# _1.3_ Description of Sample and comparison with other localities in States

Table 4 uses 2010 census data to compare all localities in Oaxaca and Yucatán versus the localities sampled for the study. The team also included a comparison with rural localities in the states that have forest coverage. An important caveat of this analysis is that the census does not include subgroup information of the localities’ population (e.g., the population of men versus women, population that speaks the local indigenous language) for localities with only one or two houses. This affects 30 percent of the localities of the selected states. In the census data, these localities appear as missing values when subgroup information is used as variables for comparison. Additionally, filtering for localities with more than ten women excluded any locality without this information.

Localities in the sample are, on average, larger in terms of inhabited houses and population than rural localities with forest coverage. This is likely due to the aformentioned exclusion of localities with one or two houses. Those in the sample are also marginally smaller than the states’ average size, but not significantly.

In addition, localities in the sample are similar to rural localities with forest coverage – both feature agriculture as the main economic activity and a similar proportion of people above three years of age speaking indigenous languages.<sup>2</sup> These characteristics are less prominent in the selected states as a whole. The sample is slightly more educated than other rural localities with forest coverage, and marginally lower than the state, although these differences are not statistically significant.

According to available demographic variables, females make up about half of the population in the localities, on average, for all comparison groups. But localities in the sample have fewer womenheaded households than the state average, and about the same as rural localities with forest coverage.

Finally, for localities with data on the marginalization index of 2010<sup>3</sup> , we show descriptive statistics in Table 4 using the official groups “Very High” and “High” based on official cutoffs of the continuous index. Most localities in the sample are marginalized, with 68% in the “High” group and 29% in the “Very High” group. We can also assess the differences between localities using the continuous marginalization index: The sample localities ( _M_ =.36, _SD_ = .78) are, on average, less marginalized than other rural localities with forest coverage ( _M_ =.72, _SD_ = .87); but virtually equally marginalized with those across the state ( _M_ =.33, _SD_ = .85).

> 2 Localities in these two states had, according to the 2010 census, at least 27 indigenous languages spoken. Our sample had at least 10 of these indigenuous languages. Rural localities with forest coverage had at least 15. Nevertheless, in terms of proportion of people speaking indiginous languages, the sampled localities had a higher average proportion of people speaking an indigenous language (0.62) than the average locality in these two states (0.45) . Rural localities with forest coverage had 0.59, which is statistically equivalent to our sampled localities.

> 3 CONAPO (2010) Indice de marginalización por localidad 2010. Taken from <u>http://www.conapo.gob.mx/es/CONAPO/Indice_de_Marginacion_por_Localidad_2010</u>

> The marginalization index combines a series of socio-economic indicators: percentage of population 15 years or older illiterate or without completing primary education, precentage of inhabited houses without a toilet, electricity, refrigerator or piped water, or with dirt floor, and average number of inhabitants per room.

8