 25.9 20.4 9.7 14.7 13.4 19.2 19.6 32.1 15.9 24.9 6.6 12.7 Moalboal 45.0 48.9 27.9 10.0 6.9 11.4 37.6 52.4 43.4 54.5 22.6 33.1 Naga City 31.4 27.1 17.2 9.1 8.7 13.0 26.7 36.1 23.2 31.0 13.5 20.9 Oslob 55.1 50.9 40.4 7.3 6.8 8.9 48.4 61.7 45.2 56.5 34.5 46.4 Pilar 42.7 48.9 30.8 11.0 9.0 13.5 35.0 50.4 41.6 56.1 24.0 37.6 Pinamungahan 41.6 46.4 25.7 8.6 7.1 9.6 35.7 47.4 40.9 51.8 21.7 29.8 Poro 49.3 45.1 30.1 9.1 9.1 9.4 41.9 56.6 38.3 51.9 25.4 34.7 Ronda 57.3 46.5 32.7 7.2 8.4 10.9 50.4 64.1 40.1 52.9 26.8 38.6 Samboan 49.5 53.1 31.7 9.9 7.5 11.6 41.4 57.5 46.5 59.6 25.7 37.8 San Fernando 31.0 26.2 20.7 9.7 13.2 11.5 26.1 36.0 20.5 31.9 16.7 24.6 San Francisco 60.7 59.5 49.3 6.8 6.8 8.2 53.9 67.4 52.8 66.1 42.7 56.0 San Remigio 50.8 45.7 27.3 6.1 7.0 9.6 45.7 56.0 40.4 50.9 23.0 31.6 Santa Fe 65.0 56.2 39.8 7.3 9.6 9.5 57.3 72.8 47.4 65.1 33.6 46.0 Santander 56.3 41.9 27.9 9.3 10.1 11.6 47.7 64.9 35.0 48.8 22.6 33.3 Sibonga 42.2 41.8 25.7 8.9 7.7 9.5 36.0 48.4 36.5 47.1 21.7 29.7 Sogod 44.6 44.7 33.4 10.7 8.5 9.3 36.8 52.5 38.5 50.9 28.3 38.5 Tabogon 48.1 47.0 34.8 8.5 7.1 9.0 41.4 54.8 41.6 52.5 29.6 39.9 Tabuelan 66.5 53.8 33.4 7.6 9.0 11.7 58.2 74.8 45.9 61.8 27.0 39.9 Talisay City 18.6 18.0 10.7 16.7 14.3 16.4 13.5 23.7 13.7 22.2 7.8 13.5 Toledo City 34.3 31.5 18.9 8.1 7.1 10.7 29.7 38.8 27.8 35.2 15.6 22.2
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 94
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Tuburan 58.4 45.9 34.3 6.1 5.7 7.3 52.6 64.3 41.6 50.1 30.1 38.4 Tudela 41.7 42.7 24.3 14.9 14.2 18.1 31.5 51.9 32.7 52.6 17.1 31.6 Negros Oriental Amlan 25.7 24.1 20.3 18.9 20.3 15.6 17.7 33.7 16.1 32.2 15.1 25.5 Ayungon 49.7 51.6 51.3 8.3 7.2 5.8 42.9 56.5 45.5 57.7 46.4 56.3 Bacong 24.2 20.8 18.5 12.1 11.9 11.6 19.3 29.0 16.7 24.8 15.0 22.0 Bais City 54.3 37.2 31.7 6.9 8.1 7.8 48.1 60.4 32.3 42.2 27.7 35.8 Basay 50.9 45.8 46.4 12.6 12.6 10.1 40.4 61.5 36.3 55.3 38.7 54.2 Bayawan City 50.9 42.6 37.4 15.3 7.7 6.9 38.1 63.8 37.2 48.0 33.2 41.6 Bindoy 56.7 59.9 55.8 10.1 6.2 7.0 47.3 66.1 53.8 66.0 49.3 62.2 Canlaon City 54.0 35.4 42.3 12.3 12.3 10.1 43.1 64.9 28.3 42.6 35.3 49.3 Dauin 33.1 32.4 28.9 11.4 10.6 8.4 26.8 39.3 26.8 38.1 24.9 32.9 Dumaguete City 9.5 7.4 6.5 17.0 18.6 17.8 6.9 12.2 5.1 9.7 4.6 8.4 Guihulngan City 58.6 45.0 40.8 8.2 7.1 6.3 50.7 66.5 39.8 50.3 36.6 45.1 Jimalalud 65.3 50.2 48.1 6.3 7.3 6.0 58.6 72.1 44.1 56.2 43.3 52.8 La Libertad 55.9 50.2 51.0 7.4 6.9 6.5 49.1 62.7 44.5 55.9 45.5 56.4 Mabinay 56.6 48.8 40.8 7.1 7.0 6.6 50.0 63.2 43.2 54.5 36.4 45.3 Manjuyod 35.5 42.5 33.6 12.2 8.1 7.1 28.4 42.6 36.8 48.1 29.6 37.5 Pamplona 47.3 35.5 34.1 9.7 8.5 10.5 39.8 54.8 30.5 40.5 28.2 40.0 San Jose 26.2 28.7 28.8 13.2 15.3 11.2 20.5 31.9 21.5 36.0 23.4 34.1 Santa Catalina 53.0 39.5 43.1 8.2 9.1 7.5 45.8 60.1 33.6 45.4 37.8 48.3 Siaton 49.6 48.5 45.9 8.8 7.5 6.5 42.4 56.8 42.5 54.5 41.0 50.8 Sibulan 21.1 17.4 14.7 15.9 14.6 13.6 15.6 26.6 13.2 21.6 11.4 18.0 Tanjay City 29.2 27.1 22.7 11.6 11.4 10.3 23.6 34.7 22.0 32.1 18.9 26.6 Tayasan 57.4 48.5 41.2 7.2 7.2 6.7 50.6 64.2 42.7 54.3 36.7 45.8 Valencia 36.0 27.3 20.5 9.2 9.2 11.3 30.5 41.4 23.1 31.4 16.7 24.4
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 95
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Vallehermoso 43.8 47.2 38.0 13.1 10.7 10.6 34.4 53.3 38.8 55.5 31.4 44.7 Zamboanguita 38.9 39.1 32.2 12.8 12.7 11.6 30.7 47.1 31.0 47.3 26.0 38.4 Siquijor Enrique Villanueva 29.8 28.2 19.8 12.8 14.0 15.8 23.6 36.1 21.7 34.7 14.6 24.9 Larena 21.0 21.0 7.8 14.4 12.3 17.4 16.0 26.0 16.7 25.2 5.6 10.0 Lazi 40.1 39.5 28.6 11.7 8.8 10.3 32.4 47.8 33.7 45.2 23.8 33.5 Maria 36.3 39.1 25.4 10.6 8.3 10.4 29.9 42.6 33.8 44.5 21.1 29.7 San Juan 39.5 42.9 31.4 12.5 9.3 10.9 31.4 47.6 36.3 49.4 25.8 37.0 Siquijor 28.9 27.0 18.6 9.4 8.7 10.6 24.4 33.3 23.1 30.9 15.4 21.8 Region VIII Eastern Samar Arteche 48.7 55.8 59.2 8.5 8.1 6.3 41.9 55.5 48.3 63.2 53.0 65.4 Balangiga 36.9 44.2 40.6 10.7 10.9 9.3 30.4 43.5 36.2 52.1 34.3 46.8 Balangkayan 41.3 48.6 51.8 9.7 10.6 7.4 34.7 47.9 40.2 57.0 45.5 58.1 Borongan City 26.4 37.6 26.0 6.1 7.7 7.4 23.7 29.0 32.9 42.4 22.8 29.1 Can-avid 44.3 50.0 44.7 6.5 7.5 5.3 39.5 49.0 43.9 56.2 40.8 48.7 Dolores 44.0 50.2 49.3 6.6 7.5 5.1 39.2 48.8 44.0 56.3 45.1 53.5 General MacArthur 47.3 48.8 53.9 6.0 8.6 5.8 42.6 51.9 42.0 55.7 48.8 59.0 Giporlos 44.3 44.9 48.1 9.2 9.3 7.1 37.7 51.0 38.0 51.8 42.5 53.7 Guiuan 35.1 42.0 36.5 6.7 8.9 5.6 31.3 39.0 35.8 48.1 33.2 39.9 Hernani 42.3 48.7 52.7 10.0 9.9 7.1 35.3 49.2 40.8 56.7 46.5 58.8 Jipapad 41.3 60.6 60.9 11.9 8.6 7.8 33.2 49.4 52.0 69.1 53.1 68.7 Lawaan 34.0 45.7 33.1 11.7 10.9 9.9 27.5 40.6 37.5 53.9 27.7 38.5 Llorente 41.3 47.2 47.4 6.2 7.4 5.7 37.1 45.5 41.5 52.9 43.0 51.8 Maslog 57.8 60.2 60.5 10.3 9.6 9.3 48.0 67.6 50.7 69.6 51.2 69.8 Maydolong 43.9 49.1 40.1 7.9 8.5 7.1 38.2 49.7 42.2 55.9 35.4 44.7 Mercedes 44.3 39.6 44.9 10.7 10.3 7.0 36.5 52.1 32.9 46.3 39.8 50.1
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 96
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Oras 42.5 51.1 53.5 6.1 7.9 4.6 38.2 46.8 44.5 57.7 49.5 57.6 Quinapondon 50.3 51.9 50.9 7.4 8.2 5.5 44.1 56.4 44.9 58.8 46.3 55.5 Salcedo 40.1 45.8 43.9 6.8 8.5 5.9 35.6 44.5 39.4 52.2 39.7 48.2 San Julian 32.4 45.2 43.5 10.4 9.8 8.2 26.9 37.9 37.9 52.4 37.6 49.4 San Policarpo 38.2 46.4 52.4 9.4 10.0 6.3 32.3 44.1 38.8 54.0 47.0 57.9 Sulat 28.9 42.0 36.5 10.0 11.1 8.7 24.1 33.7 34.4 49.6 31.3 41.7 Taft 34.9 42.2 39.4 7.9 9.2 7.3 30.4 39.4 35.8 48.5 34.6 44.1 Leyte Abuyog 37.3 35.4 35.9 6.1 5.5 6.2 33.5 41.0 32.1 38.6 32.3 39.6 Alangalang 35.7 34.9 41.5 6.1 7.1 5.2 32.1 39.3 30.8 39.0 38.0 45.0 Albuera 28.9 33.6 38.9 10.2 10.7 9.1 24.1 33.7 27.7 39.5 33.1 44.7 Babatngon 38.6 38.6 44.1 7.6 8.0 6.3 33.8 43.4 33.5 43.7 39.6 48.6 Barugo 33.2 36.6 37.4 8.0 7.6 6.8 28.9 37.6 32.0 41.2 33.2 41.6 Bato 35.1 36.4 40.0 7.8 7.5 6.5 30.6 39.6 31.9 40.9 35.7 44.3 Baybay City 29.5 31.0 27.7 5.5 5.4 7.4 26.8 32.1 28.3 33.7 24.3 31.1 Burauen 32.1 33.3 36.7 6.2 5.6 5.2 28.9 35.4 30.2 36.4 33.6 39.8 Calubian 34.0 36.2 46.2 6.2 6.7 4.9 30.5 37.5 32.2 40.2 42.5 49.9 Capoocan 38.1 39.8 44.4 8.6 9.0 7.7 32.7 43.5 33.9 45.6 38.8 50.0 Carigara 31.4 32.1 34.7 6.1 6.9 6.5 28.2 34.5 28.5 35.8 31.0 38.5 Dagami 30.6 35.0 46.2 8.3 5.8 5.1 26.4 34.7 31.7 38.3 42.3 50.0 Dulag 32.2 33.6 33.6 7.0 6.9 6.6 28.5 35.9 29.7 37.4 29.9 37.2 Hilongos 29.6 30.6 37.4 6.7 6.9 6.6 26.3 32.8 27.2 34.1 33.4 41.5 Hindang 24.1 32.1 32.5 11.1 9.8 9.2 19.7 28.5 26.9 37.2 27.6 37.4 Inopacan 30.1 30.7 32.8 10.3 10.8 8.8 25.0 35.2 25.3 36.2 28.0 37.5 Isabel 18.4 23.7 23.9 12.6 10.1 9.7 14.6 22.2 19.7 27.6 20.1 27.7 Jaro 35.1 37.4 45.0 6.6 6.9 5.7 31.3 38.9 33.1 41.6 40.7 49.2
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 97
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Javier (Bugho) 38.0 36.7 41.3 7.8 7.4 6.3 33.1 42.9 32.2 41.1 37.1 45.6 Julita 29.9 33.3 36.8 9.2 8.6 7.6 25.3 34.4 28.6 38.1 32.2 41.4 Kananga 37.8 40.6 40.2 8.8 9.4 7.5 32.3 43.3 34.4 46.9 35.3 45.2 Lapaz 29.1 35.8 45.4 8.5 7.5 5.5 25.0 33.2 31.4 40.3 41.3 49.5 Leyte 47.8 46.7 53.6 7.0 7.4 5.6 42.3 53.3 41.0 52.4 48.7 58.5 MacArthur 34.2 36.6 42.5 8.4 8.1 6.5 29.5 39.0 31.7 41.5 37.9 47.1 Mahaplag 41.8 41.2 39.7 8.1 8.6 7.3 36.2 47.4 35.3 47.0 34.9 44.5 Matag-ob 37.5 35.7 49.6 9.9 9.4 7.1 31.4 43.6 30.1 41.2 43.8 55.3 Matalom 33.0 34.7 41.3 8.1 7.6 6.7 28.6 37.4 30.3 39.0 36.7 45.8 Mayorga 31.9 36.4 31.5 10.0 8.4 11.2 26.6 37.1 31.3 41.4 25.7 37.3 Merida 28.3 32.0 38.7 10.3 10.0 8.1 23.5 33.0 26.7 37.2 33.6 43.8 Ormoc City 25.5 28.3 25.7 6.3 6.5 6.9 22.9 28.1 25.3 31.4 22.8 28.6 Palo 19.5 24.6 17.9 10.7 7.4 9.8 16.1 23.0 21.6 27.6 15.0 20.8 Palompon 30.1 30.3 27.7 6.5 6.5 5.9 26.9 33.4 27.1 33.5 25.0 30.4 Pastrana 41.6 35.9 49.5 7.3 8.0 6.9 36.6 46.6 31.2 40.6 43.8 55.2 San Isidro 37.4 41.2 47.1 9.4 8.6 7.4 31.6 43.2 35.4 47.1 41.3 52.9 San Miguel 39.2 35.9 46.4 8.4 9.0 7.4 33.8 44.6 30.6 41.2 40.8 52.0 Santa Fe 33.2 31.4 43.9 10.2 12.3 6.8 27.6 38.7 25.0 37.7 39.0 48.8 Tabango 37.7 40.8 46.3 9.7 10.7 8.3 31.6 43.7 33.6 47.9 40.0 52.6 Tabontabon 34.4 36.8 45.4 11.9 9.2 7.8 27.7 41.1 31.2 42.4 39.6 51.3 Tacloban City 10.9 20.5 9.8 13.8 7.1 16.1 8.4 13.3 18.0 22.9 7.2 12.3 Tanauan 25.1 27.0 28.9 8.1 8.5 6.8 21.7 28.5 23.2 30.7 25.7 32.1 Tolosa 18.2 24.4 20.7 13.8 11.4 15.4 14.1 22.3 19.9 29.0 15.4 25.9 Tunga 21.2 23.1 22.8 14.5 15.3 15.5 16.1 26.2 17.3 28.8 17.0 28.6 Villaba 36.5 35.4 44.8 7.8 6.9 5.9 31.8 41.2 31.4 39.4 40.4 49.1
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 98
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Northern Samar Allen 21.4 31.5 35.1 12.6 8.3 7.1 17.0 25.8 27.2 35.8 31.0 39.2 Biri 39.4 50.7 55.4 12.6 9.1 9.9 31.2 47.6 43.1 58.3 46.4 64.4 Bobon 34.2 45.9 40.1 9.5 7.1 7.8 28.9 39.6 40.6 51.3 35.0 45.3 Capul 38.5 41.6 45.2 10.8 11.1 8.2 31.7 45.4 34.0 49.2 39.2 51.3 Catarman 29.8 43.4 34.8 7.4 5.8 5.8 26.2 33.5 39.3 47.5 31.5 38.2 Catubig 47.1 52.8 54.2 6.2 5.6 4.4 42.3 51.9 47.9 57.7 50.3 58.1 Gamay 40.4 48.7 51.4 7.6 6.9 5.9 35.3 45.4 43.2 54.3 46.4 56.4 Laoang 39.5 47.6 51.7 5.4 5.8 4.6 35.9 43.0 43.1 52.2 47.8 55.6 Lapinig 54.4 51.9 55.4 8.2 8.7 6.9 47.1 61.7 44.5 59.3 49.1 61.6 Las Navas 58.8 57.1 57.5 6.2 5.6 5.5 52.8 64.8 51.8 62.3 52.3 62.7 Lavezares 51.1 45.6 48.6 7.6 7.8 5.8 44.7 57.5 39.8 51.5 43.9 53.3 Mapanas 54.8 58.4 53.3 8.0 8.8 8.3 47.5 62.0 49.9 66.8 45.9 60.6 Mondragon 42.6 52.2 53.6 8.6 6.8 6.5 36.6 48.6 46.4 58.1 47.9 59.3 Palapag 50.4 52.1 51.7 6.6 5.3 5.2 44.9 55.8 47.5 56.6 47.3 56.2 Pambujan 47.3 51.6 55.5 7.8 7.0 5.6 41.2 53.4 45.6 57.5 50.4 60.6 Rosario 39.3 41.6 43.5 10.0 9.4 8.4 32.8 45.7 35.1 48.0 37.5 49.4 San Antonio 28.3 32.5 36.6 14.9 12.6 10.6 21.4 35.3 25.7 39.2 30.2 42.9 San Isidro 35.0 43.6 40.9 9.9 8.9 7.7 29.3 40.8 37.2 50.0 35.7 46.1 San Jose 32.2 46.1 48.1 10.6 7.3 8.1 26.6 37.8 40.6 51.6 41.7 54.5 San Roque 49.3 52.7 51.0 7.9 7.6 6.4 42.9 55.7 46.2 59.3 45.7 56.3 San Vicente 30.1 43.5 45.7 15.1 10.8 9.9 22.6 37.5 35.7 51.2 38.3 53.1 Silvino Lobos 59.8 64.8 71.6 7.3 5.9 4.7 52.7 67.0 58.5 71.1 66.0 77.2 Victoria 34.7 37.7 40.9 9.9 9.8 8.6 29.0 40.3 31.6 43.8 35.1 46.6 Lope De Vega 52.5 58.2 63.3 7.7 8.0 7.1 45.9 59.2 50.5 65.9 55.9 70.7 Samar (Western) Almagro 28.5 39.5 48.1 9.7 8.7 6.8 24.0 33.1 33.8 45.1 42.7 53.4
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 99
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Basey 30.9 39.1 34.8 7.9 6.7 6.4 26.9 34.9 34.7 43.4 31.2 38.4 Calbayog City 28.8 38.7 24.9 7.0 4.9 6.3 25.5 32.1 35.6 41.8 22.3 27.4 Calbiga 40.0 39.0 37.4 8.6 7.6 7.6 34.4 45.7 34.2 43.9 32.8 42.1 Catbalogan City 21.1 33.6 17.9 10.3 7.7 10.9 17.6 24.7 29.3 37.9 14.7 21.1 Daram 47.2 51.2 52.7 6.1 6.0 6.2 42.4 52.0 46.1 56.2 47.3 58.1 Gandara 37.9 43.8 46.4 7.0 5.0 5.3 33.5 42.3 40.2 47.4 42.4 50.5 Hinabangan 36.1 43.8 34.0 9.3 8.1 10.4 30.6 41.6 38.0 49.6 28.2 39.9 Jiabong 48.4 41.7 37.1 9.0 8.8 8.9 41.2 55.5 35.6 47.7 31.7 42.6 Marabut 35.0 44.4 37.2 8.2 7.3 7.6 30.2 39.7 39.1 49.7 32.5 41.8 Matuguinao 64.2 57.5 51.8 8.2 8.1 9.1 55.5 72.8 49.8 65.1 44.0 59.5 Motiong 60.6 45.9 42.0 9.0 8.6 8.6 51.7 69.6 39.4 52.4 36.1 48.0 Pinabacdao 39.1 45.0 47.0 8.3 7.0 7.1 33.8 44.5 39.8 50.2 41.5 52.5 San Jose de Buan 55.0 57.8 43.2 9.1 8.9 13.2 46.7 63.3 49.3 66.2 33.8 52.6 San Sebastian 49.0 43.0 40.8 9.8 8.6 9.3 41.1 56.9 36.9 49.0 34.5 47.0 Santa Margarita 36.1 40.7 33.1 7.6 8.6 9.7 31.5 40.6 35.0 46.5 27.9 38.4 Santa Rita 42.0 41.3 48.2 7.4 7.8 7.0 36.9 47.1 35.9 46.6 42.6 53.7 Santo Nino 38.6 45.3 40.0 10.7 10.4 10.0 31.8 45.4 37.5 53.1 33.4 46.6 Talalora 37.7 47.0 45.4 10.9 10.3 10.0 30.9 44.5 39.0 55.0 37.9 52.9 Tarangnan 44.9 46.3 47.5 7.5 6.9 6.5 39.4 50.4 41.0 51.5 42.4 52.6 Villareal 36.5 42.1 42.8 7.9 6.6 6.3 31.7 41.3 37.5 46.6 38.4 47.2 Paranas (Wright) 38.3 42.5 31.8 6.8 6.9 7.4 34.0 42.6 37.7 47.4 27.9 35.7 Zumurraga 46.1 49.9 49.5 6.8 7.7 7.2 40.9 51.2 43.6 56.2 43.6 55.4 Tagapul-an 38.3 42.5 49.5 10.6 9.9 8.0 31.7 45.0 35.5 49.4 43.0 56.0 San Jorge 36.6 42.3 41.1 8.3 6.7 7.0 31.6 41.6 37.6 46.9 36.4 45.9 Pagsanghan 31.8 40.6 38.0 11.3 8.7 9.4 25.9 37.6 34.8 46.3 32.1 43.9
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 100
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Southern Leyte Anahawan 22.4 29.7 39.1 14.1 12.5 9.4 17.2 27.6 23.6 35.8 33.0 45.2 Bontoc 35.8 43.2 39.8 7.1 6.3 6.3 31.6 39.9 38.7 47.7 35.7 44.0 Hinunangan 27.6 37.6 33.8 8.7 7.1 7.0 23.6 31.5 33.2 42.0 29.9 37.7 Hinundayan 17.5 31.7 36.3 14.3 10.3 8.3 13.4 21.6 26.3 37.1 31.3 41.2 Libagon 30.3 42.1 40.9 10.2 8.9 7.8 25.2 35.4 35.9 48.2 35.7 46.1 Liloan 30.1 39.3 42.5 8.4 8.1 7.6 25.9 34.3 34.1 44.6 37.2 47.8 Maasin City 23.9 31.4 29.4 8.1 6.3 8.2 20.7 27.0 28.1 34.6 25.4 33.3 Macrohon 25.9 33.6 35.6 8.6 7.8 6.7 22.3 29.6 29.3 37.9 31.6 39.5 Malitbog 25.4 40.6 45.0 9.3 7.2 4.8 21.5 29.2 35.7 45.4 41.5 48.6 Padre Burgos 20.5 33.9 30.9 14.5 10.9 12.4 15.6 25.4 27.8 40.0 24.6 37.2 Pintuyan 30.6 43.2 44.4 9.5 8.1 6.1 25.9 35.4 37.4 49.0 39.9 48.9 Saint Bernard 34.0 42.7 39.5 7.6 6.9 6.7 29.7 38.2 37.9 47.6 35.1 43.9 San Francisco 26.3 36.7 40.0 9.9 7.2 7.6 22.0 30.6 32.4 41.1 35.0 45.0 San Juan (Cabalian)) 22.8 33.6 35.9 12.9 9.0 7.5 17.9 27.6 28.7 38.6 31.5 40.3 San Ricardo 27.6 42.5 46.0 13.4 8.0 8.3 21.5 33.7 36.9 48.1 39.7 52.3 Silago 30.6 38.1 31.1 11.0 11.0 13.1 25.0 36.1 31.2 44.9 24.4 37.8 Sogod 31.3 36.8 39.1 7.6 7.1 6.2 27.4 35.2 32.6 41.1 35.1 43.1 Tomas Oppus 27.3 39.7 42.2 9.9 7.0 5.9 22.9 31.8 35.2 44.3 38.1 46.3 Limasawa 25.1 37.3 48.5 16.4 13.1 10.6 18.3 31.8 29.3 45.3 40.1 57.0 Biliran Almera 20.5 26.8 25.1 15.8 13.0 12.6 15.2 25.8 21.1 32.5 19.9 30.3 Biliran 23.3 33.2 32.7 15.6 12.7 10.1 17.3 29.3 26.3 40.1 27.2 38.1 Cabucgayab 26.3 35.2 38.5 13.5 11.5 9.3 20.5 32.2 28.6 41.9 32.7 44.4 Caibiran 27.6 38.3 36.3 10.4 10.3 7.9 22.9 32.3 31.8 44.8 31.6 41.0 Culaba 27.4 35.5 31.7 12.6 9.9 10.5 21.7 33.0 29.7 41.3 26.2 37.2 Kawayan 24.2 33.5 32.0 13.9 10.4 9.6 18.6 29.7 27.8 39.2 26.9 37.0
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 101
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Maripipi 20.1 28.0 41.8 13.3 12.5 8.5 15.7 24.5 22.2 33.8 35.9 47.6 Naval 19.9 27.8 21.7 12.6 8.6 10.2 15.8 24.1 23.8 31.7 18.1 25.4 Region IX Zamboanga del Norte Dapitan City 46.7 40.0 38.3 11.3 11.3 4.5 38.0 55.3 32.6 47.5 35.5 41.1 Dipolog City 33.0 26.8 40.3 16.7 19.5 3.5 24.0 42.1 18.2 35.4 38.0 42.6 Katipunan 58.9 57.1 52.3 10.2 7.7 3.3 49.0 68.8 49.9 64.3 49.4 55.1 La Libertad 43.0 45.0 47.9 16.7 16.7 9.8 31.2 54.9 32.6 57.4 40.2 55.6 Labason 54.7 48.9 46.7 12.1 12.2 7.6 43.8 65.5 39.1 58.7 40.8 52.5 Liloy 50.9 51.4 39.1 11.7 10.0 5.9 41.1 60.7 43.0 59.8 35.3 42.9 Manukan 58.9 68.2 51.7 9.5 7.9 6.4 49.6 68.1 59.4 77.1 46.3 57.1 Mutia 42.9 57.8 43.8 16.0 11.7 9.0 31.6 54.2 46.7 68.9 37.3 50.3 Piñan 45.8 55.5 40.2 12.8 9.7 8.1 36.1 55.4 46.7 64.4 34.9 45.5 Polanco 47.1 47.3 36.8 12.6 10.7 7.7 37.3 56.9 39.0 55.7 32.1 41.4 Pres. Manuel A. Roxas 59.6 66.3 51.3 8.3 7.1 5.7 51.5 67.8 58.5 74.1 46.4 56.1 Rizal 47.0 37.3 33.4 13.7 14.5 9.5 36.4 57.5 28.4 46.1 28.1 38.6 Salug 54.8 60.2 49.5 11.5 8.7 7.3 44.5 65.2 51.6 68.8 43.5 55.4 Sergio Osmeña Sr. 59.3 65.8 59.9 9.2 8.4 6.0 50.3 68.3 56.7 74.9 54.0 65.9 Siayan 72.3 79.9 70.5 9.0 5.7 4.7 61.6 83.0 72.4 87.3 65.1 76.0 Sibuco 66.0 68.2 67.2 9.7 7.7 5.4 55.5 76.5 59.6 76.8 61.2 73.2 Sibutad 33.0 54.1 40.0 29.5 10.9 9.3 17.0 49.0 44.4 63.8 33.9 46.1 Sindangan 58.2 56.8 46.9 8.3 7.9 5.1 50.2 66.2 49.4 64.2 43.0 50.9 Siocon 59.8 63.6 49.2 10.5 9.2 6.3 49.4 70.1 54.0 73.2 44.2 54.3 Sirawai 65.5 61.7 41.5 10.8 10.1 10.7 53.9 77.1 51.4 71.9 34.2 48.8 Tampilisan 52.0 45.0 44.2 13.0 12.7 8.1 40.9 63.1 35.6 54.4 38.3 50.1 Jose Dalman (Ponot) 63.4 68.0 62.8 11.7 8.6 5.9 51.2 75.6 58.3 77.7 56.7 68.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 102
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Gutalac 71.1 70.4 67.4 7.6 6.6 4.6 62.2 79.9 62.8 78.0 62.3 72.5 Baliguian 70.4 75.3 62.9 9.8 6.5 6.3 59.0 81.7 67.3 83.3 56.4 69.4 Godod 60.9 71.1 60.8 10.0 9.6 6.6 50.9 70.9 59.8 82.3 54.2 67.4 Bacungan (Leon T. Postigo) 63.9 66.0 54.2 8.8 9.4 7.4 54.6 73.2 55.7 76.2 47.6 60.8 Kalawit 60.4 65.8 52.9 12.2 10.3 7.7 48.3 72.5 54.6 77.0 46.3 59.6 Zamboanga del Sur Aurora 27.7 31.5 43.2 12.9 12.7 4.3 21.8 33.6 24.9 38.1 40.1 46.2 Bayog 29.2 43.6 44.5 17.1 14.0 7.2 21.0 37.4 33.6 53.6 39.2 49.7 Dimataling 37.1 46.8 49.9 17.0 14.5 7.9 26.7 47.4 35.6 57.9 43.4 56.4 Dinas 35.5 43.1 48.2 15.6 11.6 6.7 26.4 44.6 34.8 51.4 42.9 53.5 Dumalinao 28.4 38.8 34.4 18.0 13.3 9.4 20.0 36.9 30.3 47.2 29.1 39.7 Dumingag 35.6 42.8 48.6 14.3 10.7 5.7 27.2 44.0 35.3 50.3 44.0 53.2 Kumalarang 33.7 45.9 47.6 18.1 14.0 9.6 23.7 43.8 35.3 56.5 40.1 55.2 Labangan 29.6 33.9 35.3 17.4 13.5 7.1 21.1 38.1 26.4 41.5 31.1 39.4 Lapuyan 37.6 53.0 58.7 14.1 10.7 6.6 28.8 46.3 43.7 62.4 52.3 65.0 Mahayag 28.7 35.9 34.0 16.4 13.5 7.5 21.0 36.5 27.9 43.9 29.8 38.2 Margosatubig 27.7 39.0 30.2 22.5 17.4 13.1 17.5 37.9 27.8 50.2 23.7 36.7 Midsalip 37.6 52.7 54.9 14.4 12.2 5.8 28.7 46.5 42.1 63.2 49.7 60.2 Molave 24.0 26.5 22.3 17.0 15.6 11.4 17.3 30.7 19.7 33.2 18.2 26.5 Pagadian City 17.3 21.0 15.5 15.7 12.9 11.1 12.8 21.8 16.5 25.4 12.6 18.3 Ramon Magsaysay 25.8 36.6 32.8 17.9 14.1 8.3 18.2 33.4 28.1 45.1 28.4 37.3 San Miguel 27.7 41.6 46.5 19.8 15.4 7.8 18.7 36.7 31.0 52.2 40.6 52.4 San Pablo 30.8 47.0 46.9 15.9 12.4 6.6 22.8 38.8 37.4 56.6 41.8 52.0 Tabina 32.1 47.6 32.3 20.9 16.4 11.3 21.1 43.2 34.7 60.4 26.4 38.3 Tambulig 30.0 38.0 34.3 16.1 14.0 8.8 22.1 38.0 29.2 46.7 29.4 39.3 Tukuran 28.3 36.5 31.9 17.3 14.3 8.3 20.2 36.3 27.9 45.1 27.6 36.3
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 103
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Zamboanga City 19.7 19.9 12.6 13.7 10.2 11.3 15.2 24.1 16.5 23.2 10.2 15.0 Lakewood 31.2 48.4 47.9 20.6 16.1 10.5 20.6 41.8 35.5 61.2 39.7 56.2 Josefina 24.4 40.9 49.5 22.3 18.1 9.0 15.5 33.4 28.8 53.1 42.1 56.8 Pitogo 30.7 49.8 34.1 17.2 15.8 11.8 22.0 39.4 36.8 62.7 27.5 40.6 Sominot 35.3 54.5 50.4 18.4 13.1 8.2 24.6 46.0 42.7 66.2 43.6 57.2 Vincenzo A. Sagun 34.7 46.5 46.2 17.7 13.4 7.9 24.6 44.7 36.2 56.8 40.2 52.2 Guipos 28.3 36.0 38.8 20.2 16.0 9.6 18.9 37.7 26.5 45.4 32.7 44.9 Tigbao 34.5 44.5 46.1 19.9 14.2 9.1 23.2 45.8 34.1 54.9 39.2 53.0 Zamboanga Sibugay Alicia 46.4 54.0 45.9 12.8 11.6 4.2 36.6 56.1 43.6 64.3 42.8 49.1 Buug 29.6 40.2 35.8 16.5 13.5 4.2 21.6 37.6 31.3 49.1 33.4 38.3 Diplahan 31.5 43.9 35.1 18.1 13.2 10.6 22.1 40.9 34.4 53.4 28.9 41.2 Imelda 38.2 42.4 28.9 16.6 12.8 12.2 27.8 48.7 33.5 51.4 23.1 34.7 Ipil 29.3 32.2 19.7 14.7 11.0 11.9 22.2 36.4 26.4 38.1 15.8 23.5 Kabasalan 39.6 36.7 36.9 14.3 10.8 7.2 30.3 48.9 30.2 43.3 32.5 41.2 Mabuhay 57.2 68.9 67.3 13.5 8.2 5.9 44.5 70.0 59.5 78.2 60.7 73.8 Malangas 34.8 40.5 31.5 15.0 12.3 9.2 26.2 43.4 32.3 48.7 26.8 36.3 Naga 40.8 36.4 27.8 14.3 11.3 11.5 31.2 50.4 29.6 43.2 22.5 33.1 Olutanga 41.3 61.7 50.2 16.4 11.0 8.5 30.2 52.5 50.5 72.8 43.2 57.2 Payao 46.5 63.3 50.4 12.9 11.1 7.6 36.6 56.4 51.7 74.8 44.1 56.7 Roseller Lim 41.1 51.2 50.0 14.2 9.6 7.0 31.5 50.7 43.1 59.4 44.2 55.8 Siay 42.6 48.3 37.8 14.8 9.7 7.1 32.2 52.9 40.6 56.0 33.4 42.2 Talusan 55.3 66.5 59.6 14.7 11.8 10.3 42.0 68.7 53.6 79.4 49.5 69.7 Titay 38.2 45.1 33.2 13.1 10.0 7.9 29.9 46.5 37.6 52.6 28.9 37.6 Tungawan 51.1 59.5 56.1 12.3 9.8 6.6 40.7 61.4 49.8 69.1 50.0 62.2 Isabela City Isabela City 22.4 23.0 22.4 15.0 12.6 8.5 16.9 28.0 18.2 27.8 19.3 25.5
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 104
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Region X Bukidnon Baungon 40.2 49.1 46.2 13.1 9.7 12.0 31.6 48.8 41.3 56.9 37.0 55.3 Damulog 42.4 52.2 64.0 11.6 9.4 7.6 34.3 50.5 44.1 60.2 56.1 72.0 Dangcagan 39.9 39.9 39.7 13.1 11.9 13.7 31.3 48.5 32.0 47.7 30.7 48.6 Don Carlos 39.5 42.0 37.6 10.0 7.9 9.8 33.0 46.1 36.5 47.4 31.5 43.7 Impasug-ong 43.0 46.1 58.5 12.7 10.1 9.2 34.0 52.0 38.5 53.8 49.6 67.4 Kadingilan 50.0 50.7 56.0 9.5 10.4 8.3 42.2 57.9 42.1 59.4 48.4 63.7 Kalilangan 33.8 51.3 53.0 15.7 9.9 8.7 25.1 42.5 42.9 59.7 45.4 60.6 Kibawe 48.1 46.8 49.0 8.2 6.9 8.2 41.5 54.6 41.5 52.0 42.4 55.6 Kitaotao 52.7 54.8 64.1 7.7 8.3 5.6 46.0 59.4 47.3 62.3 58.2 70.0 Lantapan 43.7 40.8 49.0 11.6 11.3 10.9 35.3 52.0 33.2 48.4 40.2 57.8 Libona 38.1 35.5 37.2 12.5 9.9 14.7 30.3 46.0 29.7 41.3 28.2 46.2 Malaybalay City 31.7 34.6 31.6 9.9 7.8 8.1 26.5 36.9 30.2 39.0 27.4 35.8 Malitbog 47.8 61.4 65.3 14.2 9.1 9.2 36.6 58.9 52.2 70.6 55.4 75.2 Manolo Fortich 31.6 33.5 34.0 10.1 9.9 9.8 26.3 36.9 28.1 39.0 28.5 39.4 Maramag 33.9 33.5 37.3 13.7 11.0 9.8 26.2 41.6 27.4 39.5 31.2 43.3 Pangantucan 41.6 53.2 51.7 10.0 7.1 8.8 34.7 48.4 47.0 59.4 44.2 59.2 Quezon 41.1 52.0 49.2 10.4 7.7 7.6 34.1 48.2 45.4 58.6 43.0 55.4 San Fernando 42.5 52.1 63.2 13.3 9.8 7.1 33.2 51.8 43.7 60.4 55.8 70.5 Sumilao 39.1 40.2 45.1 19.3 17.3 15.9 26.7 51.4 28.8 51.6 33.3 56.9 Talakag 53.8 50.3 62.4 8.3 7.8 6.2 46.5 61.2 43.8 56.7 56.0 68.8 Valencia City 35.1 35.8 34.8 9.9 8.5 9.8 29.4 40.8 30.8 40.9 29.2 40.4 Cabanglasan 50.5 45.2 59.3 8.1 11.4 9.0 43.7 57.2 36.7 53.7 50.5 68.1 Camiguin Catarman 47.4 58.4 43.9 13.4 7.4 11.3 36.9 57.8 51.3 65.5 35.7 52.1 Guinsiliban 47.5 45.7 68.8 13.0 11.7 8.8 37.4 57.6 36.9 54.5 58.9 78.8
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 105
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Mahinog 36.5 45.9 43.5 13.6 8.7 12.4 28.3 44.7 39.3 52.4 34.6 52.3 Mambajao 37.4 36.2 30.9 13.1 11.4 14.5 29.3 45.4 29.4 43.0 23.5 38.2 Sagay 54.5 42.1 49.9 13.0 12.8 10.8 42.8 66.1 33.2 51.0 41.1 58.8 Lanao del Norte Bacolod 34.8 40.2 37.8 15.0 11.7 11.4 26.2 43.3 32.5 48.0 30.7 44.8 Baloi 33.2 48.3 52.8 13.5 8.0 10.6 25.9 40.6 42.0 54.7 43.6 61.9 Baroy 45.8 47.0 44.6 11.6 8.5 8.2 37.1 54.5 40.4 53.6 38.5 50.6 Iligan City 23.1 24.4 17.5 10.5 7.6 14.0 19.1 27.0 21.4 27.5 13.4 21.5 Kapatagan 42.5 47.6 43.5 11.4 7.0 8.8 34.6 50.5 42.2 53.1 37.3 49.8 Sultan Naga Dimaporo 48.9 59.9 64.0 9.0 6.4 6.0 41.6 56.2 53.6 66.2 57.7 70.3 Kauswagan 46.4 49.5 41.1 16.1 9.1 11.9 34.1 58.6 42.1 56.9 33.1 49.2 Kolambugan 38.4 41.7 36.2 11.6 8.0 9.5 31.1 45.7 36.2 47.2 30.5 41.9 Lala 35.1 37.0 43.3 11.3 8.5 10.6 28.6 41.7 31.9 42.1 35.7 50.9 Linamon 36.3 31.0 30.4 17.0 16.5 17.9 26.2 46.4 22.6 39.4 21.4 39.3 Magsaysay 46.6 59.2 55.4 9.6 6.4 8.5 39.2 53.9 52.9 65.4 47.7 63.2 Maigo 45.2 43.7 36.8 15.5 11.0 11.4 33.7 56.8 35.8 51.6 29.9 43.7 Matungao 37.8 59.3 64.5 15.1 9.5 10.2 28.4 47.2 50.0 68.5 53.7 75.3 Munai 42.5 67.5 65.2 12.5 5.4 5.8 33.7 51.3 61.5 73.4 58.9 71.4 Nunungan 51.9 67.9 79.7 8.7 6.1 5.9 44.4 59.4 61.1 74.7 72.0 87.4 Pantao Ragat 40.6 59.7 67.3 13.0 7.1 8.9 31.9 49.3 52.8 66.6 57.5 77.2 Poona Piagapo 48.3 66.8 73.8 9.7 5.8 6.0 40.6 56.1 60.4 73.1 66.5 81.0 Salvador 57.1 56.3 68.7 11.1 8.2 7.0 46.7 67.4 48.7 64.0 60.8 76.5 Sapad 45.9 62.0 58.4 11.8 7.3 8.4 37.0 54.8 54.6 69.5 50.4 66.5 Tagoloan 66.5 69.4 69.9 12.7 8.3 10.5 52.5 80.4 59.9 78.9 57.8 81.9 Tangcal 50.5 67.4 79.3 14.0 6.4 5.8 38.8 62.1 60.3 74.4 71.7 86.9 Tubad 34.4 48.3 38.0 11.3 6.4 10.3 28.0 40.8 43.2 53.4 31.6 44.4
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 106
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Pantar 39.4 57.5 67.2 10.4 6.7 7.1 32.6 46.1 51.1 63.8 59.3 75.0 Misamis Occidental Aloran 39.1 42.7 39.6 15.3 6.9 9.2 29.2 49.0 37.9 47.5 33.6 45.6 Baliangao 48.5 37.7 49.6 12.0 10.6 7.9 39.0 58.1 31.1 44.3 43.2 56.0 Bonifacio 66.6 44.9 51.8 8.5 9.0 8.6 57.2 75.9 38.2 51.5 44.5 59.1 Calamba 38.7 41.4 27.1 14.5 7.9 14.2 29.5 48.0 36.0 46.8 20.8 33.4 Clarin 43.7 38.8 33.5 13.7 7.6 9.5 33.8 53.5 33.9 43.6 28.2 38.7 Concepcion 76.5 62.3 78.0 7.1 6.8 6.9 67.6 85.5 55.3 69.3 69.2 86.8 Jimenez 36.4 40.9 28.0 12.8 8.6 12.1 28.7 44.1 35.1 46.6 22.4 33.5 Lopez Jaena 48.0 49.3 44.2 12.4 7.2 8.4 38.2 57.8 43.4 55.1 38.1 50.3 Oroquieta City 33.5 30.7 22.2 13.5 10.2 10.7 26.0 40.9 25.5 35.8 18.3 26.2 Ozamis City 30.6 29.8 20.9 14.1 8.1 10.7 23.5 37.7 25.8 33.7 17.3 24.6 Panaon 38.2 40.2 31.8 14.8 10.7 12.1 28.9 47.5 33.1 47.3 25.5 38.1 Plaridel 44.3 35.2 37.4 12.2 8.5 11.1 35.4 53.2 30.3 40.1 30.6 44.2 Sapang Dalaga 51.7 43.9 46.6 10.2 7.5 9.0 43.1 60.4 38.4 49.3 39.7 53.5 Sinacaban 42.7 38.9 38.3 13.6 8.8 11.4 33.1 52.2 33.2 44.5 31.2 45.5 Tangub City 63.8 43.1 39.3 9.3 5.8 8.4 54.1 73.5 39.0 47.2 33.9 44.8 Tudela 43.7 38.0 38.1 12.8 8.4 7.5 34.5 52.9 32.8 43.3 33.4 42.8 Don Victoriano Chiongbian 73.7 65.7 67.3 8.9 7.8 9.9 62.9 84.6 57.2 74.1 56.3 78.2 Misamis Oriental Alubijid 47.4 53.7 35.4 9.4 7.4 13.4 40.1 54.7 47.2 60.2 27.6 43.2 Balingasag 48.9 51.2 37.7 6.9 5.2 10.8 43.4 54.4 46.8 55.6 31.0 44.4 Balingoan 41.3 46.4 33.3 13.5 11.9 17.8 32.1 50.5 37.3 55.4 23.5 43.0 Binuangan 42.8 52.7 28.7 15.6 12.0 24.3 31.8 53.7 42.3 63.1 17.2 40.2 Cagayan De Oro City 19.4 22.8 7.7 13.7 9.8 22.5 15.0 23.8 19.1 26.4 4.9 10.6 Claveria 46.1 57.1 39.1 9.5 6.0 13.1 38.9 53.3 51.4 62.7 30.7 47.5 El Salvador City 45.1 38.8 23.7 13.3 9.7 19.0 35.2 55.0 32.6 45.0 16.3 31.1
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 107
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Gingoog City 44.1 48.7 27.7 7.0 4.8 11.5 39.0 49.2 44.8 52.5 22.5 33.0 Gitaguim 40.8 50.3 35.0 11.9 9.8 15.1 32.8 48.8 42.1 58.4 26.3 43.7 Initao 44.3 48.9 30.5 12.4 9.0 16.5 35.3 53.4 41.6 56.1 22.2 38.7 Jasaan 51.5 42.1 26.1 11.6 9.9 16.7 41.7 61.3 35.2 49.0 18.9 33.3 Kinoguitan 55.6 55.7 27.6 11.7 7.1 18.3 44.9 66.4 49.2 62.2 19.3 35.9 Lagonglong 47.9 49.9 32.3 10.6 9.2 15.9 39.5 56.3 42.4 57.4 23.9 40.8 Laguindingan 32.6 52.2 35.4 17.4 9.9 15.3 23.2 41.9 43.7 60.7 26.5 44.3 Libertad 46.2 55.5 47.1 15.9 10.0 16.3 34.1 58.2 46.4 64.6 34.4 59.8 Lugait 47.3 40.6 21.3 16.8 14.3 25.8 34.2 60.3 31.1 50.1 12.2 30.3 Magsaysay 73.9 60.3 48.2 9.2 6.4 9.8 62.6 85.1 53.9 66.7 40.5 56.0 Manticao 48.2 48.4 28.2 11.8 8.3 14.8 38.8 57.6 41.8 55.0 21.4 35.1 Medina 37.3 41.0 19.3 10.3 8.1 17.0 31.0 43.7 35.5 46.4 13.9 24.6 Naawan 48.6 45.7 25.9 11.9 11.1 17.2 39.1 58.2 37.4 54.0 18.6 33.2 Opol 30.4 31.1 14.3 12.7 10.2 23.7 24.1 36.8 25.9 36.2 8.7 19.8 Salay 48.8 47.1 27.9 11.2 9.9 16.1 39.8 57.8 39.4 54.7 20.5 35.2 Sugbongcogon 45.2 45.4 40.6 13.2 12.8 17.2 35.4 55.0 35.8 54.9 29.1 52.1 Tagoloan 39.6 35.9 14.0 12.2 13.1 28.1 31.6 47.5 28.2 43.7 7.5 20.4 Talisayan 49.0 48.2 29.0 10.0 8.0 15.2 40.9 57.0 41.9 54.5 21.8 36.2 Villanueva 40.9 40.5 20.2 14.1 9.7 24.4 31.3 50.4 34.0 46.9 12.1 28.3 Region XI Davao del Norte Asuncion (Saug) 38.4 41.0 39.2 11.0 10.2 9.3 31.5 45.3 34.1 47.9 33.2 45.2 Carmen 34.9 28.0 26.7 11.7 12.5 13.9 28.2 41.7 22.3 33.8 20.6 32.8 Kapalong 36.0 21.5 33.4 11.6 18.5 12.0 29.1 42.8 14.9 28.0 26.8 39.9 New Corella 38.4 38.2 41.6 11.1 11.6 9.8 31.4 45.4 30.9 45.5 34.9 48.2 Panabo City 24.5 14.8 16.6 11.2 14.8 12.7 19.9 29.0 11.2 18.4 13.1 20.1
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 108
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Island Garden City of Samal 35.7 32.8 28.5 7.2 8.6 7.2 31.5 39.9 28.2 37.5 25.2 31.9 Santo Tomas 31.0 23.5 21.7 16.2 17.9 15.5 22.8 39.3 16.6 30.4 16.2 27.3 Tagum City 17.9 15.0 13.8 14.6 18.7 17.0 13.6 22.1 10.4 19.6 9.9 17.6 Talaingod 53.1 62.6 68.8 15.1 15.2 12.5 39.9 66.3 46.9 78.3 54.6 82.9 Braulio E. Dujali 26.9 40.8 29.4 20.3 17.5 20.0 17.9 35.8 29.1 52.6 19.7 39.0 San Isidro 37.9 53.6 43.2 12.8 10.3 10.8 29.9 45.9 44.5 62.7 35.5 50.9 Davao del Sur Bansalan 31.3 21.3 23.7 11.3 14.6 12.3 25.5 37.1 16.2 26.5 18.9 28.5 Davao City 15.7 13.2 10.6 9.0 9.4 9.8 13.4 18.0 11.2 15.3 8.9 12.3 Digos City 22.3 18.8 14.7 13.0 13.9 16.8 17.5 27.1 14.5 23.0 10.6 18.8 Hagonoy 32.8 22.9 23.9 12.2 14.0 14.2 26.2 39.3 17.6 28.1 18.3 29.5 Jose Abad Santos (Trinidad) 53.6 72.3 75.5 7.5 5.6 7.2 47.0 60.2 65.6 79.0 66.5 84.5 Kiblawan 45.3 57.4 52.9 7.5 6.5 8.4 39.7 50.9 51.2 63.6 45.6 60.2 Magsaysay 42.3 40.0 29.7 9.9 11.5 13.5 35.4 49.3 32.5 47.6 23.1 36.3 Malalag 39.6 41.2 35.6 11.9 9.6 12.5 31.9 47.3 34.7 47.8 28.2 42.9 Malita 53.0 63.8 60.8 7.7 5.5 7.4 46.3 59.8 58.0 69.6 53.4 68.2 Matanao 40.9 40.7 25.7 9.0 8.0 9.6 34.8 47.0 35.4 46.0 21.6 29.7 Padada 25.0 14.6 14.1 14.2 17.5 17.2 19.1 30.8 10.4 18.7 10.1 18.1 Santa Cruz 34.4 27.3 28.6 10.7 13.0 13.4 28.4 40.4 21.5 33.2 22.3 34.9 Santa Maria 47.5 48.5 50.7 8.0 9.0 9.8 41.2 53.7 41.4 55.7 42.5 58.9 Sulop 39.2 36.9 37.1 9.3 10.9 8.5 33.2 45.2 30.2 43.5 31.9 42.3 Sarangani 54.6 72.1 65.9 10.8 6.9 8.4 44.9 64.3 64.0 80.3 56.8 75.0 Don Marcelino 56.2 66.5 73.8 9.1 8.1 6.7 47.8 64.6 57.7 75.4 65.7 81.9 Davao Oriental Baganga 28.3 44.0 26.2 11.5 10.5 13.1 23.0 33.7 36.4 51.6 20.5 31.8 Banaybanay 34.0 32.5 34.2 14.3 13.6 13.1 26.0 42.0 25.2 39.8 26.8 41.6 Boston 22.9 36.6 27.6 22.6 15.0 17.7 14.3 31.4 27.5 45.6 19.5 35.6
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 109
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Caraga 37.8 58.0 51.6 12.3 7.0 10.2 30.2 45.5 51.3 64.7 42.9 60.3 Cateel 23.1 53.5 28.8 16.2 8.9 12.9 17.0 29.3 45.7 61.3 22.7 34.9 Governor Generoso 42.8 55.7 38.7 11.0 8.9 10.3 35.0 50.6 47.6 63.9 32.1 45.2 Lupon 36.8 42.9 32.8 11.8 10.6 12.1 29.6 43.9 35.4 50.4 26.3 39.4 Manay 39.2 58.7 58.1 11.6 8.4 9.7 31.8 46.7 50.6 66.7 48.9 67.3 Mati City (Capital) 32.9 33.9 27.0 10.7 11.1 13.1 27.1 38.7 27.7 40.1 21.2 32.8 San Isidro 41.9 47.4 35.2 11.5 11.0 12.4 34.0 49.8 38.8 56.0 28.0 42.4 Tarragona 39.0 62.3 56.9 15.6 8.6 9.7 29.0 49.0 53.5 71.1 47.8 66.0 Compostela Valley Compostela 31.7 26.5 27.0 16.3 17.7 14.7 23.2 40.2 18.8 34.3 20.5 33.6 Laak (San Vicente) 36.5 54.7 53.8 9.0 7.8 8.4 31.1 41.9 47.6 61.7 46.4 61.2 Mabini (Doña Alicia) 31.9 29.8 32.1 14.3 13.9 12.2 24.4 39.4 23.0 36.6 25.6 38.5 Maco 35.2 30.6 29.6 8.9 8.6 9.3 30.0 40.4 26.2 34.9 25.1 34.1 Maragusan (San Mariano) 34.6 35.6 31.2 12.8 13.2 12.9 27.3 41.8 27.8 43.3 24.6 37.8 Mawab 34.7 32.7 32.2 14.2 13.8 12.9 26.6 42.8 25.2 40.1 25.3 39.0 Monkayo 25.7 32.9 25.9 11.9 12.7 12.5 20.7 30.7 26.1 39.8 20.6 31.2 Montevista 36.5 41.3 40.2 10.6 11.1 9.7 30.2 42.9 33.8 48.8 33.8 46.6 Nabunturan 27.2 28.3 24.4 11.5 13.7 12.8 22.0 32.3 21.9 34.7 19.3 29.6 New Bataan 30.7 42.0 32.9 15.8 13.0 13.3 22.7 38.7 33.0 51.0 25.7 40.1 Pantukan 34.4 28.3 36.5 13.8 17.0 13.3 26.6 42.2 20.4 36.1 28.5 44.4 Region XII North Cotabato Alamada 40.6 44.6 54.3 11.9 9.9 8.5 32.6 48.6 37.3 51.9 46.7 61.9 Carmen 39.4 50.4 56.4 9.9 11.2 7.3 32.9 45.8 41.1 59.7 49.6 63.2 Kabacan 30.6 35.0 38.0 12.4 9.5 9.2 24.3 36.8 29.6 40.5 32.3 43.7 Kidapawan City 20.0 19.2 27.7 16.5 13.7 11.7 14.5 25.4 14.9 23.5 22.4 33.1 Libungan 31.5 32.1 39.6 13.8 11.9 8.9 24.3 38.6 25.8 38.4 33.8 45.4
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 110
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Magpet 43.9 36.7 48.9 8.5 10.3 8.2 37.7 50.1 30.4 42.9 42.3 55.5 Makilala 29.0 23.2 39.4 11.5 11.5 7.8 23.5 34.5 18.8 27.6 34.3 44.5 Matalam 35.8 34.9 43.0 10.1 9.1 7.4 29.8 41.7 29.7 40.1 37.8 48.3 Midsayap 31.5 33.0 39.6 7.2 8.6 6.1 27.8 35.3 28.3 37.7 35.6 43.5 M'lang 32.0 34.5 38.3 16.1 9.1 6.8 23.6 40.5 29.4 39.7 34.0 42.5 Pigkawayan 33.0 39.0 41.9 9.6 8.7 6.9 27.7 38.2 33.4 44.6 37.1 46.6 Pikit 51.9 48.5 57.8 8.9 7.3 7.3 44.3 59.5 42.7 54.4 50.9 64.7 President Roxas 36.7 35.3 47.6 12.3 10.8 7.9 29.3 44.1 29.0 41.6 41.4 53.7 Tulunan 34.7 38.2 45.4 10.5 9.6 7.0 28.7 40.7 32.2 44.3 40.2 50.6 Antipas 33.3 30.9 41.1 14.5 14.9 12.2 25.4 41.3 23.3 38.4 32.9 49.3 Banisilan 48.4 43.8 45.4 12.9 10.2 10.5 38.1 58.6 36.4 51.1 37.6 53.3 Aleosan 45.6 47.1 58.2 11.5 10.8 8.8 36.9 54.2 38.7 55.4 49.7 66.6 Arakan 45.8 48.0 53.9 9.2 9.8 7.6 38.9 52.7 40.3 55.8 47.1 60.7 South Cotabato Banga 30.6 31.3 30.9 11.3 11.4 12.4 24.9 36.2 25.4 37.1 24.5 37.2 General Santos City 16.7 22.5 19.3 17.1 13.1 17.8 12.0 21.4 17.7 27.3 13.6 25.0 Koronodal City 19.9 21.7 21.7 15.2 12.5 13.1 14.9 24.8 17.2 26.1 17.0 26.4 Norala 26.3 33.1 28.5 13.3 12.5 16.0 20.5 32.0 26.3 39.9 21.0 36.0 Polomolok 21.2 22.8 22.8 17.9 15.1 19.1 15.0 27.4 17.1 28.5 15.6 30.0 Surallah 27.1 30.5 32.0 14.1 11.1 11.9 20.8 33.5 25.0 36.1 25.7 38.3 Tampakan 31.4 33.1 37.3 13.5 11.9 11.7 24.4 38.3 26.6 39.5 30.1 44.4 Tantangan 31.0 38.2 35.4 14.3 11.5 13.0 23.7 38.3 31.0 45.4 27.8 43.0 T'boli 49.8 52.7 60.2 9.9 7.3 7.6 41.7 58.0 46.4 59.0 52.7 67.7 Tupi 32.6 34.7 32.9 11.0 12.8 11.8 26.7 38.5 27.4 42.0 26.5 39.3 Santo Nino 28.1 32.1 28.0 19.0 14.5 18.0 19.3 36.8 24.5 39.8 19.7 36.2 Lake Sebu 55.1 52.8 63.5 13.2 10.5 10.5 43.1 67.1 43.7 62.0 52.5 74.4
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 111
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Sultan Kudarat Bagumbayan 41.9 46.9 47.6 11.0 9.5 8.9 34.3 49.4 39.6 54.3 40.7 54.6 Colombio 45.5 54.4 54.7 12.4 10.5 7.9 36.2 54.7 45.0 63.8 47.5 61.8 Esperanza 31.3 33.2 38.6 17.0 10.5 8.7 22.5 40.1 27.5 39.0 33.1 44.1 Isulan 25.5 26.8 29.9 14.3 12.3 12.9 19.5 31.5 21.3 32.2 23.6 36.3 Kalamansig 47.3 50.6 51.0 10.3 9.6 9.8 39.2 55.3 42.6 58.6 42.7 59.2 Lebak 37.1 46.0 50.9 9.1 8.1 7.5 31.5 42.7 39.9 52.1 44.6 57.2 Lutayan 58.8 51.1 51.3 11.5 11.0 9.3 47.7 69.9 41.8 60.3 43.4 59.1 Lambayong 34.2 41.4 42.1 10.9 9.4 8.2 28.1 40.4 35.0 47.8 36.4 47.8 Palimbang 50.0 63.7 57.6 10.9 6.2 9.7 41.1 59.0 57.2 70.2 48.4 66.8 President Quirino 31.9 31.7 32.7 14.3 13.1 10.3 24.4 39.4 24.9 38.6 27.2 38.3 Tacurong City 19.6 18.5 22.2 14.3 13.6 14.4 15.0 24.2 14.3 22.6 16.9 27.4 Sen. Ninoy Aquino 40.9 47.6 54.6 9.2 9.6 8.7 34.7 47.1 40.1 55.1 46.8 62.4 Sarangani Alabel 32.3 41.0 45.9 17.0 12.0 11.4 23.3 41.3 32.9 49.1 37.3 54.5 Glan 37.2 47.0 49.0 8.8 8.8 8.2 31.8 42.5 40.1 53.8 42.5 55.6 Kiamba 31.3 45.0 36.4 13.6 11.0 11.5 24.3 38.3 36.8 53.1 29.5 43.3 Maasim 37.7 52.2 44.1 13.2 11.2 11.4 29.5 45.9 42.6 61.8 35.8 52.3 Maitum 32.5 42.8 39.8 12.2 9.9 9.6 25.9 39.0 35.8 49.7 33.5 46.0 Malapatan 43.9 54.1 53.1 15.9 11.0 10.4 32.4 55.3 44.3 63.9 44.0 62.2 Malungon 37.9 45.3 47.0 10.0 9.0 9.9 31.7 44.1 38.6 52.1 39.4 54.7 Cotabato City Cotobato City 21.1 26.9 29.7 16.4 18.4 9.3 15.4 26.8 18.0 35.8 25.2 34.3 ARMM Basilan Lamitan City 33.8 17.5 31.9 20.4 20.4 10.0 24.5 43.2 11.6 23.4 26.7 37.2 Lantawan 47.0 25.2 34.8 17.2 17.2 13.3 34.2 59.8 18.1 32.3 27.1 42.4 Maluso 48.0 39.2 37.5 17.0 17.0 14.2 34.6 61.4 28.2 50.1 28.7 46.3 Sumisip 49.6 29.4 52.8 16.8 16.8 11.8 38.4 60.7 21.3 37.5 42.5 63.1
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 112
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Tipo-Tipo 38.7 28.0 35.1 22.4 22.4 16.8 24.0 53.4 17.7 38.3 25.4 44.8 Tuburan 50.7 37.6 43.5 19.7 19.7 13.7 30.5 70.9 25.5 49.8 33.6 53.3 Akbar 41.4 32.7 53.9 21.3 21.3 13.9 20.2 62.5 21.3 44.1 41.6 66.2 Al-barka 45.5 27.0 57.0 18.5 18.5 14.2 29.7 61.3 18.8 35.2 43.7 70.3 Hadji Mohammad Ajul 48.3 30.5 45.5 17.8 17.8 13.7 32.4 64.1 21.6 39.5 35.2 55.8 Ungkaya Pukan 47.0 26.5 48.7 21.8 21.8 13.6 30.5 63.5 17.0 35.9 37.7 59.6 Hadju Muhtamad - 35.5 45.7 18.6 18.6 16.1 - - 24.7 46.4 33.6 57.8 Tabuan-Lasa - 40.3 51.6 18.3 18.3 14.7 - - 28.1 52.4 39.1 64.1 Lanao del Sur Bacolod-Kalawi 33.6 29.4 84.8 13.9 13.9 6.7 18.7 48.5 22.7 36.1 75.5 94.0 Balabagan 28.7 34.4 53.9 13.6 13.6 9.7 17.5 39.8 26.8 42.1 45.3 62.5 Balindong (Watu) 36.8 42.9 63.6 16.3 16.3 9.1 21.9 51.7 31.4 54.4 54.0 73.1 Bayang 36.5 33.9 69.8 14.5 14.5 8.1 21.5 51.5 25.8 42.0 60.5 79.1 Binidayan 25.3 36.8 63.9 15.5 15.5 8.1 13.5 37.1 27.4 46.2 55.3 72.4 Bubong 35.0 42.6 52.9 16.5 16.5 13.9 18.5 51.6 31.0 54.1 40.8 65.0 Butig 30.6 37.1 58.9 16.4 16.4 9.8 18.1 43.0 27.1 47.1 49.5 68.4 Ganassi 30.2 34.8 68.8 14.0 14.0 8.0 18.6 41.9 26.8 42.8 59.8 77.9 Kapai 41.7 43.0 74.8 15.1 15.1 8.2 23.3 60.0 32.3 53.7 64.6 84.9 Lumba-Bayabao (Maguing) 24.3 38.8 74.0 14.8 14.8 7.6 15.2 33.4 29.3 48.2 64.7 83.3 Lumbatan 34.0 36.8 59.4 12.8 12.8 8.5 16.1 51.8 29.1 44.5 51.1 67.8 Madalum 27.9 32.6 60.9 13.9 13.9 8.4 17.9 37.9 25.1 40.0 52.4 69.3 Madamba 23.3 46.7 66.9 15.0 15.0 7.9 12.7 33.8 35.2 58.3 58.2 75.6 Malabang 28.8 37.7 68.1 13.7 13.7 8.2 17.7 39.9 29.2 46.2 58.9 77.2 Marantao 33.0 29.2 60.2 16.0 16.0 7.4 20.3 45.6 21.5 36.9 52.9 67.5 Marawi City 27.6 34.5 60.0 13.7 13.7 7.8 20.0 35.1 26.7 42.3 52.3 67.8 Masiu 32.8 39.4 59.5 17.6 17.6 8.5 20.1 45.5 28.0 50.7 51.2 67.7
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 113
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Mulondo 37.1 54.2 65.4 18.8 18.8 8.5 20.7 53.4 37.4 71.0 56.3 74.5 Pagayawan (Tatarikan) 38.8 43.5 71.6 16.7 16.7 8.3 22.7 54.9 31.5 55.5 61.8 81.3 Piagapo 38.6 37.0 81.4 11.9 11.9 6.7 23.9 53.4 29.7 44.2 72.4 90.4 Poona Bayabao (Gata) 31.9 28.3 64.3 16.5 16.5 8.0 18.6 45.3 20.6 36.0 55.9 72.8 Pualas 25.6 27.5 72.5 17.0 17.0 9.2 15.5 35.7 19.8 35.2 61.6 83.4 Ditsaan-Ramain 33.0 41.9 67.0 14.6 14.6 8.2 20.7 45.2 31.9 51.9 58.0 76.0 Saguiaran 37.4 33.2 72.0 13.4 13.4 8.5 21.2 53.6 25.9 40.5 61.9 82.2 Tamparan 30.3 39.9 68.3 14.6 14.6 8.2 18.6 42.0 30.3 49.5 59.1 77.5 Taraka 30.9 38.0 67.8 14.3 14.3 8.1 17.1 44.7 29.1 46.9 58.8 76.8 Tubaran 40.3 44.4 51.7 16.4 16.4 10.4 25.5 55.1 32.4 56.4 42.9 60.6 Tugaya 39.7 45.3 68.4 17.4 17.4 8.3 20.4 59.1 32.3 58.3 59.0 77.8 Wao 27.6 25.5 73.8 16.4 16.4 8.3 17.2 38.0 18.6 32.3 63.7 83.9 Marogong 46.1 46.2 76.2 16.2 16.2 9.0 28.0 64.2 33.9 58.6 64.9 87.5 Calanogas 39.8 53.9 72.5 18.6 18.6 8.5 24.1 55.6 37.4 70.4 62.3 82.7 Buadiposo-Buntong 31.0 38.6 52.8 15.0 15.0 11.1 17.0 45.1 29.1 48.1 43.2 62.5 Maguing 33.0 29.9 58.8 13.6 13.6 9.0 21.0 45.1 23.2 36.6 50.0 67.5 Sultan Gumander 40.5 47.3 72.7 14.5 14.5 7.7 23.8 57.3 36.1 58.6 63.5 81.9 Lumbayanague 30.1 55.7 81.9 17.4 17.4 6.8 17.1 43.1 39.8 71.6 72.7 91.1 Bumbaran 34.1 37.8 62.7 16.6 16.6 7.0 21.0 47.1 27.4 48.1 55.4 69.9 Tagoloan II 45.7 59.3 60.8 15.6 15.6 9.7 23.9 67.5 44.0 74.5 51.1 70.4 Kapatagan 29.4 32.3 60.4 14.8 14.8 8.4 16.7 42.1 24.5 40.1 52.1 68.8 Sultan Dumalondong 46.0 51.4 73.0 20.4 20.4 8.0 20.4 71.6 34.1 68.7 63.4 82.6 Lumbaca-Unayan 34.8 36.0 76.5 19.1 19.1 9.1 16.7 52.9 24.7 47.3 65.1 87.9 Maguindanao Ampatuan 36.1 51.9 63.3 11.9 11.9 12.7 20.0 52.2 41.7 62.1 50.0 76.6 Buldon 45.1 53.4 65.1 12.9 12.9 11.6 33.8 56.5 42.0 64.7 52.7 77.6
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 114
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Buluan 47.3 50.7 71.7 20.8 20.8 13.4 23.7 70.9 33.4 68.1 55.8 87.5 Datu Paglas 47.2 48.4 76.4 10.8 10.8 12.4 34.0 60.3 39.8 57.0 60.8 92.0 Datu Piang 56.2 52.5 68.4 21.6 21.6 12.6 41.4 71.0 33.8 71.2 54.3 82.5 Datu Odin Sinsuat (Dinaig) 44.3 45.0 62.0 10.0 10.0 15.2 33.4 55.2 37.6 52.4 46.5 77.6 Shariff Aguak (Maganoy) 54.2 56.9 74.5 14.8 14.8 12.4 39.6 68.7 43.1 70.8 59.3 89.7 Matanog 52.5 43.7 59.3 16.7 16.7 10.8 35.3 69.7 31.7 55.7 48.8 69.9 Pagalungan 53.0 46.7 37.5 13.2 13.2 22.3 38.2 67.7 36.6 56.9 23.8 51.2 Parang 36.1 42.0 74.0 13.4 13.4 13.5 24.9 47.3 32.7 51.3 57.6 90.3 Sultan Kudarat (Nuling) 50.1 50.0 54.7 7.2 7.2 12.3 40.9 59.4 44.1 55.9 43.6 65.7 Sultan Sa Barongis (Lambayong) 61.8 61.1 66.5 10.0 10.0 13.1 45.2 78.3 51.1 71.1 52.2 80.8 Kabuntalan (Tumbao) 51.3 62.8 57.6 10.1 10.1 14.6 36.7 65.9 52.3 73.3 43.8 71.4 Upi 49.0 34.8 66.4 14.8 14.8 13.3 36.3 61.7 26.3 43.2 51.8 80.9 Talayan 56.7 50.9 80.3 11.1 11.1 10.0 41.7 71.6 41.6 60.3 67.0 93.5 South Upi 53.5 42.9 68.7 16.2 16.2 12.6 37.1 70.0 31.5 54.3 54.5 82.9 Barira 46.7 39.9 43.7 13.2 13.2 15.8 32.7 60.8 31.2 48.6 32.3 55.1 Gen. S. K. Pendatun 62.6 61.0 52.3 10.1 10.1 17.4 49.4 75.9 50.9 71.1 37.4 67.3 Mamasapano 59.0 55.8 73.7 13.5 13.5 11.3 42.3 75.7 43.4 68.2 59.9 87.4 Talitay 63.0 51.9 77.1 15.1 15.1 10.1 47.6 78.5 39.0 64.9 64.3 90.0 Pagagawan 50.7 53.0 76.2 11.4 11.4 11.2 35.9 65.6 43.1 62.9 62.1 90.3 Paglat 62.4 61.1 69.6 12.0 12.0 12.0 38.4 86.3 49.1 73.2 55.8 83.4 Sultan Mastura 48.3 44.4 62.8 14.5 14.5 14.8 34.0 62.5 33.8 55.0 47.5 78.2 Guindulungan 60.5 64.5 75.8 10.0 10.0 13.4 46.2 74.8 53.9 75.2 59.1 92.5 Datu Saudi-Ampatuan 53.2 43.4 83.0 18.3 18.3 10.2 39.6 66.9 30.3 56.5 69.0 96.9 Datu Unsay 63.0 47.1 70.9 21.1 21.1 12.2 45.3 80.7 30.7 63.4 56.7 85.1 Datu Abdullah Sangki 43.4 51.0 68.6 13.7 13.7 13.6 26.8 60.0 39.5 62.5 53.3 83.9
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 115
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Rajah Buayan 55.5 53.9 70.5 11.6 11.6 12.6 37.0 74.0 43.7 64.2 55.9 85.1 Datu Blah T. Sinsuat 56.9 48.7 66.8 13.0 13.0 15.3 39.6 74.1 38.2 59.1 50.0 83.6 Datu Anggal Midtimbang 52.5 57.0 74.8 14.0 14.0 11.5 33.7 71.3 43.8 70.1 60.6 89.0 Mangudadatu 62.6 56.9 64.7 12.4 12.4 15.7 40.5 84.6 45.3 68.5 48.0 81.4 Pandag 61.6 66.8 70.2 11.5 11.5 14.9 43.4 79.8 54.1 79.4 53.0 87.4 Northern Kabuntalan 47.4 41.2 64.0 14.8 14.8 15.0 34.7 60.2 31.1 51.2 48.2 79.7 Datu Hoffer Ampatuan - 49.1 69.0 16.4 16.4 13.7 - - 35.8 62.4 53.4 84.6 Datu Salibo - 52.5 74.2 11.4 11.4 11.9 - - 42.6 62.3 59.6 88.7 Shariff Saydona Mustapha - 51.2 66.0 15.2 15.2 12.3 - - 38.4 64.0 52.6 79.4 Sulu Indanan 54.2 42.7 64.7 12.8 12.8 13.4 43.2 65.1 33.7 51.6 50.5 78.9 Jolo 43.3 46.1 48.4 17.0 17.0 9.9 23.3 63.3 33.3 59.0 40.5 56.2 Kalingalan Caluang 65.0 48.3 42.6 15.6 15.6 26.0 47.0 83.0 35.9 60.7 24.4 60.8 Luuk 70.2 47.9 46.3 14.5 14.5 18.6 57.0 83.4 36.5 59.4 32.2 60.5 Maimbung 57.2 51.9 56.0 10.8 10.8 14.8 41.6 72.7 42.7 61.2 42.3 69.7 Hadji Panglima Tahil (Marunggas) 60.9 53.2 49.6 19.7 19.7 12.3 36.5 85.3 36.0 70.4 39.6 59.7 Old Panamao 55.3 55.9 48.3 12.5 12.5 15.3 39.9 70.7 44.4 67.4 36.2 60.4 Pangutaran 50.9 49.3 51.9 12.0 12.0 20.9 34.2 67.6 39.5 59.0 34.0 69.7 Parang 54.7 53.2 48.4 9.5 9.5 11.7 42.6 66.8 44.8 61.5 39.1 57.7 Pata 52.8 52.6 52.1 14.1 14.1 13.5 35.9 69.6 40.4 64.7 40.6 63.7 Patikul 44.6 37.0 48.0 14.3 14.3 11.4 31.1 58.1 28.3 45.6 39.0 57.0 Siasi 59.7 46.1 55.8 9.9 9.9 11.8 45.1 74.3 38.6 53.6 44.9 66.6 Talipao 51.2 59.8 42.9 8.5 8.5 14.0 39.9 62.4 51.4 68.1 33.0 52.8 Tapul 57.7 52.4 43.6 11.4 11.4 10.9 41.7 73.7 42.6 62.2 35.8 51.4 Tongkil 69.8 51.2 44.0 12.5 12.5 13.6 55.8 83.8 40.6 61.8 34.1 53.9 Panglima Estino (New Panamao) 51.9 68.7 44.3 11.6 11.6 14.3 36.5 67.4 55.6 81.8 33.9 54.7
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 116
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Lugus 54.4 50.1 67.2 12.7 12.7 12.1 36.8 72.0 39.6 60.6 53.8 80.6 Pandami 57.0 49.2 42.0 12.7 12.7 13.4 41.0 73.0 38.9 59.5 32.7 51.2 Omar - 50.8 48.8 19.4 19.4 12.8 - - 34.6 67.0 38.5 59.1 Tawi-tawi Panglima Sugala (Balimbing) 52.8 44.9 54.0 14.6 14.6 17.3 37.1 68.5 34.1 55.7 38.6 69.4 Bongao 39.4 27.7 41.7 15.0 15.0 16.1 29.2 49.7 20.8 34.5 30.7 52.7 Mapun (Cagayan De Tawi-Tawi) 46.2 35.2 30.6 16.2 16.2 14.7 32.9 59.6 25.8 44.6 23.2 38.0 Simunul 32.4 30.4 42.5 18.6 18.6 16.2 18.9 45.9 21.1 39.7 31.1 53.8 Sitangkai 36.6 31.7 23.8 23.8 23.8 21.6 21.7 51.6 19.3 44.1 15.3 32.2 South Ubian 43.7 36.4 27.9 12.8 12.8 22.2 30.9 56.5 28.7 44.0 17.8 38.1 Tandubas 45.2 35.3 27.6 17.4 17.4 15.6 31.3 59.0 25.2 45.4 20.5 34.6 Turtle Islands 43.4 28.6 30.4 45.4 45.4 19.6 12.3 74.5 7.2 49.9 20.6 40.2 Languyan 40.0 38.0 32.1 17.1 17.1 41.7 28.5 51.4 27.3 48.7 10.1 54.0 Sapa-Sapa 45.7 37.2 33.3 14.2 14.2 17.6 31.4 60.0 28.6 45.9 23.7 42.9 Sibutu 34.7 38.9 31.5 17.6 17.6 19.2 21.8 47.6 27.6 50.2 21.5 41.5 Caraga Agusan del Norte Buenavista 34.1 38.0 30.8 8.5 8.5 10.0 28.6 39.5 32.7 43.2 25.7 35.8 Butuan City 24.6 27.6 18.7 17.7 6.3 10.0 21.0 28.2 24.7 30.4 15.6 21.7 Cabadbaran 28.0 28.4 24.9 10.1 9.6 9.4 22.5 33.6 23.9 32.9 21.0 28.7 Carmen 37.1 40.6 37.7 13.3 12.7 12.5 28.7 45.6 32.1 49.1 29.9 45.4 Jabonga 48.6 45.7 48.1 12.7 8.1 7.9 40.3 56.8 39.6 51.8 41.8 54.4 Kitcharao 39.0 39.9 40.0 12.5 10.0 10.9 27.7 50.3 33.3 46.4 32.8 47.2 Las Nieves 52.3 53.0 59.4 12.6 6.6 8.3 43.6 60.9 47.3 58.8 51.3 67.6 Magallanes 34.2 28.6 25.9 13.1 15.1 15.9 26.7 41.7 21.5 35.7 19.1 32.6 Nasipit 23.0 28.3 20.7 6.7 10.9 12.6 18.2 27.8 23.2 33.3 16.4 25.0 Santiago 55.5 47.7 40.5 8.9 10.2 12.5 44.0 66.9 39.7 55.7 32.2 48.9
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 117
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Tubay 39.6 39.2 42.7 5.4 10.5 8.7 31.4 47.8 32.4 46.0 36.6 48.8 Remedios T. Romualdez 38.3 41.0 36.1 6.3 11.5 12.2 30.0 46.6 33.3 48.7 28.8 43.3 Agusan del Sur Bayugan City 46.1 48.4 35.9 5.7 6.3 7.3 41.0 51.2 43.4 53.4 31.5 40.2 Bunawan 60.8 54.2 39.1 6.7 7.1 11.2 51.9 69.8 47.9 60.5 31.9 46.3 Esperanza 66.9 61.9 52.9 9.5 4.4 5.9 61.0 72.7 57.4 66.4 47.7 58.0 La Paz 74.2 66.7 52.8 6.8 5.9 8.4 66.5 81.9 60.2 73.2 45.5 60.1 Loreto 70.3 56.9 48.6 5.3 6.9 8.7 63.7 76.8 50.5 63.3 41.6 55.6 Prosperidad 53.5 52.8 39.3 8.1 5.8 7.5 47.6 59.4 47.8 57.8 34.4 44.2 Rosario 56.0 48.2 40.0 8.8 10.0 12.4 47.3 64.7 40.3 56.1 31.8 48.1 San Francisco 41.9 39.7 30.8 11.7 6.4 7.2 37.2 46.6 35.5 43.9 27.1 34.5 San Luis 69.7 62.0 55.7 7.1 4.5 6.1 63.6 75.7 57.4 66.6 50.1 61.2 Santa Josefa 54.0 53.3 36.0 6.0 6.9 10.3 46.9 61.2 47.3 59.4 29.9 42.1 Talacogon 56.1 58.0 46.0 10.4 6.8 7.3 48.0 64.2 51.5 64.4 40.4 51.5 Trento 42.6 49.1 34.0 15.0 10.1 11.5 34.3 50.8 40.9 57.2 27.6 40.5 Veruela 63.0 58.5 48.7 6.5 5.8 8.7 55.6 70.4 52.9 64.0 41.8 55.7 Sibagat 63.3 59.4 47.8 13.5 6.2 7.2 57.1 69.5 53.3 65.5 42.1 53.4 Surigao del Norte Alegria 47.6 57.2 38.3 7.8 8.5 10.0 39.4 55.7 49.1 65.2 32.0 44.5 Bacuag 35.3 50.6 37.1 10.9 10.7 12.7 26.6 44.1 41.7 59.5 29.4 44.9 Burgos 46.9 53.2 40.4 9.3 11.2 13.9 36.5 57.3 43.4 63.0 31.1 49.6 Claver 38.8 49.8 41.4 9.5 9.5 8.0 31.8 45.7 42.0 57.6 35.9 46.8 Dapa 44.0 52.2 43.5 11.4 7.1 9.3 38.0 50.1 46.1 58.4 36.8 50.1 Del Carmen 40.7 58.9 41.2 8.3 7.1 8.6 34.5 47.0 52.0 65.7 35.3 47.0 General Luna 50.6 55.4 44.5 10.7 7.8 7.6 42.7 58.5 48.3 62.5 38.9 50.1 Gigaquit 45.2 59.6 41.5 9.6 8.0 9.9 36.7 53.6 51.8 67.5 34.8 48.3 Mainit 42.5 57.0 41.7 14.8 7.2 8.5 35.0 49.9 50.3 63.8 35.9 47.5
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 118
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Malimono 51.2 50.3 51.8 9.6 10.2 13.5 43.1 59.3 41.8 58.7 40.3 63.3 Pilar 54.4 62.8 46.4 12.2 6.9 8.4 45.7 63.0 55.6 69.9 40.0 52.8 Placer 30.6 47.7 29.5 11.0 8.9 11.0 24.8 36.4 40.7 54.7 24.1 34.8 San Benito 48.2 62.6 42.4 12.6 8.2 13.9 36.4 59.9 54.2 71.1 32.7 52.1 San Francisco (Anao-Aon) 44.6 48.8 31.6 10.6 8.9 10.4 37.5 51.6 41.7 56.0 26.2 37.0 San Isidro 49.6 51.7 46.2 8.9 10.8 8.5 39.7 59.6 42.5 60.9 39.7 52.6 Santa Monica (Sapao) 45.4 52.4 36.1 8.7 8.1 9.1 37.2 53.7 45.5 59.4 30.7 41.5 Sison 41.1 52.1 45.0 11.1 9.5 10.2 32.6 49.6 44.0 60.2 37.4 52.6 Socorro 54.0 52.1 58.7 14.4 11.4 10.7 44.6 63.4 42.3 61.8 48.4 69.1 Surigao City 32.4 40.1 21.5 9.9 7.4 9.3 27.7 37.2 35.2 44.9 18.2 24.8 Tagana-an 49.6 50.4 43.7 11.1 10.1 9.2 42.5 56.6 42.0 58.7 37.0 50.3 Tubod 30.6 47.8 31.0 16.0 9.4 12.3 23.3 37.8 40.4 55.2 24.7 37.2 Surigao del Sur Barobo 42.5 45.7 30.5 18.3 9.6 12.8 34.7 50.2 38.4 52.9 24.1 36.9 Bayabas 44.3 39.4 28.7 15.2 13.2 17.0 35.2 53.4 30.9 48.0 20.7 36.8 Bislig City 26.6 34.2 20.6 11.3 14.3 16.8 19.6 33.6 26.1 42.2 14.9 26.3 Cagwait 40.5 39.4 23.8 14.9 12.3 16.4 30.7 50.2 31.4 47.4 17.4 30.2 Cantilan 20.0 25.7 17.6 8.6 10.9 14.0 14.0 26.1 21.1 30.3 13.5 21.6 Carmen 30.6 34.6 24.6 10.7 14.9 17.9 22.9 38.3 26.1 43.1 17.4 31.8 Carrascal 32.0 32.7 26.4 13.9 11.9 13.8 26.1 37.9 26.3 39.1 20.4 32.4 Cortes 42.0 36.4 23.3 10.4 13.5 15.9 31.7 52.2 28.3 44.4 17.2 29.5 Hinatuan 43.3 43.6 29.4 12.4 7.1 12.1 37.2 49.4 38.5 48.6 23.5 35.2 Lanuza 41.2 35.1 33.1 11.3 12.4 12.7 33.9 48.4 27.9 42.3 26.2 40.1 Lianga 29.2 37.0 29.2 11.7 11.3 13.6 22.5 35.8 30.1 43.9 22.7 35.8 Lingig 45.2 48.9 34.0 9.4 8.8 11.7 37.5 52.9 41.8 56.0 27.4 40.5 Madrid 25.0 33.0 20.8 9.7 11.1 14.3 19.9 30.1 27.0 39.0 15.9 25.7
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 119
Municipal and City Level Small Area Poverty Estimates; 2006, 2009 and 2012 90% Confidence Interval Poverty Incidence Coefficient of Variation* Region/Province Municipality/City 2006 2009 2012 Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Marihatag 48.3 50.3 38.0 10.7 8.8 10.2 39.3 57.2 43.0 57.5 31.6 44.4 San Agustin 44.7 49.9 37.4 12.7 8.0 12.4 36.1 53.4 43.3 56.5 29.8 45.0 San Miguel 50.1 50.5 37.5 11.8 7.3 10.4 42.4 57.8 44.4 56.5 31.1 43.8 Tagbina 47.1 48.0 31.7 10.1 7.8 10.1 39.6 54.6 41.9 54.2 26.4 36.9 Tago 41.5 37.5 26.9 12.0 8.5 11.3 34.2 48.8 32.2 42.7 21.9 31.9 Tandag City 24.3 26.3 16.0 10.9 10.3 15.3 19.2 29.4 21.8 30.7 12.0 20.1 Dinagat Islands Basilisa (Rizal) 65.1 55.7 54.7 8.3 7.3 10.2 58.1 72.1 49.0 62.4 45.5 63.8 Cagdiano 60.6 55.6 54.2 9.2 9.2 9.4 52.8 68.5 47.2 64.0 45.8 62.6 Dinagat 55.1 57.6 49.4 13.2 8.9 7.5 46.7 63.4 49.2 66.1 43.3 55.4 Libjo (Albor) 59.8 54.1 47.1 9.7 8.7 8.5 51.6 68.0 46.4 61.8 40.5 53.7 Loreto 29.9 54.2 31.4 11.5 9.4 13.8 23.4 36.4 45.8 62.6 24.3 38.5 San Jose 49.2 46.7 35.3 14.7 9.4 9.5 41.1 57.2 39.5 54.0 29.8 40.9 Tubajon 47.6 56.3 41.6 12.5 9.6 10.4 38.9 56.3 47.4 65.2 34.5 48.8 Source: Philippine Statistics Authority, through a national government funded project on the generation of the 2012 small area estimates on poverty. Please note that the 2009 small area estimates of poverty were generated through funding assistance from the Government of the Philippines, World Bank and the Australian Government.
Note: The standard deviation of an estimate can be derived by multiplying the poverty incidence and coefficient of variation then divide by 100.
*Estimates are reliable if the coefficient of variation is at most 20 %
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 120
References
Bedi, T., Coudouel, A. and Simler, K. (2007). “More Than a Pretty Picture Using Poverty Maps to Design Better Policies and Interventions”.
Elbers, C., Lanjouw, J.O. and Lanjouw, P. (2002). “Micro-Level Estimation of Welfare”, Policy Research Working Paper, The World Bank.
Elbers, C., Lanjouw, J.O. and Lanjouw, P. (2003). “Micro-level estimation of poverty and inequality”, Econometrica, 71, 355-364.
Elbers, C., Lanjouw, J.O., Lanjouw, P. and Leite (2004). “Poverty and Inequality in Brazil: New Estimates from Combined PPV-PNAD Data”, unpublished manuscript, The World Bank.
Elbers, C., Lanjouw, J.O., Lanjouw, P. and Leite (2007). “Poverty and Inequality in Brazil: New Estimates from Combined PPV-PNAD Data”, unpublished manuscript, The World Bank.
NSCB (2005) Estimation of Local Poverty in the Philippines. National Statistical Coordination Board, Philippines.
NSCB (2011) 2012 Official Poverty Statistics of the Philippines. National Statistical Coordination Board, Philippines
NSCB/AUSAid/WB (2013) 2006 and 2009 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates. National Statistical Coordination Board, Australian Government and the World Bank.
PSA (2012) Philippine Standard Geographic Code. Philippine Statistics Authority, Philippines
World Bank (2010), Poverty Maps of Bangladesh 2010, the World Bank and Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Bangladesh
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 121
PROJECT ON THE GENERATION OF THE 2012 MUNICIPAL AND CITY LEVEL POVERTY ESTIMATES PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
LISA GRACE S. BERSALES Ph.D. National Statistician and Civil Registrar General
ROMEO S. RECIDE Deputy National Statistician Sectoral Statistics Office
WILMA A. GUILLEN Assistant National Statistician Social Sectors Statistics Service
Lead Technical Staff Bernadette B. Balamban Mildred B. Addawe
Technical Staff Mechelle M. Viernes Anna Jean G. Casañas Andrea Jane B. Bibares Joseph Albert Niño M. Bulan Jarah Dinelle S. Delbo Driesch Lucien R. Cortel
Administrative Staff Agnes V. Capule Rufina P. Dayot Fely V. Collado Edwin U. Aragon Dennis E. San Diego Sonny U. Guittierez Edgardo Guevarra Edilberto Suriaga
Project Technical Resource Person Dr. Zita VJ. Albacea
Project Technical Advisers Dr. Romulo A. Virola Ms. Lina V. Castro
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 122
The PSA thanks its former officials, Ms. Jessamyn Encarnacion, Mr. Manuel Laopao and Members of the Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics (TC-PovStat) coordinated by the PSA, who provided technical inputs/comments/guidance to this Project. We are also grateful to Mr. Joseph Addawe and Mr. Noel Victorino of UN OCHA who shared their time and expertise on infographics to the Project Staff, which became handy when the infographic materials on the result of this Project were developed. We also would like to express appreciation to our regional offices, particularly Regions I, VI and XI headed by Regional Director Socrates Ramores, former IRD Norman R. Julag-ay and former IRD Jaime S. Paller, respectively, for the support and assistance they provided when we conducted the Validation and Dissemination Forum in some of the provinces. And lastly, to the Planning and Management Staff, which was used to be headed by Mr. Candido Astrologo and Atty. Maribeth Pilimpinas of the Finance and Administrative Service for providing the necessary administrative and logistic support to make the activities of this Project possible.
2012 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates Page 123
16th Floor, Eton Cyberpod Centris Three Building EDSA corner Quezon Avenue, Quezon City Telephone no. +632-376-1991 Website: www.psa.gov.ph E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]