REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA POVERTY MAPPING IN THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA POVERTY MAPPING IN THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA SOFIA, 2018 This publication is prepared with the financial support of the European Commission through the Europe 2020 Programme Trust Fund (TF0A1034), Project ‘Mapping poverty in the new EU member states’. NATIONAL STATISTICAL INSTITUTE POVERTY MAPPING IN THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA Authors: Rasim Ryustem, PhD Desislava Dimitrova, Magdalena Kostova, PhD Paul Corral, PhD Joao Pedro Azevedo Graphic presentation of the data: Georgi Shivarov, Irena Dudova Managing editor: Antoaneta Ilkova Editor: Mila Trifonova Pre-print processing and printing: Education and Science inc. Co. Dear readers, Modern societies are managed based on reliable and timely information. Such information is increasingly demanded in the busy and dynamic economic environment of the twenty-first century. Politicians, economists and analysts need adequate, accurate and timely information to be able to offer practical solutions to businesses and the public. Statistical institutions face the task to provide information about how our surroundings develop and change. Surveys are the main tool used for obtaining statistical information. Statistical surveys, including sample and exhaustive ones, aim to satisfy the needs for completing or improving the information on specific areas of interests. Exhaustive surveys aim to gather all the information in a given area. They provide complete, accurate and undisputable information about the units observed. Despite the pros, these surveys have some disadvantages, with one of the biggest being the challenging requirements of time and resources for their conductions. When the necessary time and resources are not available, sample surveys are used, which can provide timely and effective information. The volume of observed units is considerably smaller than in the case of exhaustive surveys, but the resources required would considerably decrease. Disadvantages of the sample surveys are the statistical errors they are burdened with. Thus, sample surveys provide good estimates for well sampled populations, but not for small subsets. Modern statistical methods make it possible to overcome such issues of small subsets or small geographical areas, by combining two survey sources. One survey provides strength to the other, and estimates obtained through this methodology are known as small area estimates (SAE). The method uses the matching data from the two surveys as identifiers to transfer the essential information from sample surveys to exhaustive ones using econometric models. The information thus obtained can provide reasonable estimates for small subsets, which cannot be done using sample surveys only. This approach is used in the ‘Poverty Mapping in Bulgaria’. contents contents Introduction................................................................................................................... 9 I. Data sources...................................................................................................... 11 I.1. Survey of income and living conditions (SILC)...................................... 11 I.2. Census............................................................................................................... 15 II. Project poverty mapping................................................................................. 19 II.1. Main stages.................................................................................................... 19 II.2. Modeling....................................................................................................... 24 III. Poverty mapping results.................................................................................. 29 III.1. Poverty by statistical regions...................................................................... 34 III.2. Poverty in Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna............................................................ 43 III.3. Distribution of poor by sub-populations................................................... 47 III.4. Spatial analysis of poverty........................................................................... 52 IV. Conclusion......................................................................................................... 55 V. References.......................................................................................................... 56 Annex.............................................................................................................................. 57 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 5 contents List of tables Table 1. Households’ structure by number of members according to the censuses Table 2. Households’ structure by number of members according to SILC Table 3. Comparison of data produced by PM Project and official SILC 2012 Table 4. Weighted averages of the candidate variables Table 5. Welfare Model for Yugozapaden region (BG41) Table 6. Welfare Model for Bulgaria without Yugozapaden region (BG41) Table 7. Poverty Rates from SILC (linked) and SAE Table 8. NUTS3 Level Poverty Estimates Table 9. Distribution of municipalities by relative share of poor (SAE data) List of figures Figure 1. Poverty line (average monthly size) and relative share of poor in Bulgaria Figure 2. Households, persons in households and average number of members per household by census years Figure 3. Direct (based on SILC (linked) poverty estimates at NUTS2 level Figure 4. SAE of Poverty (NUTS3 level) Figure 5. SAE of Poverty (LAU1) Figure 6. Severozapaden region (BG31) Figure 7. Severen tsentralen region (BG32) Figure 8. Severoiztochen region (BG33) Figure 9. Yugoiztochen region (BG34) Figure 10. Yugozapaden region (BG41) Figure 11. Yuzhen tsentralen region (BG42) Figure 12. Share of poor by districts of Sofia Figure 13. Share of poor by districts of Plovdiv Figure 14. Share of poor by districts of Varna Figure 15. Share of poor among children by municipalities 6 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria contents Figure 16. Share of poor among persons aged 65 and more by municipalities Figure 17. Share of poor among persons with primary and lower education by municipalities Figure 18. Share of poor among persons with secondary education by municipalities Figure 19. Share of poor among persons with tertiary education by municipalities Figure 20. Share of poor among working poor by municipalities Figure 21. Getis-Ord’s analysis of share of poor by municipalities Figure 22. Getis-Ord’s analysis of the relative share of poor from all poor by municipalities ANNEX ANNEX 1. Share of poor by districts (NUTS3) ANNEX 2. Share of poor by municipalities (LAU1) ANNEX 3. Share of poor in the cities of Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna by districts Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 7 ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS CAWI Computer Assisted Web Interview CI Confidence Interval ЕLL Model proposed by Khris Elbers, Jean Lanjouw and Peter Lanjouw EU European Union GLS Generalised Least Squares IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development LAU Local Administrative Units LPHCRB Law on Population and Housing Census in the Republic of Bulgaria NUTS Classification of Territorial Units for Statistics OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OLS Ordinary Least Squares PAPI Paper Assisted Personal Interview PM Poverty mapping SILC Survey of Income and Living Conditions UN United Nations 8 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION In 2016 the National Statistical Institute and the World Bank started working on the Project ‘Poverty mapping in the Republic of Bulgaria’ (PM). The Project is part of the Government and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) Programme, which is realised by experts of the National Statistical Institute (NSI) and the World Bank (WB). The Project implemented with the financial support of European Commission through the Europe 2020 Programme Trust Fund (TF0A1034), Project ‘Mapping poverty in the new EU member states’. The main project objective is to calculate the shares of population at-risk-of- poverty at low territorial levels (districts and municipalities). In Bulgaria, as in other European countries, the Survey of income and living conditions (SILC) is used as the main tool for estimating the population at-risk-of-poverty. The survey ensures the availability of large sets of indicators measuring poverty and living conditions, but due to its nature of being a sample survey, it cannot provide information at low territorial levels like municipalities and settlements. Small area estimation methods, different from ‘direct’ ones have to be used in order to produce information at low territorial levels. Combining data from sample surveys and additional sources like the population census or administrative data is necessary. Reference years of the data sources used as a basis for small area estimations have to be as close to each other as possible. Therefore, data from last 2011 Population Census and SILC 2012 (with income reference year 2011) are used. The method used for PM is based on a model proposed by Chris Elbers, Jean Lanjouw and Peter Lanjouw (ELL) and is implemented in the PovMap software, developed by the WB for the poverty mapping purposes. SAE method, proposed by ELL (2003) is based on a model from which the SAE are produced by simulating multiple vectors of census incomes. It is one of the most widely used small area estimation methods for poverty statistics of lower geographical areas. The estimates are often presented as maps and thus the method was named poverty maps. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 9 I. Data sources I. Data sources I.1. Survey of income and living conditions (SILC) The European Survey of Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) is part of the European Statistical System and is implemented according to the unified methodology defined by Regulation No. 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The survey was launched in 2003 in six EU countries. In 2004, the survey was expanded to include the 15 Member States. Since 2005, the survey has been conducted in 25 EU countries, including Iceland and Norway. Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Switzerland introduced the survey of income and living condition in 2006. In 2015, the survey was conducted in 34 countries, including the 28 EU Member States, FYROM, Ireland, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey. EU-SILC is a tool to provide timely and comparable data on income distributions, the level and structure of poverty and social exclusion in the EU. The survey provides two types of annual data: • Cross-sectional data related to a given time period (year), including information on income, poverty, social exclusion and living conditions, and • Longitudinal data related to changes in income, poverty, social exclusion and living conditions at an individual level, observed over a four-year period. SILC is based on an integrated design from a 4-year rotational panel. Rotational design is a group of independent sub-samples, representatives of the entire population. The individual sub-samples have to be identical in volume and design. Between the separate years, some of the sub-samples are tracked again, while others are dropped out and replaced with new ones. After reaching the optimum size/design, each sub-sample remains in the survey for four consecutive years and after that would be replaced by a new one. Thus, each year 25% of the sample is updated. The main feature of the integrated design is the ability to combine the cross-sectional and longitudinal data into one survey and to get information from one and the same sample units. SILC has been conducted in Bulgaria since 2006. The survey is part of the National Statistical Programme. Bulgaria uses samples based on selection of households1. The general population used as the basis for the sample comes from the last population census. Two-stage cluster sampling is applied, where samples 1 Countries are free to choose the sample model. There are two possibilities: selection of households or of persons. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 11 I. Data sources are stratified according to the country’s administrative division by districts and the urban/rural typology. There are 28 strata in urban areas and 28 in rural ones. Census enumeration units are used for clusters. The census enumeration units in the respective stratum are selected at the first stage, and at the second one - the households in the respective cluster. The minimum effective sample size is 4 500 households. The target SILC population are the private households and their members living in the country territory at the time of observation. Individuals living in collective households and institutions are excluded from the target population. Units of observations are households and their members. The survey covers the entire territory of the Republic of Bulgaria. The survey is a main source of information on people at-risk-of-poverty in the country. The relative method is used to assess poverty. According to this method, the poor are considered to be people with income/expenditure lower than a certain percentage of the median equivalised income/expenditure for the observed households. The most commonly used threshold in Eurostat surveys for determining the relative poverty line is 60% of median equivalised disposable income of households. The income of each separate household is calculated such that individual income of each household member aged 16 and over and household`s income as a whole are taken into account. Two basic concepts of total incomes are applied: total gross household income and total disposable (net) household income. The disposable (net) income is obtained as the difference between the total gross household income and the regular taxes and outgoing transfers to other households. Total Gross Income consists of the following components: • Gross monetary component of the remuneration; • Non-monetary component of the remuneration; • Income of self-employed persons; • Income from a pension, including voluntary pension insurance; • Social benefits including unemployment benefits, old-age benefits, survivors benefits, sickness benefits, disability benefits, scholarships; • Income from lending of movable and immovable property; • Social benefits, including family and children allowances, target help for housing, targeted help for low income, targeted help for heating, and other; 12 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria I. Data sources Figure 1. Poverty line (average monthly size) and relative share of poor in Bulgaria % BGN 25.0 350 22.9 22.0 21.8 22.2 21.8 22.0 21.4 20.7 21.2 21.0 300 20.0 18.4 250 15.0 200 150 10.0 100 5.0 50 0.0 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 At-risk-of-poverty rate At-risk-of-poverty threshold • Regular transfers received from the household; • Income from shares, interest, business investment and sale of property; • Income received from children below 16 years of age. Regular taxes and outgoing transfers include: • Regular property taxes; • Regular transfers provided by the household; • Income tax and social security contributions. Total disposable (net) income per equivalent unit is used for calculating poverty indicators. Due to the different compositions and number of persons in the households, equivalent scales are applied. According to the OECD modified scale, the first adult aged 14 years and over is given weight 1, the second and each next adult aged 14 and over 0.5, and each child under 14 is given weight 0.3. Weights given to each member of the household are summed to obtain an equivalent household size. The total disposable (net) income of each household is divided into its equivalent size to obtain the total disposable (net) income of an Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 13 I. Data sources equivalent unit. For example, if a household with two adults and two children up to 14 years has net income of 4 200 BGN, the equivalent size of this household is 2.1 and the equivalent disposable income is 2 000 BGN. Every household with an equivalent income below the poverty line is considered to be poor. Poverty is homogeneous at household level and so all members of the household are considered poor. Bulgaria is among the countries where the risk of poverty rate is above the EU average, but remains relatively stable at about 1/5 (20 - 22%) of the Bulgarian population. The main factor increasing the risk of falling into the group of the poor for the majority of the population is their economic activity and their participation in the labour market. The share of poor is highest among the unemployed and part-time workers. Poverty estimates by household type indicate that the highest relative share of poor lie among one-person households with a member over 65 years of age, households of single parents with children, and households with three or more children. The social protection system is essential for reducing poverty. If pensions and other social transfers are excluded from the household income, the poverty rate will increase to about 50%. 14 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria I. Data sources I.2. Census Population and Housing Census is the oldest and the most comprehensive study. Its purpose is to provide reliable, exhaustive and, at the same time, sufficiently detailed information on the number and main characteristics of the population, as well as the housing fund in the country at the lowest possible territorial level. 2011 Population and Housing Census is the 17th census in the country history. For the first time, Bulgaria held a census as a member of the EU and, for the first time, an online questionnaire is used for data collection. Legal frame Traditionally, the National Law is developed and adopted for each national census. This was also the case for the 2011 Census as the Law on Population and Housing Census in the Republic of Bulgaria was developed in 2011. The law was adopted by the 40th National Assembly on May 15, 2009 (promulgated SG No. 39 of 26.05.2009) and was amended in 2010 (promulgated SG No. 100 of 21.12.2010). The law establishes conditions for conducting the census, reference dates, census objects, topics on which the data will be collected - mandatory and voluntary, responsible census bodies, sample surveys accompanying the census, conditions for protecting the individual data and methods for estimating the census coverage and quality of the information gathered. The national law was developed in accordance with the European legal framework governing the conduction of the population and housing censuses in EU Member States, providing quality and comparable data at European level. Regulation 763/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Population and Housing Censuses in the EU Member States establishes common rules concerning the basic definitions of census topics, possible data sources and data collection methods, census reference years and deadlines for data transmissions. In addition, three Commission Regulations were adopted, concerning the technical specifications of the topics and their breakdowns, the population and housing census programme and metadata and the conditions and structures of the quality reports and the technical format for data transmissions. The recommendations of the Conference of European Statisticians, the UN Economic Commission for Europe on the Population and Housing Census - 2010 round are also taken into account in the development of national and European legal framework. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 15 I. Data sources Data sources and data collection methods Census 2011 in Bulgaria was conducted as a traditional census. Data on persons, households and housing conditions of the population refer to the reference date 1 February 2011. The main data source was the census questionnaire, using two data collection methods: • on-line interview (CAWI) - 1 to 9 February 2011 - self-interview through on-line questionnaire; • paper interview (PAPI) - 10 to 28 February 2011 - personal interview with interviewer. The main task in preparing the census tools was to ensure the comparability with the previous censuses’ results and data comparability at the international level. In addition, the developed census tools were tested by a pilot census conducted in September 2010 and was consulted and coordinated with various government administrations, organizations, data users and others. The results of the two methods did not show any significant deviations from the definitions, units and classifications used. The data collected on all the topics are comparable at regional and European levels, meeting the necessary quality requirements set out in Commission Regulation No. 1151/2010 on the conditions and structure of quality reports and the technical formats for data transmissions. Following the 2011 Census Law (LPHCRB) provisions, information from the following administrative registers was used to check the census coverage and applications of usual residence definition: • Register of Insured Persons; • Register of pensioners; • Register of unemployed persons insured; • Register of children and students in pre-school and school education; • Register of all active students and students who interrupted their study, PhD students; • Information System Demography. 16 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria I. Data sources Units of observation During the census, information is collected on basic characteristics of the following units: • Persons - subject to observation are all persons whose usual residence at the critical moment of the census is in the territory of the country; • Households - all private and institutional households; • Dwellings - the object of observation are dwellings in residential buildings, no matter if there are households or persons living there; Dwellings in non- residential buildings in which one or more households live permanently at the time of census; Dwellings in primitive and mobile buildings; Dwellings in students/ workers dormitories; Collective dwellings; • Buildings - subject to observation are only residential buildings in which households and persons are usually living or nobody is living there, but are fit for living, incl. newly built buildings. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 17 I. Data sources Figure 2. Households, persons in households and average number of members per household by census years Number Average number of persons within household 10000000 6 9000000 5 8000000 7000000 4 6000000 5000000 3 4000000 2 3000000 2000000 1 1000000 0 0 1900 1905 1910 1920 1926 1934 1946 1956 1965 1975 1985 1992 2001 2011 Households Persons within households Average number of persons within household 18 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria II. Project poverty mapping II. Project poverty mapping The production of poverty maps, based on small area estimates, relies on two data sources. A data set referred to as the source data, which serves as the data set used for the modelling stage. Ideally this data source is the main source used for welfare statistics in the country. The second source is referred to as the target data set. This is usually the country’s national census. Small area estimates rely on the assumption that both data sources cover one and the same target population and time period. In the case of Bulgaria, the source for official statistics on income distribution, poverty and social exclusion is the Survey of Income and Living Conditions (SILC). Consequently, the Bulgarian SILC for 2012 is used. Incomes reported in the 2012 SILC correspond to the 2011 income year, and thus is an ideal data set for the analysis. The target data set used is the Population and housing census in the Republic of Bulgaria 2011. II.1. Main stages Poverty mapping goes through several stages: At the first stage, a comparison between the observable household characteristics (variables) from the SILC and the census is done. The purpose of the comparison is to ensure that variables have similar distributions, and that these have similar definitions across data sources. Because the exercise consists in simulating welfare in the census data using parameters obtained from SILC observed characteristics, it is imperative that the observed characteristics across data sources are comparable. The selection of candidate variables is done in a two- stage process: • Comparison of questionnaires between the SILC and the Census, as the candidate variables must come from similar questions. The comparison yields a first set of candidate variables for the estimation. • Comparison of the distribution of the candidate variables across datasets. Next to the comparison of both surveys questionnaires, the common questions were identified connected to the population demographic characteristics, economic activities, dwelling conditions and parts of material situations of the household. As both surveys are conducted based on European regulations, there is a correspondence between the definitions and variables used. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 19 II. Project poverty mapping Comparisons done between distributions of variables in SILC 2012 and the Census show some discrepancies. The most considerable was the discrepancy in the distribution of households according to the number of their members. Tables 1 and 2 show the household structure from both surveys by years. Table 1. Households’ structure by number of members according to the censuses (Per cent) HH by number of members 1946 1956 1965 1975 1985 1992 2001 2011 One member 10.4 17.7 17.0 16.8 18.2 19.7 22.7 30.8 Two members 13.6 15.9 20.7 23.3 26.7 28.0 28.4 28.4 Three members 19.2 20.6 21.6 21.0 20.3 20.4 21.6 20.2 Four members 21.9 21.2 21.1 21.1 21.5 20.4 18.0 13.4 Five members or more 34.9 24.7 19.6 17.8 13.3 11.5 9.3 7.2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 2. Households’ structure by number of members according to SILC (Per cent) HH by number of members 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 One member 18.4 19.1 19.5 19.9 21.5 22.8 24.3 28.8 Two members 27.2 27.4 27.8 26.7 28.7 28.8 28.9 28.5 Three members 23.0 21.7 20.3 20.4 20.4 21.7 21.3 20.5 Four members 17.1 18.6 19.3 19.2 18.3 17.3 16.8 15.1 Five members or more 14.3 13.2 13.2 13.8 11.1 9.4 8.7 7.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 The discrepancy in the share of households between both data sources is in large part due to the fact that the SILC 2012 sampling frame is based on two Censuses. Three rotational groups or 2/3 of the SILC 2012 were drawn from the 2001 Census’s sample frame, and only one rotational group was drawn from the 2011 Census’s sample frame. Furthermore, the weighing procedure applied to the SILC is integrative calibration, where the total number of households in the country is not taken into consideration. Another aspect of the Bulgarian SILC is that many institutional dwellings, particularly student dormitories have not been included into the sample. 20 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria II. Project poverty mapping To overcome the discrepancies in the distribution of common variables between both surveys the following is done: First, the following are removed from the Census dataset: • all institutional houses; • persons counted in student dormitories; • persons added from administrative sources (due to lack of part of information on dwelling conditions and some households’ characteristics). Second, the data on households from both data sources is linked based on person’s PINs (Personal Identification Number). The last is done to use the Census data on households with same composition into the modeling of income process. Roughly two thirds of the SILC households were matched to their Census responses. The sample was not entirely matched due to discrepancies in household compositions, results of the different time frames of the fieldwork for each data source. Although the two surveys relate to the same year, the Census was conducted in February 2011, while SILC in March - May 2012. Any difference of this type would, in any case, lead to a partial change in some of the household characteristics, including their compositions. Additionally, SILC weights are re-calibrated to consider the total number and compositions of households in the country. As a result, the poverty line is changed from 3 356 BGN to 3 236 BGN per year. Table 3 presents the results achieved. Table 3. Comparison of data produced by PM Project and official SILC 2012 SILC (linked) SILC Statistical regions Poverty line Relative share Poverty line Relative share (BGN) (%) (BGN) (%) Total 3236 22.7 3356 21.2 Severozapaden 3236 29.9 2744 20.1 Severen tsentralen 3236 24.4 3066 20.2 Severoiztochen 3236 25.0 3279 22.5 Yugoiztochen 3236 28.9 3179 22.0 Yugozapaden 3236 11.6 4052 18.0 Yuzhen tsentralen 3236 27.3 3148 23.4 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 21 II. Project poverty mapping Share of poor differs, to a certain extent, between the official SILC data and SILC (linked). The published official results of the SILC 2012 examine the different statistical regions, independently of each other. When calculating the poverty lines for each region, the same method is applied as for the poverty line at the national level, a.k.a. 60% of the average total disposable (net) household income in the area concerned. Every household in the region with incomes below the poverty line for the region concerned is considered poor. In Poverty Mapping, the relative share of the poor in different regions is determined by the national poverty line for the whole country and not by the regional poverty lines. This is clearly seen in Table 3, where the relative share of the poor in the Severozapaden region is 20.1% at the regional poverty line of 2 744 BGN and 29.9% at the use of the country poverty line of 3 236 BGN. Table 4 presents the comparisons between the different variables from the different sources after procedures of linking and weighing data. 22 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria II. Project poverty mapping Table 4. Weighted averages of the candidate variables   Census SILC SILC (linked) Share of adults unemployed 0.46 0.49 0.49 Share of members who are children 0.13 0.14 0.14 Share of members who are adults 0.68 0.73 0.70 Share of members who are elderly 0.19 0.13 0.17 Number of males 1.63 1.69 1.69 Primary education share 0.08 0.07 0.08 HH size 1 0.10 0.12 0.12 Household size 3.30 3.37 3.36 HH head is male 0.78 0.73 0.74 Number of married members 1.48 1.51 1.48 Number of members employed as managers 0.11 0.07 0.08 Number of retired members in HH 0.64 0.54 0.55 HH owns washing machine 0.81 0.84 0.83 Number of widows in the HH 0.23 0.25 0.24 Lower secondary education share 0.24 0.23 0.24 Upper secondary education share 0.22 0.19 0.19 Tertiary education share 0.46 0.50 0.49 Head's main income is labor 0.51 0.43 0.49 Head's main source of income is retirement 0.34 0.40 0.36 HH member employed in manuf., prof., or technical 0.27 0.27 0.26 Number of rooms in dwelling 3.10 3.12 3.12 Dwelling has central heating 0.23 0.20 0.21 Dwelling has a toilet 0.73 0.77 0.75 HH owns a phone 0.91 0.93 0.93 HH owns car 0.54 0.58 0.56 HH owns computer 0.55 0.58 0.56 SILC data quoted in the following publication chapters concern SILC (linked). Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 23 II. Project poverty mapping II.2. Modeling Small area estimates of welfare are based on a model using regression analysis, which models the relationship between the household income and its characteristics. The data on which the regression equation parameters are estimated usually comes from representative sample surveys (in this case SILC 2012), which do not allow poverty estimates to be obtained at low regional levels (municipalities, settlements, etc.). Therefore, a two-stage1 approach is used to overcome this disadvantage. At the first stage, data from sample survey (SILC 2012) is used to estimate the parameters of a regression equation, with dependent variable being income and factors being different household characteristics, via ordinary least squares (OLS). A logarithmic model of an adult equalized income is conducted using the generalized least squares estimates (GLS). The transformation to logarithmic income is done because the income is not symmetrically distributed, and the use of a logarithm of income leads to a more symmetric data distribution. The household income model is: where is the adult equivalized income of household h in locality c, - are the household and locality characteristics, and is the residual. In the specified model the outcomes of households within a same municipality are usually not independent from one another and the following specification is used to account for this: where and are assumed to have mean zero and to be independent from each other. At the second stage, data from the exhaustive survey (Census 2011) are used, but only for the indicators that formed the set of factors in the regression equation of the first stage. The requirement is that these indicators have methodological comparability at the two data sources - SILC and Census 2011. The aim is, based on the received at the first stage estimates of the parameters of the regression equation, to obtain an estimate of the dependent variable for each of the households from the exhaustive study. Subsequently, the estimates thus obtained are aggregated to the required regional or other level, and estimates of poverty and inequality are obtained. 1 Model proposed by Chris Elbers, Jean Lanjouw and peter Lanjouw (ELL). 24 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria II. Project poverty mapping Since the income of households that are territorially close (in a settlement, municipality, etc.) are not independent, it is necessary to use simulations to obtain multiple estimates of the income of a household that are subsequently averaged and this represents the final assessment. The simulations use as input parameters the estimates of the parameters of the regression equation of the first stage, as well as their standard errors. The value of the logarithmic equivalised adult income for each household is simulated by the use of and the parameters of the first stage, where each simulation r is equal to: After the initial testing/simulation of the model was decided, the modelling of SAE for Yugozapaden region (NUTS2:BG41) is done separately from the rest of the country. The reason for this division is the significant difference in economic and social development between the mentioned region and the rest of the country. Yugozapaden region includes Sofia (stolitsa) and is the richest region in the country. Household income in this region is significantly different from household income in the rest of the country. This difference may lead to significant deviations in the modelling results, and that is the reason to include various variables related to well- being into the model for the separate country regions. The modelling results for the two sub-sets are presented in Tables 5 and 6. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 25 II. Project poverty mapping Table 5. Welfare Model for Yugozapaden region (BG41) OLS GLS Variables related to well-being Regression Regression Standard error Standard error coefficients coefficients Share of adults unemployed (15 - 64 years) -0.765*** 0.11 -0.788*** 0.096 Share of children -0.681*** 0.125 -0.747*** 0.11 Lower secondary education share -0.264*** 0.058 -0.255*** 0.052 Primary education share -0.451*** 0.115 -0.452*** 0.098 Heating Central 0.115*** 0.039 0.108*** 0.037 HH size 1 -0.497*** 0.046 -0.504*** 0.043 HH size 2 -0.131*** 0.041 -0.133*** 0.037 Settlement share of households with working individuals 0.726*** 0.154 0.732*** 0.137 HH member employed in manuf., prof., or technical 0.329*** 0.042 0.307*** 0.037 Number of retirees -0.089*** 0.026 -0.076*** 0.023 Rooms 1 -0.113* 0.066 -0.106* 0.058 Rooms 2 -0.077*** 0.039 -0.083*** 0.036 Municipal average salary 0.000*** 0.000 0.000*** 0.000 Household has a student -0.249*** 0.052 -0.252*** 0.046 Constant 8.261*** 0.105 8.229*** 0.098 Adjusted R2 0.439 Eta Ration 0.027 Observations 1585 * Significant at 0.90 percent level. ** Significant at 0.95 percent level. *** Significant at 0.99 percent level. Households having inconsistent labour information are excluded. The Yugozapaden region model (Table 5) includes mainly variables related to the employment and education of household members, as they have a direct impact on the equivalent income. Another important correlate included in the model is the average wage at the municipal level. 26 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria II. Project poverty mapping The model for the rest of the country, presented in Table 6, includes significantly more variables on the housing and households characteristics. A larger number of territorial variables are also used to better address the income disparities at the municipal level. In addition to the number of correlates included in the model for the rest of the country, another significant difference is that for the Yugozapaden region the characteristics of the household head are not related significantly to the income. Reasons may be both higher economic development, providing more opportunities, as well as the chance households to have more than one income-earning member. Table 6. Welfare Model for Bulgaria without Yugozapaden region (BG41) OLS GLS Variables related to well-being Regression Standard Regression Standard coefficients error coefficients error Share of adults unemployed*** 0.377*** 0.045 0.407*** 0.044 Share of members (0 - 4 years)*** -0.374*** 0.144 -0.431*** 0.131 Share of members (5 - 14 years)*** -0.421*** 0.087 -0.495*** 0.080 Household owns car*** 0.104*** 0.024 0.103*** 0.022 Household owns computer*** 0.097*** 0.026 0.091*** 0.023 Lower secondary education share*** 0.130*** 0.041 0.130*** 0.039 Upper secondary education share*** 0.448*** 0.052 0.448*** 0.049 Tertiary education share*** 0.252*** 0.043 0.239*** 0.042 Number of females*** -0.076*** 0.016 -0.066*** 0.015 Head's main income is labour*** 0.176*** 0.034 0.158*** 0.035 Head's main source of income is retirement*** 0.173*** 0.039 0.156*** 0.038 Heating central** 0.069** 0.030 0.057** 0.026 Household size 1*** -0.141*** 0.030 -0.135*** 0.029 Household head is male** 0.088*** 0.028 0.093*** 0.026 Share of households with retirees (Lau2)*** 0.327*** 0.112 0.436*** 0.111 Share of households with students (Lau2)*** 0.655* 0.339 0.921*** 0.356 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 27 II. Project poverty mapping (Continued and end) OLS GLS Variables related to well-being Regression Standard Regression Standard coefficients error coefficients error Household member employed in manuf., prof., or technical*** 0.135*** 0.034 0.128*** 0.028 Number of married members*** 0.044*** 0.014 0.055*** 0.013 Average share of members with tertiary education (Nuts3)*** -1.512*** 0.346 -1.356*** 0.423 Number of members employed as managers*** 0.126*** 0.043 0.123*** 0.035 Household owns a phone*** 0.153*** 0.034 0.113*** 0.033 Household has a retired member*** 0.102*** 0.035 0.101*** 0.033 Dwelling has 1 room*** -0.115*** 0.043 -0.110*** 0.042 Municipal average salary*** 0.000*** 0.000 0.000*** 0.000 Dwelling has a toilet*** 0.109*** 0.026 0.089*** 0.024 Household has an unemployed member*** -0.126*** 0.031 -0.115*** 0.033 Household owns washing machine*** 0.098*** 0.026 0.071*** 0.025 Number of widows in the household 0.087*** 0.027 0.088*** 0.025 Share of workers in the South*** 0.127*** 0.035 0.112*** 0.036 Constant*** 7.169*** 0.121 7.151*** 0.128 Adjusted R2 0.45 Eta Ratio 0.0284 Observations 4061 * Significant at 0.90 percent level. ** Significant at 0.95 percent level. *** Significant at 0.99 percent level. Households having inconsistent labour information are excluded.. All variables show expected relationships and dependencies with the equivalent income. Among the most pronounced are education, labour force characteristics including unemployment rate, average wage, employment by type of activity, and possession of durables. 28 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results III. Poverty mapping results Estimations of all model parameters allow simulation of income on the census data. Values of the distributions of each parameter are derived randomly. Using these values on the census data, 1001 simulated disposable incomes for each household in the country are obtained. Based on thus obtained simulated incomes, it is possible to produce poverty estimates for each separate territory (region, district, municipality). The calculated relative share of the poor for each territory is the average value of all 100 simulated relative shares, while the standard error is the standard deviation from the respective values. The poverty mapping results are based on SILC direct estimates (linked for the project purposes) and the poverty line of BGN 3 236 is used to measure the share of the poor. Table 7 shows the direct and SAE estimates at the NUTS2 and at the national level. Validations of the quality of poverty estimates is carried out at the NUTS2 level, which is considered to be sufficiently accurate. Table 7. Poverty Rates from SILC (linked) and SAE (Per cent) Direct estimates Small Area Estimates Statistical regions Estimate 95% CI Estimate 95% CI Severozapaden 29.9 25.1 34.7 31.8 29.2 34.4 Severen tsentralen 24.4 19.7 29.0 26.8 24.4 29.3 Severoiztochen 25.0 20.9 29.1 25.9 23.2 28.6 Yugoiztochen 28.9 20.5 37.3 26.8 24.3 29.3 Yugozapaden 11.6 9.3 14.0 12.7 11.0 14.4 Yuzhen tsentralen 27.3 21.9 32.7 26.0 24.1 28.0 Bulgaria 22.7 20.6 24.7 23.1 21.9 24.3 1 The goal is to obtain a sufficient number of simulations so that reliable estimates of poverty to be produced. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 29 III. Poverty mapping results The estimate at the national level differs by approximately 0.4 percentage points, or generally there is a very good match between the SAE and direct estimates. Figure 3 illustrates the direct poverty estimates at the NUTS2 level in the cartographic form. Figure 3. Direct (based on SILC (linked) poverty estimates at NUTS2 level Severen tsentralen Severozapaden Severoiztochen Yugoiztochen Yugozapaden Yuzhen tsentralen (%) 11.6 24.4 25.0 27.3 28.9 29.9 30 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results Table 8 presents estimates of poverty by districts. At this territorial level appears the discrepancies in distributions of the poor compared to the statistical regions. Table 8. NUTS3 level Poverty Estimates SILC direct estimates Small Area Estimates Population NUTS2 AROP, 95% CI, NUTS3 AROP, 95% CI, in numbers per cent per cent per cent per cent Vidin 97160 34.1 28.0 40.1 Vratsa 180112 31.1 27.3 34.9 Severozapaden 29.9 25.1 34.7 Lovech 136891 34.2 30.1 38.4 Montana 142991 31.6 25.9 37.3 Pleven 260521 30.2 26.0 34.3 Veliko Tarnovo 241370 29.4 25.8 33.0 Gabrovo 118068 24.7 19.0 30.4 Severen 24.4 19.7 29.0 Razgrad 120971 31.5 26.0 37.0 tsentralen Ruse 227542 23.2 17.6 28.7 Silistra 115808 26.0 20.7 31.3 Varna 454631 21.0 18.1 23.9 Dobrich 182829 27.6 22.6 32.5 Severoiztochen 25.0 20.9 29.1 Targovishte 116711 36.1 29.4 42.7 Shumen 173237 30.3 25.7 34.8 Burgas 398950 23.9 20.1 27.8 Sliven 189920 38.7 32.4 45.0 Yugoiztochen 28.9 20.5 37.3 Stara Zagora 319466 22.9 19.1 26.7 Yambol 126945 27.9 23.4 32.4 Blagoevgrad 311149 21.5 16.9 26.2 Kyustendil 132082 23.2 18.0 28.3 Yugozapaden 11.6 9.3 14.0 Pernik 129037 21.9 16.0 27.9 Sofia (stolitsa) 1185651 6.6 4.6 8.6 Sofia 240477 20.4 16.7 24.1 Kardzhali 147045 30.0 24.7 35.4 Pazardzhik 265764 33.1 28.2 37.9 Yuzhen 27.3 21.9 32.7 Plovdiv 654497 22.1 20.1 24.1 tsentralen Smolyan 118357 27.7 22.7 32.8 Haskovo 237871 25.8 22.0 29.5 AROP - relative share of poor from the total population. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 31 III. Poverty mapping results Data in the table show that there are districts with high relative share of poor in regions with relatively low ones, and vice versa - for example, in district Pazardzhik the relative share of poor is 33.1%, while the region it is located (Yuzhen tsentralen) is not so poor. The districts in Severozapaden region where the relative share of poor is the highest do not have the highest shares of poor. The two districts with the highest relative share of poor, Targovishte and Sliven, are respectively in Severen tsentralen and Yugoiztochen region. Map of poverty by districts is presented in Figure 4. Figure 4. SAE of Poverty (NUTS3 level) Silistra Vidin Ruse Razgrad Dobrich Montana Pleven Vratsa Shumen Targovishte Veliko Tarnovo Varna Lovech Gabrovo Sofia Sofia Pernik (stolitsa) Sliven Burgas Stara Zagora Kyustendil Plovdiv Yambol (%) Pazardzhik 6.6 - 10.0 Haskovo 10.1 - 22.0 Blagoevgrad 22.1 - 25.0 Smolyan 25.1 - 28.0 Kardzhali 28.1 - 31.0 31.1 - 35.0 35.1 - 40.0 32 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results At the municipal level, the heterogeneity of poverty is better pronounced. Figure 5 presents the relative share of poor by municipalities. Similar results to those from the NUTS2 level data are also seen here. There are municipalities that are among the less poor located in the poorest country region of the country (Severozapaden), while municipalities which are among the poorest are located in the Yugozapaden region, where the relative share of poor is lowest. Figure 5. SAE of Poverty (LAU1) (%) 2.9 - 10.0 10.1 - 20.0 20.1 - 25.0 25.1 - 35.0 35.1 - 40.0 40.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 63.7 Poverty mapping results show that in northern Bulgaria, concentration of municipalities with high relative share of poor is higher. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 33 III. Poverty mapping results Table 9. Distribution of municipalities by relative share of poor (SAE data) Municipalities Share of population Cumulative share of Share of poor in number1 population Up to 15% 39 26.4 26.4 15 - 25% 57 32.3 58.7 25 - 35% 90 23.0 81.7 35 - 45% 75 14.2 95.8 over 45% 36 4.2 100.0 Total 297 100.0 1 There are 264 municipalities in Bulgaria at 31.12.2010. 297 is the number of municipalities with the districts of big cities - Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna. The villages in the municipality of Varna (Zvezditsa, Kazaschko, Kamenar, Konstantinovo and Topoli) are reviewed as separate territorial unit. III.1. Poverty by statistical regions According to the territory and administratively Bulgaria is divided into six statistical regions, 28 districts and 264 municipalities. To obtain a detailed and complete picture of the poverty dimensions, the project results are presented for each of the statistical regions, along with the districts and municipalities included within its borders. Two main aspects of the phenomenon are examined: the relative share of poor or the ratio of persons living below the poverty line to the population of the respective territorial unit and the absolute number of poor. Severozapaden region Severozapaden region includes districts of Vidin, Vratsa, Lovech, Montana and Pleven. At the end of 2011 its area is 19 070.3 sq. km and the population is 837 thousand. This is the least populated region in the country (43.9 people per sq. km). There are 529 000 people living in the urban areas, or 63.2% of the total population, and the share of rural population is the highest in the country (37%). The highest in the number of population is district Pleven (267 thousand) and lowest is district Vidin (99 thousand). In 2011, Severozapaden region is at the last place in the country according to the GDP ranking, with BGN 5 824 million, and has the highest share of poor (source SILC 2012 (linked) with 29.9% of the population in the region. Poverty mapping results show that the highest in the share of poor is district 34 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results Lovech with 34.2%, followed by district Vidin with 34.1%. The last two districts are among the poorest five districts in the country. The relative share of the poor in district Pleven is 30.2%. In all districts within the region the relative share of poor is higher than the country average. In absolute figures, district Pleven has the highest number of poor with almost 80 thousand, district Vidin has the lowest with nearly 33 thousand. Figure 6. Severozapaden region (BG31) Share of poor by districts Number of poor by districts Vidin Vidin Montana Montana Pleven Pleven Vratsa Vratsa (%) 30.2 (Number in thousands) Lovech Lovech 31.1 33.1 31.6 45.1 34.1 46.8 34.2 55.9 78.6 There are 51 municipalities in Severozapaden region, and 18 of them, or 35% are among the poorest 50 municipalities in the country. Moreover, in three of these municipalities the share of poor is more than half of the population of the respective municipality. These are Ruzhintsi and Dimovo (district Vidin) and municipality Ugarchin (district Lovech). However, there are municipalities in the region with a significantly lower share of poor compared to the others. These are municipality of Chiprovtsi and Montana (district Montana), Vratsa, Mezdra and Kozloduy (district Vratsa), Lovech, Apriltsi and Troyan (district Lovech), Pleven and Belene (district Pleven) and municipality of Vidin. Three of them (Kozloduy, Montana and Belene) are among the fifties municipalities with the lowest share of poor in the country. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 35 III. Poverty mapping results Severen tsentralen region Severen tsentralen region includes the districts of Veliko Tarnovo, Gabrovo, Razgrad, Ruse and Silistra. At the end of 2011 its area is 14 974.0 sq. km and the population is 853 thousand people. This is the third least populated region in the country after Severozapaden and Yugoiztochen, with a population density of 57.0 people per sq. There are 569 thousand people living in urban areas or 66.6% of the population. Population is the highest in the district Veliko Tarnovo (256 thousand), and the smallest in the district of Silistra (118 thousand). In 2011, the GDP of Severen tsentralen region is BGN 6 360 million, and the share of the poor (source SILC 2012 (linked) is 24.4% of the region’s population. According to the project results, the district with the highest relative share of population living below the poverty line is Razgrad (31.5%) and with the lowest - Ruse (23.2%). As a whole, the share of poor in all district of the region is higher than the country average. The absolute number of poor is highest in district Veliko Tarnovo, over 70 thousand people. The district with the lowest number of poor is Gabrovo. Figure 7. Severen tsentralen region (BG32) Share of poor by districts Number of poor by districts Silistra Silistra Ruse Razgrad Ruse Razgrad Veliko Tarnovo (%) Veliko Tarnovo (Number in thousands) 23.2 29.1 Gabrovo 24.7 Gabrovo 30.1 26.0 38.1 29.4 52.7 31.5 70.9 Severen tsentralen region includes 36 municipalities and in eight of them the relative share of poor is higher than 40%. These are the municipalities: Borovo (district Ruse), Kaynardzha (district Silistra) and six of the ten municipalities of district Veliko Tarnovo - Pavlikeni, Elena, Polski Trambesh, Suhindol, Strazhitsa and Zlataritsa. 36 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results In four municipalities the relative share of poor is lower than the country average. These are the municipalities of Razgrad, Veliko Tarnovo, Ruse and Silistra. These municipalities are among the fifty municipalities in the country with the lowest relative share of the population at risk of poverty. Severoiztochen region Severoiztochen region includes the districts of Varna, Dobrich, Targovishte and Shumen. At the end of 2011 its area is 14 487.4 sq. km and the population is 962 thousand people. This is the region with the smallest area and the population density is 66.4 persons per sq. km. In urban areas live 704 thousand persons or 73.2% of the region’s population. Population is the largest in district Varna (474 thousand), and the smallest in district of Targovishte (120 thousand). In 2011 the GDP of the Severoiztochen region is BGN 8 615 million, and the relative share of poor (source SILC 2012 (linked) is 25.0% of the population. According to the project results, the highest is the relative share of poor in district of Targovishte (36.1%), which puts the district at the second place in the country after district of Sliven. In district Varna, the relative share of the poor (21.0%) is the lowest in the region and is at the same time one of the lowest for the country. On the other hand, taking into account the number of the poor, around 40% of all the poor in the region are concentrated in district Varna, with over 95 thousand persons. The lowest is this figure in district Targovishte with 42 thousand. Figure. 8. Severoiztochen region (BG33) Share of poor by districts Number of poor by districts Dobrich Dobrich Shumen Shumen Targovishte Targovishte Varna Varna (%) (Number in thousands) 21.0 42.1 27.6 50.3 30.3 52.4 36.1 95.3 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 37 III. Poverty mapping results Severoiztochen region includes 35 municipalities, 10 of which are among the 50 municipalities in the country with the highest relative share of poor. In seven of them the relative share of poor is over 45% of the respective population. These are municipalities of Varbitsa, Venets, Nikola Kozlevo (district Shumen), Antonovo (district Targovishte), Krushari (district Dobrich), Dolni Chiflik and Dalgopol (district Varna). In five municipalities the relative share of poor is lower than the country average: Varna, Beloslav, Devnya (district Varna), Dobrich (district Dobrich) and Shumen (district Shumen). With regard to the absolute number, the number of people living below the poverty line is the highest in the municipalities of Varna, Shumen, Targovishte, Popovo (district Targovishte) and Dobrich. In these municipalities the number of poor exceeds 10 thousand and in the municipality of Varna there are almost 50 thousand. Yugoiztochen region Yugoiztochen region includes the districts of Burgas, Sliven, Stara Zagora and Yambol. At the end of 2011 its area is 19 798.7 sq. km and the population - 1 073 thousand. This is the second least populated region after Severozapaden, with a population density of 54.2 people per sq. km. There are 768 thousand people living in urban areas or 71.6% of the region‘s population. The number of population is the highest in district Burgas (415 thousand) and the smallest in district Yambol (130 thousand). In 2011, the GDP of Yugoiztochen region is BGN 9 514 million, while the relative share of poor is 28.9% of the population of the region. The district with the highest relative share of poor in the country is situated in the region. This is district Sliven, where 38.6% of the population live below the poverty line. The district with the lowest relative share of poor is district Stara Zagora with 22.9%. The number of the poor is the highest in district Burgas with 95 thousand and the lowest in district Yambol with 35 thousand. In the districts of Sliven and Stara Zagora the number of poor is about 73 000 for each of them. 38 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results Figure 9. Yugoiztochen region (BG34) Share of poor by districts Number of poor by districts Sliven Sliven Burgas Burgas Stara Zagora Stara Zagora Yambol Yambol (%) (Number in thousands) 22.9 35.4 23.9 73.1 27.9 73.3 38.7 95.4 Yugoiztochen region is the region with the smallest number of municipalities, only 33. In eleven of them the poor population exceeds 40% of the population of the respective municipality. The outstanding are five municipalities, in which the poor population is more than 45% of the population, including Kotel, Tvarditsa (district Sliven) and Nikolaevo, Maglizh and Bratya Daskalovi (district Stara Zagora). At the same time, five other municipalities rank among the 50 municipalities with the lowest relative share of poor population, including Stara Zagora, Kazanlak, Galabovo, Radnevo (district Stara Zagora) and Burgas. The absolute number of poor is the highest in municipality of Sliven with 40 thousand people. Yugozapaden region Yugozapaden region includes the districts of Blagoevgrad, Kyustendil, Pernik, Sofia and Sofia (stolitsa). At the end of 2011 its area is 20 306.4 sq. km and the population is 2 131 thousand. It is the most densely populated region in the country (105.0 persons per sq. km). There are 1 773 thousand persons living in urban areas, or 83.2% of the population, and the relative share of rural population is the lowest in the country (16.8%). The number of population is the highest in district Sofia (stolitsa) with 1 297 thousand, and the lowest in district Pernik (132 thousand). In 2011, Yugozapaden region ranks the first in GDP with BGN 39 094 million, and the last in the relative share of poor with 11.6% of the population. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 39 III. Poverty mapping results The relative share of the poor in Sofia (stolitsa) is 6.6% and is the lowest in the country. District with the highest relative share of poor is district Kyustendil with 23.2%. In general, the relative share of people living below the poverty line in districts of this region is lower than the country average. Sofia (stolitsa) is the only district with a population of over 1 million, which is the main reason why the absolute number of poor population (about 78 thousand people) is among the highest in the country. The next is district Blagoevgrad with almost 70 thousand poor, and the lowest is the number of poor in district Kyustendil with 28 thousand. Figure 10. Yugozapaden region (BG41) Share of poor by districts Number of poor by districts Sofia Sofia (stolitsa) Sofia (stolitsa) Sofia Pernik Pernik Kyustendil Kyustendil (%) (Number in thousands) 6.6 28.3 20.4 30.5 21.5 Blagoevgrad 49.1 Blagoevgrad 21.9 67.0 23.2 78.3 40 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results Yugozapaden region comprises of 52 municipalities, with almost half of them (25) among the 50 municipalities with the lowest relative share of poor. Municipalities with less than 15% relative shares of the poor are Mirkovo, Elin Pelin, Bozhurishte, Kostinbrod, Pirdop, Chelopech (district Sofia) and Stolichna municipality. Nevertheless, four municipalities, Strumyani (district Blagoevgrad), Tran, Kovachevtsi (district Pernik) and Nevestino (district Kyustendil) have relative shares of poor above 45 per cent. High concentration of the number of poor is observed in the municipalities of Samokov (district Sofia), Blagoevgrad, Petrich (district Blagoevgrad), Kyustendil, Pernik and Stolichna municipality, where the number of poor exceeds 10 thousand persons. Municipality with the highest absolute number of poor is Stolichna. Yuzhen tsentralen region Yuzhen tsentralen region includes the districts of Kardzhali, Pazardzhik, Plovdiv, Smolyan and Haskovo. At the end of 2011 its area is 22 365.1 sq. km and the population - 1 471 thousand people. The region is the largest according to the area and the second according to the population number after the Yugozapaden region, with a population density of 65.8 people per sq. km. There are 982 000 people living in urban areas or 66.7% of the region’s population. The number of population is the highest in district Plovdiv (681 thousand) and the smallest in district Smolyan (120 thousand). In 2011 the GDP of Yuzhen tsentralen region is BGN 11 351 million and the relative share of poor is the highest in the country with 27.3% of the region’s population. According to the project data, the relative share of poor in district Pazardzhik is 33.1%, followed by Kardzhali with 30%, Smolyan with 27.7% and Haskovo with 25.7%. Pazardzhik is among the top five districts in the country with the highest relative share of poor. District with the lowest share is district Plovdiv with 22.1%. Regarding the absolute number of people living below the poverty line, district Plovdiv ranks the first in the region with more than 140 thousand people, followed by district Pazardzhik with almost 90 thousand poor. The number of poor is at its lowest in district Smolyan with 32 thousand. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 41 III. Poverty mapping results Figure 11. Yuzhen tsentralen region (BG42) Share of poor by districts Number of poor by districts Plovdiv Plovdiv Pazardzhik Pazardzhik Haskovo Haskovo (Number in (%) Smolyan thousands) Smolyan 22.1 Kardzhali 32.8 Kardzhali 25.8 44.1 27.7 61.2 30.0 87.9 33.1 144.5 Yuzhen tsentralen region is the region with the highest number of municipalities in the country with 57. Six of them, Nedelino (district Smolyan), Sadovo (district Plovdiv), Dzhebel (district Kardzhali), Simeonovgrad (district Haskovo), Lesichovo and Rakitovo (district Pazardzhik) are with relative shares of poor more than 40 per cent of their population. In the municipalities of Plovdiv, Laki, Rodopi, Sopot (district Plovdiv), Panagyurishte (district Pazardzhik) and Chepelare (district Smolyan), shares of poor are under 20%. The Poverty Map gives a broad overview of the poverty regional dimensions. Data at statistical regions and districts levels does not always show the real picture at lower territorial levels or does not allow allocating people at risk of poverty at specific territorial levels or units. Thus, municipalities with high relative shares of poor, located in districts (regions) with low relative shares of poor, may seem unproblematic. Typical examples are the municipalities of Tran, Zemen, Kovachevtsi (district Pernik with 22%), Nevestino (district Kyustendil with 23%), Strumyani (district Blagoevgrad with 22%), Bratya Daskalovi (district Stara Zagora with 23%), Dolni Chiflik, Dalgopol (district Varna with 21%), Ruen and Sungurlare (district Burgas with 24%), where the relative shares of poor are over 40%, while in the respective districts they are below the country average. On the other hand, vice versa, municipalities with low relative shares of poor situated in districts with high relative shares of poor may seem to be affected by poverty 42 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results or needing social assistance. Examples are the municipalities of Montana (district Montana - 32%), Kozloduy (district Vratsa - 31%), Vidin (district Vidin - 34%), Veliko Tarnovo (district Veliko Tarnovo - 29%), Razgrad (district Razgrad - 32%) and Troyan (district Lovech - 34%), where the relative share of poor is lower than the district average by at least 5 percentage points. The relative share of poor is a function of the absolute number of people living below the poverty line and the total population number. Therefore, 18.5% of all people at risk of poverty in the country are concentrated in the municipalities with centers being the seven cities with population more than 100 thousand (Sofia, Plovdiv, Varna, Burgas, Ruse, Stara Zagora and Pleven), where 36% of the population lives. In the districts whose centers are these cities, there concentrated 38% of all the poor in the country. III.2. Poverty in Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna The three largest cities in Bulgaria, Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna, are divided into separate administrative districts, Sofia into 24, Plovdiv into 6 and Varna into 5 districts. At the start of the Poverty mapping project, it was decided to consider these areas as separate territorial units. This led to a conditional increase of the number of municipalities from 264 to 297. This division does not have a direct effect on the results of the other municipalities but allows simulating data not only for the cities/municipalities Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna, but also for their regions. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 43 III. Poverty mapping results Sofia The relative share of poor in Stolichna municipality is 6.6%. Project outcomes by individual administrative districts further details the picture of poverty. Poverty in most of the administrative districts of Stolichna municipality differs by about 2% of the municipality average, or this condition is met in 20 of the administrative districts. In the remaining 4 districts, the relative shares of poor vary between 10% and 16%. The relative share of poor is at its highest in district Studentski, and its lowest in district Ovcha kupel. Figure 12. Share of poor by districts of Sofia 21 22 20 01 - Sredets 13 02 - Krasno selo 03 - Vazrazhdane 05 04 - Oborishte 19 06 05 - Serdika 12 04 06 - Poduyane 03 07 11 01 07 - Slatina 24 14 08 - Izgrev 02 08 09 - Lozenets 18 10 09 10 - Triaditsa 16 15 11 - Krasna polyana 12 - Ilinden 13 - Nadezhda 14 - Iskar 17 (%) 15 - Mladost 23 16 - Studentski 4.3 - 4.7 17 - Vitosha 4.8 - 5.3 18 - Ovcha kupel 5.4 - 6.3 19 - Lyulin 20 - Vrabnitsa 6.4 - 7.1 21 - Novi Iskar 7.2 - 10.2 22 - Kremikovtsi 23 - Pancharevo 10.3 - 13.0 24 - Bankya 13.1 - 16.0 44 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results Plovdiv The relative share of poor in municipality of Plovdiv is 17.9%. Highest is it in district Iztochen, where 40% of the population lives below the poverty line, followed by Severen - 18.2%. The relative share of poor in Zapaden, Yuzhen, Trakia and Tsentralen varies between 12% and 13.5%. Figure 13. Share of poor by districts of Plovdiv SEVEREN IZTOCHEN TSENTRALEN TRAKIA ZAPADEN (%) 12.4 12.7 13.4 YUZHEN 13.5 18.1 39.6 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 45 III. Poverty mapping results Varna For the project purposes, the results here refer only to the districts of city of Varna, as the municipality of Varna includes settlements outside the city, which are considered as separate territorial units. In city of Varna the relative share of poor is 15.3%. This value is not homogeneous for all administrative districts. Lowest is the share of poor in district Primorski (12%), followed by Mladost (14.4%), Odesos (15.7%) and Vladislav Varnenchik (16.8%). The highest is the relative share of poor in Asparuhovo (20.8%). Figure 14. Share of poor by districts of Varna PRIMORSKI VLADISLAV VARNENCHIK MLADOST ODESOS ASPARUHOVO (%) 12.0 14.6 15.7 16.8 20.8 46 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results III.3. Distribution of poor by sub-populations Poverty mapping method is based on the simulation of income of separate households in the general population. This allows estimates to be done not only for the whole population, but also for separate sub-populations. These sub-populations could be created based on the population age structure, persons’ level of education or economic activity. The population demographic and economic characteristics are used to create sub-populations for the project purposes. Two sub-sets were created based on the population age. The first consists of children under 14 years of age, and the second - of adults over 65 years. These two sub-sets were selected using the basic characteristics of poor households from the standard SILC survey. Almost throughout the whole survey period in the country, several types of households appear to be poor. First one are the households with dependent children. Increase of the number of children in households leads to increase of the relative share of poverty. Such are households of single parents. The relative share of poor households among single parents and households with three or more children is significantly higher than the country average. The second one are households formed by persons aged 65 and over. Households of lonely pensioners are with a high relative share of poverty, about twice higher than the country average. Figures 15 and 16 show poverty mapping results for children under 14 and persons aged 65 and over respectively. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 47 III. Poverty mapping results Figure 15. Share of poor among children by municipalities (%) 2.7 - 15.0 15.1 - 25.0 25.1 - 35.0 35.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 60.0 60.1 - 70.0 70.1 - 80.1 Figure 16. Share of poor among persons aged 65 and more by municipalities (%) 5.3 - 10.0 10.1 - 20.0 20.1 - 30.0 30.1 - 40.0 40.1 - 45.0 45.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 65.4 48 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results One of the main factors for poverty reduction is the educational level of persons. As higher the educational qualifications of persons is, as less likely is to get into poverty. And vice versa, the lower level of education of a person, increases the probability of falling into poverty. For production of estimates of poverty by educational level, the population was divided into three sub-groups - people with primary and lower education, people with secondary education and people with tertiary education. For each of these subsets, a poverty map was created separately, shown in Figures 17, 18 and 19. Figure 17. Share of poor among persons with primary and lower education by municipalities (%) 6.9 - 16.4 16.5 - 25.9 26.0 - 33.4 33.5 - 39.6 39.7 - 44.0 44.1 - 48.3 48.4 - 53.1 53.2 - 58.9 59.0 - 67.9 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 49 III. Poverty mapping results Figure 18. Share of poor among persons with secondary education by municipalities (%) 1.4 - 8.2 8.3 - 13.1 13.2 - 16.4 16.5 - 19.4 19.5 - 22.4 22.5 - 25.2 25.3 - 29.0 29.1 - 34.0 34.1 - 41.8 Figure 19. Share of poor among persons with tertiary education by municipalities (%) 0.7 - 3.3 3.4 - 5.2 5.3 - 7.0 7.1 - 8.9 9.0 - 10.8 10.9 - 13.0 13.1 - 17.0 17.1 - 23.6 23.7 - 35.5 50 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results SILC allows poverty to be estimated for a more specific subset of the population, the so-called ‘working poor’. It shows the relative share of poor among the employed in the country. The working poor are defined by two de facto situations - they are working and are members of poor households, i.e. the definition is based on two statistical units - the person and the household. The person is the starting point for classification of ‘employed’ and ‘unemployed’, and the household is the basis for classification of ‘poor’ and ‘non-poor’. Taking into account that wages are one of the main components of household income, this indicator shows that the employment is not, by itself, sufficient to overcome poverty. Figure 20 shows the relative share of poor among the employed. Figure 20. Share of poor among working poor by municipalities (%) 1.0 - 4.0 4.1 - 8.0 8.1 - 12.0 12.1 - 17.0 17.1 - 22.0 22.1 - 27.0 27.1 - 37.7 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 51 III. Poverty mapping results III.4. Spatial analysis of poverty In the analysis of spatial phenomena, it is not enough just to visualize the high and low values of the respective phenomenon. To study a phenomenon in a given region, the phenomenon values in the surrounding regions should also be taken into account. Regions close to each other are believed to have stronger impact on each other than distant regions. The poverty mapping results are spatially oriented data for the municipalities of Bulgaria. As such, poverty data by municipalities should be examined for spatial dependence. To study the possible existence of spatial dependence between poverty in the municipalities, a Hot-Spot analysis was applied. Proposed by Gettis-Ord (Getis and Ord, 1992), the analysis allows to allocate regions where the poor are concentrated. The analysis compares the value for a region with its neighboring regions within a given radius with the expected value for all regions in the surveyed territory. The following formula is applied: where is the value of the attribute (for example poverty) of region j, and where is the distance between region i and region j, and N is the total number of regions in the analysis. Finally: and As ‘cold points’ are identified regions where poverty is below the expected value and ‘hot points’ identify regions where poverty is above the expected value. 52 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria III. Poverty mapping results Figure 21 presents results of the analysis of the relative share of poor by municipalities. Figure 21. Getis-Ord’s analysis of share of poor by municipalities Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant Hot Spot - 90% Confidence NUTS2 Hot Spot - 95% Confidence NUTS3 Hot Spot - 99% Confidence It is clear that the group of municipalities around Stolichna municipality create a region of ‘cold spots’. It spreads from north to south from the outskirts of district Sofia to district Blagoevgrad and from west to east from the border with the Republic of Serbia to the municipality of Karlovo. Two separate groups stand out as ‘hot spots’. The first group is formed around the municipalities of Sliven and Targovishte and is spread northward to the Danube River. The second group starts from the north-western part of the country and covers almost the entire territory of Severoiztochen region. Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 53 III. Poverty mapping results Figure 22 presents results of the analysis of relative share of poor from all poor by municipalities. Figure 22. Getis-Ord’s analysis of the relative share of poor from all poor by municipalities Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant Hot Spot - 90% Confidence NUTS2 Hot Spot - 95% Confidence NUTS3 Hot Spot - 99% Confidence The analysis of the relative share of poor from all poor by municipalities presents a different picture. The group of ‘cold spots’ has the same distribution as the relative share of poor from the population by municipalities - i.e. around Stolichna municipality (Figure 21). Looking at the ‘hot spots’, however, only one group is noticeable - the group around the Sliven municipality, which is no longer oriented to the north but to the south. These differences are results of the fact that the majority of population lives in the southern part of the country. On the other, in the northwestern part of the country the share of population is significantly lower (11.4% of the total country population). Analysis of the spatial dependence of poverty between the municipalities shows that, around municipality of Sliven, not only the relative share of poor is high, but also the absolute number of poor being higher than the expected. 54 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria IV. Conclusion IV. Conclusion Mapping poverty at low geographical levels is more than a way to obtain a pretty picture. Poverty at low geographical levels provide information on the heterogeneity of poverty. SAE of poverty are useful for ranking regions by welfare. The poverty mapping results show that there are districts with high relative shares of poor located in regions with relatively low shares of poor. At a lower territorial level there are municipalities with high relative shares of poor, located in districts (regions) with low relative shares of poor. On the other hand, vice versa, municipalities with low relative shares of poor situated in districts with high relative shares of poor may seem affected by poverty or needing social support. The relative share of poor is a function of the absolute number of people living below the poverty line and the total number of population. Therefore, in the municipalities with centers being the seven cities with a population of more than 100 thousand (Sofia, Plovdiv, Varna, Burgas, Ruse, Stara Zagora and Pleven), where 36% of the population lives, there concentrated 18.5% of all people at risk of poverty in the country. 38% of all poor in the country are concentrated in the districts, whose centers are these cities. Finally, the results from the spatial analysis reveal that there are two ‘pockets of poverty’ in Bulgaria. One of them is in the northwest part of the country and is bordering ‘the pocket’ of better off municipalities (‘cold spots’), including Stolichna municipality, while the other one is in the east of the country’s center (‘hot spots’). Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 55 V. References V. References Baric, M., & Williams, C. (2015). Tackling the undeclared economy in Croatia. South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, 11(1). Bedi, T., Coudouel, A., & Simler, K. (Eds.) (2007). More than a pretty picture: using poverty maps to design better policies and interventions. World Bank Publications. Elbers, C., Lanjouw, J. O., & Lanjouw, P. (2002). Micro-level estimation of welfare. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (2911). Elbers, C., Lanjouw, J. O., & Lanjouw, P. (2003). Micro-level estimation of poverty and inequality. Econometrica, 71(1), 355 - 364. Elbers, C., Fujii, T., Lanjouw, P., Özler, B., & Yin, W. (2007). Poverty alleviation through geographic targeting: How much does disaggregation help? Journal of Development Economics, 83(1), 198 - 213. Getis, A., & Ord, J. K. (1992). The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geographical analysis, 24(3), 189 - 206. Guadarrama, M., Molina, I., & Rao, J. N. K. (2016). A Comparison of Small Area Estimation Methods for Poverty Mapping. Statistics in Transition New Series and Survey Methodology, 41. Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic geography, 46(sup1), 234 - 240. Van der Weide, R. (2014). GLS estimation and empirical Bayes prediction for linear mixed models with Heteroskedasticity and sampling weights: a background study for the POVMAP project. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (7028). 56 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria ANNEX Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 57 ANNEX 1 ANNEX 1 Share of poor by districts (NUTS3) (standard error is pointed in brackets) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females District (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 21.5 26.0 18.2 32.0 11.6 34.1 14.6 8.2 20.8 22.2 Blagoevgrad (2.4) (3.4) (2.2) (3.0) (1.9) (3.4) (2.1) (1.5) (2.3) (2.4) 23.9 31.8 21.0 29.3 9.3 41.0 15.9 5.8 22.3 25.5 Burgas (2.0) (2.3) (1.8) (2.7) (1.3) (2.5) (2.0) (1.2) (1.9) (2.0) 21.0 27.8 19.1 23.0 8.8 39.1 16.3 6.1 19.6 22.3 Varna (1.5) (1.7) (1.4) (2.0) (1.1) (2.3) (1.6) (0.9) (1.4) (1.6) 29.4 37.0 26.3 35.0 13.2 48.2 24.3 9.3 27.3 31.4 Veliko Tarnovo (1.8) (2.0) (1.7) (2.5) (1.5) (2.3) (2.0) (1.3) (1.8) (1.9) 34.1 45.7 30.6 37.3 15.9 49.6 26.8 11.3 31.7 36.3 Vidin (3.1) (3.3) (3.0) (3.6) (2.5) (3.5) (3.3) (2.1) (3.0) (3.2) 31.1 40.9 27.7 35.4 14.1 46.9 25.0 9.9 29.3 32.8 Vratsa (1.9) (2.1) (1.9) (2.4) (1.7) (2.3) (2.1) (1.6) (1.9) (2.0) 24.7 28.7 21.3 31.9 12.3 40.0 22.3 9.4 22.3 26.9 Gabrovo (2.9) (2.9) (2.6) (3.9) (2.3) (3.5) (3.2) (2.0) (2.8) (3.0) 27.6 39.3 25.1 28.3 11.7 41.2 16.8 6.4 26.0 29.1 Dobrich (2.5) (2.7) (2.4) (3.2) (1.9) (3.1) (2.6) (1.6) (2.4) (2.6) 30.0 34.7 27.2 38.0 13.9 39.5 20.7 7.7 28.7 31.4 Kardzhali (2.7) (2.8) (2.6) (3.7) (2.0) (3.3) (2.5) (1.4) (2.7) (2.8) 23.2 25.7 18.5 35.2 10.8 41.0 15.9 9.6 22.0 24.2 Kyustendil (2.6) (3.5) (2.5) (3.3) (2.0) (3.7) (2.7) (2.0) (2.6) (2.7) 34.2 46.2 30.2 38.5 15.2 53.2 26.1 10.7 32.1 36.3 Lovech (2.1) (2.1) (2.0) (2.9) (1.9) (2.5) (2.4) (1.6) (2.0) (2.2) 31.6 44.4 28.0 34.7 13.7 48.1 22.1 8.3 29.7 33.5 Montana (2.9) (3.1) (2.8) (3.5) (2.5) (3.4) (3.1) (1.8) (2.8) (3.0) 33.1 44.8 30.2 35.1 13.9 49.7 20.6 8.8 31.5 34.6 Pazardzhik (2.5) (2.6) (2.3) (3.2) (1.9) (3.0) (2.4) (1.6) (2.4) (2.5) 21.9 24.0 17.6 34.0 10.9 39.3 15.8 8.8 21.3 22.6 Pernik (3.0) (4.1) (2.9) (3.5) (2.4) (3.9) (2.9) (2.1) (3.0) (3.1) 58 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria ANNEX 1 (Continued and end) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females District (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 30.2 41.6 26.8 33.5 12.7 47.3 23.1 9.1 28.4 31.9 Pleven (2.1) (2.2) (2.0) (2.7) (1.8) (2.4) (2.4) (1.6) (2.0) (2.2) 22.1 30.4 19.5 25.7 8.3 38.9 15.3 6.1 20.5 23.5 Plovdiv (1.0) (1.3) (1.0) (1.5) (0.8) (1.6) (1.0) (0.8) (1.0) (1.1) 31.5 38.8 29.0 35.8 16.2 43.3 21.6 7.7 29.8 33.1 Razgrad (2.8) (3.0) (2.7) (3.4) (2.4) (3.4) (2.8) (1.7) (2.7) (2.9) 23.2 29.0 21.0 27.1 10.2 38.1 18.2 7.0 21.4 24.9 Ruse (2.8) (2.9) (2.6) (3.7) (2.2) (3.1) (3.2) (1.9) (2.6) (3.0) 26.0 36.9 23.6 26.9 10.8 36.0 16.7 5.9 24.7 27.3 Silistra (2.7) (2.9) (2.5) (3.4) (1.9) (3.3) (2.7) (1.5) (2.6) (2.8) 38.7 56.5 34.5 37.1 13.5 56.0 21.4 8.5 37.2 40.1 Sliven (3.2) (2.9) (3.0) (4.6) (2.3) (3.8) (3.5) (1.8) (3.1) (3.3) 27.7 27.5 23.9 43.2 13.2 40.9 22.3 9.7 25.3 30.1 Smolyan (2.6) (2.8) (2.4) (3.6) (1.9) (3.2) (2.5) (1.7) (2.5) (2.6) 6.6 7.1 5.9 9.4 3.4 14.6 6.7 4.0 6.3 6.9 Sofia (stolitsa) (1.0) (1.4) (1.0) (1.4) (0.8) (2.3) (1.1) (0.7) (1.0) (1.0) 20.4 27.0 16.3 29.7 8.3 36.4 11.7 6.6 19.6 21.2 Sofia (1.9) (2.8) (1.7) (2.7) (1.3) (3.2) (1.6) (1.1) (1.9) (1.9) 22.9 33.5 19.6 27.0 7.9 40.3 14.7 5.7 21.2 24.5 Stara Zagora (2.0) (2.0) (1.7) (3.0) (1.3) (2.7) (2.0) (1.2) (1.9) (2.1) 36.1 46.0 33.1 39.6 17.2 49.7 24.8 9.8 34.3 37.8 Targovishte (3.4) (3.4) (3.2) (4.5) (3.0) (3.7) (3.6) (2.4) (3.3) (3.5) 25.8 34.8 22.4 30.9 10.5 40.2 16.5 6.7 24.0 27.5 Haskovo (1.9) (2.1) (1.7) (2.6) (1.4) (2.5) (1.9) (1.2) (1.8) (2.0) 30.3 40.1 27.7 32.2 13.1 45.1 20.1 6.9 28.7 31.7 Shumen (2.3) (2.5) (2.2) (3.0) (2.0) (2.7) (2.6) (1.6) (2.2) (2.5) 27.9 43.4 23.3 32.4 9.3 43.6 16.1 6.5 26.0 29.8 Yambol (2.3) (2.3) (2.0) (3.6) (1.6) (3.3) (2.3) (1.3) (2.2) (2.4) Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 59 ANNEX 2 ANNEX 2 Share of poor by municipalities (LAU1) (Standard error is pointed in brackets) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 39.0 55.2 37.7 31.5 20.2 48.9 21.3 7.3 37.2 40.8 Avren (5.8) (5.4) (5.3) (7.9) (4.5) (6.9) (5.4) (3.0) (5.7) (6.0) 35.8 45.4 32.4 41.4 16.3 49.9 23.2 9.3 34.0 37.5 Aytos (5.7) (5.5) (5.3) (8.1) (4.2) (6.9) (5.4) (3.0) (5.5) (5.9) 27.3 36.8 25.3 26.1 14.0 39.1 15.5 6.6 25.7 28.8 Aksakovo (5.5) (5.8) (5.0) (7.1) (4.0) (7.1) (4.5) (2.6) (5.3) (5.7) 37.0 53.4 33.2 38.4 18.7 45.9 24.0 10.5 36.1 38.0 Alfatar (8.0) (8.1) (7.3) (10.0) (6.4) (9.2) (7.5) (4.6) (8.0) (8.2) 21.8 27.3 16.5 33.5 9.8 37.0 12.7 7.8 21.0 22.5 Anton (4.7) (6.2) (4.1) (6.7) (3.1) (7.0) (3.9) (3.7) (4.8) (4.7) 53.0 68.0 50.2 51.6 27.3 60.1 36.4 17.0 51.1 55.0 Antonovo (7.4) (6.3) (7.0) (9.9) (7.0) (7.9) (7.8) (5.7) (7.5) (7.4) 25.8 21.3 20.2 36.8 11.5 39.3 21.2 11.9 23.4 28.1 Apriltsi (6.8) (6.3) (5.8) (9.0) (4.6) (8.5) (6.5) (5.1) (6.7) (6.9) 33.9 31.9 30.0 48.0 15.6 42.4 24.7 10.1 32.3 35.6 Ardino (5.6) (5.3) (5.0) (8.0) (3.8) (6.7) (4.6) (2.7) (5.6) (5.6) 22.0 28.4 19.2 27.7 8.4 35.2 15.1 6.3 20.3 23.6 Asenovgrad (3.9) (3.8) (3.4) (5.8) (2.4) (5.4) (3.5) (1.9) (3.7) (4.1) 27.6 41.4 25.5 24.4 11.6 40.1 14.4 5.7 26.0 29.2 Balchik (5.4) (5.6) (5.0) (7.3) (3.8) (7.1) (4.5) (2.5) (5.2) (5.6) 38.9 34.1 30.8 58.4 15.7 51.6 26.9 14.3 34.7 42.7 Banite (5.5) (5.4) (4.9) (7.3) (3.9) (6.7) (4.7) (3.5) (5.5) (5.5) 17.6 19.7 14.7 27.3 10.3 31.2 11.8 7.4 16.8 18.4 Bansko (3.3) (4.0) (3.0) (4.5) (2.5) (4.9) (2.8) (2.1) (3.2) (3.4) 24.3 30.2 20.7 32.6 10.2 36.3 15.9 7.5 22.3 26.2 Batak (5.5) (5.5) (4.8) (7.9) (3.5) (7.3) (4.7) (2.9) (5.3) (5.7) 19.9 21.3 17.4 26.3 8.6 29.7 16.3 5.8 18.2 21.6 Belene (6.7) (6.3) (5.8) (9.6) (4.2) (9.2) (6.1) (3.1) (6.3) (7.1) 60 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 41.0 49.8 38.0 44.2 25.3 48.9 27.3 14.1 40.3 41.7 Belitsa (7.7) (8.5) (7.6) (8.0) (7.1) (8.4) (7.2) (5.0) (7.7) (7.7) 28.0 31.6 23.7 39.2 11.9 42.5 19.8 9.2 25.6 30.2 Belovo (6.1) (5.9) (5.3) (8.8) (4.0) (7.9) (5.5) (3.3) (5.9) (6.3) 35.2 52.0 31.9 35.3 17.3 53.5 24.0 10.3 33.3 37.1 Belogradchik (5.3) (5.2) (4.7) (7.4) (4.0) (6.7) (5.2) (3.4) (5.2) (5.5) 19.7 26.5 17.7 22.3 10.3 27.7 13.3 5.3 18.1 21.4 Beloslav (5.0) (5.5) (4.5) (6.8) (3.6) (6.6) (4.2) (2.0) (4.8) (5.3) 36.1 49.8 32.4 38.8 16.0 52.7 24.6 11.1 33.8 38.2 Berkovitsa (6.0) (5.7) (5.4) (7.9) (4.3) (7.2) (5.8) (3.5) (5.8) (6.1) 15.6 17.5 14.0 22.7 8.6 28.9 14.0 8.0 15.2 16.1 Blagoevgrad (3.5) (4.2) (3.3) (4.2) (2.7) (4.9) (3.5) (2.3) (3.4) (3.6) 19.8 19.8 14.6 33.8 9.0 32.6 11.3 7.3 18.9 20.8 Bobov dol (4.4) (5.1) (3.7) (6.3) (2.9) (6.4) (3.3) (2.2) (4.4) (4.4) 40.3 34.9 31.6 54.4 22.1 55.8 28.5 21.5 37.8 42.5 Boboshevo (6.6) (8.4) (6.5) (7.0) (5.8) (7.2) (6.6) (6.0) (6.7) (6.7) 12.1 10.6 8.9 22.8 6.0 25.9 9.0 4.9 11.6 12.5 Bozhurishte (3.4) (3.7) (2.9) (5.0) (2.4) (5.7) (3.1) (2.0) (3.3) (3.4) 42.2 60.9 33.1 47.7 20.7 50.7 29.6 21.0 37.5 46.3 Boynitsa (8.8) (12.4) (7.6) (9.9) (7.2) (9.8) (8.0) (7.9) (8.8) (8.9) 45.0 63.9 42.0 42.5 23.2 53.4 32.9 14.3 42.5 47.5 Boychinovtsi (6.7) (5.8) (6.0) (8.5) (5.4) (7.4) (6.6) (4.4) (6.5) (6.8) 35.3 56.4 30.2 36.2 14.4 42.6 17.6 7.9 32.1 38.3 Bolyarovo (8.0) (7.3) (6.6) (10.8) (5.2) (9.7) (6.3) (3.9) (7.8) (8.2) 28.3 27.7 25.6 39.7 15.4 35.4 23.4 10.6 27.1 29.5 Borino (7.0) (6.9) (6.4) (9.9) (5.1) (8.4) (6.2) (4.1) (6.9) (7.1) 47.6 64.0 45.1 43.9 27.1 56.4 34.6 16.8 45.9 49.5 Borovan (8.0) (7.2) (7.3) (10.2) (6.8) (8.7) (8.2) (6.0) (8.0) (8.0) Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 61 ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 40.7 54.0 37.9 41.6 18.8 48.9 24.4 11.0 38.2 43.2 Borovo (7.9) (7.8) (7.1) (9.7) (5.7) (8.9) (6.8) (4.0) (7.8) (8.0) 19.6 27.7 16.2 26.7 8.5 37.4 12.4 6.7 18.9 20.3 Botevgrad (3.7) (4.3) (3.4) (5.2) (2.5) (5.9) (3.3) (2.1) (3.7) (3.8) Bratya 46.6 69.4 43.9 41.9 21.1 54.7 26.5 14.6 44.8 48.4 Daskalovi (6.2) (5.4) (5.5) (7.8) (5.1) (6.9) (6.0) (4.6) (6.1) (6.3) 35.5 53.3 31.0 38.0 14.8 48.7 21.0 10.3 33.4 37.5 Bratsigovo (6.1) (5.6) (5.4) (8.6) (4.2) (7.6) (5.6) (3.9) (6.0) (6.3) 33.6 46.6 30.5 35.2 17.6 45.4 26.6 13.5 31.1 36.0 Bregovo (7.7) (7.5) (6.8) (9.3) (5.7) (9.2) (7.4) (4.9) (7.5) (7.9) 39.5 43.0 32.9 51.9 19.7 56.3 28.4 15.5 38.4 40.5 Breznik (6.1) (6.6) (5.7) (7.6) (4.7) (7.3) (5.9) (3.9) (6.2) (6.1) 33.5 48.8 30.2 33.9 14.4 43.1 19.6 10.2 31.1 35.7 Brezovo (5.8) (5.9) (4.9) (7.3) (3.9) (6.8) (5.2) (3.6) (5.6) (6.0) 47.5 62.8 44.8 46.8 27.3 58.0 35.2 18.5 45.1 49.8 Brusartsi (8.9) (7.6) (8.0) (10.9) (7.4) (10.1) (8.5) (6.6) (8.7) (9.0) 14.3 18.5 12.6 18.7 5.2 29.0 12.4 4.7 12.8 15.8 Burgas (2.8) (2.9) (2.5) (4.7) (1.6) (4.7) (2.9) (1.4) (2.6) (3.0) Byala (district 28.9 44.4 25.8 29.1 9.5 43.6 16.3 6.0 27.4 30.4 Ruse) (4.3) (4.5) (3.8) (5.9) (2.5) (5.9) (3.7) (1.8) (4.2) (4.5) Byala (district 35.9 51.2 32.6 35.9 16.2 50.2 17.7 6.2 34.0 37.9 Varna) (6.6) (6.8) (5.9) (9.2) (4.8) (8.4) (5.6) (2.9) (6.4) (6.9) 38.6 52.9 35.8 37.0 16.8 52.5 28.6 11.7 37.0 40.2 Byala Slatina (4.6) (4.3) (4.2) (6.0) (3.6) (5.4) (4.6) (2.9) (4.5) (4.6) 15.2 18.4 14.3 17.1 7.0 30.4 15.2 5.9 13.8 16.6 Varna (1.6) (1.7) (1.5) (2.3) (1.2) (2.6) (1.9) (0.9) (1.5) (1.7) 30.3 39.8 28.0 31.6 13.6 42.2 19.6 7.2 28.3 32.1 Veliki Preslav (6.2) (6.1) (5.7) (8.1) (4.4) (7.9) (5.5) (3.0) (6.0) (6.4) Veliko 20.6 22.2 19.1 25.9 10.4 37.3 21.8 8.4 18.6 22.5 Tarnovo (3.6) (3.7) (3.2) (5.2) (2.7) (5.2) (3.9) (2.2) (3.4) (3.8) 38.2 47.3 35.6 40.3 17.7 53.0 26.1 9.7 36.6 39.6 Velingrad (5.4) (5.2) (5.1) (7.2) (4.3) (6.4) (5.3) (3.0) (5.3) (5.5) 62 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 46.1 56.0 43.1 49.7 27.3 49.5 32.0 12.4 44.6 47.6 Venets (5.9) (5.6) (5.7) (7.8) (5.4) (6.3) (5.9) (3.5) (6.0) (5.9) 36.6 45.4 34.2 38.6 17.3 44.7 21.6 9.7 34.8 38.3 Vetovo (6.0) (6.2) (5.7) (7.6) (4.4) (6.9) (5.2) (3.1) (5.9) (6.2) 33.6 43.6 30.1 37.2 17.8 41.1 22.6 10.6 31.1 36.0 Vetrino (6.1) (6.3) (5.4) (7.8) (4.6) (7.1) (5.2) (3.7) (6.0) (6.2) 29.7 38.3 27.1 32.8 14.0 45.7 25.2 10.6 27.4 31.8 Vidin (4.5) (4.6) (4.2) (6.0) (3.3) (5.9) (4.6) (2.6) (4.3) (4.7) 28.2 34.9 25.4 34.7 14.2 46.7 26.3 10.9 26.3 30.1 Vratsa (3.9) (3.8) (3.6) (5.3) (3.0) (5.0) (4.2) (2.6) (3.7) (4.0) 44.2 61.9 42.2 39.1 25.0 51.9 30.0 11.6 42.4 45.8 Valchedram (7.1) (6.2) (6.6) (8.9) (5.9) (8.1) (6.9) (4.7) (7.1) (7.2) 40.2 57.4 37.0 39.0 17.0 48.7 22.1 8.8 38.1 42.2 Valchi dol (6.1) (5.5) (5.3) (8.1) (4.3) (7.1) (5.3) (3.2) (5.9) (6.2) 55.0 64.6 51.9 57.7 31.1 60.0 39.0 16.8 53.2 56.8 Varbitsa (6.6) (6.0) (6.4) (8.7) (6.7) (6.9) (6.9) (5.0) (6.6) (6.5) 40.7 61.4 35.6 41.0 16.8 56.4 25.4 11.5 38.5 42.9 Varshets (5.9) (4.9) (5.3) (8.3) (4.7) (7.1) (6.1) (4.2) (5.7) (6.2) 23.3 24.2 20.4 31.1 11.8 38.5 23.5 9.6 21.0 25.4 Gabrovo (4.6) (4.4) (4.0) (6.2) (3.5) (6.0) (4.9) (2.8) (4.3) (4.8) General 41.6 57.0 37.3 44.8 20.2 52.5 25.2 10.3 39.5 43.6 Toshevo (8.3) (7.2) (7.6) (10.8) (6.8) (9.7) (7.7) (4.1) (8.2) (8.5) Georgi 32.0 41.0 27.6 35.9 15.5 41.9 24.2 14.8 28.2 35.4 Damyanovo (7.4) (9.3) (6.4) (8.6) (5.4) (8.6) (6.7) (5.8) (7.2) (7.6) 32.5 43.9 30.1 32.8 16.3 38.1 19.5 7.8 31.0 34.0 Glavinitsa (6.3) (6.7) (5.8) (7.7) (4.3) (7.1) (5.3) (2.9) (6.2) (6.4) 20.6 17.5 14.1 35.7 8.3 36.6 11.8 6.9 19.8 21.4 Godech (4.5) (5.5) (3.9) (6.0) (3.1) (6.5) (3.7) (2.7) (4.5) (4.6) 28.5 31.8 22.8 40.0 15.0 43.0 18.4 13.4 26.9 30.1 Gorna Malina (5.9) (6.9) (5.4) (7.2) (4.6) (7.4) (5.3) (4.2) (5.9) (6.0) Gorna 26.2 33.1 23.4 31.2 12.5 44.4 21.4 9.2 24.2 28.0 Oryahovitsa (4.5) (4.4) (4.1) (6.2) (3.4) (5.9) (4.7) (2.6) (4.4) (4.7) Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 63 ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education Gotse 16.4 20.0 14.1 23.6 9.7 24.1 11.4 6.1 15.9 16.9 Delchev (4.2) (5.2) (3.9) (5.0) (3.2) (5.8) (3.2) (1.9) (4.1) (4.2) 41.0 60.1 36.8 42.3 24.1 50.4 32.1 15.5 38.6 43.3 Gramada (9.2) (8.3) (8.3) (11.0) (7.1) (10.3) (9.1) (7.8) (9.3) (9.1) 35.2 49.3 31.5 36.9 16.0 43.3 24.4 11.1 32.7 37.7 Gulyantsi (6.5) (5.6) (5.7) (8.1) (4.6) (7.6) (5.9) (4.1) (6.4) (6.6) 43.4 62.9 40.9 34.0 11.0 56.5 17.5 8.1 41.8 45.0 Gurkovo (5.1) (4.4) (4.8) (7.4) (3.9) (5.9) (5.1) (3.6) (5.0) (5.3) 15.0 27.4 13.0 13.7 4.2 21.6 6.3 2.1 13.8 16.1 Galabovo (3.9) (4.7) (3.3) (5.3) (1.6) (5.8) (2.4) (0.9) (3.7) (4.2) 26.2 35.3 22.5 32.8 14.0 31.7 14.0 7.4 25.5 27.0 Garmen (5.2) (6.0) (4.9) (6.4) (4.2) (6.3) (3.8) (2.7) (5.1) (5.3) 36.1 46.4 33.7 37.0 16.0 46.9 21.8 9.5 34.1 38.0 Dve mogili (6.1) (5.9) (5.6) (7.8) (4.7) (7.2) (5.5) (3.4) (6.0) (6.3) 32.8 36.9 28.7 45.2 15.2 44.0 25.6 10.7 30.3 35.1 Devin (5.6) (5.4) (5.1) (7.8) (3.9) (6.8) (5.2) (2.9) (5.5) (5.6) 22.3 33.2 19.9 21.3 9.7 29.5 12.0 4.6 20.2 24.3 Devnya (4.7) (5.5) (4.2) (6.3) (3.2) (5.9) (3.5) (1.9) (4.3) (5.0) 41.0 41.9 37.8 55.4 23.4 49.1 31.1 13.0 39.7 42.3 Dzhebel (8.7) (8.7) (8.3) (10.9) (7.0) (9.7) (7.9) (4.6) (8.6) (8.7) 21.8 30.7 18.7 26.7 8.0 35.2 14.5 6.0 19.8 23.8 Dimitrovgrad (4.1) (4.2) (3.5) (6.0) (2.4) (5.7) (3.6) (2.0) (3.8) (4.3) 53.9 75.3 51.5 48.9 25.6 64.0 37.3 17.8 51.4 56.3 Dimovo (6.1) (4.5) (5.4) (8.2) (5.3) (6.6) (6.5) (5.2) (6.1) (6.1) 19.4 25.3 17.8 21.6 8.8 33.1 15.7 6.2 17.7 20.9 Dobrich (3.9) (4.1) (3.6) (5.5) (2.7) (5.5) (3.8) (2.1) (3.7) (4.1) Dobrich- 37.2 55.9 35.8 29.6 18.0 41.3 17.9 7.4 35.5 38.9 selska (6.4) (6.3) (5.9) (8.1) (4.8) (7.2) (5.1) (3.1) (6.3) (6.5) Dolna 38.5 56.6 35.4 36.9 17.3 48.6 25.1 12.3 36.4 40.5 Mitropolia (5.7) (5.0) (5.1) (7.3) (4.2) (6.6) (5.4) (3.9) (5.6) (5.8) 33.2 47.5 28.8 37.0 16.2 47.9 16.8 10.6 32.5 33.9 Dolna banya (5.9) (8.0) (5.5) (6.5) (4.3) (7.7) (4.6) (3.1) (5.8) (5.9) 64 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 41.5 60.7 38.3 38.0 15.9 53.7 27.6 12.3 39.8 43.1 Dolni Dabnik (5.9) (5.0) (5.4) (7.6) (4.2) (6.8) (5.8) (3.8) (5.7) (6.0) 48.4 63.5 45.6 42.8 22.4 57.9 25.7 10.8 46.8 50.0 Dolni Chiflik (5.8) (5.3) (5.6) (7.9) (4.9) (6.6) (5.4) (3.2) (5.8) (5.8) 22.8 24.6 20.9 30.9 12.5 29.7 18.8 9.3 21.4 24.2 Dospat (7.2) (7.8) (6.7) (9.1) (5.3) (8.5) (6.5) (4.0) (7.0) (7.3) 25.4 19.7 17.0 44.3 9.8 41.7 14.6 8.9 24.0 26.7 Dragoman (5.7) (6.2) (4.8) (7.8) (4.0) (7.8) (4.6) (3.0) (5.6) (5.8) 27.4 35.5 24.2 31.9 13.1 44.5 22.4 9.5 25.1 29.5 Dryanovo (6.3) (6.2) (5.5) (8.4) (4.5) (7.9) (6.5) (3.7) (6.0) (6.5) 25.4 35.9 23.9 21.9 11.7 30.3 14.6 5.0 24.5 26.3 Dulovo (6.9) (7.3) (6.6) (8.0) (5.1) (7.9) (5.9) (2.8) (6.7) (7.1) 19.0 23.4 15.5 28.0 9.0 35.9 12.8 8.1 18.0 20.0 Dupnitsa (4.3) (5.0) (3.9) (5.6) (3.0) (6.5) (3.9) (2.7) (4.2) (4.4) 45.3 59.2 41.8 45.9 23.0 51.7 27.7 11.2 43.7 46.9 Dalgopol (6.5) (6.2) (6.2) (8.3) (5.7) (7.1) (6.2) (3.9) (6.5) (6.6) 45.1 58.6 41.3 48.0 24.0 61.1 33.3 16.1 43.2 46.8 Elena (7.2) (6.4) (6.7) (9.4) (6.3) (7.8) (7.7) (5.4) (7.1) (7.3) 13.3 16.3 10.1 21.8 5.4 26.5 7.6 4.0 12.6 14.1 Elin Pelin (3.3) (3.8) (2.7) (5.1) (1.9) (5.9) (2.4) (1.4) (3.2) (3.4) 34.1 44.8 28.4 44.3 13.7 49.6 20.2 8.7 32.0 36.2 Elhovo (7.6) (7.0) (6.5) (11.3) (5.0) (9.9) (6.5) (3.7) (7.4) (7.8) 19.6 23.2 14.7 34.4 8.1 39.1 12.2 6.5 18.8 20.5 Etropole (3.7) (4.9) (3.3) (5.1) (2.6) (5.9) (3.2) (1.8) (3.7) (3.8) 37.1 43.8 34.9 40.5 22.2 43.2 25.1 9.8 35.7 38.5 Zavet (6.2) (6.3) (5.9) (7.2) (5.5) (6.7) (5.7) (3.3) (6.1) (6.3) 44.7 46.0 34.2 58.1 22.8 60.7 30.4 26.6 43.2 46.2 Zemen (6.4) (8.0) (6.1) (7.1) (5.6) (7.1) (6.5) (5.8) (6.5) (6.4) 47.4 62.6 44.4 46.9 25.8 58.6 34.0 15.2 45.1 49.6 Zlataritsa (5.7) (5.5) (5.3) (7.4) (5.0) (6.2) (5.9) (4.5) (5.6) (5.7) 18.2 21.7 15.3 26.5 8.9 32.4 12.3 6.2 17.2 19.2 Zlatitsa (4.5) (5.7) (4.1) (6.0) (3.0) (6.9) (3.8) (2.4) (4.4) (4.6) Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 65 ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 27.0 24.3 23.6 44.1 13.1 38.7 21.4 9.0 24.5 29.3 Zlatograd (5.1) (4.9) (4.7) (7.4) (3.6) (6.5) (4.7) (2.7) (5.0) (5.2) 30.9 38.4 26.7 39.4 15.8 43.4 21.4 8.3 28.8 32.9 Ivaylovgrad (6.1) (6.2) (5.4) (8.6) (4.4) (7.8) (5.5) (2.9) (6.0) (6.3) 27.6 38.9 24.5 30.0 10.9 36.2 17.2 7.9 25.4 29.7 Ivanovo (4.8) (4.7) (4.1) (6.3) (3.0) (6.1) (3.8) (2.3) (4.6) (5.1) 48.3 65.2 45.6 45.9 23.1 58.0 37.4 17.9 46.7 49.8 Iskar (7.7) (6.4) (7.2) (9.7) (6.6) (8.4) (7.9) (6.4) (7.7) (7.7) 38.9 47.9 36.2 42.2 21.7 48.1 26.6 10.9 37.5 40.4 Isperih (9.6) (9.4) (9.0) (12.0) (8.0) (10.9) (8.9) (5.1) (9.4) (9.7) 30.8 44.8 26.5 32.7 12.5 45.0 14.3 8.5 30.0 31.5 Ihtiman (5.4) (7.1) (5.0) (6.2) (3.7) (7.2) (4.3) (2.9) (5.4) (5.5) 31.3 45.4 28.6 30.5 12.0 46.2 17.4 6.0 29.6 32.9 Kavarna (5.6) (5.4) (5.1) (8.0) (3.7) (7.4) (5.0) (2.5) (5.5) (5.8) 21.5 28.9 18.3 28.1 8.6 39.1 15.8 6.7 19.5 23.4 Kazanlak (3.7) (3.6) (3.2) (5.5) (2.4) (5.3) (3.6) (1.9) (3.4) (3.9) 63.7 80.1 61.9 44.3 37.7 67.9 32.0 14.4 62.1 65.3 Kaynardzha (6.0) (4.9) (5.8) (9.1) (6.4) (6.5) (6.8) (5.3) (6.1) (5.9) 28.4 39.2 24.4 32.3 9.4 38.2 16.0 8.4 26.4 30.4 Kaloyanovo (4.9) (4.5) (4.1) (6.9) (2.7) (6.3) (4.0) (2.6) (4.8) (5.1) 41.0 55.6 36.6 43.6 18.3 51.3 23.0 11.9 38.3 43.8 Kameno (6.7) (6.2) (6.0) (9.4) (4.9) (8.0) (5.8) (4.0) (6.6) (6.9) 44.9 55.2 42.6 43.4 25.0 48.3 29.7 11.8 43.7 46.1 Kaolinovo (7.0) (6.9) (6.8) (8.8) (6.5) (7.5) (6.5) (4.3) (7.0) (7.1) 26.7 39.5 23.3 29.0 9.5 42.4 15.7 6.3 24.9 28.3 Karlovo (3.6) (3.3) (3.2) (5.3) (2.4) (4.9) (3.3) (1.8) (3.4) (3.8) 30.3 42.9 25.9 35.2 11.5 45.7 16.2 6.4 28.3 32.2 Karnobat (5.1) (4.9) (4.4) (7.7) (3.4) (6.8) (4.4) (2.3) (4.9) (5.3) 42.9 59.6 39.6 41.2 19.6 54.5 25.9 11.8 41.4 44.4 Kaspichan (8.1) (7.2) (7.4) (10.9) (6.7) (9.2) (7.9) (4.9) (8.0) (8.2) 31.3 34.1 28.2 41.1 14.7 37.2 21.6 8.3 30.0 32.6 Kirkovo (5.8) (6.0) (5.4) (7.3) (4.2) (6.5) (5.0) (2.4) (5.7) (5.9) 66 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 38.9 55.2 35.5 38.7 17.6 52.4 28.8 11.6 37.2 40.5 Knezha (6.3) (5.8) (5.8) (8.0) (4.7) (7.2) (6.4) (4.0) (6.1) (6.4) 48.9 38.6 39.6 59.3 30.3 63.6 35.5 30.2 47.8 50.1 Kovachevtsi (8.3) (10.0) (8.2) (8.7) (7.3) (8.8) (8.6) (8.4) (8.5) (8.2) 13.9 23.6 12.0 12.5 3.5 26.8 6.9 1.3 13.0 14.8 Kozloduy (3.4) (4.2) (3.0) (5.1) (1.5) (6.1) (2.7) (0.8) (3.2) (3.7) 20.7 23.7 16.8 30.6 11.5 34.0 14.7 9.6 20.1 21.2 Koprivshtitsa (5.0) (6.3) (4.6) (6.4) (3.7) (7.1) (4.5) (3.4) (5.0) (5.0) 22.2 28.4 18.3 32.6 10.6 38.4 13.9 8.0 21.1 23.3 Kostenets (5.3) (6.3) (4.8) (6.9) (3.9) (7.6) (4.6) (2.9) (5.2) (5.4) 8.7 8.4 6.3 17.1 3.5 17.7 5.3 3.5 8.1 9.3 Kostinbrod (2.6) (3.1) (2.1) (4.2) (1.5) (4.5) (2.0) (1.4) (2.5) (2.7) 57.2 70.6 54.4 55.0 34.0 64.7 36.8 14.8 55.9 58.6 Kotel (7.4) (6.1) (7.2) (9.8) (7.5) (7.8) (8.2) (4.8) (7.4) (7.4) 33.8 33.1 26.1 47.6 18.4 49.3 21.6 14.6 31.6 35.9 Kocherinovo (6.0) (7.5) (5.6) (7.0) (5.0) (7.3) (5.4) (4.5) (6.0) (6.1) 26.1 25.3 21.1 39.8 15.7 39.2 16.9 9.2 25.0 27.2 Kresna (5.1) (6.8) (4.6) (6.5) (4.1) (6.4) (4.4) (2.7) (5.1) (5.2) 45.9 64.6 42.7 44.6 24.1 54.4 32.0 14.6 43.6 48.2 Krivodol (6.6) (5.6) (5.8) (8.2) (5.1) (7.3) (6.5) (4.2) (6.5) (6.6) 36.6 53.2 32.9 35.3 12.5 51.0 17.8 7.3 35.0 38.0 Krichim (5.1) (4.7) (4.6) (7.8) (3.4) (6.5) (4.5) (2.6) (5.0) (5.2) 32.8 42.1 29.2 38.9 16.9 39.0 20.5 8.0 31.7 33.9 Krumovgrad (5.8) (5.7) (5.5) (7.7) (4.7) (6.8) (5.0) (2.6) (5.8) (5.9) 53.0 71.8 49.2 49.2 27.7 57.1 29.0 12.3 50.9 55.1 Krushari (7.3) (6.0) (7.0) (10.1) (6.9) (8.2) (7.3) (4.7) (7.4) (7.3) 39.2 49.0 35.7 44.5 20.4 48.8 25.6 10.1 37.3 41.0 Kubrat (7.1) (6.8) (6.5) (9.0) (5.7) (8.0) (6.5) (3.8) (7.0) (7.1) 22.1 26.3 19.1 28.8 10.4 33.4 14.2 5.9 20.7 23.4 Kuklen (5.5) (5.5) (4.8) (7.9) (3.8) (7.4) (4.7) (2.5) (5.2) (5.7) 31.9 39.0 27.7 36.9 15.3 45.0 25.0 9.9 29.0 34.6 Kula (6.7) (6.2) (5.8) (8.7) (4.7) (8.6) (6.3) (3.5) (6.5) (6.9) Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 67 ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 26.3 32.8 23.9 30.7 10.9 39.2 18.0 6.6 24.9 27.7 Kardzhali (3.9) (3.9) (3.6) (5.6) (2.5) (5.3) (3.5) (1.7) (3.8) (4.0) 22.6 26.8 18.6 32.8 10.4 40.5 16.5 9.7 21.5 23.6 Kyustendil (4.5) (5.3) (4.2) (5.6) (3.3) (6.4) (4.3) (2.8) (4.5) (4.6) 32.1 45.5 29.2 32.9 13.3 44.8 21.4 9.3 30.0 34.1 Levski (5.2) (5.0) (4.7) (6.8) (3.7) (6.4) (4.9) (3.1) (5.1) (5.4) 43.9 61.0 40.3 43.7 18.8 54.1 25.5 15.1 41.6 46.2 Lesichovo (6.2) (5.4) (5.5) (8.5) (4.6) (7.1) (5.7) (4.9) (6.1) (6.3) 44.5 64.3 41.1 41.4 19.1 56.6 30.2 15.1 43.2 45.7 Letnitsa (8.1) (6.6) (7.4) (10.7) (6.1) (9.4) (8.2) (6.3) (8.1) (8.1) 26.8 31.8 23.1 34.7 12.6 46.1 24.4 10.0 24.5 28.9 Lovech (4.1) (3.9) (3.7) (5.6) (3.2) (5.2) (4.4) (2.6) (4.0) (4.2) 39.3 48.1 36.4 44.3 25.1 46.2 28.3 11.1 37.2 41.4 Loznitsa (6.4) (6.3) (6.0) (8.2) (5.6) (7.2) (5.7) (3.5) (6.4) (6.3) 32.8 45.2 30.1 33.8 15.8 50.3 24.0 9.1 30.7 34.8 Lom (4.6) (4.5) (4.2) (6.2) (3.5) (5.7) (4.6) (2.6) (4.4) (4.8) 46.9 65.8 42.9 42.2 18.9 62.2 29.3 12.4 44.8 48.8 Lukovit (5.6) (4.6) (5.2) (7.8) (4.7) (6.1) (6.3) (3.9) (5.5) (5.7) 19.9 16.5 15.1 37.1 8.2 31.4 12.6 5.7 16.9 22.8 Laki (5.8) (6.0) (4.9) (9.6) (3.6) (8.2) (4.6) (2.5) (5.5) (6.2) 33.3 50.1 29.0 33.9 11.2 47.3 16.9 6.5 31.6 34.9 Lyubimets (5.5) (4.6) (4.8) (8.2) (3.6) (7.1) (5.2) (2.8) (5.4) (5.6) 26.7 30.6 23.4 34.6 13.6 41.3 22.0 9.5 24.2 29.0 Lyaskovets (5.2) (5.2) (4.6) (7.0) (4.1) (6.6) (5.1) (2.9) (4.9) (5.4) 30.0 30.3 26.1 48.6 14.5 39.6 22.7 10.2 27.1 32.8 Madan (6.0) (6.0) (5.7) (8.4) (4.4) (7.4) (5.3) (3.3) (6.0) (6.1) 35.9 38.7 31.2 44.0 16.9 45.2 23.2 10.7 33.3 38.5 Madzharovo (8.6) (8.2) (7.7) (10.9) (6.5) (9.9) (7.9) (5.1) (8.4) (8.8) 42.7 56.9 38.5 44.9 24.1 51.0 33.7 18.0 40.1 45.1 Makresh (9.4) (10.6) (8.4) (10.6) (8.0) (10.4) (9.0) (7.6) (9.5) (9.4) Malko 28.0 41.7 23.0 31.2 13.1 38.9 15.0 5.5 24.9 30.8 Tarnovo (6.3) (6.8) (5.0) (8.7) (3.7) (8.5) (4.9) (2.7) (5.8) (6.7) 68 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 28.0 39.9 25.1 29.2 12.0 40.4 14.7 6.5 26.9 29.2 Maritsa (4.9) (4.9) (4.5) (6.7) (3.3) (6.5) (4.0) (2.2) (4.8) (5.0) 46.1 65.1 43.4 43.9 25.8 54.6 32.5 14.0 43.6 48.5 Medkovets (7.2) (6.7) (6.4) (8.7) (6.2) (8.1) (6.9) (5.1) (7.0) (7.4) 27.8 35.0 24.5 33.6 14.1 42.1 23.8 9.7 25.9 29.6 Mezdra (5.0) (4.9) (4.5) (6.6) (3.7) (6.4) (5.0) (2.8) (4.8) (5.2) 38.4 46.5 34.7 43.6 20.9 51.0 29.5 12.9 35.9 40.7 Mizia (7.0) (6.7) (6.5) (8.5) (5.8) (8.1) (6.7) (4.5) (6.9) (7.0) Mineralni 28.0 30.5 24.6 36.5 14.1 35.5 19.2 9.4 26.3 29.7 bani (6.2) (6.5) (5.7) (8.0) (4.3) (7.3) (5.3) (3.2) (6.1) (6.3) 14.0 14.1 9.4 22.4 5.2 23.5 6.4 4.3 12.1 15.9 Mirkovo (5.4) (6.8) (4.3) (7.6) (2.9) (8.1) (3.5) (3.0) (5.0) (5.8) 34.9 37.7 31.6 47.9 18.5 43.6 25.6 11.8 33.6 36.4 Momchilgrad (7.8) (7.8) (7.3) (10.2) (6.0) (8.9) (7.0) (4.2) (7.7) (7.9) 19.7 27.8 17.5 22.8 8.6 35.9 15.4 5.5 18.4 21.0 Montana (6.0) (6.0) (5.4) (8.6) (4.2) (8.6) (6.0) (3.0) (5.8) (6.3) 47.1 68.8 43.7 39.7 17.7 60.6 24.5 11.4 45.6 48.6 Maglizh (4.9) (4.1) (4.5) (6.8) (3.8) (5.5) (5.1) (3.6) (4.8) (5.0) 55.7 58.4 44.5 65.4 30.4 67.6 38.6 35.5 54.0 57.5 Nevestino (7.4) (9.3) (7.4) (7.5) (6.7) (7.1) (8.4) (9.3) (7.6) (7.3) 40.0 37.2 35.5 62.9 21.7 53.1 33.7 15.7 37.2 42.7 Nedelino (7.0) (7.0) (6.8) (8.2) (5.9) (7.9) (6.9) (4.8) (7.1) (7.0) 24.2 29.7 21.8 29.9 11.9 37.1 19.2 9.6 22.7 25.6 Nesebar (5.1) (5.4) (4.7) (7.3) (3.5) (7.0) (4.8) (2.9) (5.0) (5.3) Nikola 50.6 63.8 48.0 44.8 28.8 53.9 31.1 13.7 49.3 51.9 Kozlevo (7.7) (7.3) (7.4) (9.6) (7.3) (8.1) (7.7) (4.8) (7.6) (7.7) 52.9 77.1 47.6 40.3 13.5 63.7 23.4 11.2 51.8 53.9 Nikolaevo (5.8) (4.6) (5.5) (8.7) (4.5) (6.6) (6.3) (5.1) (5.8) (5.9) 41.3 59.6 37.9 41.2 17.8 50.1 27.2 12.6 39.4 43.1 Nikopol (6.6) (5.9) (5.9) (8.3) (5.0) (7.4) (6.4) (4.6) (6.6) (6.7) 37.4 57.6 34.0 31.5 12.2 52.5 16.2 7.1 35.6 39.1 Nova Zagora (4.3) (3.9) (3.9) (6.5) (3.0) (5.4) (4.1) (2.3) (4.2) (4.5) Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 69 ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 33.7 46.2 30.7 34.3 15.1 47.4 21.8 7.8 31.8 35.4 Novi pazar (5.2) (4.8) (4.7) (7.3) (3.7) (6.5) (4.8) (2.7) (5.0) (5.4) 34.1 51.5 31.6 33.8 18.5 42.1 23.8 13.6 30.9 36.9 Novo selo (8.2) (8.0) (7.3) (9.5) (6.2) (9.3) (7.6) (6.3) (8.0) (8.4) 42.3 52.6 39.7 44.0 21.9 49.7 28.1 10.5 41.0 43.6 Omurtag (5.7) (5.9) (5.4) (7.2) (4.7) (6.3) (5.2) (3.0) (5.6) (5.8) 41.3 46.7 38.8 46.7 26.3 47.2 31.6 15.8 39.6 43.1 Opaka (7.8) (8.1) (7.4) (9.4) (6.7) (8.5) (7.0) (5.2) (7.7) (7.9) 41.7 62.6 37.6 42.1 17.9 47.3 25.7 13.5 39.0 44.3 Opan (7.5) (6.8) (6.3) (9.2) (5.2) (8.3) (6.8) (6.0) (7.5) (7.6) 35.2 49.4 32.2 35.3 14.1 46.7 24.5 9.1 33.4 37.0 Oryahovo (6.3) (5.8) (5.6) (8.1) (4.6) (7.5) (6.1) (3.3) (6.2) (6.4) 38.0 53.4 34.5 36.9 17.0 49.1 21.0 9.6 36.4 39.5 Pavel banya (6.5) (6.2) (6.0) (8.6) (4.9) (7.7) (5.9) (3.5) (6.4) (6.6) 40.9 54.9 36.9 43.8 18.9 57.1 29.9 14.0 38.7 43.1 Pavlikeni (5.7) (5.1) (5.2) (7.4) (4.5) (6.6) (5.9) (3.6) (5.6) (5.8) 34.1 45.5 31.0 37.3 14.6 54.4 22.3 9.7 32.5 35.6 Pazardzhik (4.7) (4.5) (4.2) (6.6) (3.2) (6.0) (4.5) (2.5) (4.5) (4.8) 15.8 21.9 13.5 19.9 5.1 27.4 9.4 3.5 14.3 17.3 Panagyurishte (3.3) (3.3) (2.8) (5.4) (1.7) (5.2) (2.7) (1.3) (3.1) (3.6) 17.0 19.6 14.2 25.2 9.3 30.8 13.1 7.6 16.4 17.5 Pernik (4.0) (5.0) (3.7) (4.9) (3.0) (5.7) (3.7) (2.4) (4.0) (4.1) 32.9 49.1 29.8 31.0 14.3 47.8 15.4 7.6 31.0 34.7 Perushtitsa (5.7) (5.8) (5.2) (7.9) (4.0) (7.5) (4.8) (3.2) (5.6) (5.9) 21.8 26.3 17.9 33.4 12.4 34.0 14.2 8.8 21.0 22.6 Petrich (5.4) (6.4) (4.9) (7.0) (4.0) (7.3) (4.5) (3.0) (5.3) (5.4) 30.6 44.2 28.0 29.4 12.4 47.6 16.7 7.0 29.4 31.9 Peshtera (5.1) (4.7) (4.7) (7.4) (3.7) (6.4) (5.0) (2.7) (4.9) (5.3) 7.9 11.1 6.3 10.8 2.8 16.3 4.6 2.2 7.3 8.4 Pirdop (2.6) (3.6) (2.2) (3.8) (1.4) (4.8) (2.0) (1.1) (2.5) (2.8) 22.2 30.0 19.7 26.3 10.5 41.8 19.8 8.0 20.4 23.9 Pleven (3.2) (3.2) (2.9) (4.5) (2.3) (4.3) (3.5) (1.9) (3.0) (3.4) 70 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 17.9 23.8 16.4 19.7 6.7 38.9 15.4 5.9 16.2 19.4 Plovdiv (1.4) (1.6) (1.3) (2.2) (0.9) (2.5) (1.5) (0.9) (1.3) (1.5) Polski 46.3 61.6 42.7 46.7 21.5 58.7 32.3 14.4 43.9 48.6 Trambesh (6.4) (5.3) (5.7) (8.5) (5.1) (7.1) (6.6) (4.5) (6.4) (6.4) 28.8 39.5 25.9 31.1 12.7 42.0 16.9 7.0 27.2 30.3 Pomorie (5.1) (5.3) (4.7) (7.1) (3.6) (6.5) (4.5) (2.5) (5.0) (5.2) 36.1 45.9 32.7 40.4 16.9 50.9 25.4 11.0 33.9 38.2 Popovo (5.8) (5.5) (5.3) (7.7) (4.8) (6.6) (5.9) (3.7) (5.7) (5.9) 36.8 52.8 33.7 36.7 17.6 48.3 24.8 13.6 34.4 39.1 Pordim (7.4) (6.6) (6.6) (9.1) (5.5) (8.5) (7.0) (5.6) (7.2) (7.5) 35.9 55.0 29.2 42.9 11.3 57.8 18.6 9.5 35.6 36.2 Pravets (4.1) (4.8) (3.7) (5.7) (2.6) (5.9) (3.7) (2.4) (4.1) (4.2) 29.9 33.9 26.3 40.2 15.9 42.5 22.7 14.0 27.4 32.3 Primorsko (6.9) (7.2) (6.2) (9.9) (5.3) (8.5) (6.3) (4.7) (6.7) (7.1) 36.3 51.0 33.3 35.0 16.4 49.6 22.8 8.2 34.8 37.9 Provadia (6.0) (5.8) (5.3) (8.4) (4.2) (7.4) (5.5) (2.7) (5.9) (6.1) 25.9 35.5 22.9 28.9 9.8 36.7 14.0 6.0 24.2 27.4 Parvomay (4.0) (4.1) (3.5) (5.4) (2.4) (5.2) (3.2) (1.7) (3.8) (4.1) 14.5 25.6 11.9 15.9 4.0 22.8 6.6 2.7 13.2 15.8 Radnevo (3.7) (4.2) (3.0) (5.9) (1.6) (5.8) (2.5) (1.1) (3.4) (4.1) 29.1 31.6 23.0 44.0 13.1 47.8 19.5 11.8 28.1 30.1 Radomir (4.8) (5.1) (4.3) (6.3) (3.5) (6.2) (4.4) (3.1) (4.7) (4.8) 21.5 26.8 19.6 25.0 9.9 35.4 17.0 6.1 19.5 23.3 Razgrad (4.1) (4.1) (3.8) (5.6) (3.0) (5.7) (4.0) (2.1) (3.8) (4.3) 18.2 25.1 15.4 24.0 9.0 31.6 11.5 5.8 17.2 19.2 Razlog (4.0) (5.1) (3.6) (5.1) (2.7) (5.9) (3.4) (2.0) (3.9) (4.1) 47.9 59.2 45.4 47.2 23.4 59.3 29.7 10.6 46.6 49.3 Rakitovo (5.5) (5.2) (5.3) (7.2) (4.6) (6.2) (5.3) (3.0) (5.6) (5.5) 23.3 35.8 19.9 26.0 9.8 31.2 11.5 5.2 22.4 24.1 Rakovski (4.5) (4.6) (4.1) (6.3) (3.1) (5.8) (3.6) (2.0) (4.4) (4.7) 33.0 32.7 25.7 48.0 15.7 54.3 21.4 14.7 30.5 35.4 Rila (5.6) (6.3) (5.2) (6.7) (4.4) (6.9) (5.4) (4.5) (5.7) (5.4) Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 71 ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 18.0 24.0 15.5 22.3 6.7 28.6 11.5 4.8 16.6 19.4 Rodopi (4.5) (4.2) (3.8) (6.7) (2.5) (6.4) (3.7) (2.1) (4.3) (4.7) 41.7 60.7 38.5 40.8 22.7 55.4 32.5 16.4 39.7 43.7 Roman (8.0) (7.3) (7.3) (10.2) (6.7) (8.8) (8.3) (6.0) (8.0) (8.0) 25.1 23.0 21.5 43.8 11.6 36.2 19.0 8.1 22.7 27.4 Rudozem (5.4) (5.2) (4.8) (8.8) (3.6) (7.2) (4.6) (2.7) (5.2) (5.6) 42.5 49.3 39.5 50.2 23.5 46.3 29.2 13.5 41.2 43.9 Ruen (6.8) (6.7) (6.6) (8.8) (6.0) (7.2) (6.5) (4.3) (6.8) (6.8) 54.8 72.6 50.9 54.2 31.1 64.4 41.8 19.8 52.6 56.9 Ruzhintsi (8.1) (6.5) (7.4) (10.3) (7.7) (8.6) (8.6) (7.1) (8.1) (8.2) 19.1 22.8 17.5 22.9 9.3 33.2 17.9 6.9 17.3 20.8 Ruse (3.9) (3.9) (3.5) (5.6) (2.7) (5.6) (4.1) (2.1) (3.6) (4.1) 40.3 56.8 36.6 39.6 20.9 51.8 21.8 12.1 38.9 41.7 Sadovo (7.6) (6.8) (7.0) (10.0) (6.2) (8.7) (7.2) (4.9) (7.5) (7.7) 29.2 38.9 24.3 38.5 12.1 47.8 17.2 9.3 28.1 30.2 Samokov (4.7) (5.7) (4.4) (5.6) (3.2) (6.7) (4.0) (2.5) (4.7) (4.8) 39.0 48.5 36.3 42.3 23.6 43.9 25.4 12.5 37.5 40.7 Samuil (7.4) (7.3) (7.0) (9.5) (6.4) (8.1) (6.6) (4.6) (7.4) (7.5) 22.6 25.9 18.2 36.9 12.5 38.9 14.7 9.3 21.7 23.5 Sandanski (4.7) (5.8) (4.3) (5.8) (3.5) (6.6) (4.0) (2.7) (4.6) (4.7) Sapareva 24.8 25.7 20.9 35.0 13.9 37.6 18.2 11.6 24.2 25.3 banya (5.2) (5.8) (4.8) (6.6) (3.9) (6.8) (4.6) (3.5) (5.1) (5.3) 24.0 28.0 21.2 33.2 13.1 29.4 18.2 9.1 23.3 24.6 Satovcha (6.2) (7.2) (5.8) (7.6) (4.7) (7.2) (5.4) (3.3) (6.1) (6.3) 25.2 33.0 21.5 33.2 10.7 41.9 15.4 7.2 23.6 26.8 Svilengrad (4.0) (3.8) (3.5) (6.1) (2.7) (5.5) (3.6) (2.2) (3.8) (4.1) 27.1 30.4 24.6 33.2 10.8 40.9 24.7 7.8 24.7 29.4 Svishtov (4.9) (4.6) (4.4) (6.9) (3.3) (6.7) (4.9) (2.7) (4.8) (5.0) 15.2 14.1 10.6 28.4 5.9 28.6 8.2 4.7 14.3 16.1 Svoge (4.1) (4.4) (3.5) (6.2) (2.6) (6.4) (3.2) (1.9) (4.0) (4.2) 25.4 33.3 21.4 31.6 11.7 40.0 18.5 7.5 23.0 27.6 Sevlievo (4.1) (4.1) (3.5) (5.7) (2.8) (5.4) (3.9) (2.0) (3.9) (4.2) 72 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 32.5 47.5 29.9 30.1 13.4 45.1 17.6 6.8 31.2 33.7 Septemvri (7.1) (6.9) (6.6) (9.3) (5.3) (8.5) (6.6) (3.8) (7.0) (7.2) 19.1 25.0 17.1 22.8 7.4 31.9 15.6 5.5 17.5 20.7 Silistra (4.6) (4.5) (4.0) (6.6) (2.8) (6.6) (4.4) (2.1) (4.3) (4.8) 42.6 62.1 38.7 38.7 17.6 53.9 22.8 9.8 40.7 44.5 Simeonovgrad (6.3) (5.9) (5.8) (8.6) (4.7) (7.4) (5.8) (3.9) (6.2) (6.4) 28.9 33.6 24.0 43.2 15.4 40.3 18.9 10.5 28.1 29.7 Simitli (5.3) (6.2) (4.9) (6.5) (4.1) (6.2) (4.8) (3.1) (5.2) (5.3) 31.2 44.1 27.8 32.6 15.1 36.1 19.0 9.0 29.6 32.7 Sitovo (6.2) (6.3) (5.6) (8.0) (4.3) (7.2) (5.1) (3.2) (6.1) (6.4) 35.1 51.9 30.6 36.1 11.5 54.3 21.2 8.4 33.6 36.5 Sliven (4.4) (3.9) (4.0) (6.7) (2.9) (5.6) (4.5) (2.2) (4.2) (4.5) 16.4 18.2 12.1 28.6 7.5 30.7 10.2 6.2 15.6 17.1 Slivnitsa (3.6) (4.7) (3.0) (5.1) (2.4) (5.6) (2.9) (1.9) (3.5) (3.7) 33.0 44.6 30.5 33.8 14.1 40.5 18.6 8.4 30.7 35.2 Slivo pole (5.0) (4.9) (4.5) (6.4) (3.6) (5.9) (4.0) (2.7) (4.8) (5.2) 25.4 25.7 21.7 39.8 12.3 43.1 22.0 9.5 22.9 27.7 Smolyan (4.8) (4.6) (4.3) (7.5) (3.3) (7.0) (4.7) (2.7) (4.6) (5.0) 39.7 52.4 36.1 41.9 20.2 48.1 24.3 10.7 37.3 42.0 Smyadovo (6.7) (6.1) (6.0) (8.8) (5.2) (7.7) (5.9) (3.9) (6.5) (6.8) 34.7 43.7 30.1 43.1 16.8 49.6 22.8 10.3 32.7 36.6 Sozopol (5.5) (5.5) (4.9) (7.7) (4.0) (6.9) (5.1) (3.0) (5.4) (5.6) 17.8 20.4 15.4 26.6 8.2 32.6 14.6 6.3 15.7 19.9 Sopot (4.1) (4.3) (3.6) (6.7) (2.8) (6.1) (4.0) (2.1) (3.8) (4.5) 37.3 55.6 32.4 38.4 13.9 50.0 20.1 7.4 34.7 39.7 Sredets (5.3) (5.0) (4.6) (8.0) (3.4) (6.8) (4.6) (2.6) (5.2) (5.5) 32.1 49.0 28.1 33.0 13.4 45.9 17.3 8.5 30.5 33.7 Stamboliyski (4.5) (4.3) (4.0) (6.5) (3.2) (5.7) (4.0) (2.4) (4.4) (4.6) 32.5 37.8 29.0 39.9 18.7 36.8 20.8 10.6 30.9 34.2 Stambolovo (6.1) (6.5) (5.6) (7.8) (5.0) (6.6) (5.2) (4.0) (6.0) (6.2) 17.6 23.4 15.2 22.8 6.6 35.7 13.6 5.0 16.0 19.1 Stara Zagora (3.2) (3.1) (2.7) (5.3) (2.0) (5.0) (3.2) (1.6) (3.0) (3.3) Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 73 ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 6.6 7.1 5.9 9.4 3.4 14.6 6.7 4.0 6.3 6.9 Stolichna (1.0) (1.4) (1.0) (1.4) (0.8) (2.3) (1.1) (0.7) (1.0) (1.0) 47.0 63.2 42.9 46.5 22.3 59.4 28.3 12.4 45.0 49.0 Strazhitsa (7.0) (6.3) (6.3) (9.8) (5.7) (7.9) (6.9) (4.3) (6.9) (7.1) 40.0 64.9 35.4 35.4 12.3 48.5 16.9 6.0 37.7 42.3 Straldzha (5.8) (4.5) (4.9) (8.7) (3.8) (7.2) (5.0) (2.6) (5.6) (5.9) 28.8 37.1 25.3 33.9 10.3 43.0 18.4 8.1 26.9 30.6 Strelcha (5.3) (5.2) (4.5) (7.7) (3.2) (6.7) (5.0) (3.1) (5.1) (5.5) 47.2 57.9 38.8 58.3 26.1 58.9 26.0 15.2 44.8 49.5 Strumyani (6.7) (8.1) (6.6) (7.1) (6.0) (7.6) (6.0) (5.0) (6.9) (6.6) 35.7 49.5 32.9 33.9 16.6 45.8 20.2 8.6 33.5 37.9 Suvorovo (5.7) (5.4) (5.1) (8.0) (4.2) (6.9) (5.1) (2.9) (5.6) (5.8) 42.7 55.8 39.4 42.7 22.3 50.6 24.1 9.9 40.9 44.4 Sungurlare (6.8) (6.6) (6.2) (8.9) (5.5) (7.8) (6.0) (3.6) (6.7) (7.0) 46.9 64.3 43.3 46.2 26.5 60.8 35.3 18.2 44.1 49.6 Suhindol (7.1) (6.1) (6.4) (9.4) (6.2) (7.6) (7.6) (6.5) (7.0) (7.2) 30.0 36.8 25.5 36.8 11.5 41.3 17.5 9.1 28.1 31.9 Saedinenie (5.6) (5.1) (4.9) (7.6) (3.8) (7.0) (4.7) (3.3) (5.6) (5.7) 48.5 71.7 43.5 39.6 14.9 60.0 22.5 10.3 47.3 49.7 Tvarditsa (5.1) (3.6) (4.8) (8.1) (4.3) (5.8) (5.7) (3.5) (5.0) (5.2) 37.5 52.2 35.2 33.0 18.1 45.4 18.5 6.8 36.1 38.9 Tervel (5.9) (5.8) (5.6) (7.9) (4.5) (7.0) (4.8) (2.5) (5.9) (6.1) 45.6 57.0 42.5 47.2 25.1 61.6 34.7 12.8 43.7 47.4 Teteven (5.7) (5.2) (5.4) (7.4) (5.0) (6.3) (6.1) (3.6) (5.7) (5.7) 27.9 39.6 23.4 32.9 10.6 37.9 15.5 6.1 25.5 30.3 Topolovgrad (6.2) (6.3) (5.1) (8.6) (3.4) (8.1) (4.7) (2.3) (6.0) (6.4) 38.8 38.7 30.2 47.6 22.3 55.0 27.5 25.5 37.9 39.7 Treklyano (6.6) (15.3) (6.0) (7.8) (5.8) (7.6) (6.5) (9.1) (6.7) (6.7) 23.8 25.2 20.1 32.6 11.7 39.5 20.5 9.1 21.2 26.1 Troyan (4.7) (4.3) (4.1) (6.5) (3.4) (6.3) (4.7) (2.8) (4.4) (4.9) 48.0 61.5 40.4 56.6 27.1 62.9 32.2 23.6 46.6 49.4 Tran (6.6) (8.1) (6.5) (7.2) (5.8) (7.4) (6.7) (5.6) (6.6) (6.5) 74 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria ANNEX 2 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 28.4 32.2 24.4 36.9 16.1 41.8 25.6 13.0 25.7 30.9 Tryavna (6.4) (6.4) (5.8) (8.2) (5.2) (7.7) (6.6) (4.3) (6.3) (6.5) 32.1 54.0 26.9 33.1 10.9 39.5 15.9 7.9 29.9 34.2 Tundzha (5.3) (4.3) (4.3) (7.5) (2.9) (6.7) (4.0) (2.6) (5.1) (5.6) 28.7 35.5 26.1 32.7 13.0 38.5 18.6 7.6 26.7 30.7 Tutrakan (4.9) (4.8) (4.4) (6.5) (3.3) (6.1) (4.1) (2.3) (4.7) (5.0) 31.2 40.8 28.2 35.2 14.9 47.5 22.1 8.7 29.2 33.1 Targovishte (5.2) (5.1) (4.8) (7.3) (4.3) (6.4) (5.3) (3.1) (5.1) (5.4) 54.7 74.6 50.5 53.0 26.3 65.5 39.1 21.1 52.0 57.2 Ugarchin (6.8) (5.1) (6.2) (8.9) (6.4) (7.2) (7.5) (6.3) (6.8) (6.8) 19.1 19.1 15.2 32.7 10.6 27.5 12.1 8.6 18.6 19.7 Hadzhidimovo (4.4) (5.1) (4.1) (5.7) (3.5) (5.5) (3.6) (2.7) (4.4) (4.5) 41.9 57.6 39.1 41.4 23.6 50.7 32.6 16.4 39.6 44.1 Hayredin (7.6) (7.0) (6.9) (9.3) (6.5) (8.6) (7.4) (5.6) (7.6) (7.7) 31.6 43.7 27.8 36.1 13.4 46.2 19.6 8.0 29.9 33.4 Harmanli (4.8) (4.6) (4.3) (6.9) (3.3) (6.3) (4.3) (2.5) (4.7) (5.0) 22.8 29.4 20.2 27.6 9.6 38.5 16.2 6.3 21.1 24.3 Haskovo (4.0) (4.0) (3.6) (5.9) (2.7) (5.6) (3.9) (2.0) (3.9) (4.1) 29.1 33.4 23.8 37.8 10.2 43.1 19.0 8.7 27.1 31.0 Hisarya (6.3) (5.6) (5.1) (8.8) (3.7) (8.2) (5.4) (3.4) (6.1) (6.4) 36.7 44.6 34.1 39.7 21.4 41.3 23.2 10.9 34.9 38.5 Hitrino (7.4) (7.5) (7.0) (8.8) (6.2) (8.0) (6.3) (4.4) (7.3) (7.5) 33.8 36.7 31.2 40.5 21.5 40.2 25.5 11.5 31.8 35.7 Tsar Kaloyan (6.3) (6.8) (6.0) (7.6) (5.2) (7.1) (5.6) (3.6) (6.3) (6.4) 28.8 35.9 25.4 36.4 11.9 43.4 20.5 8.6 26.8 30.7 Tsarevo (5.7) (5.4) (5.0) (8.6) (3.9) (7.5) (5.3) (2.9) (5.4) (5.9) 31.0 42.8 27.5 33.7 12.7 39.0 18.8 7.9 28.7 33.4 Tsenovo (6.0) (5.9) (5.2) (7.5) (3.8) (7.1) (5.0) (3.2) (5.9) (6.1) 25.1 32.6 21.4 30.1 12.5 40.0 14.7 9.5 24.0 26.1 Chavdar (5.6) (8.2) (5.3) (6.4) (4.2) (7.7) (4.7) (3.6) (5.7) (5.7) 2.9 2.7 2.2 5.3 1.0 6.9 1.4 0.7 2.7 3.2 Chelopech (2.5) (2.8) (1.9) (4.2) (1.2) (5.5) (1.3) (0.9) (2.3) (2.7) Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 75 ANNEX 2 (Continued and end) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females Municipality (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 19.5 18.8 15.2 32.1 8.0 32.8 14.7 5.8 16.9 22.0 Chepelare (4.5) (4.2) (3.7) (7.1) (2.7) (6.8) (3.9) (2.0) (4.2) (4.8) Cherven 42.5 57.0 39.0 43.7 19.4 59.5 32.5 14.5 40.8 44.2 bryag (5.7) (5.0) (5.3) (7.7) (4.6) (6.3) (6.2) (4.0) (5.7) (5.8) 25.8 26.9 23.8 32.0 13.0 30.1 19.4 8.4 24.4 27.3 Chernoochene (7.3) (7.5) (6.7) (9.7) (5.0) (8.2) (6.2) (3.8) (7.1) (7.5) 29.7 33.9 25.0 36.4 13.3 39.5 23.7 12.0 27.7 31.7 Chiprovtsi (6.9) (7.4) (6.0) (8.5) (4.7) (8.2) (6.5) (4.1) (6.9) (6.9) 34.8 51.9 30.9 35.0 11.5 50.9 18.9 7.6 32.7 36.8 Chirpan (4.8) (4.0) (4.0) (7.3) (2.8) (6.3) (4.4) (2.5) (4.6) (5.0) 45.6 73.4 41.0 43.7 22.1 55.9 28.7 12.9 42.2 48.9 Chuprene (7.9) (6.7) (6.8) (10.1) (6.0) (9.1) (7.7) (5.9) (7.7) (8.1) 24.9 39.6 21.7 26.8 9.8 35.6 14.8 6.2 22.9 26.9 Shabla (5.1) (5.2) (4.4) (7.0) (3.2) (6.7) (4.4) (2.6) (4.8) (5.4) 20.0 25.3 18.0 23.7 9.0 35.8 16.8 6.2 18.1 21.7 Shumen (3.5) (3.6) (3.2) (5.0) (2.6) (5.0) (3.6) (1.9) (3.3) (3.7) 49.5 70.5 45.6 41.6 18.9 64.6 30.0 13.4 48.1 50.9 Yablanitsa (5.8) (4.5) (5.2) (8.8) (4.9) (6.3) (6.5) (4.7) (5.6) (5.9) 47.8 66.4 45.4 44.4 25.9 54.0 34.9 19.1 45.7 49.9 Yakimovo (7.9) (7.0) (7.3) (9.7) (7.0) (8.7) (7.9) (6.7) (7.8) (8.1) 30.4 35.5 27.4 39.6 17.2 38.8 21.3 11.8 29.6 31.1 Yakoruda (6.3) (7.8) (5.9) (7.9) (5.3) (7.4) (5.5) (3.9) (6.2) (6.5) 22.7 35.7 19.3 26.4 7.8 42.6 15.2 6.1 21.0 24.4 Yambol (2.9) (2.9) (2.5) (4.9) (1.8) (4.1) (3.0) (1.5) (2.7) (3.1) 76 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria ANNEX 2 ANNEX 3 Share of poor in the cities of Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna by districts (standard error is pointed in brackets) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females City District (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 6.3 4.8 5.1 9.5 3.1 11.1 7.6 5.7 5.6 6.9 Sredets (1.9) (1.9) (1.6) (2.7) (1.2) (3.1) (2.2) (1.7) (1.7) (2.0) Krasno 4.6 3.5 3.9 7.6 2.5 9.4 5.5 3.7 4.2 4.9 selo (1.3) (1.3) (1.1) (2.2) (0.9) (2.4) (1.5) (1.2) (1.2) (1.4) 6.3 7.0 5.6 9.1 3.4 15.6 6.3 4.2 6.1 6.6 Vazrazhdane (1.8) (2.2) (1.6) (2.5) (1.3) (4.1) (1.9) (1.3) (1.8) (1.9) 5.7 4.3 4.8 9.0 3.1 11.1 7.0 4.8 5.1 6.2 Oborishte (1.6) (1.6) (1.4) (2.4) (1.1) (2.7) (2.0) (1.4) (1.5) (1.7) 7.1 8.9 6.2 9.6 3.9 15.2 6.2 4.1 6.9 7.2 Serdika (2.3) (3.0) (2.1) (2.9) (1.6) (4.5) (2.2) (1.4) (2.2) (2.3) 5.9 6.6 5.1 9.4 3.3 12.2 5.4 3.8 5.7 6.1 Poduyane (1.7) (2.1) (1.5) (2.4) (1.2) (3.3) (1.7) (1.1) (1.7) (1.8) 6.2 7.6 5.4 8.8 3.3 14.7 6.0 3.7 6.0 6.4 SOFIA Slatina (1.7) (2.3) (1.6) (2.3) (1.2) (3.7) (1.8) (1.2) (1.7) (1.8) 4.7 3.4 4.0 7.4 2.4 9.9 5.7 3.8 4.3 5.0 Izgrev (1.3) (1.2) (1.1) (2.2) (0.9) (2.8) (1.6) (1.1) (1.3) (1.4) 5.1 3.7 4.5 8.4 2.7 10.1 6.7 4.2 4.7 5.4 Lozenets (1.5) (1.4) (1.4) (2.5) (1.1) (2.8) (2.0) (1.3) (1.5) (1.6) 5.3 4.1 4.5 8.6 2.8 11.6 6.2 4.4 4.7 5.7 Triaditsa (1.6) (1.5) (1.4) (2.6) (1.1) (3.1) (2.0) (1.4) (1.5) (1.7) Krasna 11.2 17.7 9.8 11.1 5.5 22.7 7.1 4.4 11.0 11.4 polyana (3.1) (5.1) (2.8) (2.8) (1.9) (6.3) (2.1) (1.3) (3.0) (3.1) 5.7 6.5 4.8 8.4 3.0 13.4 5.4 3.8 5.4 6.0 Ilinden (2.1) (2.5) (1.9) (3.0) (1.4) (4.2) (2.1) (1.6) (2.0) (2.2) 6.3 6.9 5.4 9.9 3.6 13.3 5.8 3.9 6.0 6.6 Nadezhda (2.0) (2.2) (1.8) (2.8) (1.4) (3.5) (1.9) (1.3) (1.9) (2.0) Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 77 ANNEX 3 (Continued) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females City District (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 5.1 5.9 4.4 8.5 2.8 11.9 4.7 2.9 4.8 5.4 Iskar (1.4) (1.8) (1.3) (2.2) (1.0) (2.9) (1.4) (0.9) (1.4) (1.5) 4.5 4.0 4.0 7.1 2.6 10.1 5.0 3.2 4.2 4.7 Mladost (1.5) (1.6) (1.4) (2.3) (1.1) (3.0) (1.7) (1.1) (1.5) (1.6) 16.0 8.3 17.0 13.8 7.0 19.9 20.6 8.5 15.6 16.5 Studentski (4.2) (2.8) (4.5) (3.6) (2.3) (4.7) (5.5) (2.3) (4.2) (4.3) 5.1 4.7 4.5 8.8 2.8 12.3 5.4 3.3 4.9 5.3 Vitosha (1.5) (1.6) (1.4) (2.3) (1.0) (3.1) (1.7) (1.1) (1.5) (1.5) Ovcha 4.3 4.6 3.7 7.8 2.4 9.7 4.3 2.8 4.2 4.4 kupel (1.3) (1.6) (1.2) (2.2) (0.9) (2.6) (1.3) (0.9) (1.3) (1.3) 6.9 8.7 6.1 9.4 3.9 15.5 6.0 3.9 6.6 7.1 SOFIA Lyulin (2.0) (2.5) (1.8) (2.5) (1.4) (3.9) (1.8) (1.2) (1.9) (2.0) 6.0 7.7 5.1 10.1 3.3 12.9 4.8 2.9 5.8 6.2 Vrabnitsa (2.0) (2.6) (1.8) (3.0) (1.3) (3.8) (1.7) (1.1) (1.9) (2.0) 10.2 11.0 8.3 16.7 5.7 18.1 7.4 5.3 9.9 10.4 Novi Iskar (2.9) (3.5) (2.6) (4.0) (2.1) (4.4) (2.4) (1.9) (2.9) (3.0) 13.0 17.2 11.1 17.6 7.2 21.1 8.9 5.7 12.7 13.4 Kremikovtsi (3.5) (4.7) (3.2) (4.2) (2.6) (5.1) (2.8) (1.9) (3.5) (3.6) 8.2 8.8 6.5 14.3 4.4 16.4 6.1 4.0 7.9 8.5 Pancharevo (2.2) (2.6) (1.9) (3.3) (1.6) (3.8) (1.9) (1.3) (2.2) (2.3) 6.6 6.3 5.7 10.6 3.8 13.3 6.1 3.7 6.4 6.8 Bankya (1.9) (2.1) (1.8) (2.6) (1.4) (3.3) (1.9) (1.3) (1.9) (1.9) 78 Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria ANNEX 3 (Continued and end) Total Childeren Adults Adults Employed Primary Secondary Tertiary Males Females City District (0 - 14 (15 - 64 (65+ and lower education education years) years) years) education 13.5 12.0 12.5 17.3 4.8 28.7 17.0 6.1 11.6 15.2 Tsentralen (3.0) (2.6) (2.6) (4.6) (1.6) (5.3) (3.7) (1.8) (2.6) (3.3) 39.6 56.5 36.9 27.3 15.3 58.6 17.8 6.3 38.1 41.1 Iztochen (4.3) (4.6) (4.0) (5.3) (2.9) (5.6) (3.6) (1.7) (4.2) (4.3) 12.4 10.5 11.2 17.9 4.9 22.3 14.1 5.2 10.4 14.1 Zapaden (3.0) (2.8) (2.6) (5.0) (1.8) (5.0) (3.4) (1.7) (2.7) (3.3) PLOVDIV 18.1 24.7 16.5 19.3 6.5 39.7 14.8 5.7 16.5 19.5 Severen (3.2) (3.1) (2.8) (5.0) (1.8) (5.4) (3.4) (1.6) (2.9) (3.4) 12.7 11.3 11.3 20.4 5.7 22.7 14.1 5.8 10.9 14.4 Yuzhen (2.9) (2.5) (2.5) (4.9) (1.7) (4.6) (3.2) (1.6) (2.6) (3.1) 13.4 12.9 12.6 20.8 6.4 23.8 15.4 5.9 11.8 14.9 Trakia (3.2) (3.3) (3.0) (5.5) (2.3) (5.1) (3.6) (1.9) (3.0) (3.5) 15.7 18.9 14.7 17.5 7.1 34.3 16.7 6.7 14.1 17.2 Odesos (3.0) (2.9) (2.8) (4.4) (2.1) (4.8) (3.6) (1.8) (2.8) (3.2) 12.0 9.9 11.9 13.9 4.9 20.4 16.4 5.4 10.7 13.2 Primorski (2.5) (2.3) (2.3) (3.8) (1.6) (4.2) (3.2) (1.5) (2.3) (2.7) 14.6 17.5 13.3 18.0 7.1 28.4 13.8 5.8 13.1 15.9 VARNA Mladost (3.5) (3.6) (3.2) (5.1) (2.6) (5.4) (3.8) (2.0) (3.3) (3.7) Vladislav 16.8 23.2 15.3 19.4 8.5 30.2 13.5 5.9 15.2 18.4 Varnenchik (5.4) (5.9) (5.1) (8.2) (4.0) (7.7) (5.4) (2.8) (5.1) (5.8) 20.8 27.6 19.2 21.9 9.8 36.6 14.8 6.1 19.3 22.2 Asparuhovo (4.4) (4.5) (4.0) (6.3) (3.2) (6.2) (4.2) (2.2) (4.1) (4.6) Poverty mapping in the republic of Bulgaria 79 www.nsi.bg