Sofia Ferreros, Miguel Hocbo, Rianna Magpantay, Ray Montes, Carl Ramos, Ashley Tantiado

A Quantitative Study On
The Correlation Between:
Poverty Incidence and Living
Conditions Of Agricultural And
Non-Agricultural Households
A Quantitative Study On The Correlation Between:
Poverty Incidence and Living Conditions Of Agricultural
And Non-Agricultural Households
Our Research
The study was based on the set of data that was provided. It
indicates the type of:

Location (whether it is upland, metropolis, or coastal)

Income, expenditures, and amount spent on food per month

Type of household (whether it is agricultural or non-agricultural)

Sex and of the head of the household

Type of household (whether the family is a single, extended, or

has non-relatives)

Total number of members

Ages of members ranging from 5-17 and the number of members

below the age of 5

Different material of the roof and walls

Poverty classification
A Quantitative Study On The Correlation Between:
Poverty Incidence and Living Conditions Of Agricultural
And Non-Agricultural Households

Research Objectives

Determine the relationship of Evaluate the living conditions of

poverty incidence and financial agricultural and non-agricultural
performance between agricultural household homes based on house
and non-agricultural households structural integrity and location.
A Quantitative Study On The Correlation Between:
Poverty Incidence and Living Conditions Of Agricultural
And Non-Agricultural Households

Variables used
Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 3
Agricultural Monthly Income of Monthly Expenditure
Household Indicator the Household of the Household

Variable 4 Variable 5 Variable 6 Variable 7

Monthly Food Structural integrity of Poverty incidence
Total Number of
Expenditure houses based on based on monthly
Members
location, using the income using the
location type poverty threshold
indicator indicator.
A Quantitative Study On The Correlation Between:
Poverty Incidence and Living Conditions Of Agricultural
And Non-Agricultural Households

FIRST OBJECTIVE
Determine the relationship of poverty incidence and financial
performance between agricultural and non-agricultural households

Observation 1 Observation 2 Observation 3

Household Savings Monthly Expenditure Poverty incidence
between household
types (agricultural
and non-agricultural)

Observation 4 Observation 5 Observation 5

Poverty incidence Expenditure relating Monthly Food
relating to household to household size Expenditure
size
A Quantitative Study On The Correlation Between:
Poverty Incidence and Living Conditions Of Agricultural
And Non-Agricultural Households

Hypothesis Testing of one

Population Propotion (z-test)
TEST: VARIABLES:
if the statistic of families that are Monthly Income
classified as poor saves more than Poverty Classification
6,000php per month is 34% based
on the statistics of poor Filipino
adults who have financial accounts.

HYPOTHESIS:
Null Hypothesis: The rate of poor families that saves more
than 6,000php is 34%

Alternative Hypothesis: The rate of poor families that

saves more than 6,000php is not 34%

CONCLUSION:
Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough evidence to
conclude that the rate that poor households save more
than 6,000php is not equal to 34%
Hypothesis Testing for Two
Population Means (Independent TEST
Non-agricultural households' monthly expenditure is
sample t-test) significantly higher than agricultural households. We
based this claim on the 2018 Philippine Statistics
Authority’s Poverty Incidences Among the Basic
Sectors.

VARIABLES
Monthly expenditure
Agricultural household indicator

HYPOTHESES
Null Hypothesis: The monthly expenditure of non-
agricultural households is significantly higher than
agricultural households.

Alternative Hypothesis: The monthly expenditure of

non-agricultural households is not significantly higher
AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLD
EXP 1 = Expenditure is less than 10,000 per than agricultural households.
month
NON-AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLD EXP 2 = Expenditure is more than 10,000 per
month
Hypothesis Testing for Two Population
Means (Independent sample t-test)
F-TEST
Null Hypothesis: The samples have equal variances.
Alternative Hypothesis: The samples do not have
equal variances.

RESULT
Do Not Reject Null Hypothesis

CONCLUSION
The samples have equal variances
Hypothesis Testing for Two Population
Means (Independent sample t-test)

CONCLUSION
Reject the null hypothesis. There
is enough evidence to conclude
that non-agricultural households
living in poverty have a monthly
expenditure that is not
significantly higher than
agricultural households.
 30
Chi-square test
TEST
Using the poverty threshold from the Philippine
20
Statistics Authority, we determined whether the poverty
incidence between agricultural and non-agricultural
households are equal or not.

VARIABLES
10
Agricultural Household Indicator
Poverty Classification

HYPOTHESES
Null Hypothesis: Agricultural households and non- 0
agricultural households living in poverty are equal.

r
oo

oo

oo

oo
l/P

l/P

-P

-P
Alternative Hypothesis: Agricultural households living

on

on
ra

ra
in poverty are less than non-agricultural households

l/N

l/N
tu

tu
ul

ul

ra

ra
ric

ic

tu

tu
gr
Ag

ul

ul
-A

ric

ic
on

gr
Ag
N

-A
on
N
 Chi-square test

VALUES
Level of significance = 0.05
Critical value/Rejection region = 3.841459
Test statistic = 11.74825
p-Value = 0.000609

CONCLUSION
Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough
evidence to conclude that the proportion of
agricultural households living in poverty are more
than non-agricultural households.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
TEST VARIABLES
An excerpt in “Poverty Strategies in Asia: A Growth Total Number of Members
Plus Approach” by Weiss and Khan claims that a Poverty Indicator based on income
larger family size results in higher vulnerability to
poverty due to increased expenditure and decreased
household savings.

HYPOTHESES
Null Hypothesis: The likelihood of agricultural and
non-agricultural households experiencing higher
vulnerability to poverty is equal among all family
sizes.

Alternative Hypothesis: The likelihood of agricultural

and non-agricultural households experiencing higher
vulnerability to poverty is not equal among at least
one pair of family sizes.
SMALL HH = less than 4 (small household size) 1 = Income less than P6,000
AVG HH = 4 to 6 (average household size) 2 = Income more than P6,000
LARGE HH= more than 6 (large household size)
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

IMPORTANT DETAILS
ANOVA
0.05 level of significance
F Critical value = 3.1338
F Statistic = 3.3807
F Stat > F Critical value → TRUE →
Reject Null Hypothesis
TUKEY-KRAMER
Group 1 and Group 3 are different

CONCLUSION
Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough
evidence to conclude that the likelihood of
agricultural and non-agricultural households
experiencing higher vulnerability to poverty is
not equal between a small family size and a
large family size.
 IMPORTANT
Simple Linear Regression
DETAILS

r < 0.5

Simple Linear Regression r^2 = 11.12%

h0: p=0 ; ha p=/0
t-test with n-2 deg of freedom
alpha = 0.05 = d/2 = 0.025
According to an article by Marsh McLennan, with more members of n=70-2=68
the family, they may spend more on goods and services, but the ratio TEST THE CLAIM crit=1.995
of monthly expenditure for each member decreases. Is there an effect between the two?
t=rs qrt n-2/ sqrt 1 - r^2
t= 2.91712
With the monthly expenditure being the Y variable, and number of VARIABLES
t>1.995
members of the family as the X variable, the results are as follows Monthly expenditure
Total Number of Members

HYPOTHESES
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant linear
relationship between the members in the family and
monthly expenditures

Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant linear

association between the members in the family and
monthly expenditures

CONCLUSION
Reject the null hypothesis, there is a significant linear
association between the members in the family and
monthly expenditures.
Interval Estimation of One
Population Mean
According to the survey of the Philippine Statistics
Authority, the food threshold for a family of five in
2021 was P8,379. This means that the government
won’t classify a Filipino household as “food poor” if
they spend more than P18.62 per meal (Mendoza,
2022). Construct a 95% confidence interval about the
true mean amount spent on food by agricultural and
non-agricultural households.
 Interval Estimate of One Population
Mean

POINT ESTIMATE/SAMPLE MEAN

P7584.41

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
[P6475.37, P8693.45]

INTERPRETATION
With 95% confidence interval, we can say that the
mean amount spent by agricultural and non-
agricultural households per month is between
P6475.37 and P8693.45
A Quantitative Study On The Correlation Between:
Poverty Incidence and Living Conditions Of Agricultural
And Non-Agricultural Households

SECOND OBJECTIVE
Evaluate the living conditions of agricultural and non-agricultural
household homes based on house structural integrity and location.

Observation 1 Observation 2 Observation 3

Poverty Structural Integrity of Roofing Materials of
Classification Houses Based on Houses in Different
Location Locations
 Interval Estimation of One
To determine overall living conditions of agricultural
Population Proportion
and non-agricultural household homes based on house
2 - Predominantly Light structural integrity, we narrow down on identifying the
4.3%
structurally stable materials of the houses' outer
walls.

TEST
Find the confidence interval for the true proportion of
households that are structurally stable with predominantly
strong outer walls. What can we assert with a 95% confidence
about the possible size error if we estimate the proportion of
households that have predominantly strong walls is 0.96?

1 - Strong ONE POPULATION PROPORTION

95.7%
We further simplified the households’ structural integrity in
relation to structural soundness of the material of outer walls to
VARIABLE 1 - Predominantly Strong
distinguish the success portions of strong materials. Here, 1
Outer Wall Material Material
would be considered predominantly strong material for the
2 - Predominantly Light
walls and 2 would be predominantly light materials for the
67/70 = 0.96 Material
walls.
 Interval Estimation of One
Population Proportion

ESTIMATED SAMPLE PROPORTION

0.9571428571 or 0.96

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
[Estimated Sample Proportion ± Internal Half Width or
Possible size error]

[0.9571428571 - 0.0474, 0.9571428571 + 0.0474]

[ 0.9097, 1.0046]

Estimated proportion of households that have

predominantly strong walls is 0.96 (0.9571428571).
At a 95% confidence level, the confidence interval for the
true proportion of households that have structurally
sound homes is [0.9097, 1.0046]
 Hypothesis Testing of One
Population Mean (z-test)

D’Urso (2015) Philippine cities are most

at risk from disasters.

LOC

mean is 1.8

TEST THE CLAIM HYPOTHESES

Philippine cities are most at risk from
disasters than rural areas. Null Hypothesis: Those living in urban
areas are at most risk from disasters
VARIABLES
Alternative Hypothesis: Those who
Structural Integrity of
are not living in urban areas at most
houses based on location
risk from disasters

CONCLUSION
Do not reject the null hypothesis, therefore, those living in urban areas are at
most risk from disasters.
 Chi-Square Test of Equality of
Several Proportions
Strong
Upland
TEST
Test whether the current proportion of roofing materials Weak
of houses in upland, metropolis, and coastal areas have
equal capacity in withstanding a strong typhoon.

Strong
VARIABLES Metropolitan
Roof Weak
Location of Household

HYPOTHESES
Null Hypothesis: The proportions of roofing material of Strong
all houses in upland, metropolis, and coastal areas can Coastal
equally get through a strong typhoon.
Weak
Alternative Hypothesis: Not all proportions of roofing
material of houses in upland, metropolis, and coastal 0 10 20 30
areas can equally get through a strong typhoon.
 Chi-Square Test of Equality of
Several Proportions

VALUES
Level of significance = 0.05
Critical value/Rejection region = 5.991465
Test statistic = 0.407548
p-Value = 0.815647

"expected frequency assumption is violated"

CONCLUSION
Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is no
sufficient data to prove that not all proportions of
roofing material of houses in upland, metropolis,
and coastal areas can equally get through a strong
typhoon.
 Savings

Research There is enough evidence that the rate that poor households save more than 6,000php
is not equal to 34%.

Monthly Expenditure

Objective 1 Non-agricultural households living in poverty have a monthly expenditure that is not
significantly higher than agricultural households

Poverty Incidence
There are less agricultural households living in poverty than non-agricultural
households

Poverty Incidence and Household Size:

The likelihood of agricultural and non-agricultural households experiencing higher
vulnerability to poverty is not equal between at least one pair of family sizes, which is a
small family size and a large family size.

Expenditure and household size

Determine the relationship of There is significant linear association between the members in the family and monthly
poverty incidence and financial expenditure
performance between agricultural
and non-agricultural households CONCLUSION
Among the agricultural and non-agricultural households datasets, poverty
incidence is prevalent and financial performance is substandard. Factors such
as household size may affect a family’s financial standing
 Structural Integrity in Relation to Outer Wall Material

Research The estimated the proportion of households that have predominantly strong walls is
0.96.

Objective 2
Structural Integrity of Houses Based on Location
Those who are living in urban areas have a higher risk in experiencing disasters.

Roofing Materials of Houses in Different Locations

There is no sufficient data to prove that not all roofing material of houses located in
the uplands, metropolis, and coastal areas can equally get through a strong typhoon.

Evaluate the living conditions of CONCLUSION

agricultural and non-agricultural To conclude the findings on the second objective, the structural integrity of
household homes based on house both agricultural and non-agricultural households are favorable, but in natural
structural integrity and location. disasters, we would need more data to determine whether the roofing
materials of houses in different locations could survive or not. Finally,
families living in urban or metropolis areas are more prone to disasters than
those who are in rural or upland and coastal areas.
 References
https://psada.psa.gov.ph/index.php/catalog/199/datafile/F2

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-disasters-cities-idUSKBN0M01JX20150304

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1266005/philippines-share-of-households-with-savings/

https://psa.gov.ph/poverty-press-releases/nid/162541

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=ZFVW0Brf6u4C&lpg=PA171&ots=3NAex-
aO3w&dq=Family%20size%20and%20poverty&lr&pg=PA189#v=onepage&q=large%20family&f=false

https://mobilityexchange.mercer.com/insights/article/what-is-the-relationship-between-family-size-
and-mercer-spendable-income-amounts

https://opinion.inquirer.net/154788/enabling-more-filipinos-to-save

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1652149/filipinos-spend-a-third-of-their-budget-for-food-says-
study#ixzz7nXDqTOd2
THANK YOU!
Ferreros . Hocbo . Magpantay . Montes . Ramos . Tantiado