Project co-financed from the Sectoral Operational Program Human Resources Development 2007-2013 Invest in people! The Atlas of Rural Marginalized Areas and of Local Human Development in Romania Coordinators: Emil Teșliuc, Vlad Grigoraș, Manuela Sofia Stănculescu Bucharest, 2016 Disclaimer: This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ the World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments that they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. This report does not necessarily represent the position of the European Union or the Romanian Government. Copyright Statement: The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable laws. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with the complete information to either: the Ministry of Labor, Family, Social Protection and Elderly (Dem. I. Dobrescu Street, No 2-4, Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania); or (ii) the World Bank Group (Vasile Lascăr Street, No 31, Et 6, Sector 2, Bucharest, Romania). ISBN: 978-973-0-21723-0 Acknowledgements This document was produced by the World Bank within the Advisory Services Agreement on Provision of Inputs for the Preparation of a Draft National Strategy and Action Plan on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction (2015-2020). It is part of a package of documents that has included eight Flagship Initiatives that accompany the draft Strategy (Volume I and II) and a draft Action Plan. This Atlas of Rural Marginalized Areas and of Local Human Development in Romania represents Flagship Initiative #6. The inputs into the Government of Romania’s Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction (2015-2020) were conducted under the supervision of Mr. Andrew Mason, with overall guidance from Ms. Elisabetta Capannelli and Mr. Christian Bodewig This report was coordinated by Emil Teșliuc, Vlad Grigoraș (Task Team Leaders), and Manuela Sofia Stănculescu. The core team was composed by Dumitru Sandu, Bogdan Corad, Cătălina Iamandi- Cioinaru, Titus Man, Monica Marin, Ciprian Moldovan and Georgiana Neculau. The data collection efforts were covered by Bogdan Corad, Cătălina Iamandi-Cioinaru, Georgiana Neculau, and Andreea Trocea. The report was peer reviewed by Marcel Ionescu-Heroiu. The Atlas’ team members would like to express their gratitude to their counterparts in the Ministry of Labor, Family, Social Protection, and the Elderly, for their support in the development of all nine Flagship Initiatives. We also want also to thank to Ms. Steluta Jalia from the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, Ms. Lidia Onofrei from the Ministry of Health, and Ms. Dana Gafițianu from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, who provided feedback on the early versions of the Atlas. The report benefitted also from the support of 68 local authorities and over 150 communities from communes in Călărași and Vaslui counties that participated in the validation study. The volume was coordinated by: Emil Teșliuc Vlad Grigoraș Manuela Sofia Stănculescu Other Authors: Dumitru Sandu Bogdan Corad Cătălina Iamandi-Cioinaru Titus Man Monica Marin Ciprian Moldovan Georgiana Neculau TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................. 7 1.1 The need for an Atlas of Rural Marginalization and Local Human Development in Romania..................................................................... 9 1.2 Objective, Research Methodology and Scope......................................................................................................................................................... 11 1.3 Audiences.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 1.4 Implementation Plan...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 1.5 Structure of the Atlas...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 2. PART I: RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS..........................................................................................................................20 2.1 Defining and Assessing Rural Marginalization in Romania ......................................................................................................... 20 2.1.1 Methodology for Identifying Rural Marginalized Areas------------------------------------------------------------ 21 2.1.2 The Validation Study------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 2.1.3 The Main Characteristics of the Rural Marginalized Areas in Romania---------------------------------------- 28 2.1.4 Living Conditions in Rural Marginalized Areas-------------------------------------------------------------------- 29 2.1.5 Subtypes of Rural Marginalized Communities Based on Qualitative Research------------------------------- 30 2.1.6 The Ethnical Dimension of Marginalization- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 33 2.1.7 Geospatial Analysis of Rural Marginalization- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 2.1.8 Rural Marginalization and Rural Poverty-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42 2.2 Tackling Segregation and Marginalized Communities in the European Union .................................................................. 44 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 44 2.2.1 Fighting segregation in The European Union- 2.2.2 Adopting an Integrated, Cross-sectoral, Area-based Approach to Rural Marginalized Areas in Romania--------------------------------------------------------------------- 46 2.3 Spatial Maps of Rural Marginalization in Romania ........................................................................................................................50 3. PART II: LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL AND SMALL URBAN ROMANIA............................................. 154 3.1 Defining and Assessing Local Human Development in Romania.......................................................................................................... 154 3.1.1 Methodology of Local Human Development in Rural and Small Urban Settlements----------------------------------- 154 3.1.2 Large Cities and Urban Connectivity in Local Human Development----------------------------------------------------157 3.1.3 Local Human Development Between Density Centers and Distance-Division Peripheries----------------------------- 161 3.1.4 Marginalization and Local Human Development in Rural Romania---------------------------------------------------- 162 3.2 Spatial Maps of Local Human Development in Rural and Small Urban Romania............................................................................ 164 References............................................................................................................................................................................ 265 Annexes................................................................................................................................................................................. 269 Annex 1: Rural Marginalized Areas..................................................................................................................................................................... 269 Annex 2: Rates of Marginalization by Commune (Rural Territorial-Administrative Unit)...................................................................... 279 Annex 3: Local Human Development................................................................................................................................................................ 359 Annex 4: Field Instruments for the Validation Study...................................................................................................................................... 361 Abbreviations CLLD Community-led local development EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESF European Social Fund FLAG Fisheries Local Action Groups GoR Government of Romania IDA Intercommunity Development Associations LAG Local Action Groups LEADER Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l'Économie Rurale (Links between the rural economy and development actions) MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MEF Ministry of European Funds MRDPA Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration MLFPSE Ministry of Labor, Family, Social Protection and the Elderly NIS National Institute of Statistics NGO Non-governmental organization OPHC Operational Program Human Capital ROP Regional Operational Program INTRODUCTION | 7 1. INTRODUCTION Romania aims to be a country in which all citizens are provided with an equal opportunity to participate in society, where their basic needs are met and their differences respected, and where all people feel valued and can live in dignity. Our society is still far from this ideal. One in every five Romanian people is income poor.1 Most of the people living in relative poverty in Romania are in persistent poverty, meening that they have been in poverty for at least the last three years. Despite its relatively low unemployment rate, the country has a very high rate of poverty for in-work people, which is double the EU-27 rate (9 percent). Thirty percent of the population is severely materially deprived,2 in that they are unable to afford items considered desirable or necessary to lead an adequate live. About seven percent of the people live in households with very low work intensity.3 In total, about 42 percent of the population is at risk of poverty and social exclusion.4 As a response to this situation, the Government of Romania (GoR) has committed itself to lifting 580,000 people out of poverty by 20205 as part of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The decline in poverty between 2008 and 2013 was only 0.9 percentage points (representing 211,000 people rising out of poverty compared with the national target of 580,000). Consequently, in 2014, the GoR asked World Bank for assistance to develop a National Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction 2015-2020 and a corresponding Action Plan.6 According to this Strategy, the GoR is committed to making substantial progress in combating poverty and social exclusion over the next few years. By 2020, Romania is committed to putting in place a set of policies and programs to (i) lift at least 580,000 people out of relative income poverty by 2020, compared to 2008; (ii) break the inter-generational cycle of poverty; (iii) prevent the recurrence of poverty and social exclusion; and (iv) ensure equal access to social assistance, cash transfers and services to strengthen social cohesion. From the set of policies and interventions covered by the National Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction 2015-2020, the GoR asked for the World Bank’s support to develop detailed 1  People at risk of relative poverty after receiving social transfers (the AROP indicator) are people whose annual income (including social protection transfers) is lower than 60 percent of the median income as expressed per adult equivalent. Disposable income is the sum of all revenues (including those from social protection) minus the amount of taxes (income or property-based) and social insurance paid. 2  The indicator adopted by the Social Protection Committee (the EU advisory policy committee for the Employment and Social Affairs Ministers in the Employment and Social Affairs Council) measures the percentage of the population that meets at least four of the following nine criteria: (1) they cannot afford to pay their rent, mortgage, or utility bills; (2) they cannot afford to keep their home adequately warm; (3) they face unexpected expenses; (4) they cannot afford to eat meat or other protein regularly; (5) they cannot afford to go on holiday; (6) they cannot afford to purchase a television set; (7) they cannot afford to purchase a washing machine; (8) they cannot afford to run a car; and (9) they do not have a telephone. The indicator distinguishes between individuals who cannot afford a certain item or service and those who do not have this item or service for another reason, for example, because they do not want or need it. 3  According to this indicator, very low work intensity households are those in which adult members aged between 18 and 59 have worked less than 20 percent of their maximum work potential during the year preceding the survey. Households comprised only of children, of students under 25 years old, and/or people aged 60 or over were completely excluded from the indicator calculations 4  The broadest indicator (AROPE), which is also used to measure whether the European Union’s social inclusion target is being met, tracks people at risk of poverty or social exclusion who are in at least one of the following three situations: (i) they are at risk of poverty (AROP indicator), (ii) live in households with very low work intensity; and/or are (iii) they are suffering from severe material deprivation. 5  Relative poverty (AROP) is the indicator that is used by the Government of Romania to monitor whether the poverty reduction target is being met. 6  Government Decision no. 383/May 27, 2015. 8 | INTRODUCTION implementation plans for the 2015-2018 period in the form of nine Flagship Innitiatives7 that are expected to have the greatest impact in terms of reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion. This Atlas of Rural Marginalized Areas and Local Human Development in Romania represents the Flagship Initiative #6. Specifically the Bank’s technical assistance provided through this project has helped the GoR to develop: (i) a methodology for defining different types of rural marginalized areas based on a set of key criteria and indicators; (ii) detailed maps that present the spatial distribution of the rural marginalized communities by county; (iii) a methodology for defining degrees of local human development from low to comprehensive development, for rural and small urban settlements; and (iv) detailed county-level maps of local human development. This geographic targeting tool for rural marginalized areas is based on a methodology comparable to that applied in the Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas in 2014.8 The Local Human Development Index (LHDI) was initially developed at the administrative unit level within a previous World Bank project in 2013.9 In this Atlas, the LHDI has been extended and further developed to a finer degree of granularity. While this document presents the Atlas, the other eight Flagship Initiatives are complementary and meant to form a single package. In short, the Atlas helps to define which rural areas are marginalized, who lives in these areas (the profile of various disadvantaged groups), and where they are located in Romania. The other Flagship Initiatives, particularly #3 on integrated social services at the community level and #4 on disadvantaged schools, describe how to intervene in the poorest rural areas in order to achieve the greatest impact in terms of reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion. 7  The nine Flagship Initiatives are as follows: #1. Increase the employment of the poor and vulnerable by expanding active labor market programs; #2. Increase income support for the poor and introduce pro-work incentives for program beneficiaries; #3. Develop integrated social services at the community level; #4. Improve the instruments for identifying disadvantaged schools to ensure that all children have access to equal opportunities; #5. Strengthen social services for child protection; #6. Develop an instrument to identify poor villages and marginalized rural communities; #7. Invest in improving the current IT system to implement a strong e-social assistance system; #8. Develop a modern payment system; and #9. Strengthen coordination mechanisms and develop a monitoring and evaluation system. 8  Swinkels et al (2014a). 9  Ionescu-Heroiu et al (2013). INTRODUCTION | 9 1.1 The need for an Atlas of Rural Marginalization and Local Human Development in Romania „What gets measured gets done.” - Anonymous A Tool for Targeting, Monitoring and Evaluating Interventions Increasingly, top managers in ministries and donor agencies are recognizing that effective targeting tools are needed to guide and evaluate programs. The current Atlas is a tool for the geographic targeting, monitoring, and evaluation of interventions for reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion. It provides the scientific and factual database essential to inform decision-making and the choice of appropriate and effective public actions aimed at reduceing poverty and social exclusion in the most deprived rural communities in Romania. Programs for reducing poverty A targeting tool becomes effective only if it is and promoting social inclusion followed by action (a policy response). Therefore, it is important to ensure that the Atlas is disseminated to all central and local stakeholders, Policy Data responsible for reducing poverty and promoting response collection social inclusion (as shown in the adjacent figure). Targeting The main purpose of this Atlas is to enable these Tool stakeholders to target anti-poverty and pro-social inclusion programs in an efficient way, mainly to the poorest. It is especially useful for projects Data Data that operate at the national, (micro-) regional and interpretation analysis county levels. Because the Atlas measures marginalization and local human development at the community level, it can give policy makers a good indication of the places where the need for intervention is greatest. However, it is also important to evaluate and measure the effects of interventions targeted to the poorest communities, as is highlighted in Flagship Initiative #9 which contains a plan for developing a monitoring and evaluation system for the National Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction 2015-2020. Along with the Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas, this current Atlas 10 | INTRODUCTION will also be a vital tool for monitoring and evaluating these interventions. Because marginalization is not defined only in terms of income poverty but also in terms of human capital (education and health) and housing conditions, the Atlas can also be used to inform and assess programs related to education, health, infrastructure and social housing, including those dealing with out-of-school children, early school leaving, primary healthcare services, family planning, parental education, domestic violence and other risks/vulnerabilities that are widespread in marginalized communities. Both this Atlas and the Atlas on urban areas will be useful for measuring the effectiveness of the other anti-poverty Flagship Initiatives. Marginalized areas (whether rural or urban, Roma or non- Roma) are communities that contain a concentration of low-income households and, populations with low levels of education and skills relevant to the labor market in areas that are exposed to environmental hazards and have poor quality or no public services. As such, these marginalized areas are „natural” target areas for: •  The active labor market programs discussed in Flagship Initiative #1 •  and The integrated social services at the community level (SPOR - Social Program Opportunity Responsibility) described in Flagship Initiative #3 •  The programs targeted to disadvantaged schools presented in Flagship Initiative #4 •  under Flagship Programs aimed at preventing children from being separated from their natural families Initiative #5 given that marginalized areas send more children into the special protection system than any other communities. •  Other programs aimed at the development of social services, especially day care centers and multifunctional amenities. In addition, as mentioned above, the marginalized communities identified in the Atlas will be the best places for applying the monitoring and evaluation system to be developed under Flagship Initiative #9, particularly to measure the impact of the social benefits reform (and the future Minimum Social Insertion Income benefit) that will be adopted under Flagship Initiative #2. In relation to the European funded programs, this Atlas of Rural Marginalized Areas and Local Human Development in Romania will complement the information contained in the Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas.10 It will be a usefull tool for all ministries, managing authorities and intermediary bodies of the operational programs, all regional and county institutions and partnerships such as intercommunity development associations (IDAs), Local Action Groups (LAGs)11 and Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAG) operating in rural areas and small towns 12 under LEADER program or community-led local development (CLLD) programs. In addition, municipalities and NGOs that initiate interventions in relevant sectors will be able to use the Atlas to target different types of communities (either marginalized communities or those with different degrees of local human development). For this purpose, Annex 2 presents the rates of marginalization for all communes in Romania. 10  Swinkels et al (2014a). 11  Local Action Groups (LAGs) are made up of public and private partners from rural areas (including towns under 20,000 inhabitants) and must include representatives from different socio-economic sectors. LAG membership is open to everyone living within the LAG boundaries. Both private people and local public/private organizations can become members (http:/ /enrd. ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/leader/leader/leader-tool-kit/the-local-action-group/en/what-is-the-lag-s-structure_en.html). 12  Both rural and small urban areas (those with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants) are eligible but only as members of a local partnership (LAG) that might include one or more towns (only in exceptional cases), which however cannot have more than 20,000 inhabitants in total or have more than 25 percent of the total number of inhabitants living in the LAG (MARD, 2013: 396). INTRODUCTION | 11 1.2 Objective, Research Methodology and Scope The main objective of this Atlas is to provide a tool for the geographic targeting, monitoring, and evaluation of interventions aimed at reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion in the most deprived rural communities in Romania. This Atlas presents two complementary methodologies. The first methodology focuses on the „pockets” of rural marginalization where poverty is multidimensional and most severe. The second methodology not only focuses on communities where the need for intervention is the highest but also screens all rural and small urban settlements for potential rural „development poles”. The first key step in producing the Atlas of Rural Marginalized Areas and Local Human Development in Romania was to conduct a desk review of the existing criteria and indices used to define “poor communities”, “segregated communities”, and “marginalized rural communities” in Romania. Based on this review, in the second key step, the team developed a methodology to identify rural marginalized areas using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. This drew heavily on the methodology used in the Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas13 but was adapted to take account of the particular characteristics of rural communities. In the third step, the results of the methodology for identifying rural marginalized areas were validated through extensive field research based on qualitative methods. The aim of the validation study was to check the quantitative results for both inclusion and exclusion errors. The field research took place in May and June 2015 and covered villages in two counties, Călărași and Vaslui. It also further refined the typology of rural marginalized communities by distinguishing two subtypes – communities that are geographically isolated and those that are peripherally located within well-connected villages. The qualitative research largely confirmed the results of the methodology based on quantitative techniques, but it also highlighted several limitations of the approach. Finally, in the fourth step, the main characteristics of each subtype of rural marginalized areas were determined and the mapping was done. Professor Dumitru Sandu resumed his work on the Local Human Development Index (LHDI) that was carried out in previous World Bank study.14 For the current Atlas, Professor Sandu further extended the LHDI to cover small towns with up to 30,000 inhabitants and increased its granularity by extending it from the administrative unit (or SIRSUP) level (commune or city) to the locality (SIRUTA) level (village or neighborhood). In the next key step, the team analyzed how local human development in these SIRUTAs is affected by the large cities, urban connectivity, and endogenous forces. Lastly, the team produced local human development maps. The maps presented in this Atlas are complementary to other maps of Romania that have recently been produced. First, the maps of rural marginalization complement the maps of urban marginalization produced by the World Bank in 2014.15 Second, the maps of both rural marginalization and local human development supplement the „poverty maps” that were created 13  Swinkels et al (2014a). 14  Ionescu-Heroiu et al (2013). 15  Swinkels et al (2014a). 12 | INTRODUCTION by the World Bank and the European Commission in 2014. 16 All of these maps were drawn up using 2011 census data, but the maps included in this Atlas are different from the „poverty maps” in terms of the geographical level at which the analysis was conducted and the methodology that was applied.17 While the poverty maps show the variations in poverty across regions and counties, the rural marginalization maps go down to the census sector level and indicates „pockets” of extreme destitution that need to be targeted with integrated interventions. The local human development maps show the different degrees of local human development at the village level (SIRUTA unit), including the most developed SIRUTAs that are candidates for becoming development poles within the regions and counties. The Atlas covers all rural or small urban (under 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units in the country. The Atlas identifies marginalized areas only in rural units18 but it determines the degree of local human development in both rural and small urban settlements. The rural marginalization analysis was conducted at the lowest spatial level available. The 2011 Population Census provided the opportunity to conduct such an analysis at the level of census sectors.19 For the analysis presented in this Atlas, the micro data from the 2011 Population Census were aggregated at this level. A typical census sector consists of around 200 inhabitants in both rural and urban areas. However, the variation is large ranging from a minimum of one person to a maximum of over 4,200 inhabitants in rural areas, and 10,385 people in urban areas in each census sector. TABLE 1. Distribution of Census Sectors by Residency and Population size (SIRUTA unit) Census sectors Average Village size (inha- Number of villages Minimum per Maximum Total number number bitants) (SIRUTA units) village per village per village Rural Total 12.373 46.547 4 1 41 1-49 837 895 1 1 6 50-99 780 878 1 1 9 100-499 5.017 9.731 2 1 13 500-999 2.913 10.972 4 1 12 1,000<2,000 1.857 11.695 6 1 19 2,000<3,000 557 5.623 10 2 20 3,000<7,500 388 6.056 16 4 29 7,500<20,000 23 676 29 16 41 20,000<30,000 1 21 21 21 21 16  Simler et al (2014). 17  The poverty maps combine information from the 2011 population census and the EU‐SILC household survey to estimate household disposable income levels for each household in the census. This information is then used to estimate the number and proportion of people in each region or county whose consumption is below the risk of poverty line, using the standard EU threshold of 60 percent of median national income. 18  For the urban environment, see the Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas (Swinkels et al, 2014a). 19  Also called the enumeration area, or ‘mapa’. INTRODUCTION | 13 Small Total 1.055 13.268 13 1 146 cities(*) 1-49 47 57 1 1 3 50-99 53 67 1 1 4 100-499 339 627 2 1 6 500-999 209 739 4 1 9 1,000<2,000 130 809 6 1 14 2,000<3,000 42 470 11 2 19 3,000<7,500 121 2.868 24 8 62 7,500<20,000 90 4.964 55 11 111 20,000<30,000 24 2.667 111 78 146 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: The distribution of census sectors at the administrative unit level is presented in Annex 1. Table 1. *Small towns are those with fewer than 30,000 inhabitants. Overall in Romania there are 253 small towns. Rural areas in Romania are organized into 2,861 communes (administrative units) and these include 12,373 villages.20 The 2011 Population Census contains 46,547 census sectors in villages, of which 5.3 percent are very small (fewer than 50 inhabitants), while about 1 percent are large (with 500 inhabitants or more). The number of census sectors per village varies considerably according to population size, from a minimum of one sector per village to a maximum of 41 sectors in two villages (see Table 1).21 For reliability reasons, the analysis presented in the next sections used only the census sectors with more than 50 inhabitants. The human local development analysis was carried out at the village and component locality of small towns (SIRUTA units) level. The analysis took into account only those units with more than 50 inhabitants. Consequently, the study included 11,531 villages22 and 1,008 component localities within the 253 small towns with fewer than 30,000 inhabitants (Table 1). 20  As of January 2015, the Nomenclature of Territorial-Administrative Units (NIS) reported that there were 13,755 villages (SIRU- TA units) nationwide grouped in 3,181 administrative units (communes and cities). However, 129 villages Census (114 rural and 15 urban) appear to be non-existent (in other words, have zero inhabitants) and no corresponding data on these villages exists in the 2011 Population and Housing. As the analysis presented in the following sections is based on the 2011 census data, we will refer only to the 13,626 ‘valid’ SIRUTA units, of which 12,373 are in rural areas, 1,055 are in small urban settlements (those with fewer than 30,000 inhabitants), and 198 are in urban areas of 30,000 inhabitants or more. 21  Over 26 percent of all villages have only one census sector. The two villages with the maximum number of census sectors (41) are Valu lui Traian (commune Valu lui Traian, Constanta) and Poienile de Sub Munte (commune Poienile de Sub Munte, Mara- mures). 22  Other five villages were not included in the analysis due to missing data for indicators that are not included in the 2011 census. 14 | INTRODUCTION 1.3 Audience The primary audience for this Atlas is the leadership and staff of the Ministry of Labor, Family, Social Protection and the Elderly (MLFSPE), which is in charge of implementing the National Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction 2015-2020 and the corresponding Action Plan and Flagship Initiatives. The Atlas presents a tool for the geographic targeting, monitoring, and evaluation of interventions for reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion, with a focus on the most deprived rural communities in Romania. It analyzes rural marginalization in Romania, particularly its main characteristics and its spatial distribution at the county level. In addition, it explores the extent of human development in localities in all rural and small urban administrative units in order to identify potential „development poles” at the county level. It is hoped that the methodology, analysis and maps presented in this Atlas will help the MLFSPE leadership and staff, together with other decision-makers throughout the GoR, to establish an effective framework for reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion that, ultimately, will improve the lives of the poor and socially excluded from Romania, including the residents of all marginalized communities. Other Stakeholders Who May Benefit from this Atlas: COUNTY AND • County and local institutions in the social sectors LOCAL LEVEL: • Municipalities and NGOs that develop interventions in social sectors • Local communities and, more specifically, public authorities that prepare projects and submit applications to various EU and state-funded programs • Partnerships of administrative units such as intercommunity development associations (IDAs), Local Action Groups (LAGs), and Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAG) operating in rural areas and small towns under the LEADER or CLLD programs REGIONAL LEVEL: • Regional Development Agencies NATIONAL LEVEL: • Ministries and agencies in charge of planning and implementing state- budget-funded programs • Managing authorities and intermediate bodies implementing EU-funded operational programs for 2014-2020, particularly MARD, the MRDPA, and the Ministry of European Funds EUROPEAN LEVEL: • European Commission officials and staff responsible for overseeing the operational programs who may be able to replicate best practices in EU member states INTRODUCTION | 15 1.4 Implementation Plan This Atlas needs to be followed by a policy response at the national and sub-national levels in order to become operational. For this reason, the implementation plan included in this Atlas is focused on consultations, communication, and dissemination activities. First, it will be critical to share the findings of the Atlas with local authorities throughout the country and to collect their feedback. This will also be one way to collect information to reflect the likely changes that may have occurred since the 2011 census data were collected. These consultations will also serve as a way to inform local authorities of the need to target, monitor, and evaluate all interventions for reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion that are developed and/or implemented at the local level. Second, it is crucial to ensure that the Atlas is seen as a tool that can be used by institutions in many sectors. To this end, extensive consultations should be organized with all relevant ministries, as well as the regional bodies that have responsibilities related to European-funded projects. The EU operational programs now lead development policy in Romania, particularly in the social inclusion field, while the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) through the National Program for Rural Development dictates rural development policy. Consequently, the dialogue on the Atlas should extend from the MLFSPE to the Ministry of European Funds (MEF), the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA), and MARD, with a focus on how the Atlas (and its indexes) can help sectoral policymakers to prioritize and target investments. Third, the Atlas can be a vital input into the work of NGOs that develop and implement projects in social sectors and also students, professors, and researchers in Romania who are helping to generate new knowledge and ideas on the topic. Finally, the European Commission has already shared the CLLD methodology developed for the Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas with other EU countries and would probably be interested in sharing the tool in this Atlas. Therefore, the Government should consider advertising the existence of the Atlas to relevant institutions and officials in Brussels. 16 | INTRODUCTION TABLE 2: Gantt Chart of the Implementation Plan Month from starting to implement the plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 st set of activities: Consultations with local stakeholders 1.1. Development of a Locality Fiche for each administrative unit indicating all census sectors that include marginalized areas and the local human development level for each village (SIRUTA units) as determined in the current Atlas and the Atlas for Urban Marginalized Areas (for marginalized areas in small towns). 1.2. Distribute the Locality Fiches to all rural and small urban mayoralties and county councils/prefectures 1.3. Mayoralties validate or invalidate the data and if necessary provide additional information 1.4. Consultation workshops at county level with all relevant stakeholders, especially partnerships of localities (IDAs, LAGs, FLAGs and others), regarding the local feedback to the Atlas 1.5. Locality Fiches are received at the MLFSPE 1.6. Local feedback is analyzed and, if and where needed, the analysis based on statistical data is refined 1.7. A final version of the Atlas and corresponding databases with georeferences and maps, incorporating the local feedback, are elaborated 1.8. Consultation workshop at the national level with representatives of all counties and the various associations of localities 2 nd set of activities: The Atlas for Rural and Small Urban Localities is adopted through the Government Decision as a tool for geographic targeting, monitoring and evaluating interventions for reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion 2.1. Documentation prepared 2.2. Consultation workshop at the national level with all relevant ministries: MEF, MRDPA, MARD, MoE, and MoH 2.3. Consultation workshop at the national level with the Regional Development Agencies as well as the Managing Authorities and Intermediate Bodies of EU-funded operational programmes for 2014- 2020 2.4. Approval of the Atlas through a Government Decision as a tool for geographic targeting, monitoring and evaluating interventions for reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion 2.5. Develop a national platform for the visualisation of the Atlas. This platform should be linked with the database and instruments for monitoring and evaluation system of the National Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction 2015-2020 3 rd set of activities : Dissemination activities 3.1. Printing the Atlas and sending it to all national and sub-national relevant actors 3.2. Dissemination activities with academia, NGOs and other stakeholders relevant for developing and implementing reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion 3.3. Dissemination activities in Brussels INTRODUCTION | 17 The financial resources needed to implement the implementation plan are shown in table below. TABLE 3: Estimated Budget Needed to Implement the Implementation Plan Total amount Activities: (RON) 1st set of activities: Consultations with local stakeholders 511.750 2nd set of activities: The Atlas for Rural and Small Urban Localities is adopted through the Go- vernment Decision as a tool for geographic targeting, monitoring and evaluating interventions for 694.200 reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion 3rd set of activities: Dissemination activities 445.000 Total 1.650.950 The estimated budget includes all costs of transportation, workshops, the incorporation of local feedback and refinement of the Atlas, platform development and maintenance, printing, and dissemination activities. 1.5 Structure of the Atlas The rest of this document is organized in two parts. The first part consists of the Atlas of Rural Marginalized Areas in Romania. It starts by defining the marginalized areas and describing the methodology for identifying these areas in rural Romania. It then describes the steps taken to validate the marginalized areas that were identified based on the 2011 census, as well as highlighting the limitations of the approach. The document goes on to present the final typology of the rural marginalized areas and their key characteristics, and subtypes as determined using qualitative research techniques and as analyzed using 2011 census data. There follows a discussion of the relationship between rural marginalization and rural poverty as defined by the EU (the AROP indicator). Thereafter, Part I discusses the types of interventions that are being used in the European Union to tackle segregation and to help marginalized communities. The last section presents the maps of rural marginalization by county as well as tables listing villages with marginalized areas and the number of residents of these areas to indicate the severity of marginalization in each village. The second part of the document focuses on the degrees of local human development in rural and small urban settlements in Romania. After the methodology has been discussed, the effects of various factors on local human development are analyzed. Following a discussion of the relationship between rural marginalization and rural local human development, the last section presents maps illustrating the geographical distribution of villages with different degrees of local human development across the country, as well as tables listing those villages that have the potential to be „development poles”. The annexes include the technical information needed to understand the work presented in this Atlas in a comprehensive way and to replicate it as well as a list of rural municipalities and their rates of marginalization. PART I The Atlas of Rural Marginalized Areas in Romania 20 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 2. PART I: RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS In Romania, the majority of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion live in rural areas. However, rural poverty manifest itself in many different ways, from the poverty of small villages and those with aging populations to marginalized communities characterized by low human capital, low formal employment, and inadequate housing. The first part of this Atlas focuses on the rural marginalized areas: how they are defined, how they can be identified, what are their key characteristics, where they are located and what kinds of interventions have been developed in the European Union for improving the lives of people living in these areas. 2.1 Defining and Assessing Rural Marginalization in Romania In Romania, there is no legal definition of “marginalized areas”. Therefore when we were reviewing the relevant literature for this Atlas, we searched for existing studies and documents that dealt with “poor communities”, “segregated communities”, and “marginalized communities” in Romania. Our review showed that extreme poverty23 in Romania has been very well documented by research studies24 since the 1990s. These studies have confirmed time and again that extreme poverty is not only an individual or family phenomenon but is also geographical in that it tends to be concentrated in marginalized areas (both urban and rural) within which extreme poverty is transmitted from a generation to another. Our review found that a large majority of studies on marginalization in Romania have focused on rural areas and have estimated “community poverty” or “community deprivation” at the administrative unit level (usually, the commune level).25 Only few studies have estimated poverty at the locality (SIRUTA unit) level, and most of those were case studies based on qualitative research techniques. Regardless of what research method was used, nearly all of the studies confirmed that in Romania the main criteria for identifying and analyzing poverty, especially multidimensional poverty and marginalization, are: 23 Extremely poor families face multiple constraints in addition to monetary poverty, including long-term adult unemployment or joblessness, poor child nutrition, a high risk of child neglect and/or abuse (associated with parent alcohol abuse), poor parenting practices, young or single parenthood, unstable marriages, poor health or disability, low school attendance or dropout, poor or no housing, domestic violence, petty crime, and discrimination. There are also problems of low aspirations, low self-esteem, and learned helplessness. Therefore, families in extreme poverty represent a particular challenge, not just in terms of skills and physical capital but also in terms of psychological issues. 24 For example, on “extreme poverty” and “poor zones” or “marginalized areas”: Chelcea (2000), Stănculescu and Berevoescu (coord., 2004), Constantinescu et al (2005), Berescu et al (2007), Preda (coord., 2009), Stănculescu et al (2010), Berescu (2010), Stănculescu and Marin (2012), Stănculescu et al (2012), Stănculescu et al (2013), and World Bank (Swinkels et al, 2014a). On Roma and Roma communities: Zamfir and Zamfir (coord., 1993), Rughiniş (2000), Zamfir and Preda (coord., 2002), Duminică and Preda (2003), Sandu (2005), Berescu et al (2006), Bădescu et al (2007), Fleck and Rughiniş (ed., 2008), Preoteasa et al (2009), ICCV (2010), Botonogu (2011), Daragiu and Daragiu (2012), Giurcă (coord., 2012), Tarnovschi (ed., 2012), FRA et al (2012), and Anan et al (2014). 25 The studies that developed new methodologies to estimate “poor zone” or “community poverty” include: Sandu (1998), Chircă and Teşliuc (coord., 1999), Stănculescu, (ed., 1999), Pop, (coord., 2004), Stănculescu and Berevoescu (coord., 2004), Voicu and Voicu (2004), Sandu (2005), Stănculescu (2005), Berescu et al (2007), Groza (coord., 2008), Sandu et al (2009), Sandu (2011), Stănculescu and Marin (2011), Ionescu-Heroiu et al (2013), Simler (coord., 2014) and Swinkels et al (2014a). RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 21 •  Human capital (usually education, health, and family size or number of children); •  subsistence Employment (usually related to out-of-work people, work in the informal sector, or work in agriculture); •  connection Housing conditions (especially regarding housing security, the quality of dwellings, and to public utilities). This Atlas of Rural Marginalized Areas draws most heavily on the World Bank’s recent work on urban marginalized areas. Accordingly, this Atlas uses the term “rural marginalized areas” which by definition are intra-locality compact zones (census sectors) inhabited by people with disproportionately low human capital, limited formal employment, and inadequate housing conditions compared with the residents of other rural areas. Using this definition, we devised an identification methodology based on key indicators capable of reflecting the specific circumstances of rural areas. 2.1.1 Methodology for Identifying Rural Marginalized Areas The methodology that we selected to identify rural marginalized areas is based on data from the 2011 census. Our analyses were done at the census sector level (see section 1.2 above). For each of the three criteria used to define rural marginalized areas human capital, formal employment, and housing conditions we selected six key indicators based on our review of literature and scrutiny of 2011 census data for rural population and households. One indicator is related to the human capital criterion, another one to the employment criterion, and three to the housing quality criterion. The key indicators for identifying rural marginalized areas are shown in the table below and mirror those used in the Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas.26 By definition, marginalized areas refer to the rural census sectors that are disadvantaged in all three criteria. In the first step of our analysis, we calculated the value of each of the six key indicators for each rural census sector. We then set a national rural threshold at the 80th percentile for the human capital and employment criteria, and at the 90th percentile for the housing criterion.27 Then, we determined whether the value for each rural census sector was above the threshold for each indicator. The human capital and employment criteria were measured based on one key indicator each. So a value higher than the threshold on the corresponding indicator qualified that census sector as being “disadvantaged” in those criteria. The housing criterion was passed if any of the three key indicators was higher than its corresponding threshold. Finally, any census sector that qualified as “disadvantaged” on all three criteria was considered to be a “rural marginalized area”. 26 Swinkels et al (2014a). 27 We experimented with thresholds at 70th, 80th, and 90th percentiles for each of the six key indicators. Our final decision was based on finding the percentile that resulted in population living in marginalized areas as a proportion of the total rural population in order to identify communities that are most in need but simultaneously allow for a strong and sustainable public intervention in these areas. 22 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS PART I. TABLE 1: The Three Criteria of Marginalization with Their Key Indicators and Corresponding National Thresholds, in Urban and Rural Areas (%) URBAN RURAL 80th percentile 80th percentile Criteria/ Key indicators = national urban Key indicators = national rural Dimension threshold *) threshold **) Proportion of population Proportion of population aged 15-64 years old Human capital aged 15-64 years old that 22.1 59.3 that completed 8 grades completed 8 grades or less or less Proportion of people with disabilities, chronic diseases or other health conditions that 8 - make their daily activities difficult Proportion of children (0-17   20.5 - years old) in total population Proportion of people Proportion of people aged 15- aged 15-64 years old 64 years old neither in formal neither in education nor Employment 22.2 72.1 employment (employees or have ever been in formal employers) nor in education employment (employees, employers or pensioners) Proportion of dwellings Proportion of dwellings not Housing 0.0***) not connected to 2.7****) connected to electricity electricity Proportion of overcrowded Proportion of overcrowded dwellings dwellings (<15.33 square 54.7 26.1****) meters per person) (Eurostat indicator*****) Insecure tenure: proportion of Proportion of dwellings   households that do not own 12.3 not connected to piped 87.9****) the dwelling water Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. For urban areas, Swinkels et al (2014a: 9). Notes: *) In urban areas, the thresholds were calculated using only census sectors with between 50 and 500 inhabitants. **) In rural areas, the thresholds were calculated using only census sectors with 50 or more inhabitants. ***) Fewer than 1 percent of the urban dwellings are not connected to electricity and the 80th percentile is therefore 0 percent. Any census sector in which at least one dwelling is not connected to electricity (and thus the value is greater than 0 percent) passes this threshold. ****) For the housing criterion, the rural national threshold was set at the 90th percentile, and the criterion was considered to have been reached if any of the three indicators was higher than its corresponding threshold. *****) Eurostat indicator for overcrowding without the condition referring to a room for the household. Overall, in Romania’s communes, 2,244 census sectors28 meet the criteria for being rural marginalized areas, and more than 564,000 people live in those sectors. These rural areas are severely deprived census sectors in which most of the population have completed only lower secondary education at most, make a living in the informal sector (especially agriculture), and live in housing conditions that are precarious even by the usual low standard in rural areas where most people live in overcrowded houses and/or have no access to running water or electricity). 28 Out of all 46,547 census sectors in rural areas at the time of the 2011 census. An additional 2,523 census sectors were not included in the analysis either because they have fewer than 50 inhabitants (2,473) or because they were consisting of buildings other than residential households. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 23 2.1.2 The Validation Study The World Bank team carried out an extensive validation study to confirm the marginalized status of the theoretically identified communites (through quantitative methods applied to the 2011 census data) and checked for both inclusion and exclusion errors. The fieldwork research was conducted in May to June 2015 in two counties: Călărași and Vaslui. The sample consisted of 68 communes that incorporate 232 villages, respectively 1,123 census sectors, of which 82 census sectors are theoretical rural marginalized areas. Part I. Table 2 presents the sample distribution by county. PART I. TABLE 2: The Sample Used for the Validation Study by County CĂLĂRAȘI County VASLUI County TOTAL Participant in Participant in Participant in the validation Not included the validation Not included the validation study study study Communes (number) 50 5 18 68 68 Villages (number) 152 13 80 385 232 Rural census sectors, of 880* 0 243 925 1.123 which - Rural marginalized 29 0 53 202 82 areas Source: World Bank, Validation Study, May-June 2015. Notes: Seven new areas were mentioned by the local informants but they were not able to specify the census sector. Thus, the total number of areas increased from 1,123 to 1,130. The field research was based on a mix of qualitative methods. In each selected commune, the team first paid a visit to the mayoralty to conduct one or more interviews with the mayor, vice-mayor, secretary, or a social worker from the local Social Assistance Public Service. In the interviews the team described the study, the methodology that was used to identify rural marginalized areas, and the theoretical results, and with reference to a map of the commune, asked the respondents their opinion on the identified marginalized areas (see Part I. Table 3). In the next step, the team visited the previously identified marginalized areas and organized group discussions on site with local people, following the guide presented in Annex 4. At the same time the research team made their own direct observations based on a list of indicators that are highly suggestive of marginalization in Romania, which is shown in Part I. Table 3. In this way any inclusion errors were identified. In order to identify any exclusion errors, the team asked the local authorities and local people about those census sectors that have not been identified marginalized according to the 2011 census data. If the respondents indicated that a certain additional area ought to be considered marginalized, the team organized a field visit to that area where they conducted group discussions and made direct observation. If no new marginalized area was mentioned by the respondents, the research team randomly selected one or two villages per commune (particularly those located futherst from the commune center) and visited them to check for any marginalized areas that had not previously been identified using the 2011 census data. All of the data collected during the validation study were coded using the fiche shown in Annex 24 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 4 and were recorded in a dataset for a quasi-statistical analysis. In addition, the team took photographs in all marginalized areas to help in the decision-making process. Based on all this information, the research team using inter-rater comparisons decided which areas to validate as marginalized and which newly identified marginalized areas to add to the list. PART I. TABLE 3: Research Techniques and Topics for Discussion in the Validations Study Structured open-response Group discussions with interviews with representatives residents of the rural Direct observation of local authorities marginalized areas History of the area  History of the area  a. Broken fences Access to public  Access to public services  b. Poor quality or broken roofs services c. Deteriorated and shabby Infrastructure  Infrastructure  houses Employment and main  Employment and main  d. Many children on the street sources of incomes sources of incomes Problems related to crime  Problems related to  e. Children barefoot, undressed, and public order crime and public order poorly and/or unkempt dressed Community  f. Garbage/ dirtiness on the Community relationships  relationships street g. Blankets/ carpets on the Housing conditions  Housing conditions  fences Utilities (water, sewage,  Utilities (water, sewage,  h. Earth roads, poorly electricity) electricity) accessible streets Geographical barriers  Environmental hazards  Key groups in the area and  mobility of the population Key community problems  Interventions already  implemented in the area RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 25 PART I. FIGURE 1: Results of the Validation Study by County, Type of Evaluator, and Theoretical Type of Rural Area (number of census sector) 12 8 100% 3 6 12 9 80% Newly identified areas (EXCLUSION 60% ERRORS) 846 182 26 47 40% 41 Invalidated areas 20 (INCLUSION 20% ERRORS) 0% Validated areas Theoretically Theoretically Theoretically Theoretically Theoretically Theoretically non- marginalized marginalized non- marginalized marginalized marginalized areas areas marginalized areas areas areas areas Local informants Res earch Local informants Res earch team team CĂLĂRAȘI County VASLUI County Source: World Bank, Validation Study, May-June 2015. Notes: The seven new areas mentioned by the local respondents that could not be associated with a specific census sector as they extended over several sectors are included. Thus, the total number of assessed areas is 1,130. The rate of validation was high for both marginalized and non-marginalized areas and both in Călărași and Vaslui, regardless whether the area was validated by the team or by local informants (Part I. Figure 1). At the sample level, 98 percent of the non-marginalized areas were validated by local informants (authorities or local people), while the research team confirmed all theoretical non- marginalized areas that they visited. The rate of validated areas was also high for the theoretical rural marginalized areas, with 89 percent being validated when the local informants did the assessment and 74 percent when the research team did it. Nonetheless, both inclusion and exclusion errors were identified. The inclusion errors accounted for 11 percent of all the rural marginalized areas assessed by local informants and 26 percent of the areas assessed when the assessment is done by the research team. These errors were as follows: (a) Some inclusion errors were the result of the existence of three or four large households with five members or more in small census sectors (50 to 80 persons) can lead to the sector being inappropriately classified as marginalized. (b) Some inclusion errors occurred in areas mainly inhabited by people aged 50 or older, especially women who are not in education and have never been in formal employment and who live in old and poorly endowed houses. In most cases these areas are small depopulated villages, with many empty ruined houses with little chance of any community revival. 26 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS (c) Other inclusion errors occurred as a result of prejudice against Roma communities. Some local informants, especially mayors and vice-mayors, did not validate previously identified marginalized areas that had prominent Roma communities given as the reason that: “we do not have poor people here [within the commune], we have only lazy people (certati cu munca)”. (d) Many inclusion errors were the result of the time lag between the 2011 census data and the time of the validation study (2015): The research team encountered two different situations in this regard. In the first situation, a community “was the poorest in the village in 2011 but are now the commune’s richest”29 as a result of a large number of community members migrating to the Nordic countries to work and sending remittances home. As of June 2015, these villages are flourishing, with numerous large and beautiful houses being newly built. The second situation relates to the public investments done in the last years. Thus, marginalized communities that in 2011 had been isolated within the commune because of distance and the lack of decent road by 2014 had an asphalted road providing children with access to education and adults with access to employment or markets. (e) Other inclusion errors were the effect of Law 15/2003 which regulates the awarding of landplots30 by local authorities to young people aged between 18 and 35 years old to construct houses. These allocations of land plots has led to the growth of new neighborhoods on the outskirts of villages,31 of which some appear in the census data as being marginalized areas, mainly due to their lack of utilities and small number of population. However, the land plots are provided with no housing but with the right to build a house on the plot whithin two years. If in the two-year period the house is not built and is officially registered with the mayoralty, the land concession is canceled and the building plot is reassigned to the next family on the list. Most of these areas have no basic infrastructure, with only dirt roads with few or no electricity, water, and sewage systems. The infrastructure development process is extremely slow. Local budgets are low and required to cover all sorts of emergencies, and the funding necessary for the investments in these areas are not available. (f) Some exclusion errors were the result of limited knowledge of the respondents, many of whom had no systematic knowledge of all areas in the commune, especially regarding the population’s level of education or employment. At best, they knew the 2011 census results and were able to provide information to the research team only at the commune or village level, rather than at a more disaggregated level. Consequently, most of them tended to limit their assessment to the existence of infrastructure and/ or public services, meaning that if an area was close to a road and had access to some infrastructure, they simply assumed that it was not marginalized. Exclusion errors represent 2 percent of all previously identified non-marginalized areas. Out of all 1,041 rural census sectors originally classified as non-marginalized in the analysis of the 2011 census data, 13 were invalidated by the local respondents. In addition, they mentioned seven additional marginalized areas that could not be associated with a specific census sector as they extended over the boundaries of two or three sectors. Thus, a total of 20 marginalized areas were 29 Interview with the Vice-mayor of Botesti commune, Vaslui county. 30 The size of the land plot varies by location: 150 to 300 square meters in the cities and districts of Bucharest, 250 to 400 square meters in cities, and 250 to 1,000 square meters in communes and villages. Data on these allocations are available only for urban areas. 31 One example is the new neighborhood in the village Valea Argovei (in the Valea Argovei commune in Călărași county). RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 27 newly identified in the field by the local respondents. However, the research team validated only seven as being rural marginalized areas. The exclusion errors were due to the following reasons: (a) Some exclusion errors were due to the time lag between the 2011 census data and the time of the validation study (2015). Most of the marginalized areas newly identified by the local respondents were small or very small communities with only few households of young people who cannot afford a house and have settled on the outskirts of the village where they started a slum of poor shelters. These emerging communities may be the nucleus of a future rural marginalized area if these young families do not receive appropriate support at the local level. At the moment most of them are too small to be considered a marginalized community. (b) Exclusion errors were the result of prejudice against Roma communities. Some local informants tend to equal Roma ethnicity with poverty and therefore automatically reacted to the term “marginalized areas” by identifying Roma communities. However, in the field the research team found a wide range of Roma communities from very poor ones to some that were quite well-off, such as those comprised of Roma musicians (lăutari). (c) There were some exclusion errors that resulted from the way in which the 2011 census was carried out. In some communes, the local authorities mentioned that some new areas had not been properly recorded at the census due to various local circumstances. (d) Some exclusion errors were due to the limited knowledge possessed by interviewees: The validation study was based on census sectors that in many cases are “artificial” rather than “natural” communities. In many communes, the census sectors have no meaning in the day-to-day lives of the local respondents, meaning that they found it difficult to visualize them. This was much easier for those communes where the census sectors coincided with village boundaries. Some local authorities no longer have the local maps created for the 2011 census, and so they made “blind” estimates, particularly of area related statistical data on, for example, the total population and the numbers of Roma households and dweelings. At the same time, because of their limited knowledge of details such as the number of single-parent families or of out-of-school children, local authority respondents tended to assess whole villages as being poor instead of defining a certain area as being marginalized. The total population of the newly identified marginalized areas (those added by the local respondents and validated by the World Bank team) represents about 0.6 percent of the total population living in the previously identified non-marginalized areas. Therefore, the validation study indicates that 6.2 percent rate of rural marginalization that we calculated using the 2011 census may actually be higher at somewhere around 7 percent of the total rural population. In conclusion, the validation study based on qualitative techniques highlighted a series of limitations in the original approach. Nevertheless, it has also largely confirmed the results of the quantitative methodology that we applied to the 2011 census data, thus confirming it to be robust and capable of identifying the “pockets” of rural marginalization at a satisfactory level of accuracy. 28 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 2.1.3 The Main Characteristics of the Rural Marginalized Areas in Romania This section presents the main characteristics of the rural marginalized areas in Romania as evidenced by our analysis of the 2011 census. At the national level, 6.2 percent of the rural population, 5.3 percent of all households, and 5.2 percent of all dwellings are located in rural marginalized areas. By definition, these rural areas are severely deprived census sectors in which most of the population have completed only lower secondary education at most, make a living in the informal sector (especially agriculture), and live in precarious dwellings even by the usual low standard for rural areas (in other words, they live in overcrowded houses and/or have no access to running water or electricity). Part I. Figure 2 compares the profile of rural marginalized areas with that of non-marginalized areas. These marginalized areas are considered to be “problematic” specifically because they are characterized by low-income households, populations with low levels of education and labor market skills, a preponderance of single mothers, large numbers of children, and a high rate of petty crime. Children (those between 0 and 17 years old) represent more than one-third (34 percent) of the total population in rural marginalized areas, while the elderly account for only 13 percent (for comparison, the average shares for rural non-marginalized areas are 22 percent for children and 19 percent for people aged 65 or older). One in every four households in rural marginalized areas has five members or more compared with only 15 percent in non-marginalized areas, while 16 percent of households have three children or more compared with only 5 percent in non-marginalized areas. The proportion of teenage mothers is more than three times higher in rural marginalized communities than in non-marginalized ones (4.6 percent of girls aged between 13 and 17 years old compared with 1.3 percent). Extremely worrying is the fact that children and households with three or more children from rural areas have a very high risk of living in a marginalized area - 10 percent and as high as 21 percent respectively - compared to the national rural average of 6.2 percent (see also Annex 1. Table 2). As many as 80 percent of the adult residents of the rural marginalized communities have completed less than eight years of school, of whom 35 percent have only a primary education, while in the non-marginalized communities the proportions drop to 45 percent and 8 percent respectively. The percentage of people neither working as employees nor in education or training is twice as high among youths aged between 15 and 19 years old living in rural marginalized areas as among youths in non-marginalized ones (51 percent as opposed to 23 percent in non-marginalized areas). The proportion of people who are neither working as employees nor in education among the population aged between 20 and 64 years old is almost 64 percent in rural non-marginalized areas, but this increases to 88 percent in rural marginalized areas, with this indicator being highest for Roma women living in rural marginalized areas (95 percent) (see also Annex 1. Table 3). Even more than in the case in other rural communities, marginalized areas have unpaved streets and bad housing, are exposed to environmental hazards (such as floods and landslides), and have poor quality or no public services. For example, Annex 1. Table 4 shows that in Romania’s rural areas the share of people living in dwellings with no piped water supply from the public network increases from 65 percent of non-Roma living in non-marginalized areas to 75 percent of Roma people from non-marginalized areas, and reaches a high of 88 percent of non-Roma living in marginalized RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 29 areas. Similarly, the share of population living in dwellings not connected to electricity jumps from 0.6 percent of non-Roma in non-marginalized areas to over 10 percent of Roma people living in marginalized areas. PART I. FIGURE 2: Rural Marginalized Areas by Key Indicators, 2011 RuralNon- Rural Criteria/ Total Key indicators marginalized Marginalized Dimension Rural Areas Areas Human Proportion of people aged 15-64 years old who 45 80 47 capital completed 8 grades or less Proportion of people aged 15-64 years old who are neither in education nor have ever been in Employment 54 83 56 formal employment (employees, employers, or pensioners) Housing Proportion of dwellings not connected to electricity 1 5 1 Proportion of overcrowded dwellings 13 29 14 Proportion of dwellings not connected to piped   36 72 38 water Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. In 42 percent of the rural marginalized census sectors, high proportions of residents belong to the Roma ethnic minority. According to the National Survey on Roma conducted by the Research Institute for Quality of Life in 1998 in the rural areas of Romania out of every 100 individuals identified by the authorities as being Roma, 64 people self-identify as Roma.32 As self-identified Roma people represent, on average, 27 percent of all residents of rural marginalized areas, according to our analysis of the 2011 census data, then this appears to indicate that the true proportion of the Roma population in these communities is about 42 percent (see also Annex 1. Table 2). 2.1.4 Living Conditions in Rural Marginalized Areas The data collected for the validation study provides some additional information on the living conditions in rural marginalized areas in Romania. For this purpose, we used only the interviews 32 Zamfir and Preda (coord., 2002). 30 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS conducted in the 68 validated areas (61 originaly identified areas and the 7 newly identified in the field). These data showed that: •  Almost a half of the rural marginalized areas are communities of Roma people, popularly called țigănie, rudărie or mahala (slum). The communities of venetici (in-migrants within the commune) are very few and can be found only in communes where a former communist agricultural enterprise used to operate before 1990.33 The third group of areas comprises communities of local people who used to work in a factory in a nearby city. As the factories were closed down, they lost their jobs, fell into poverty and have started to work in agriculture. These communities are most often named after the village or after a geographical element like a valley, a meadow, or a forest. These findings regarding the sub-types of marginalized communities confirm the findings of previous qualitative research.34 •  Most marginalized areas are inhabited by stable communities who lived in the same commune before 1990. Less than one in every 10 rural marginalized areas is either a community established after 1990 or an emerging one. •  Most of the marginalized communities consist of young families with children who make a living from agriculture, informal day labour and social benefits, particularly the child allowance, the guaranteed minimum income, and or farmers’ pensions. •  In almost half of the rural marginalized areas respondents reported the frequent occurrence of small thefts, excess noise, quarrels, fights, scandals, domestic violence, and disorder related to large numbers of children and a lack of fences between dwellings. •  Nearly all houses in marginalized areas are made of adobe or are improvised shelters, and most of them are in a deteriorated condition and need capital repairs. Respondents in about half of the marginalized areas reported having experienced problems related to ownership documents for their land or house, and one in every 10 reported that many inhabitants had no identity papers. •  In some areas there is only limited access to potable water, and waste management services are very rare. The risk of floods and land-slides seems to be widespread. •  However, in most rural marginalized areas, the local respondents reported that the main community problem by far is the lack of job opportunities. This is the result of the low education level of the adult population, children’s low participation in school, income poverty and a lack of local infrastructure, particularly roads and water. 2.1.5 Subtypes of Rural Marginalized Communities Based on Qualitative Research The validation study has deepened the knowledge of rural marginalized communities by distinguishing two subtypes, one related to geographic isolation and the second related to the location of these communities on the outskirts of well-connected villages. 33 The venetici communities were formed by in-migrants who came before 1989 and settled in a village because cities were near. The state provided them with an apartment in the block areas built in the 1980s or in former state-owned farms or workers’ colonies, and they worked either in the village agricultural enterprise or in a state-owned industrial enterprise in a nearby town. After 1990, many of them were made redundant. Being in-migrants, they were not granted any reinstated land although they remained in the village. Accordingly, large numbers of these households fell into poverty. 34 See, for example, Stănculescu and Berevoescu, (coord., 2004); Sandu (2005); Berescu et al (2007); and Stănculescu et al (2010). More recent research on the topic is not available. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 31 Rural Marginalization Due to Geographic Isolation The isolated type of rural marginalized areas was identified among villages in Vaslui county. It consist of remote villages inhabited by Romanian ethnic groups and that are located “after four hills”, “down in the valley, on the riverside”, “beyond a forest” from the central village of the commune. Usually, the only link between these communities and the rest of the area is an earth or graveled road that during the cold season is impassable. The situation of these communities is exacerbated by minimal access to potable water. Low school participation, early school leaving, and school dropout are key challenges in these isolated communities. The lack of a passable road is often the main reason behind low school attendance, poor school performances and high dropout rates after the 4th grade for the children in these communities. Even in those communes that have a school bus, this service cannot access remote marginalized communities unfavorable weather. Besides the road that connect the area to other villages, the streets within the marginalized area itself are often very narrow (ulițe) so that the fire truck and the ambulance cannot reach many houses. However, the general aspect of these communities tends to be rather bucolic, consisting of poor but organized households living in low-quality houses painted with lime with clean yards and simple well-maintained wells. The entire area has an agricultural nature, including sheep, cows and chickens walking around freely, and vegetables and fruit trees growing in all yards. Horses and carts are the main means of transportation. Even small children drive the cart, work in the fields, and take care of animals. In many of these areas, there is no phone signal. 32 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Rural Marginalization on the Outskirts of Well-connected Villages The study identified this peripheral type of rural marginalized areas mainly in Călărași county. This type of marginalized area is predominantly located on the outskirts of a village that is well- connected either to the central village of the commune or to a national or European road. Local respondents tend to refer to these areas as Roma communities. Most often, the residents referred to themselves as ”Roma”, ”țigan” or ”rudar”. These areas are more clearly demarcated from the rest of the village than the isolated marginalized areas which are much better integrated into the village landscape. Usually, at the entrance to a peripheral marginalized area, an asphalt road stops abruptly and is replaced by a graveled road. As a rule, most utilities within the village are available in the main streets of this type of marginalized areas but rarely in people’s homes, either because the residents are not interested in using that service or utility, or because they cannot afford it or have been disconnected because they are in debt to the supplier. For example, even in villages with a local water system, most residents of the marginalized areas fetch water from a public fountain. Although public services are accessible to people in this kind of marginalized community, their use of these services is low. Early school leaving and school dropout rates are high even if a school is only 10 minutes walk away from the community. The main reason given by parents for their children not attending school is a lack of proper clothes, shoes, or school supplies, with discrimination being the second reason. The general aspect of these communities tends to be rather untidy, with many houses having deteriorated roofs, lacking windows or a door and no fences. Carpets and blankets are hung all around. Children and adults are in the streets. The vegetable gardens and livestock are rare. Dogs and pigs are the predominant animals seen walking freely in the community. A lot of garbage is thrown at the areas’ margins by all villagers, not only by the residents of the marginalized area. However, because these areas are located in well-connected villages, the population has access to an informal employment market and can find day labor. Most of them collect and sell scrap iron, collect pets or are self-employed peddlers. Also, because the road to town is accessible, some of them work for construction or sanitation companies. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 33 2.1.6 The Ethnical Dimension of Marginalization As seen in the previous section, the validation study conducted for this Atlas revealed that almost one half of all marginalized areas in Vaslui and Călărași counties are communities of Roma people, according to both local authorities and residents of these areas. The remaining areas are communities of impoverished local people (non-Roma), and very few are communities of venetici (in-migrants to the commune). The 2011 census data show that in about one half of all rural territorial units (census sectors, villages, or communes) in Romania that contain marginalized communities, there is at least one resident of the respective area who self-identify as Roma. However, Roma communities (defined as those with 20 percent or more inhabitants who self-identify as Roma) exist in 27 percent of villages, 29 percent of census sectors, and 35 percent of communes with marginalized areas. PART I. TABLE 4: Territorial Units With and Without Marginalized Areas and Share of Residents in These Areas Who Self-Identify as Roma Number % Census Census Villages Communes Villages Communes sectors sectors No marginalized areas 44,303 10,768 1,869 With marginalized areas, of which: 2,244 1,605 992 100 100 100 - with no self-identified Roma 1,310 947 467 58 59 47 - with <20% self-identified Roma 276 217 177 12 14 18 - with 20+% self-identified Roma 658 441 348 29 27 35 Total 46,547 12,373 2,861 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Most rural marginalized areas are small communities with no residents who self-declare as Roma (Part I. Figure 3). Out of all rural marginalized areas in the country, 85 percent are small communities with between 50 and 375 residents. Out of the 564,000 people living in rural marginalized areas, 71 percent live in such small communities. People who self-identify as Roma represent about 27 percent of all residents of rural marginalized areas. Thus, Roma are highly over-represented among the residents of rural marginalized areas as this proportion is almost 10 times the national proportion of self-identified Roma in the total population. However, even in the marginalized areas, Roma tend to be segregated, since nearly all35 of them live in Roma communities (defined as those with 20 percent or more inhabitants who have self-identified Roma) that represent only 29 percent of all rural marginalized census sectors. Furthermore, whereas most rural marginalized areas are small, Roma communities tend to be larger. On average, Roma rural marginalized communities have 350 residents, whereas non-Roma communities (with no self-identified as Roma) have about 200 residents.36 Out of the total 151 thousand Roma people living in marginalized areas, 86 percent live Roma communities with more than 250 inhabitants.37 35 Specifically, 146,000 of the total of 151,000 people self-identified Roma live in Roma communities. 36 Ethnically mixed rural marginalized communities (those with fewer than 20 percent residents who self-identify as Roma) consist of an average of 250 residents. 37 Specifically, 56 percent live in Roma communities with more than 375 people, while 31 percent live in Roma communities with more than 500 residents. 34 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS PART I. FIGURE 3: Census Sectors with Rural Marginalized Areas (RMA) by the Number of Inhabitants Living in These Areas and the Share of Residents Who Self-identify as Roma (number of census sectors) 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 50 <150 750 <1,500 inhabitants 150 <250 250 <375 375 <500 500 <750 inhabitants living in RMA living in RMA Roma communities 44 135 254 127 78 20 Ethnically mixed communities 52 111 76 25 10 2 Non-Roma communities 406 553 287 53 10 1 Source: World Bank calculations using 2011 Population and Housing Census. N=2,244 census sectors with marginalized communities. Notes: Roma communities are defined as marginalized areas where more than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma. Ethnically mixed communities are defined as marginalized areas where fewer than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma. Non-Roma communities are defined as marginalized areas where no residents self-identify as Roma. In conclusion, the two dominant sub-types of rural marginalized communities seem to be confirmed in terms of ethnicity and population numbers - small communities of non-Roma population as opposed to large communities of Roma people. 2.1.7 Geospatial Analysis of Rural Marginalization This section analysis the geographical dimensionof the typology (isolated versus well-connected villages). Regional Level Rural marginalized communities are spread across 992 communes (35 percent of all communes in the country), though with significant regional differences (see Annex 1. Table 5). The marginalized census sectors are located in 1,605 villages (12 percent of all villages) in all counties and regions of the country (Part I. Map 1). However, the proportion of the population living in rural marginalized areas (census sectors) is almost twice as high in the North-East as the national rural average (11.3 versus 6.2 percent). The Center region (8 percent) has also a higher than average marginalization rate. At the other extreme, the West (1.2 percent) and Bucharest-Ilfov (0.6 percent) regions have very low marginalization rates. Regarding the subtypes of marginalized areas, Annex 1. Table 6 shows that three regional patterns exist. In the North-East region, rural marginalization consists mainly of small non-Roma RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 35 communities. In the Center region and also in the South-Muntenia, North-West and Bucharest-Ilfov regions, rural marginalization is strongly associated with larger Roma communities (those were 20 percent or more inhabitants self-identify as Roma). Finally, in the other three regions - South-East, South-West, and West - rural marginalization is a mix of both non-Roma and Roma communities. County Level At the county level, there are also considerable discrepancies. Vaslui has the highest rate of rural marginalization in the country, almost 23 percent (near four times higher than the national average). Thus, almost one in every four people in rural Vaslui county lives in a marginalized area. High rates of rural marginalization (between 9 and 15 percent of the total rural population in each county) have been recorded in eight other counties, namely Iasi, Covasna, Brasov, Botosani, Galati, Bacau, Sibiu, and Mehedinti. At the other extreme, Ilfov and Timis have rates of rural marginalization of only about 0.5 percent (see also Annex 1. Table 7). The rate of rural marginalization for Roma communities is substantial (between 5 and 8 percent of the total rural population in each county) in Brasov, Covasna, Mures, Ialomita, Sibiu, Salaj, Galati, and Bihor. At the same time, in some other counties that have low rates of marginalization, (such as Dambovita, Satu Mare, Prahova, Alba, Arad, Cluj, and Calarasi), most rural marginalized areas are Roma communities. Conversely, in Vaslui, Botosani, Iasi, and Harghita counties, most rural marginalized areas are non-Roma communities. 36 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS PART I. MAP 1: Distribution of Rural Marginalized Areas across Romania, 2011 Source: Word Bank estimations based on data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: The analysis was carried out at the census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with fewer than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 37 Village (SIRUTA Unit) Level At the village level, the World Bank background study38 for the National Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction 2015-2020 has already shown that most Romanian villages contain between 100 and 2,000 inhabitants. At one extreme, small villages (those with fewer than 500 inhabitants) and especially very small villages (those with fewer than 200 inhabitants) are the most disadvantaged, particularly those with an elderly population and/or those that are located in remote areas. At the other extreme, large villages (those with more than 2,000 inhabitants) tend to be the most developed. Thus, the size of village population is a strong determinant of its general level of development or potential. In terms of rural marginalization, we mentioned above that only 1,605 villages in the country have one or more marginalized areas (census sectors), as shown in Annex 1. Table 8.39 Most of them (62 percent) are medium or large villages. The majority of them (72 percent) has one rural marginalized area inhabited by a non-Roma community (in 59 percent of villages, no resident of the marginalized area self-identifies as Roma). As Part I. Figure 4 shows, in very small and small villages there is usually a small non-Roma community living in one marginalized area, while in medium and large cities the number of marginalized areas varies between 1 and 9 census sectors where all types of communities live. Most Roma communities located in marginalized areas live in medium or large villages. Furthermore, while the population of two-thirds of all villages with marginalized non-Roma communities is declining, the population of most villages with marginalized Roma communities (72 percent) has grew between 2002 and 2011 (the last two censuses) PART I. FIGURE 4: Villages with Rural Marginalized Areas (RMA) by Number and Type of RMAs within Villages (number of villages) 600 515 500 391 400 318 306 300 239 201 180 200 163 128 120 132 81 63 72 51 70 58 100 18 39 40 9 0 4 12 0 One Two Three or more Non-Roma Ethnically Roma communities mixed communities Number of census sectors with rural marginalized Type of rural marginalized areas at the village areas per village level Very s ma l l vi l l a ges (1-200 i nha bi ta nts ) Sma l l vi l l a ges (201-500 i nha bi ta nts ) Medi um vi l l a ges (>500-2,000 i nha bi ta nts ) La rge vi l l a ges (>2,000 i nha bi ta nts ) Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. N=1,605 villages (SIRUTA units) with marginalized communities. Notes: Roma communities are definded as marginalized areas where more than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma. Ethnically mixed communities are defined as marginalized areas where fewer than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma. Non-Roma communities are defined as marginalized areas where no resident self-identify as Roma. 38 Teșliuc et al (2015). 39 In these villages, between 2 and 100 percent of the total village population lives in the marginalized areas. In 737 villages, this proportion is below 40 percent. In 198 villages, 40 to 49 percent of the total population lives in marginalized areas. In 315 villages, the proportion increases to 50 to 99 percent, and in 355 villages, the entire population lives in the marginalized areas. 38 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Village accessibility, measured by geographic distance40 to the nearest city, is a highly relevant indicator from the social and economic point of view. Transportation services tend not to exist in areas where they are unlikely to be profitable because of long distances and poor-quality roads. Consequently, the remoteness of these communities is exacerbated, the large distance becomes remoteness especially during rainy seasons when the access roads are often impassible. Few doctors and teachers who live outside the commune agree to work in remote villages primarily because of the extreme difficulty involved in getting there. Therefore, geographical isolation comes together with institutional marginalization. In addition, villagers have little opportunity to reach urban markets to sell their food products, which deepens the economic weakness of individuals and community. Proximity to the nearest city is highly correlated with existence of a railway or a bus station. It represents a proxy for being located close to the nearest high school and university. It is also correlated with a high level of development of village infrastructure: the shorter the distance to a city, the more kilometers of modernized road a village has, the more houses are endowed with running water, and the more households have a telephone. In addition, the shorter the distance to the nearest city, the more newspapers subscriptions the village has, the higher the education stock of its population,41 and the more people it has who can speak a foreign language.42 The distance from villages to the nearest city varies between 0.5 and 82 kilometers (with the exception of villages with access to water from the Danube Delta), with an average of 21 kilometers and a standard variation of 11 kilometers. Thus, in Romania, a village can be considered as being close to city if it is located to less than 10 kilometers from it, while 10 to 32 kilometers represents a moderate distance, while a village can be considered remote if it is more than 32 kilometers away from the nearest urban area. In rural areas, being located far from the nearest city is a strong correlate of marginalization. Only 3.5 percent of the rural population in villages close to a city is marginalized, but this share is more than three times higher for people living in remote villages (11.3 percent compared to the national average of 6.2 percent). The share of villages with marginalized areas increases from 9 percent of villages close to a city to 14 percent of villages at a moderate distance from a city, and almost 20 percent of the villages that are located far from a city. Annex 1. Table 9 shows that, among all villages with marginalized areas, Roma communities predominate in villages close to a city (0.5 to 10 kilometers) while non-Roma communities are prevalent in isolated villages (those more than 32 kilometers away from the nearest city). In fact, out of all Roma people living in marginalized Roma communities, fewer than 10 percent live in remote villages.43 Within each commune, some villages are located centrally and some are located on the periphery.44 The share of peripheral villages is about 75 percent in all rural SIRUTA units. Nonetheless, the proportion of population living in peripheral villages represents only 48 percent of the total rural population. Central villages are usually where the administrative and institutional resources of the commune are located, including the mayoralty, post office, health clinic, church, coordinating school, police, House of Culture and so on. In contrast, in most peripheral villages there are only 40 We used the distances determined by a team of geographers from the Institute for Geography, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 41 Sandu (coord., 2000). 42 Voicu and Voicu (2004). 43 For comparison, 21 percent of people living in marginalized areas who do not self-identify as Roma (non-Roma) live in remote villages. 44 Specifically, 88 percent of communes consist of at least two villages, one central and one or more peripheral villages. The other 12 percent of communes comprise only one central village. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 39 two institutions – a church and a school. Furthermore, the public infrastructure is significantly less developed in peripheral villages, which are usually characterized by dirt roads, a lack of running water, and a lack of communications. In rural areas, the location of the village within the commune is another significant correlate of marginalization. The rate of marginalization is almost two times higher in peripheral villages than in central ones (8 percent of population compared to 4.5 percent, the national average being 6.2 percent). Similar to the general situation that prevails in rural areas, peripheral villages constitute the majority of villages with marginalized areas (Annex 1. Table 9). However, unlike in those other villages, the population of marginalized communities within peripheral villages represent 62 percent of the total population in marginalized rural areas. At the same time, as shown in Annex 1. Table 9 Roma communities predominate in the marginalized areas within central villages, whereas in peripheral villages, non-Roma communities prevail. In fact, out of all Roma people living in marginalized areas, Roma communities are evenly distributed among peripheral and central villages.45 However, the validation study showed that Roma communities are usually located on the outskirts of the village (whether the village is peripherally or centrally located in the commune). The geographical terrain of the land also affects rural marginalization. More than 15 percent of the population of rural villages on the plain is marginalized compared to 3 to 5 percent in other villages and the national average of 6.2 percent. At the same time, villages located on a plain are more than three times as likely to contain a marginalized area as mountain and hilly-mountain villages. The share of villages with one or more marginalized areas is 7 to 8 percent among mountain and hilly- mountain villages, 11 percent among hilly-plain villages, and over 29 percent among villages on the plain. It is noteworthy that Roma communities are much more numerous in rural marginalized areas in mountain and hilly-mountain villages, while non-Roma communities predominate in marginalized areas in hilly-plain and plain villages (see Annex 1. Table 9). In conclusion, Roma people living in marginalized areas tend to be concentrated in larger Roma communities46 (with an average of 350 residents) located in medium and large villages, either centrally or peripherally located, on non-plain land, either in the vicinity of or at moderate distance from a city (between 0.5 and 20 kilometers). By contrast, rural marginalized non-Roma communities47 are more likely to be small (on average 200 residents) and situated in small or medium villages peripherally located on a plain and far from any city. These two distinct types of rural marginalized areas overlap to a large extent with the subtypes of communities that we identified using qualitative techniques during the validation study that were described in section 2.1.5. Commune (Territorial-Administrative Unit) Level In terms of rural marginalization, we have already mentioned that 992 communes in the country have one or more marginalized areas (census sectors). In these communes, between 1 and 100 percent of the total commune population lives in the marginalized areas. In 160 communes (representing 5.6 percent of the total number of communes in the country),48 more than one-third of 45 For comparison, out of all people living in marginalized areas who do not self-identify as Roma (non-Roma) 64 percent live in peripheral villages and 36 percent live in central villages. 46 Areas where more than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma. 47 Areas with no residents who self-identify as Roma. 48 The four communes with the highest shares of marginalized populations (more than 80 percent of total commune population) are: Bărbulești (Ialomița county), Lipovu (Dolj county), Ibănești (Vaslui county), and Voinești (Vaslui county). 40 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS the populations live in marginalized communities.49 In the rural Romania, marginalized communities have emerged mainly in the medium-large and more developed communes.50 Small communes51 with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants account for 26 percent of all rural territorial-administrative units in the country and for 19 percent of all communes with marginalized areas (see Annex 1. Table 10). These communes are almost equally distributed between those with one and those with two or more marginalized areas, which are most often ethnically mixed, especially in large communes with over 5,000 inhabitants.52 Only in small communes is there usually only one marginalized area that is inhabited by a non-Roma community (see also Part I. Figure 5 and Annex 1. Table 11). PART I. FIGURE 5: Communes with Rural Marginalized Areas (RMA) by Number and Type of RMAs within Communes (number of communes) 350 311 317 300 250 205 198 200 150 117 125 126 99 92 100 63 53 65 32 43 43 35 28 32 50 0 One Two Three or more ONLY Non- Ethni ca l l y ONLY Roma Roma mi xed communi ti es communi ti es communi ti es i n RMAs i n RMAs i n RMAs Number of Rura l Ma rgi na l i zed Area s (RMA) Type of communi ti es l i vi ng i n RMAs wi thi n per commune the commune Sma l l communes (<2,000 i nha bi ta nts ) Medi um communes (2,000<5,000 i nha bi ta nts ) La rge communes (5,000+ i nha bi ta nts ) Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. N=992 communes with marginalized communities. Notes: ONLY non-Roma communities are defined as communes in which all rural marginalized areas have no residents who self-identify as Roma. ONLY Roma communities are defined as communes in which all rural marginalized areas are inhabited by communities in which more than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma. Ethnically mixed communities are defined as communes with one marginalized area inhabited by an ethnically mixed community (where fewer than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma) or with two or more marginalized areas inhabited by both non-Roma and Roma communities. At the village level, being located far from the nearest city is strongly correlated with marginalization. For communes, which are clusters of villages, this correlation is much attenuated 49 In 320 communes, 10 to 19 percent of the total population lives in marginalized areas, and in 155 communes, 20 to 29 percent live in such areas. 50 This result reconfirms previous research, for example, Stănculescu and Berevoescu, (coord., 2004), Sandu (2005), Berescu et al (2007), and Stănculescu et al (2010). 51 The World Bank background study for the National Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction 2015-2020 showed that among rural municipalities, small communes with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants are the most disadvantaged in terms of economic, human and social development Teșliuc et al (2015). 52 Either one marginalized area inhabited by an ethnically mixed community (with fewer than 20 percent of residents who self- identify as Roma) or two or more marginalized areas resided by both non-Roma and Roma communities. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 41 (Annex 1. Table 11). Actually there is no association between the urban connectivity53 of a commune and the likelihood that it contains marginalized areas.54 The only significant finding is the fact that communes in which all marginalized areas are inhabited by Roma communities are more likely to have high urban connectivity than other marginalized communes. A better indicator is the existence within the commune of one or more remote villages (those located at more than 32 kilimeters from the nearest city). These communes are heavily overrepresented among those with marginalized areas.55 At the same time, those communes in which all marginalized areas are inhabited by Roma communities are likely to contain no remote villages. Being located close to the county boundary is also slightly associated with marginalization for communes. Not only do slightly more communes located close to county boundaries have marginalized areas than other communes, but also more of them are located more than 50 minutes away trip from the county capital city.56 Marginalized areas in communes located near the county boundary are most likely to be ethnically mixed (Annex 1. Table 11). Partnerships between localities European Union financing is key for financing projects in Romania’s marginalized areas (in small infrastructure, employment, education, health, and other social areas), especially as rural municipalities generally have insufficient local budgets. PART I. TABLE 5: Communes with Rural Marginalized Areas (RMA) by Membership of Commune in a LAG or FLAG and the Number of RMAs within Each Commune (number of communes) Communes with Number of marginalized marginalized areas areas within the commune Total No Yes 1 2 3-15 Not member of a LAG or FLAG 995 719 276 146 60 70 Member of a LAG or FLAG 1,866 1,150 716 345 140 231 Total 2,861 1,869 992 491 200 301 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. For the period 2014 to 2020, both rural and small urban municipalities have greater access to the European funds through the LEADER approach, if they are members of a Local Action Group (LAG) or a Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG). For this reason, it is relevant to distinguish between 53 See more details on urban connectivity in section 3.1.3. 54 Both communes with low urban connectivity (remote communes) and those with high urban connectivity are slightly underrepresented among communes with marginalized areas. Furthermore, the share of communes with marginalized areas is about 30 to 31 percent both for communes with low urban connectivity and those with high connectivity compared with 39 percent for communes with medium connectivity and 35 percent for all communes in the country. 55 Sixty percent of all communes with marginalized areas have one or more remote villages (those that are more than 32 kilometers from the nearest city) compared with 51 percent of all communes in the country. In addition, the share of communes with marginalized areas is 40 percent of all communes including remote villages compared with only 29 percent of communes without such villages. 56 On the one hand, almost one half (48 percent) of all communes with marginalized areas are located near the county boundary compared with 45 percent of all communes in the country. On the other hand, among communes located near county boundaries, 35 percent are communes with marginalized areas that are less than 50 minutes away from the county capital city (equal to the national average), but about 40 percent are communes with marginalized areas that are more than 50 minutes away from the county capital city. Overall, communes with marginalized areas constitute 37 percent of all communes located near county boundaries. 42 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS municipalities that are part of a LAG/FLAG and those that are not.57 The World Bank background study58 for the National Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction 2015-2020 has already shown that communes with the smallest self-generated revenues in their local budget and more extended poverty have a higher propensity to be members in LAGs/FLAGs.59 Also, a high proportion of the communes with marginalized areas (72 percent) are members of a LAG/FLAG (Part I. Table 5). Thus, three of every four communes with marginalized areas have the opportunity to apply to the European funds for financing to develop and implement projects targeted to their marginalized communities. Annex 1. Table 12 shows that these communes include all types of marginalized communities Roma, non-Roma, and ethnically mixed. 2.1.8 Rural Marginalization and Rural Poverty As mentioned above, the maps of rural marginalization presented in this Atlas are complementary to the “poverty maps” that were produced by the World Bank and the European Commission in 2014.60 Marginalization defined as cumulated disadvantages in terms of human capital, formal employment, and housing conditions is highly correlated with poverty. Actually, marginalized areas are intra-locality “pockets” of destitution which means that marginalization is linked to “extreme” “unacceptable” poverty. Thus, there can be expected to be significant overlaps between the maps of rural marginalization and those of rural poverty. However, the relation is not direct because of differences in the geographical level at which the analysis is conducted and the methodology that is applied.61 We explored marginalization at census sector (small area) level, while the poverty maps were estimated at the commune level. Consequently, it is possible to have a “rich” commune that contains a marginalized community. At the same time, it is possible to have a “poor” commune with no marginalized community because the inhabitants, although income poor, have not accumulated disadvantages in human capital, formal employment, and housing conditions. Therefore, in order to design effective interventions in marginalized areas, it is very relevant to explore the type of communes in which marginalized communities have developed. 57 For this assignment we use the most updated list of LAGs approved for financing under LEADER, which is available at: http:/ / leader-romania.ro/leader/2011/Lista_Grupurile_de_Actiune_Locala_autorizate_pentru_functionare_de_MADR_si_date_de_ contact_GAL_la_data_de_03.11.2011_.pdf. These LAGs are currently under a revision process. 58 Teșliuc et al (2015). 59 By contrast, small communes (those with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants) and remote communes (those with low urban connectivity) face difficulties in taking part in local partnerships. The rate of participation in a LAG/FLAG is 54 percent among the small and remote communes compared to 63 percent among of the small non-remote communes, 69 percent among remote communes with more than 2,000 inhabitants, and 62 percent among the other communes. 60 Simler (coord., 2014). 61 The poverty maps combine information from the 2011 population census and the EU‐SILC household survey to estimate household disposable income levels for each household in the census. This information was then used to estimate the number and proportion of people in each region or county whose consumption was below the risk of poverty line, using the standard EU threshold of 60 percent of median national income (AROP indicator). RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 43 PART I. TABLE 6: Communes with Rural Marginalized Areas (RMA) by Income Relative Poverty and Number of RMAs within the Commune (number of communes) Communes with Number of marginalized marginalized areas areas within the commune Total No Yes 1 2 3-15 Developed communes (AROP lowest quintile) 572 527 45 36 7 2 Medium-developed communes 1,717 1,180 537 352 113 72 Poor communes (AROP highest quintile) 572 162 410 103 80 227 Total 2,861 1,869 992 491 200 301 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Income poverty (AROP) according to the most recent World Bank poverty maps (Simler, coord., 2014). The cells marked in color indicate the dominant patterns. Using rates of relative poverty estimated at the commune level (AROP indicator), we divided all rural territorial-administrative units into three groups: “developed” communes (those in the lowest quintile of AROP), “medium-developed” communes (those in quintiles 2, 3 and 4), and “poor” communes (those in the highest quintile of AROP). PART I. FIGURE 6: Communes with Rural Marginalized Areas (RMA) by Relative Income Poverty and Type of Marginalized Communities within Communes, 2011 (number of communes) 8 100% 28 205 90% 9 135 Ethnically mixed marginalized 80% area or areas within commune 197 70% 261 60% ONLY Roma communities living 23 in the marginalized areas 50% within commune 527 40% 126 ONLY Non-Roma communities 1,180 30% living in the marginalized areas within commune 20% 162 Communes without 10% marginalized areas 0% The best-off communes Medium developed Poor communes in the country communes Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. N=992 communes with marginalized communities. Income poverty (AROP) data are from the most recent World Bank poverty maps (Simler, coord., 2014). Notes: ONLY non-Roma communities are defined as communes in which all rural marginalized areas have no residents who self-identify as Roma. ONLY Roma communities are defined as communes in which all rural marginalized areas are inhabited by communities in which more than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma. Ethnically mixed communities are defined as communes with only one marginalized area inhabited by an ethnically mixed community (where fewer than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma) or with two or more marginalized areas inhabited by both non-Roma and Roma communities. 44 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Part I. Table 6 shows that most communes with marginalized areas are medium-developed or poor in terms of the share of their population that is at risk of relative poverty. Only 5 percent of all communes with marginalized areas are developed. On the other hand, the share of communes with marginalized areas increases incrementally from 8 percent of developed communes to 31 percent of medium-developed communes (close to the national average of 35 percent), and to a high of 72 percent of poor communes. Thus, the likelihood of containing a marginalized area is almost 10 times higher in poor communes as in developed ones. Only Roma marginalized communities are considerably more likely to be located in developed communes (with low poverty rates), as shown in Part I. Figure 6 and Annex 1. Table 13. In the poor communes there is usually more than one marginalized community that can be either Roma or non- Roma. By contrast, in the medium-developed communes, there is usually only one marginalized community, which can be either non-Roma or Roma. 2.2 Tackling Segregation and Marginalized Communities in the European Union This section focuses on the most appropriate types of interventions that have been developed to tackle segregation and marginalization across the European Union and in Romania. The first section discusses the main policy options that have been promoted in the European member states. The second section presents the multi-sectoral integrated area-based approach that is the most appropriate for ensuring the integration of marginalized communities and discusses lessons learned from previous interventions that have been piloted by various local authorities or NGOs in Romania. 2.2.1 Fighting segregation in The European Union Segregation is again at the top of the European agenda as it affects almost all European areas, whether prosperous and growing or shrinking. Residential segregation relates to how people are separated in terms of where they live, but segregation can also occur in terms of schools, jobs, or public services and can affect people in all social and demographic dimensions, including age, ethnicity, religion, income, or social class (the rich in one place, the poor in another) or in combination. Segregation is closely related to concentration, which implies that there is a statistical over-representation of one group and an under-representation of one or more other groups in a certain space. It is also related to the fragmentation of space into areas with visible differences. “If these fragments become inaccessible, then we encounter segregation into ghettoes, gated communities, and other manifestations of hyper-segregation. The most extreme examples of segregation might take the form of polarization, in which different parts of the city fight against each other.” 62 Segregation can be a deliberate choice, such as when better-off groups choose to self-segregate into gentrified areas or gated communities, or can be a separation forced on people by outside factors, such as when marginalized populations are concentrated in poor areas. A ghetto is the most 62 Colini et al (2013: 10). RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 45 extreme form of forced segregation. The most common type of segregation in Romania is related to economic and financial inequalities. This aspect has received little attention in the segregation literature compared with the racial- ethnic dimension. The factors that have led to Romania’s segregation issues include the structural changes involved in the country’s transition to a market economy, unemployment, growing economic precariousness, and weaker welfare systems as well as the housing and urban planning policies promoted during the communist period and the first post-communist decade. Typically, the policies that are in place at the EU level and at the national and local levels in Romania encourage area-based interventions in areas that policymakers consider to be “problematic.” Area- based interventions are usually divided into “hard” and “soft” measures63 as follows: •  demolished Hard interventions often consist of physical restructuring programs in which buildings are and new infrastructure and housing developments are built or the housing stock is refurbished, new public facilities are created (such as social or cultural facilities and parks), and public transport is improved. •  Soft interventions strengthen networks and interactions between people in the area (for example, through work integration and training programs in specific areas, field work to find solutions for the immediate problems of the homeless or other types of people in extreme situations, and local festivals where the community can gather) and help individuals to access the labor market through training, work experience, and job placement. However, these initiatives often do not address the driving forces behind segregation such as the deregulation of housing markets or the shrinking welfare state. Instead, urban neighborhood regeneration projects tend to focus on buildings and infrastructure rather than people and do not challenge the rising land values and house prices that force the relocation of less affluent inhabitants. Regeneration projects, at least in theory, have yet to find a balance between social inclusion and economic competitiveness and need to be supported by a broad range of public and private actors (public agencies, landlords, residents, and businesses) to be effective. While politicians often favor quick and visible interventions that have immediate visible results, neighborhood change takes time and often softer, incremental measures would be more effective in the long term. Also, at least in Romania, many marginalized communities and deprived neighborhoods have a bad reputation with the general population, so local administrators and politicians who attempt to regenerate them can often lose political support. Both area-based (spatial) and people-based (sectoral) interventions are crucial for fighting segregation in marginalized areas. The relevant policies and programs should be coordinated among all levels of governance (vertical policy integration) and across sectors (horizontal policy integration): •  to Vertical policy integration can be initiated in many ways. One way is for national policymakers make strong national policies, selecting the areas of intervention and requiring the cooperation of the regional and local authorities. This model prevails in England, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden. In other countries, such as Hungary and Spain, the rules and conditions for deprived areas are selected at the national or regional level, but local authorities decide which areas are in need of these interventions. 63 Colini et al (2013: 29). 46 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS •  development Horizontal policy integration means coordinating all policies that are relevant for the of an area. Other than physical interventions, key sectoral policy areas are housing, public transport, education, employment, culture, and the provision of social services. Horizontal policy integration requires adapting existing services and organizations to the specific needs of the area and increasing coordination between the different service providers. At the European level, the segregation and integration of marginalized or deprived neighborhoods has so far mainly been discussed, analyzed, and acted on in relation to urban areas and in the context of urban regeneration and development policies. However, in Romania a large share of the population lives in rural areas. Out of the 3,181 administrative units within the country, only 320 are urban settlements, while 2,861 are rural communes. Segregated and marginalized communities are emerging, especially in urban areas, consisting of concentrations of people who have fallen into extreme poverty as a result of the structural changes associated with Romania’s transition to a market economy that resulted in unemployment, growing precariousness, and weaker welfare systems. Nevertheless, the current Atlas shows that marginalized communities can also be found in rural areas, although to a lesser extent than in cities. 2.2.2 Adopting an Integrated, Cross-sectoral, Area-based Approach to Rural Marginalized Areas in Romania Integrated, cross-sectoral regeneration projects that balance social inclusion with economic competitiveness are the best way to reduce geographically concentrated poverty in marginalized urban areas, in Roma communities, and in certain remote rural areas. These interventions need to be supported by a broad range of public and private players (public agencies, landlords, residents, and businesses) in order to be effective. Policies against segregation can relate to a particular geographical area (area-based interventions) or to specific policy sectors (people-based policies). “Problematic” areas need high-quality, accessible services – affordable housing, education, employment, childcare, healthcare services, and public transport – in order to achieve levels of integration on a par with other areas. To this end, policymakers should consider adopting sectoral or people-based policies that are tailored to improving the circumstances of individuals or households with low incomes and specific needs in these “problematic” areas. These policies might include: •  Specific efforts to provide public services in “problematic” areas. •  and to achieve Education and school policies that aim to improve the quality of education across the board an ethnic and socioeconomic mix of students in all schools. •  training opportunities. to increase employment, support business start-ups, and enhance Economic interventions •  Planning regulations that prevent the development of gated communities. •  by A mobility policy that guarantees equal opportunity of access to job centers and major facilities public transport from all parts of the city. Area-based and people-based interventions must be integrated in a framework of participative community development in order to fight segregation effectively. For the 2014 to 2020 RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 47 programming period, LEADER and the EMFF will provide Romania with community-led local development funds for rural areas and very small cities, and the ERDF and the ESF will provide funds for urban areas. This support will increase the total budget available for local development and will enable local authorities to consider a broader range of interventions for marginalized areas. Nonetheless, programs that are financed from several different sources are complex to design and implement, while the relevant local partners need to have already established working relationships with each other. The European Commission has warned that it “could prove difficult to implement for groups experimenting with local development for the first time. It will therefore be crucial to analyze the capacity of LAGs (local action groups) and to choose an appropriate division of tasks between the LAGs and the authorities responsible for the design and implementation of the program... Solid preparation and capacity-building actions should be organized to enhance their administrative capacity.”64 Local and central capacity to develop and implement integrated projects is vital for improving the living conditions of Roma and of marginalized communities. To date, Romanian policymakers have had no incentives to tackle marginalized and segregated areas, and the general provisions associated with EU funding have offered very limited opportunities to do so. Also, there has been no attempt to take an integrated approach to the design of interventions. Although several different approaches to reducing the segregation of disadvantaged communities have been tried in Romania, no comprehensive review has been done of the success or failure of these approaches. As a result, there is little information on how the few integration policies and programs in Romania have actually performed in the field, on what practices seem particularly successful and why, and on what ways exist to circumvent the often overly rigid government systems in order to ensure that integration programs are delivered responsively and effectively. PART I. BOX 1 Lessons Learned From Previous Integration Interventions in Romania Various lessons have emerged from previous integration interventions that have been implemented in Romania. 1. There is a need for a national legislative framework to govern policies related to marginalized communities. This framework should provide regulations related to: •  A national housing policy (which has yet to be developed). •  The enforcement Regulations related to properties in slum areas. •  to local people forofconstruction Law 15/2003 (according to which mayoralties may lease public land purposes with proposals selected on the basis of a set of criteria). •  Investment in buildings owned partly by the municipality and partly by the residents. •  Changes in the fiscal rules for calculating the interest and penalties for unpaid taxes owed to state or local budgets by social tenants. •  The settlement of historical debts related to social housing services. 64 European Commission (2013: 29). 48 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 2. Interventions in marginalized areas should be integrated in order to combine investment projects in housing and infrastructure with projects related to employment, the education of children and adults, sanitation services, parental education courses, family planning, the provision of hot meals for children, life skills development (for teenagers), the fight against discrimination, community empowerment, and other social, medical, or cultural activities. A national scheme of vocational training needs to be developed for adults who have little or no formal education (eight grades of schooling at most) and who live in marginalized areas. 3. Policymakers must search for innovative solutions to the problems of marginalized areas that are affordable for the poor but that also aim to raise family incomes within the community. Only in this way can an intervention be sustainable and the quality of life enhanced. 4. In order to make the community accountable, the intervention must have clear, predictable, and transparent rules and procedures that are publicly debated, agreed on by all stakeholders, and put into action. 5. Interventions in marginalized areas need to be medium-term or long-term, with a preparatory phase of one to two years during which both the local authority and the marginalized community learn to communicate, build an equal partnership, and create a participatory environment with a well-defined, predictable, and transparent set of rules. 6. Interventions in marginalized areas should include components targeted to neighboring non-marginalized areas to foster social integration and increase the odds of the project being acceptable to all citizens. 7. Interventions in rural areas should be designed to take into account differences in: •  strong Leadership (communities with strong informal leaders as opposed to communities with no leaders). •  The history of the area (old traditional neighborhoods as opposed to new neighborhoods). 8. Interventions targeted to children are likely to have positive spillovers at the community level and thus to increase support from residents who do not benefit directly from the project. Source: Swinkels et al (2014b: 32). The absence of consultation between central policymakers and local communities can limit the relevance and sustainability of policies and initiatives aimed at increasing the social inclusion of Roma and marginalized communities by failing to take account of local needs and opportunities. Moreover, the discriminatory attitudes of some officials toward Roma can deter them from participating in the design and implementation of inclusion programs. Therefore, local communities should be involved in the design and delivery of interventions. To support this, local authorities could offer training to community members in areas such as participatory decision-making, accounting, and basic financial literacy. In addition, involving local populations in efforts to upgrade local infrastructure could increase their sense of ownership, while providing them with opportunities to work and develop skills. It is important to ensure that these improvements to local infrastructure and housing will not lead to increased concentration or further physical isolation and segregation of marginalized groups. This non-segregation principle is reflected in Article 7 of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Regulation, which was amended in May 2010 to encourage the use of ERDF funds for housing interventions as long as these interventions promote integration and prevent the isolation and exclusion of marginalized communities. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 49 Having well-coordinated institutional mechanisms is a prerequisite for developing effective policies, implementing priority interventions, and reducing service delivery gaps. We recommend that the government of Romania clarify the responsibilities of the various institutions involved in the effort to reduce geographically concentrated poverty. This can be done through both legislation and the establishment of cooperative working arrangements at the local level. The government should enact a framework law that sets out the functional relationships between various bodies as well as their budgetary sources. It should also support the building of capacity at the local authority level, which will be essential to make the most effective use of EU funds. Policymakers should also formulate a methodology for gathering stakeholder feedback, encouraging local participation in the design and operation of interventions, and developing partnerships with Roma and marginalized communities. Finally, simplifying the procedures for local communities to apply for EU funds is likely to increase demand and foster local initiatives. 50 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 2.3 Spatial Maps of Rural Marginalization in Romania This section presents for each county: (i) a list of villages with marginalized areas, including the number of residents of these areas, and (ii) spatial maps of rural marginalization. ALBA DÂMBOVIȚA SATU MARE ARAD DOLJ SĂLAJ ARGEȘ GALAȚI SIBIU BACĂU GIURGIU SUCEAVA BIHOR GORJ TELEORMAN BISTRIȚA-NĂSĂUD HARGHITA TIMIȘ BOTOȘANI HUNEDOARA TULCEA BRAȘOV IALOMIȚA VASLUI BRĂILA IAȘI VÂLCEA BUZĂU MARAMUREȘ VRANCEA CARAȘ-SEVERIN MEHEDINȚI CĂLĂRAȘI MUREȘ CLUJ NEAMȚ CONSTANȚA OLT COVASNA PRAHOVA RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 51 1. ALBA County TABLE 1. 1: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Alba County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over CENADE CENADE 907 More than 20% X CERGAU CERGAU MARE 962 More than 20% X CETATEA DE CETATEA DE BALTA 1.800 More than 20% X BALTA CETATEA DE BALTA TATARLAUA 740 More than 20% X HOPARTA SILIVAS 329 More than 20% X HOREA NICULESTI 51 Less than 20% X JIDVEI VESEUS 988 More than 20% X VALEA RAMET 61 Less than 20% X INZELULUI ROSIA DE SECAS UNGUREI 366 More than 20% X SALISTEA- SALISTEA 276 Less than 20% X DEAL SASCIORI LOMAN 578 Less than 20% X SASCIORI RACHITA 959 Less than 20% X SASCIORI SEBESEL 1.240 Less than 20% X SASCIORI TONEA 232 Less than 20% X SCARISOARA SCARISOARA 718 More than 20% X SANCEL ICLOD 388 More than 20% X SOHODOL LUMINESTI 82 More than 20% X SONA ALECUS 112 Less than 20% X SUGAG ARTI 217 Less than 20% X BUCERDEA BUCERDEA 2.212 More than 20% X GRANOASA GRANOASA Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 52 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 1: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Alba County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 53 2. ARAD County TABLE 1. 2: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Arad County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 170- 257- 419 and areas 1-169 256 418 over BATA TELA 365 Less than 20% X BIRCHIS BIRCHIS 690 More than 20% X BUTENI BUTENI 2.183 Less than 20% X COVASINT COVASINT 2.573 More than 20% X CRAIVA CRAIVA 585 More than 20% X HALMAGEL LUNCSOARA 400 Less than 20% X PETRIS OBARSIA 117 Less than 20% X SEMLAC SEMLAC 3.667 More than 20% X SIRIA SIRIA 5.027 More than 20% X TARNOVA ARANEAG 373 Less than 20% X TARNOVA CHIER 1.216 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 54 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 2: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Arad County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 55 3. ARGEȘ County TABLE 1. 3: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Argeș County Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over VALEA MARE GURA PRAVAT 1.211 More than 20% X PRAVAT ALBESTII ALBESTII DE ARGES 1.650 Less than 20% X PAMANTENI ALBESTII DE ARGES DUMIRESTI 185 Less than 20% X ANINOASA ANINOASA 1.096 More than 20% X ANINOASA SLANIC 1.144 More than 20% X BEREVOESTI GAMACESTI 1.165 More than 20% X BUGHEA DE BUGHEA DE JOS 2.862 More than 20% X JOS VALEA CALINESTI 1.139 Less than 20% X CORBULUI VALEA CETATENI 979 More than 20% X CETATUIA OESTII CORBENI 1.448 Less than 20% X PAMANTENI CORBENI ROTUNDA 739 Less than 20% X DAVIDESTI CONTESTI 1.860 More than 20% X VALEA DRAGOSLAVELE 652 More than 20% X HOTARULUI HARTIESTI DEALU 364 More than 20% X HARTIESTI LESPEZI 547 More than 20% X LEORDENI COTU MALULUI 357 More than 20% X LERESTI POJORATA 459 More than 20% X MALURENI PAULEASCA 971 More than 20% X MERISANI MALU VANAT 770 Less than 20% X MICESTI PAULEASCA 1.011 Less than 20% X MIHAESTI RUDENI 843 More than 20% X MUSATESTI STROESTI 1095 Less than 20% X SALATRUCU SALATRUCU 1.542 Less than 20% X SCHITU GOLESTI LAZARESTI 2.134 More than 20% X SLOBOZIA SLOBOZIA 4.305 Less than 20% X VALEA STOENESTI 841 More than 20% X BADENILOR TIGVENI TIGVENI 1.186 Less than 20% X TIGVENI BLAJU 56 Less than 20% X VALEA TITESTI 1.176 Less than 20% X MANASTIRII VULTURESTI VULTURESTI 1.993 Less than 20% X BUGHEA DE BUGHEA DE SUS 2.997 More than 20% X SUS Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 56 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 3: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Argeș County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 57 4. BACĂU County TABLE 1. 4: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Bacău County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over MARGINENI POIANA 234 Less than 20% X GURA VAII GURA VAII 1.785 Less than 20% X GURA VAII CAPATA 326 Less than 20% X GURA VAII DUMBRAVA 1.172 Less than 20% X GURA VAII PALTINATA 505 Less than 20% X GURA VAII TEMELIA 773 More than 20% X STEFAN CEL MARE RADEANA 1.508 More than 20% X BERESTI-BISTRITA PADURENI 401 More than 20% X BERESTI-TAZLAU TURLUIANU 1.382 Less than 20% X BERZUNTI BERZUNTI 2.381 Less than 20% X BERZUNTI DRAGOMIR 1.764 More than 20% X POIANA BLAGESTI 875 More than 20% X NEGUSTORULUI BURUIENISU DE BRUSTUROASA 113 Less than 20% X SUS CASIN CASIN 2.662 Less than 20% X CAIUTI MARCESTI 162 Less than 20% X COLONESTI COLONESTI 619 Less than 20% X COLONESTI CALINI 448 Less than 20% X COLONESTI SATU NOU 374 Less than 20% X CORBASCA CORBASCA 746 Less than 20% X CORBASCA BACIOIU 1.994 More than 20% X CORBASCA ROGOAZA 302 Less than 20% X CORBASCA SCARISOARA 719 Less than 20% X CORBASCA VALCELE 549 Less than 20% X COTOFANESTI COTOFANESTI 1.245 More than 20% X COTOFANESTI BALCA 798 Less than 20% X COTOFANESTI TAMASOAIA 488 More than 20% X DAMIENESTI DAMIENESTI 497 Less than 20% X DAMIENESTI CALUGARENI 843 Less than 20% X DAMIENESTI DRAGESTI 315 Less than 20% X DEALU MORII CAUIA 451 Less than 20% X DOFTEANA SEACA 408 Less than 20% X FILIPENI BRAD 285 Less than 20% X GAICEANA HUTU 518 Less than 20% X GHIMES-FAGET FAGET 1.519 Less than 20% X GHIMES-FAGET GHIMES 1.234 Less than 20% X GLAVANESTI PUTREDENI 94 Less than 20% X HORGESTI BAZGA 733 Less than 20% X 58 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over HORGESTI RECEA 520 Less than 20% X HORGESTI SOHODOR 1.305 Less than 20% X HURUIESTI FLORESTI 202 Less than 20% X IZVORU OTELESTI 128 Less than 20% X BERHECIULUI IZVORU PADURENI 233 Less than 20% X BERHECIULUI LIPOVA LIPOVA 627 Less than 20% X LIPOVA MALOSU 948 Less than 20% X LIPOVA SATU NOU 556 Less than 20% X MOTOSENI BACLESTI 102 Less than 20% X MOTOSENI SENDRESTI 403 Less than 20% X NICOLAE LARGUTA 198 Less than 20% X BALCESCU OITUZ OITUZ 5.587 Less than 20% X ONCESTI ONCESTI 288 Less than 20% X ORBENI ORBENI 1.967 Less than 20% X ORBENI SCURTA 1.793 Less than 20% X PARAVA PARAVA 829 Less than 20% X PARAVA RADOAIA 747 More than 20% X PARINCEA MILESTII DE JOS 176 Less than 20% X PARINCEA NASTASENI 117 Less than 20% X PARINCEA SATU NOU 73 Less than 20% X PARINCEA VLADNIC 849 Less than 20% X PANCESTI PANCESTI 1.200 Less than 20% X PANCESTI DIENET 668 Less than 20% X PANCESTI FULGERIS 284 Less than 20% X PANCESTI MOTOC 162 Less than 20% X PANCESTI PETRESTI 669 Less than 20% X PLOPANA PLOPANA 801 Less than 20% X PLOPANA BUDESTI 525 Less than 20% X PLOPANA FUNDU TUTOVEI 554 Less than 20% X PODU TURCULUI CABESTI 694 Less than 20% X PODU TURCULUI LEHANCEA 253 Less than 20% X PODURI CERNU 1.363 Less than 20% X PODURI VALEA SOSII 1.107 More than 20% X RACACIUNI GISTENI 832 Less than 20% X RACHITOASA BARCANA 565 Less than 20% X RACHITOASA DUMBRAVA 616 Less than 20% X RACHITOASA FARCASA 108 Less than 20% X RACHITOASA MAGAZIA 178 Less than 20% X RACHITOASA PUTINI 158 Less than 20% X RACHITOASA TOCHILEA 182 Less than 20% X ROSIORI ROSIORI 1.065 Less than 20% X ROSIORI POIENI 376 Less than 20% X ROSIORI VALEA MARE 506 Less than 20% X RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 59 Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over SANDULENI MATEIESTI 64 Less than 20% X SANDULENI STUFU 322 Less than 20% X SANDULENI VERSESTI 764 Less than 20% X SCORTENI SCORTENI 1.286 Less than 20% X SCORTENI SERPENI 61 Less than 20% X SECUIENI CHITICENI 178 Less than 20% X SECUIENI GLODISOARELE 314 Less than 20% X SECUIENI VALENI 50 Less than 20% X STANISESTI CRAIESTI 577 Less than 20% X STANISESTI SLOBOZIA 1.556 Less than 20% X STANISESTI SLOBOZIA NOUA 836 Less than 20% X STRUGARI RACHITISU 445 Less than 20% X TATARASTI DRAGESTI 385 Less than 20% X TATARASTI GHERDANA 391 Less than 20% X UNGURENI BOTESTI 556 Less than 20% X UNGURENI GARLA ANEI 177 Less than 20% X VALEA SEACA VALEA SEACA 3.124 More than 20% X VALEA SEACA CUCOVA 708 Less than 20% X VULTURENI DADESTI 132 Less than 20% X VULTURENI GHILAVESTI 241 Less than 20% X GODINESTII DE VULTURENI 82 Less than 20% X SUS VULTURENI NAZARIOAIA 178 Less than 20% X VULTURENI TOMOZIA 250 Less than 20% X SARATA SARATA 1.817 Less than 20% X BUCIUMI RACAUTI 1.546 More than 20% X GIOSENI GIOSENI 3.243 Less than 20% X ODOBESTI BALUSA 105 Less than 20% X ODOBESTI CIUTURESTI 822 Less than 20% X ODOBESTI TISA-SILVESTRI 919 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 60 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 4: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Bacău County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 61 5. BIHOR County TABLE 1. 5: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Bihor County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Commune Village Roma living in 419 (number) 170- 257- marginalized areas 1-169 and 256 418 over SANMARTIN RONTAU 1,204 Less than 20% X ABRAM ABRAM 865 More than 20% X ABRAM DIJIR 282 More than 20% X ABRAMUT PETREU 1,783 More than 20% X BALC BALC 1,339 More than 20% X BATAR BATAR 1,448 More than 20% X BATAR TALPOS 1,709 More than 20% X BOROD BOROD 1,363 More than 20% X BOROD SERANI 628 More than 20% X BRATCA DAMIS 601 Less than 20% X BRATCA BEZNEA 1,342 More than 20% X BUDUREASA BUDUREASA 1,641 More than 20% X CHERECHIU TARGUSOR 626 Less than 20% X CIUMEGHIU CIUMEGHIU 1,937 More than 20% X COPACEL BUCUROAIA 388 Less than 20% X CURTUISENI CURTUISENI 2,825 More than 20% X DIOSIG DIOSIG 6,529 More than 20% X DOBRESTI DOBRESTI 2,050 More than 20% X DRAGESTI DICANESTI 299 More than 20% X DRAGESTI TASAD 1,449 More than 20% X FINIS IOANIS 852 Less than 20% X FINIS SUNCUIS 911 More than 20% X HOLOD DUMBRAVA 667 More than 20% X HOLOD LUPOAIA 702 More than 20% X HUSASAU DE OSAND 578 More than 20% X TINCA INEU INEU 2,573 More than 20% X LAZARENI LAZARENI 870 More than 20% X LAZARENI GEPIS 878 More than 20% X OSORHEI OSORHEI 3,179 More than 20% X RABAGANI RABAGANI 679 More than 20% X SACADAT SABOLCIU 768 More than 20% X SIMIAN SILINDRU 943 More than 20% X SOIMI SOIMI 810 More than 20% X SOIMI CODRU 188 Less than 20% X SUNCUIUS BALNACA 986 More than 20% X TAUTEU BOGEI 1,277 More than 20% X TINCA TINCA 4,451 More than 20% X TINCA BELFIR 628 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 62 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 5: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Bihor County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 63 6. BISTRIȚA-NĂSĂUD County TABLE 1. 6: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Bistrița-Năsăud County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over BISTRITA BISTRITA 3,564 Less than 20% X BARGAULUI BARGAULUI BUDACU DE JOS BUDACU DE JOS 822 More than 20% X BUDESTI TAGU 629 More than 20% X BUDESTI TAGSORU 293 Less than 20% X CAIANU MIC CAIANU MIC 1.302 Less than 20% X CHIOCHIS JIMBOR 490 Less than 20% X DUMITRA TARPIU 762 Less than 20% X ILVA MARE ILVA MARE 1.758 Less than 20% X ILVA MARE IVANEASA 498 Less than 20% X JOSENII JOSENII 1.790 More than 20% X BARGAULUI BARGAULUI JOSENII STRAMBA 429 Less than 20% X BARGAULUI LECHINTA BUNGARD 55 Less than 20% X LECHINTA VERMES 897 More than 20% X LIVEZILE CUSMA 646 More than 20% X LIVEZILE DOROLEA 597 Less than 20% X LIVEZILE VALEA POENII 167 Less than 20% X MAGURA ILVEI ARSITA 393 Less than 20% X PARVA PARVA 2.371 Less than 20% X PETRU RARES RETEAG 2.573 More than 20% X PETRU RARES BATA 778 More than 20% X REBRISOARA GERSA I 704 Less than 20% X REBRISOARA GERSA II 230 Less than 20% X ROMULI ROMULI 1.237 Less than 20% X SILIVASU DE FANATELE 91 Less than 20% X CIMPIE SILIVASULUI SANMIHAIU DE LA CURTE 121 Less than 20% X CIMPIE SPERMEZEU PALTINEASA 98 Less than 20% X SANT SANT 2.909 Less than 20% X TEACA PINTICU 760 More than 20% X TEACA VIILE TECII 1.125 More than 20% X 64 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over TELCIU BICHIGIU 786 Less than 20% X TELCIU TELCIU 3.598 Less than 20% X TELCIU FIAD 225 Less than 20% X TIHA BARGAULUI CIOSA 142 Less than 20% X MURESENII TIHA BARGAULUI 1.575 Less than 20% X BARGAULUI TIHA BARGAULUI TUREAC 2.353 Less than 20% X TARLISUA TARLISUA 818 Less than 20% X TARLISUA AGRIES 748 Less than 20% X TARLISUA AGRIESEL 189 Less than 20% X TARLISUA BORLEASA 356 Less than 20% X TARLISUA RACATESU 210 Less than 20% X TARLISUA SENDROAIA 179 Less than 20% X URMENIS URMENIS 830 More than 20% X URMENIS DELURENI 207 Less than 20% X URMENIS SOPTERIU 385 Less than 20% X ZAGRA ALUNISUL 256 Less than 20% X ZAGRA POIENILE ZAGREI 976 More than 20% X DUMITRITA BUDACU DE SUS 1.633 Less than 20% X DUMITRITA DUMITRITA 753 More than 20% X CICEU - CICEU-MIHAIESTI 923 More than 20% X MIHAIESTI Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 65 MAP 1. 6: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Bistrița-Năsăud County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 66 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 7. BOTOȘANI County TABLE 1. 7: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Botoșani County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over STAUCENI STAUCENI 1.351 Less than 20% X STAUCENI SILISTEA 498 Less than 20% X ALBESTI ALBESTI 1.932 Less than 20% X ALBESTI BUIMACENI 793 Less than 20% X ALBESTI MASCATENI 413 More than 20% X TUDOR ALBESTI 2.055 Less than 20% X VLADIMIRESCU BALUSENI COSULENI 213 Less than 20% X CONCESTI CONCESTI 1.435 Less than 20% X CONCESTI MOVILENI 326 Less than 20% X COPALAU COPALAU 2.624 Less than 20% X CORDARENI CORDARENI 953 Less than 20% X CORLATENI PODENI 474 Less than 20% X CORLATENI VLADENI 487 Less than 20% X CORNI CORNI 4.102 Less than 20% X CORNI BALTA ARSA 460 Less than 20% X COTUSCA COTU MICULINTI 418 Less than 20% X MIHAIL COTUSCA 215 Less than 20% X KOGALNICEANU COTUSCA PUTURENI 540 Less than 20% X CRISTESTI CRISTESTI 2.259 Less than 20% X CRISTESTI ONEAGA 1.473 Less than 20% X CRISTINESTI CRISTINESTI 1.136 Less than 20% X CRISTINESTI BARANCA 752 Less than 20% X CRISTINESTI FUNDU HERTII 559 Less than 20% X CRISTINESTI POIANA 247 Less than 20% X DANGENI HULUB 554 Less than 20% X DANGENI IACOBENI 1.237 Less than 20% X DOBARCENI DOBARCENI 907 Less than 20% X SARATA- DRAGUSENI 151 Less than 20% X DRAGUSENI DURNESTI DURNESTI 1.110 Less than 20% X DURNESTI BABICENI 391 Less than 20% X DURNESTI BARSANESTI 179 Less than 20% X DURNESTI BROSTENI 367 Less than 20% X FRUMUSICA BOSCOTENI 649 Less than 20% X FRUMUSICA RADENI 1.006 Less than 20% X FRUMUSICA SENDRENI 710 Less than 20% X GEORGE DUMENI 1.731 Less than 20% X ENESCU RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 67 Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over GORBANESTI GORBANESTI 1.042 Less than 20% X GEORGE GORBANESTI 255 Less than 20% X COSBUC HAVARNA BALINTI 396 Less than 20% X HAVARNA GALBENI 92 Less than 20% X HANESTI HANESTI 1.127 Less than 20% X HANESTI BOROLEA 425 Less than 20% X HANESTI MOARA JORII 89 Less than 20% X SLOBOZIA HANESTI 86 Less than 20% X HANESTI HILISEU-HORIA CORJAUTI 328 Less than 20% X HILISEU-HORIA HILISEU-CRISAN 1.137 Less than 20% X HUDESTI BARANCA 1.207 Less than 20% X LUNCA LUNCA 1.611 Less than 20% X LUNCA STROIESTI 906 Less than 20% X MANOLEASA ZAHORENI 544 Less than 20% X MIHALASENI MIHALASENI 743 Less than 20% X MIHALASENI CARAIMAN 192 Less than 20% X MIHALASENI NASTASE 183 Less than 20% X MIHALASENI SARATA 332 Less than 20% X SLOBOZIA MIHALASENI 175 Less than 20% X SILISCANI MILEANCA CODRENI 385 Less than 20% X MILEANCA SCUTARI 315 Less than 20% X MILEANCA SELISTEA 374 Less than 20% X MITOC MITOC 1.323 Less than 20% X NICSENI DOROBANTI 1.496 Less than 20% X POMARLA POMARLA 2.057 Less than 20% X POMARLA RACOVAT 340 Less than 20% X PRAJENI PRAJENI 1.152 Less than 20% X PRAJENI LUPARIA 784 Less than 20% X PRAJENI MILETIN 628 Less than 20% X RADAUTI-PRUT MIORCANI 1.734 Less than 20% X RAUSENI REDIU 617 Less than 20% X RAUSENI STOLNICENI 264 Less than 20% X ROMANESTI DAMIDENI 461 Less than 20% X SUHARAU SUHARAU 2.079 Less than 20% X SUHARAU IZVOARE 53 Less than 20% X SUHARAU OROFTIANA 956 Less than 20% X SUHARAU PLEVNA 191 Less than 20% X SULITA DRACSANI 1.368 Less than 20% X SENDRICENI HORLACENI 600 Less than 20% X STIUBIENI IBANEASA 59 Less than 20% X TRUSESTI BUHACENI 705 Less than 20% X TRUSESTI IONASENI 1.007 Less than 20% X TUDORA TUDORA 5.096 Less than 20% X UNGURENI UNGURENI 2.397 Less than 20% X 68 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over UNGURENI BORZESTI 722 Less than 20% X CALUGARENII UNGURENI 446 Less than 20% X NOI UNGURENI DURNESTI 248 Less than 20% X UNTENI BURLESTI 580 Less than 20% X UNTENI SOROCENI 151 Less than 20% X VIISOARA CUZA VODA 555 Less than 20% X VIISOARA VIISOARA MICA 526 Less than 20% X VLASINESTI MIRON COSTIN 472 Less than 20% X VORNICENI VORNICENI 3.686 Less than 20% X VORONA POIANA 1.636 Less than 20% X LOZNA LOZNA 944 Less than 20% X DIMACHENI DIMACHENI 1.042 Less than 20% X COSULA BUDA 316 More than 20% X COSULA COSULA 1.166 More than 20% X COSULA PADURENI 633 Less than 20% X COSULA SUPITCA 823 More than 20% X BLANDESTI BLANDESTI 759 Less than 20% X BLANDESTI SOLDANESTI 454 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 69 MAP 1. 7: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Botoșani County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 70 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 8. BRAȘOV County TABLE 1. 8: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Brașov County Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village (number) marginalized 170- 257- 419 and areas 1-169 256 418 over APATA APATA 3.169 More than 20% X BUDILA BUDILA 4.188 More than 20% X BUNESTI BUNESTI 667 More than 20% X BUNESTI CRIT 676 Less than 20% X BUNESTI ROADES 283 More than 20% X CATA CATA 1.196 More than 20% X CATA BEIA 383 Less than 20% X CINCU TOARCLA 301 Less than 20% X COMANA COMANA DE JOS 996 More than 20% X COMANA CRIHALMA 735 More than 20% X COMANA TICUSU NOU 626 Less than 20% X HARSENI MALINIS 112 Less than 20% X BOGATA HOGHIZ 482 More than 20% X OLTEANA HOGHIZ CUCIULATA 1.512 Less than 20% X HOMOROD HOMOROD 1.240 More than 20% X HOMOROD MERCHEASA 502 More than 20% X JIBERT DACIA 638 Less than 20% X LISA LISA 1.056 More than 20% X MAIERUS MAIERUS 1.723 More than 20% X MAIERUS ARINI 1.197 More than 20% X ORMENIS ORMENIS 1.976 More than 20% X PARAU GRID 297 Less than 20% X PARAU VENETIA DE JOS 633 Less than 20% X RACOS RACOS 2.856 More than 20% X SERCAIA SERCAIA 1.718 Less than 20% X SINCA SERCAITA 739 More than 20% X SOARS FELMER 442 More than 20% X SOARS RODBAV 268 Less than 20% X SOARS SELISTAT 178 Less than 20% X TARLUNGENI TARLUNGENI 3.698 More than 20% X TARLUNGENI ZIZIN 2.802 More than 20% X TELIU TELIU 4.198 More than 20% X TICUSU TICUSU VECHI 670 More than 20% X TICUSU COBOR 238 Less than 20% X UNGRA DAISOARA 760 Less than 20% X VAMA BUZAULUI ACRIS 1.175 Less than 20% X VULCAN VULCAN 3.620 More than 20% X CRIZBAV CRIZBAV 1.710 Less than 20% X CRIZBAV CUTUS 808 Less than 20% X AUGUSTIN AUGUSTIN 1.860 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 71 MAP 1. 8: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Brașov County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 72 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 9. BRĂILA County TABLE 1. 9: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Brăila County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over CIOCILE CIOCILE 1.998 Less than 20% X CIOCILE CHIOIBASESTI 217 Less than 20% X CIOCILE CHICHINETU 426 Less than 20% X DUDESTI TATARU 1.956 Less than 20% X FRECATEI TITCOV 416 Less than 20% X GALBENU DROGU 836 More than 20% X MARASU TACAU 723 Less than 20% X MOVILA MIRESII MOVILA MIRESII 2.860 Less than 20% X MOVILA MIRESII ESNA 308 Less than 20% X RAMNICELU RAMNICELU 1.393 Less than 20% X RAMNICELU CONSTANTINESTI 382 Less than 20% X ROSIORI ROSIORI 1.673 Less than 20% X ROSIORI COLTEA 554 Less than 20% X ROSIORI FLORICA 470 Less than 20% X SUTESTI SUTESTI 4.051 More than 20% X TRAIAN SILISTRARU 800 More than 20% X TUFESTI TUFESTI 5.226 Less than 20% X ULMU ULMU 2.829 Less than 20% X ULMU JUGUREANU 1.048 Less than 20% X VICTORIA VICTORIA 2.211 Less than 20% X VIZIRU VIZIRU 3.631 More than 20% X VIZIRU LANURILE 2.275 More than 20% X ZAVOAIA ZAVOAIA 2.338 Less than 20% X ZAVOAIA DUDESCU 814 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 73 MAP 1. 9: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Brăila County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 74 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 10. BUZĂU County TABLE 1. 10: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Buzău County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over AMARU LACU SINAIA 299 Less than 20% X BALACEANU BALACEANU 1,632 Less than 20% X BERCA BACENI 110 Less than 20% X BOZIORU SCAENI 83 Less than 20% X BRADEANU BRADEANU 1,129 Less than 20% X BRAESTI BRATILESTI 438 Less than 20% X BRAESTI GOIDESTI 401 Less than 20% X BRAESTI IVANETU 669 Less than 20% X BRAESTI RUGINOASA 70 Less than 20% X MUCESTI- BUDA 529 More than 20% X DANULESTI BUDA TOROPALESTI 500 More than 20% X BASCENII DE CALVINI 2,355 More than 20% X JOS CALVINI FRASINET 134 Less than 20% X CATINA CATINA 804 Less than 20% X CATINA ZELETIN 233 More than 20% X CERNATESTI BAESTI 50 Less than 20% X BASCA CHIOJDU 1,200 Less than 20% X CHIOJDULUI CHIOJDU PLESCIOARA 164 Less than 20% X CHIOJDU POENITELE 238 Less than 20% X CILIBIA CILIBIA 532 Less than 20% X COZIENI CIOCANESTI 64 Less than 20% X COZIENI PIETRARU 77 Less than 20% X COZIENI PUNGA 69 Less than 20% X COZIENI VALEA BANULUI 115 Less than 20% X GLODEANU GLODEANU 2,351 More than 20% X SARAT SARAT LOPATARI FUNDATA 138 Less than 20% X LOPATARI PLOSTINA 589 Less than 20% X LOPATARI POTECU 74 Less than 20% X LOPATARI SARENI 56 Less than 20% X LOPATARI TERCA 573 Less than 20% X LUCIU LUCIU 2,004 More than 20% X MAGURA CIUTA 822 More than 20% X MIHAILESTI COLTANENI 240 Less than 20% X MIHAILESTI MARGINEANU 822 More than 20% X NAENI FINTESTI 659 Less than 20% X NAENI VARF 152 Less than 20% X PADINA PADINA 4,111 Less than 20% X RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 75 Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over PANATAU LACU CU ANINI 121 Less than 20% X RACOVITENI BUDREA 264 Less than 20% X RAMNICELU RAMNICELU 3,491 More than 20% X ROBEASCA ROBEASCA 735 Less than 20% X RUSETU RUSETU 3,487 Less than 20% X SERGENT IONEL RUSETU 233 Less than 20% X STEFAN SARULESTI GOICELU 214 Less than 20% X VALEA LARGA- SARULESTI 298 Less than 20% X SARULESTI SCORTOASA DELENI 114 Less than 20% X SCUTELNICI ARCANU 429 Less than 20% X SMEENI CALTUNA 565 Less than 20% X SMEENI UDATI-LUCIENI 389 Less than 20% X SMEENI UDATI-MANZU 981 Less than 20% X GURA TOPLICENI 123 Less than 20% X FAGETULUI VALEA SALCIEI- VALEA SALCIEI 96 Less than 20% X CATUN VERNESTI CANDESTI 3,154 More than 20% X VINTILA VODA VINTILA VODA 1,070 Less than 20% X COCA- VINTILA VODA 203 Less than 20% X ANTIMIRESTI VIPERESTI VIPERESTI 1,190 More than 20% X VIPERESTI MUSCEL 171 Less than 20% X VIPERESTI RUSAVAT 232 Less than 20% X VIPERESTI TRONARI 970 Less than 20% X VIPERESTI URSOAIA 362 Less than 20% X ZARNESTI PRUNENI 434 Less than 20% X ZARNESTI VADU SORESTI 1,426 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 76 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 10: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Buzău County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 77 11. CARAȘ-SEVERIN County TABLE 1. 11: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Caraș-Severin County Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over BERZASCA LIUBCOVA 1.214 More than 20% X BUCOSNITA PETROSNITA 984 Less than 20% X CARASOVA CARASOVA 2.341 More than 20% X CARASOVA NERMED 535 Less than 20% X CORNEREVA SUB PLAI 94 Less than 20% X CORNEREVA ZANOGI 131 Less than 20% X CORNEREVA ZMOGOTIN 117 Less than 20% X DOGNECEA DOGNECEA 1.905 Less than 20% X FOROTIC BREZON 96 More than 20% X OBREJA OBREJA 1.727 Less than 20% X SOPOTU NOU RACHITA 151 Less than 20% X SOPOTU NOU VALEA RACHITEI 91 Less than 20% X SOPOTU NOU VALEA ROSIE 62 Less than 20% X TURNU RUIENI BORLOVA 1.410 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 78 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 11: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Caraș-Severin County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 79 12. CĂLĂRAȘI County TABLE 1. 12: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Călărași County Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village (number) marginalized 170- 257- 419 and areas 1-169 256 418 over MODELU MODELU 7.564 Less than 20% X MODELU TONEA 2.188 Less than 20% X DRAGALINA DRAGALINA 6.218 More than 20% X DRAGOS VODA DRAGOS VODA 2.283 More than 20% X GRADISTEA BOGATA 645 Less than 20% X LEHLIU LEHLIU 1.857 More than 20% X ROSETI ROSETI 6.070 Less than 20% X CHIRNOGI CHIRNOGI 7.455 More than 20% X CURCANI CURCANI 5.609 More than 20% X FRUMUSANI FRUMUSANI 2.916 More than 20% X FRUMUSANI PITIGAIA 67 Less than 20% X ILEANA STEFANESTI 686 Less than 20% X NANA NANA 2.568 More than 20% X NICOLAE PAICU 128 Less than 20% X BALCESCU PLATARESTI DOROBANTU 1.241 Less than 20% X SARULESTI SARULESTI 506 Less than 20% X SARULESTI- SARULESTI 1.650 More than 20% X GARA SPANTOV STANCEA 2.744 More than 20% X TAMADAU MARE CALARETI 389 Less than 20% X TAMADAU MARE DARVARI 120 Less than 20% X VALEA ARGOVEI VALEA ARGOVEI 1.505 Less than 20% X VALEA ARGOVEI VLADICEASCA 316 More than 20% X GALBINASI GALBINASI 3.772 More than 20% X CRIVAT CRIVAT 2.243 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 80 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 12: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Călărași County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 81 13. CLUJ County TABLE 1. 13: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Cluj County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over BOBALNA BABDIU 161 Less than 20% X CALATELE CALATELE 1.039 More than 20% X CAMARASU CAMARASU 1.522 More than 20% X CAMARASU NAOIU 523 Less than 20% X CASEIU GARBAU DEJULUI 202 Less than 20% X CHIUIESTI HUTA 127 Less than 20% X LUNA LUNA 2.392 More than 20% X MAGURI-RACATAU MAGURI-RACATAU 803 Less than 20% X MURESENII DE PALATCA 106 Less than 20% X CAMPIE PANTICEU SARATA 385 More than 20% X PETRESTII DE JOS LIVADA 194 Less than 20% X SACUIEU SACUIEU 580 More than 20% X SANMARTIN DIVICIORII MARI 158 Less than 20% X SANPAUL SUMURDUCU 122 More than 20% X VALEA IERII PLOPI 101 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis.. 82 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 13: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Cluj County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 83 14. CONSTANȚA County TABLE 1. 14: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Constanța County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Commune Village Roma living in (number) 170- 257- 419 and marginalized areas 1-169 256 418 over ADAMCLISI ABRUD 88 Less than 20% X ADAMCLISI URLUIA 386 Less than 20% X CASTELU CASTELU 2.952 More than 20% X CIOBANU MIORITA 316 Less than 20% X CRUCEA CRISAN 324 Less than 20% X CRUCEA SIRIU 212 Less than 20% X DOBROMIR DOBROMIR 966 Less than 20% X DOBROMIR CETATEA 225 Less than 20% X DOBROMIR LESPEZI 547 Less than 20% X DOBROMIR PADURENI 145 Less than 20% X DOBROMIR VALENI 783 Less than 20% X LIPNITA CUIUGIUC 209 Less than 20% X LIPNITA IZVOARELE 118 Less than 20% X MIHAI VITEAZU SINOIE 1.445 Less than 20% X MIRCEA VODA SATU NOU 2.852 Less than 20% X OSTROV ALMALAU 827 Less than 20% X PANTELIMON RUNCU 415 Less than 20% X RASOVA RASOVA 2.558 Less than 20% X TOPRAISAR POTARNICHEA 520 Less than 20% X HORIA CLOSCA 110 Less than 20% X CUZA VODA CUZA VODA 3.586 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 84 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 14: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Constanța County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 85 15. COVASNA County TABLE 1. 15: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Covasna County Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village (number) marginalized 170- 257- 419 and areas 1-169 256 418 over BARCANI BARCANI 2.351 Less than 20% X BATANI BATANII MARI 1.920 Less than 20% X BATANI AITA SEACA 697 Less than 20% X BATANI HERCULIAN 1.229 More than 20% X BELIN BELIN-VALE 1.489 More than 20% X BODOC OLTENI 675 Less than 20% X BOROSNEU MARE BOROSNEU MARE 1.547 Less than 20% X BOROSNEU MARE BOROSNEU MIC 452 Less than 20% X BOROSNEU MARE DOBOLII DE SUS 229 Less than 20% X BRATES TELECHIA 615 Less than 20% X BRADUT DOBOSENI 2.001 More than 20% X BRETCU BRETCU 2.467 Less than 20% X BRETCU MARTANUS 770 Less than 20% X CATALINA MARTINENI 607 Less than 20% X CERNAT CERNAT 3.270 Less than 20% X GHELINTA GHELINTA 4.600 Less than 20% X HAGHIG HAGHIG 1.698 More than 20% X HAGHIG IARAS 522 More than 20% X MOACSA MOACSA 885 Less than 20% X MOACSA PADURENI 316 Less than 20% X OJDULA OJDULA 3.247 More than 20% X OZUN MAGHERUS 114 Less than 20% X SANZIENI SANZIENI 2.709 Less than 20% X TURIA TURIA 3.677 Less than 20% X VALEA CRISULUI VALEA CRISULUI 1.790 Less than 20% X VALCELE ARACI 2.196 More than 20% X VALCELE HETEA 403 More than 20% X VALCELE VALCELE 1.347 More than 20% X ZAGON ZAGON 4.007 Less than 20% X ZABALA ZABALA 3.324 More than 20% X DALNIC DALNIC 956 Less than 20% X ESTELNIC ESTELNIC 894 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 86 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 15: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Covasna County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 87 16. DÂMBOVIȚA County TABLE 1. 16: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Dămbovița County Number of inhabitants living Share of in marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over IEDERA IEDERA DE SUS 1.534 More than 20% X BALENI BALENI-ROMANI 3.661 More than 20% X BALENI BALENI-SARBI 4.707 More than 20% X COJASCA COJASCA 2.317 More than 20% X COJASCA FANTANELE 2.934 More than 20% X COJASCA IAZU 3.025 More than 20% X CONTESTI BALTENI 1.585 More than 20% X CORNATELU ALUNISU 260 More than 20% X CORNATELU SLOBOZIA 169 Less than 20% X CORNESTI HODARASTI 347 Less than 20% X COSTESTII DIN VALE COSTESTII DIN VALE 2.164 More than 20% X CRANGURILE VOIA 756 More than 20% X GURA OCNITEI GURA OCNITEI 3.127 More than 20% X I. L. CARAGIALE I. L. CARAGIALE 2.661 More than 20% X LUDESTI POTOCELU 1.261 More than 20% X LUDESTI SCHEIU DE SUS 997 More than 20% X MATASARU TETCOIU 1.068 More than 20% X MOROENI GLOD 1.723 Less than 20% X ODOBESTI CROVU 1.479 More than 20% X POIANA POIANA 3.465 More than 20% X POTLOGI ROMANESTI 4.198 More than 20% X TATARANI CAPRIORU 1.666 More than 20% X ULIESTI HANU LUI PALA 393 Less than 20% X VIRFURI CARLANESTI 269 Less than 20% X VULCANA-BAI NICOLAESTI 166 Less than 20% X VULCANA-BAI VULCANA DE SUS 1.431 Less than 20% X PIETRARI DUPA DEAL 160 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 88 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 16: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Dâmbovița County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 89 17. DOLJ County TABLE 1. 17: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Dolj County Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over PODARI PODARI 4.028 More than 20% X AMARASTII DE OCOLNA 1.336 More than 20% X JOS ARGETOAIA ARGETOAIA 1.562 Less than 20% X ARGETOAIA LEORDOASA 453 Less than 20% X ARGETOAIA NOVAC 124 Less than 20% X ARGETOAIA URSOAIA 60 Less than 20% X BISTRET BISTRET 2.445 Less than 20% X BISTRET PLOSCA 831 Less than 20% X BIRCA BARCA 3.689 Less than 20% X BOTOSESTI-PAIA BOTOSESTI-PAIA 809 Less than 20% X BRABOVA MOSNA 231 Less than 20% X BRADESTI PISCANI 66 Less than 20% X BRATOVOESTI BRATOVOESTI 1.340 Less than 20% X BREASTA COTU 188 More than 20% X CALOPAR SALCUTA 1.046 More than 20% X CARAULA CARAULA 2.423 More than 20% X CARPEN CARPEN 851 Less than 20% X CARPEN CLEANOV 1.403 Less than 20% X CARPEN GEBLESTI 121 Less than 20% X CERAT CERAT 4.226 More than 20% X CERNATESTI CERNATESTI 563 Less than 20% X CERNATESTI CORNITA 294 Less than 20% X CERNATESTI TIU 530 Less than 20% X CETATE CETATE 4.781 More than 20% X COSOVENI COSOVENI 3.237 More than 20% X DESA DESA 4.740 Less than 20% X DOBRESTI GEOROCEL 315 Less than 20% X DRAGOTESTI BOBEANU 54 Less than 20% X GIGHERA GIGHERA 1.260 Less than 20% X GIGHERA NEDEIA 985 Less than 20% X GINGIOVA GANGIOVA 1.432 Less than 20% X GOICEA GOICEA 2.760 Less than 20% X GRECESTI BUSULETU 135 Less than 20% X LIPOVU LIPOVU 3.075 More than 20% X LIPOVU LIPOVU DE SUS 238 Less than 20% X NEGOI NEGOI 2.235 More than 20% X ORODEL ORODEL 1.193 Less than 20% X ORODEL CALUGAREI 621 Less than 20% X OSTROVENI LISTEAVA 1.558 Less than 20% X PERISOR MARACINELE 281 Less than 20% X 90 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over PLENITA PLENITA 3.855 More than 20% X POIANA MARE POIANA MARE 8,542 More than 20% X RAST RAST 3.343 Less than 20% X SADOVA SADOVA 6.692 More than 20% X SALCUTA SALCUTA 712 More than 20% X SALCUTA MARZA 532 More than 20% X SALCUTA PLOPSOR 639 More than 20% X SALCUTA TENCANAU 436 Less than 20% X SCAESTI VALEA LUI PATRU 1.022 Less than 20% X SEACA DE RACHITA DE SUS 163 Less than 20% X PADURE SEACA DE VELENI 449 Less than 20% X PADURE SECU COMANICEA 302 Less than 20% X SMADOVICIOARA SECU 252 Less than 20% X DE SECU TERPEZITA CACIULATU 322 Less than 20% X TESLUI TESLUI 592 Less than 20% X URZICUTA URZICUTA 2.544 More than 20% X VELA VELA 464 Less than 20% X VELA BUCOVICIOR 451 Less than 20% X VELA GUBAUCEA 634 Less than 20% X VARTOP VARTOP 1.658 Less than 20% X CATANE CATANE 1.074 More than 20% X CATANE CATANELE NOI 758 More than 20% X COTOFENII DIN COTOFENII DIN 1.589 More than 20% X FATA FATA GHIDICI GHIDICI 2.408 Less than 20% X GHINDENI GHINDENI 1.936 Less than 20% X ROJISTE ROJISTE 1.778 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 91 MAP 1. 17: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Dolj County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 92 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 18. GALAȚI County TABLE 1. 18: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Galați County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized areas 170- 257- 419 and 1-169 256 418 over DRAGANESTI DRAGANESTI 2.584 More than 20% X BERESTI-MERIA ALDESTI 352 Less than 20% X BERESTI-MERIA BALINTESTI 971 Less than 20% X BERESTI-MERIA PLESA 685 Less than 20% X BERESTI-MERIA SLIVNA 703 Less than 20% X BERESTI-MERIA SIPOTE 86 Less than 20% X BARCEA BARCEA 3.626 More than 20% X BARCEA PODOLENI 1.331 More than 20% X BALABANESTI ZIMBRU 55 Less than 20% X BALASESTI BALASESTI 1.148 Less than 20% X BALASESTI CIURESTI 377 Less than 20% X BALASESTI CIURESTII NOI 530 Less than 20% X BANEASA BANEASA 1.287 Less than 20% X BANEASA ROSCANI 538 Less than 20% X BRANISTEA BRANISTEA 2.398 Less than 20% X BRAHASESTI BRAHASESTI 2.637 More than 20% X BRAHASESTI TOFLEA 5.801 More than 20% X BUCIUMENI BUCIUMENI 1.008 More than 20% X CAVADINESTI CAVADINESTI 1.409 Less than 20% X CAVADINESTI COMANESTI 249 Less than 20% X CERTESTI CERTESTI 828 Less than 20% X CERTESTI CARLOMANESTI 672 Less than 20% X COROD BLANZI 1.189 Less than 20% X COROD CARAPCESTI 781 Less than 20% X CORNI CORNI 787 Less than 20% X CUDALBI CUDALBI 6.290 Less than 20% X DRAGUSENI DRAGUSENI 1.731 Less than 20% X DRAGUSENI ADAM 699 Less than 20% X DRAGUSENI FUNDEANU 872 Less than 20% X DRAGUSENI GHINGHESTI 300 Less than 20% X DRAGUSENI NICOPOLE 458 Less than 20% X FARTANESTI VIILE 1.562 Less than 20% X FRUMUSITA FRUMUSITA 2.875 More than 20% X GHIDIGENI GHIDIGENI 1.303 More than 20% X GHIDIGENI GEFU 1.157 More than 20% X GURA GHIDIGENI 118 More than 20% X GARBOVATULUI GHIDIGENI TALPIGI 1.889 More than 20% X GOHOR NARTESTI 744 Less than 20% X RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 93 Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized areas 170- 257- 419 and 1-169 256 418 over GRIVITA CALMATUI 558 More than 20% X IVESTI IVESTI 4.565 More than 20% X JORASTI JORASTI 1.146 Less than 20% X JORASTI LUNCA 256 Less than 20% X JORASTI ZARNESTI 377 Less than 20% X LIESTI LIESTI 8.902 More than 20% X MASTACANI MASTACANI 2.115 Less than 20% X MOVILENI MOVILENI 3.269 More than 20% X NICORESTI DOBRINESTI 446 Less than 20% X NICORESTI IONASESTI 566 Less than 20% X PRIPONESTI CIORASTI 1.046 Less than 20% X PRIPONESTI LIESTI 232 Less than 20% X SMULTI SMULTI 1.342 Less than 20% X TULUCESTI TATARCA 755 Less than 20% X UMBRARESTI UMBRARESTI 1.920 More than 20% X VARLEZI VARLEZI 1.151 Less than 20% X VARLEZI CRAIESTI 850 Less than 20% X VLADESTI VLADESTI 1.123 Less than 20% X VLADESTI BRANESTI 854 Less than 20% X RADESTI CRUCEANU 313 Less than 20% X NEGRILESTI NEGRILESTI 1.481 Less than 20% X POIANA VISINA 458 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 94 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 18: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Galați County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 95 19. GIURGIU County TABLE 1. 19: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Giurgiu County Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village (number) marginalized 170- 257- 419 and areas 1-169 256 418 over BUCSANI GOLEASCA 492 Less than 20% X CALUGARENI CALUGARENI 1.472 Less than 20% X CALUGARENI BRANISTARI 945 Less than 20% X CRUCEA DE CALUGARENI 414 Less than 20% X PIATRA CALUGARENI HULUBESTI 1.751 Less than 20% X CLEJANI NEAJLOV 718 Less than 20% X GAISENI CARPENISU 933 More than 20% X GAISENI CASCIOARELE 2.119 Less than 20% X GAISENI PODU POPA NAE 202 Less than 20% X GAUJANI PIETRISU 1.015 More than 20% X GHIMPATI GHIMPATI 2.527 More than 20% X GOSTINARI GOSTINARI 2.068 More than 20% X GOSTINARI MIRONESTI 513 Less than 20% X IZVOARELE PETRU RARES 160 Less than 20% X LETCA NOUA LETCA NOUA 1.103 Less than 20% X RASUCENI RASUCENI 1.404 Less than 20% X RASUCENI CUCURUZU 1.031 Less than 20% X SCHITU BILA 512 Less than 20% X SCHITU CAMINEASCA 608 Less than 20% X STOENESTI STOENESTI 1.805 Less than 20% X VARASTI VARASTI 3.908 More than 20% X VARASTI DOBRENI 2.409 More than 20% X TOPORU TOMULESTI 849 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 96 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 19: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Giurgiu County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 97 20. GORJ County TABLE 1. 20: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Gorj County Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village (number) marginalized 170- 257- 419 and areas 1-169 256 418 over ALBENI ALBENI 1.726 Less than 20% X BENGESTI- BENGESTI 1.416 More than 20% X CIOCADIA HUREZANI PLOPU 216 Less than 20% X LOGRESTI SEACA 319 Less than 20% X POLOVRAGI POLOVRAGI 2.309 More than 20% X ROSIA DE RUGET 634 More than 20% X AMARADIA ROSIA DE SECIURILE 642 Less than 20% X AMARADIA SCOARTA PISTESTII DIN DEAL 989 More than 20% X TELESTI BUDUHALA 658 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 98 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 20: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Gorj County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 99 21. HARGHITA County TABLE 1. 21: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Harghita County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized areas 170- 257- 419 and 1-169 256 418 over ATID CUSMED 420 Less than 20% X AVRAMESTI FIRTANUS 216 Less than 20% X CIUCSANGEORGIU EGHERSEC 316 Less than 20% X CORUND CORUND 5.228 Less than 20% X LUPENI FIRTUSU 173 More than 20% X MARTINIS GHIPES 138 Less than 20% X PLAIESII DE JOS CASINU NOU 789 Less than 20% X PLAIESII DE JOS IACOBENI 388 More than 20% X PLAIESII DE JOS PLAIESII DE SUS 918 Less than 20% X PRAID PRAID 3.448 Less than 20% X PRAID OCNA DE SUS 1.376 Less than 20% X SACEL VIDACUT 325 More than 20% X SECUIENI ELISENI 1.110 More than 20% X SANMARTIN CIUCANI 1.148 Less than 20% X SUBCETATE FILPEA 349 More than 20% X SIMONESTI SIMONESTI 1.092 Less than 20% X SIMONESTI CHEDIA MICA 57 Less than 20% X SIMONESTI NICOLENI 51 Less than 20% X SIMONESTI RUGANESTI 774 Less than 20% X SIMONESTI TURDENI 93 Less than 20% X TULGHES PINTIC 69 Less than 20% X ULIES DAIA 273 Less than 20% X ZETEA ZETEA 4.378 Less than 20% X SATU MARE SATU MARE 1.995 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 100 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 21: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Harghita County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 101 22. HUNEDOARA County TABLE 1. 22: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Hunedoara County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over BOSOROD LUNCANI 87 Less than 20% X LUNCA CERNII DE MERIA 246 Less than 20% X JOS PUI FEDERI 267 Less than 20% X PUI FIZESTI 327 Less than 20% X ROMOS CIUNGU MARE 134 Less than 20% X CERTEJU DE VORTA 58 Less than 20% X JOS VORTA LUNCSOARA 53 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 102 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 22: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Hunedoara County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 103 23. IALOMIȚA County TABLE 1. 23: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Ialomița County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over CIOCHINA BORDUSELU 858 Less than 20% X CIULNITA POIANA 760 Less than 20% X MUNTENI-BUZAU MUNTENI-BUZAU 3,428 Less than 20% X MIRCEA CEL REVIGA 192 Less than 20% X BATRAN REVIGA ROVINE 903 Less than 20% X SCANTEIA SCANTEIA 2,773 Less than 20% X STELNICA MALTEZI 381 Less than 20% X VALEA CIORII DUMITRESTI 148 Less than 20% X AXINTELE AXINTELE 1,739 Less than 20% X AXINTELE HORIA 706 Less than 20% X BARCANESTI CONDEESTI 2,019 More than 20% X BRAZII RASIMNICEA 316 Less than 20% X ION ROATA BROSTENI 1,534 More than 20% X TRAIAN TRAIAN 3,168 More than 20% X BORANESTI BORANESTI 2,023 More than 20% X BARBULESTI BARBULESTI 5,902 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 104 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 23: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Ialomița County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 105 24. IAȘI County TABEL 1. 24: Lista localităţilor rurale (unităţi SIRINF) cu zone marginalizate, din Judeţul Iaşi Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over BARNOVA TODIREL 593 Less than 20% X HOLBOCA DANCU 6.444 More than 20% X TOMESTI GORUNI 1.264 Less than 20% X ANDRIESENI ANDRIESENI 1.633 Less than 20% X ANDRIESENI GLAVANESTI 782 Less than 20% X BALTATI PODISU 588 Less than 20% X BELCESTI TANSA 1.070 Less than 20% X BIVOLARI TRAIAN 254 Less than 20% X BRAESTI ALBESTI 400 Less than 20% X BRAESTI BUDA 293 Less than 20% X BUTEA MICLAUSENI 345 Less than 20% X CEPLENITA BUHALNITA 1.281 Less than 20% X CIORTESTI CIORTESTI 1.085 Less than 20% X CIORTESTI COROPCENI 1.081 Less than 20% X CIORTESTI DELENI 537 Less than 20% X CIORTESTI ROTARIA 395 Less than 20% X COARNELE CAPREI ARAMA 741 Less than 20% X COARNELE CAPREI PETROSICA 121 Less than 20% X COMARNA COMARNA 2.414 Less than 20% X COMARNA CURAGAU 163 Less than 20% X COSTULENI COSTULENI 1.389 Less than 20% X COSTULENI COVASNA 1.186 Less than 20% X COSTULENI COZIA 1.007 Less than 20% X COTNARI CARJOAIA 1.666 Less than 20% X COTNARI FAGAT 235 Less than 20% X COTNARI HODORA 1.453 Less than 20% X COTNARI LUPARIA 375 Less than 20% X VALEA COTNARI 347 Less than 20% X RACULUI COZMESTI COZMESTI 1.329 Less than 20% X DAGATA DAGATA 1.651 Less than 20% X DAGATA BALUSESTI 221 Less than 20% X DAGATA BOATCA 324 Less than 20% X DAGATA MANASTIREA 1.033 Less than 20% X PISCU DAGATA 427 Less than 20% X RUSULUI DAGATA POIENILE 299 Less than 20% X DAGATA ZECE PRAJINI 448 More than 20% X DELENI DELENI 4.280 Less than 20% X DELENI LEAHU-NACU 67 Less than 20% X 106 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over DOBROVAT DOBROVAT 2.503 Less than 20% X DOLHESTI BRADICESTI 994 Less than 20% X DOLHESTI PIETRIS 942 More than 20% X DUMESTI DUMESTI 1.446 Less than 20% X DUMESTI CHILISOAIA 186 Less than 20% X DUMESTI PAUSESTI 1.753 Less than 20% X ERBICENI TOTOESTI 1.635 Less than 20% X FOCURI FOCURI 3.852 Less than 20% X GOLAIESTI COTU LUI IVAN 362 Less than 20% X GOLAIESTI MEDELENI 117 Less than 20% X GOLAIESTI PETRESTI 311 Less than 20% X GRAJDURI GRAJDURI 1.178 More than 20% X GRAJDURI CARBUNARI 382 Less than 20% X GROPNITA BULBUCANI 645 Less than 20% X GROPNITA SAVENI 717 Less than 20% X GROPNITA SANGERI 437 Less than 20% X GROZESTI COLTU CORNII 497 Less than 20% X HORLESTI HORLESTI 1.922 Less than 20% X HORLESTI SCOPOSENI 296 Less than 20% X LESPEZI BUDA 1.001 Less than 20% X LETCANI COGEASCA 1.690 Less than 20% X LUNGANI CRUCEA 1.943 More than 20% X LUNGANI GOESTI 1.009 Less than 20% X LUNGANI ZMEU 1.868 More than 20% X MADARJAC MADARJAC 912 Less than 20% X MADARJAC BOJILA 312 Less than 20% X MADARJAC FRUMUSICA 363 Less than 20% X MIRONEASA MIRONEASA 3.744 Less than 20% X MIRONEASA URSITA 683 Less than 20% X MOGOSESTI MOGOSESTI 2.994 Less than 20% X MOGOSESTI HADAMBU 1.171 Less than 20% X MOGOSESTI MANJESTI 679 Less than 20% X MOTCA MOTCA 3.519 More than 20% X MOVILENI IEPURENI 938 Less than 20% X OTELENI OTELENI 2.193 Less than 20% X OTELENI HANDRESTI 1.037 Less than 20% X PLUGARI ONESTI 181 Less than 20% X POPESTI HARPASESTI 977 Less than 20% X POPESTI VAMA 103 Less than 20% X POPRICANI TIPILESTI 281 Less than 20% X PRISACANI MACARESTI 633 Less than 20% X PROBOTA PROBOTA 1.124 Less than 20% X PROBOTA PERIENI 1.595 Less than 20% X RADUCANENI RADUCANENI 5.031 More than 20% X RADUCANENI BOHOTIN 1.240 Less than 20% X RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 107 Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over RADUCANENI ROSU 584 Less than 20% X ROMANESTI URSOAIA 457 Less than 20% X DUMITRESTII SCHITU DUCA 715 Less than 20% X GALATII SCHITU DUCA SLOBOZIA 453 Less than 20% X SCANTEIA BODESTI 410 Less than 20% X SCANTEIA LUNCA RATES 418 Less than 20% X SCOBINTI SCOBINTI 1.818 Less than 20% X SINESTI SINESTI 1.595 Less than 20% X SINESTI BOCNITA 374 Less than 20% X SINESTI OSOI 1.153 Less than 20% X SINESTI STORNESTI 1.049 Less than 20% X SIRETEL SIRETEL 2.228 Less than 20% X SIRETEL BEREZLOGI 259 Less than 20% X SIRETEL HUMOSU 865 Less than 20% X SIRETEL SLOBOZIA 636 Less than 20% X STOLNICENI- BRATESTI 1.710 Less than 20% X PRAJESCU STOLNICENI- COZMESTI 2.078 More than 20% X PRAJESCU STRUNGA BRATULESTI 431 Less than 20% X STRUNGA FARCASENI 1.777 Less than 20% X SCHEIA SCHEIA 1.081 Less than 20% X SCHEIA CAUESTI 554 Less than 20% X SCHEIA CIOCA-BOCA 509 Less than 20% X SCHEIA POIANA SCHEII 518 Less than 20% X SCHEIA SATU NOU 405 Less than 20% X SIPOTE CHISCARENI 1.700 Less than 20% X SIPOTE IAZU NOU 1.003 Less than 20% X SIPOTE IAZU VECHI 353 Less than 20% X TANSA SUHULET 1.200 Less than 20% X TODIRESTI BAICENI 389 Less than 20% X TRIFESTI TRIFESTI 1.772 Less than 20% X TRIFESTI HERMEZIU 999 Less than 20% X TRIFESTI VLADOMIRA 261 Less than 20% X TRIFESTI ZABOLOTENI 742 Less than 20% X TIBANA TIBANA 710 Less than 20% X TIBANA ALEXENI 663 Less than 20% X TIBANA DOMNITA 1.456 Less than 20% X TIBANA GARBESTI 2.228 Less than 20% X POIANA TIBANA 501 Less than 20% X MANASTIRII GLODENII TIBANESTI 2.524 Less than 20% X GINDULUI TIBANESTI RECEA 150 Less than 20% X TIBANESTI VALENII 279 Less than 20% X TIGANASI CARNICENI 1.419 Less than 20% X 108 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over VICTORIA ICUSENI 431 Less than 20% X VICTORIA STANCA 563 Less than 20% X VANATORI CRIVESTI 1.497 Less than 20% X VANATORI VLADNICUT 139 Less than 20% X ALEXANDRU VLADENI 519 Less than 20% X CEL BUN VLADENI BROSTENI 440 Less than 20% X VOINESTI VOINESTI 3.020 Less than 20% X SCHITU VOINESTI 573 Less than 20% X STAVNIC VOINESTI SLOBOZIA 2.384 Less than 20% X BALS BALS 1.502 Less than 20% X COSTESTI COSTESTI 1.262 Less than 20% X DRAGUSENI DRAGUSENI 886 Less than 20% X FANTANELE FANTANELE 2.138 Less than 20% X ROSCANI RADENI 742 Less than 20% X ROSCANI ROSCANI 700 Less than 20% X CIOHORANI CIOHORANI 1.781 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 109 MAP 1. 24: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Iași County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 110 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 25. ILFOV County TABLE 1. 25: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Ilfov County Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over GANEASA COZIENI 832 More than 20% X NUCI MERII PETCHII 1010 Less than 20% X VIDRA SINTESTI 2936 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 111 MAP 1. 25: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Ilfov County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 112 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 26. MARAMUREȘ County TABLE 1. 26: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Maramureș County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over ARDUSAT ARDUSAT 2.002 Less than 20% X BISTRA CRASNA VISEULUI 1.666 Less than 20% X BARSANA BARSANA 3.802 Less than 20% X CERNESTI TRESTIA 748 More than 20% X VALENII COROIENI 972 More than 20% X LAPUSULUI IEUD IEUD 4.318 Less than 20% X POIENILE DE SUB POIENILE DE SUB 9.939 Less than 20% X MUNTE MUNTE RONA DE SUS RONA DE SUS 3.219 Less than 20% X ROZAVLEA SALTA 269 Less than 20% X SATULUNG FINTEUSU MIC 1.189 More than 20% X STRAMTURA STRAMTURA 2.507 Less than 20% X SUCIU DE SUS SUCIU DE SUS 2.450 More than 20% X COLTAU COLTAU 2.189 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 113 MAP 1. 26: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Maramureș County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 114 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 27. MEHEDINȚI County TABLE 1. 27: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Mehedinți County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over SIMIAN DUDASU 1.285 More than 20% X OBARSIA-CLOSANI GODEANU 165 Less than 20% X BACLES GIURA 65 Less than 20% X BACLES PETRA 212 Less than 20% X BACLES SELISTIUTA 179 Less than 20% X BACLES SMADOVITA 509 Less than 20% X BALVANESTI PARLAGELE 408 Less than 20% X BREZNITA-MOTRU COSOVAT 109 Less than 20% X BURILA MARE CRIVINA 710 Less than 20% X BUTOIESTI TANTARU 419 More than 20% X CAZANESTI ERCEA 253 Less than 20% X GARBOVATU DE CAZANESTI 299 Less than 20% X SUS CAZANESTI SUHARU 130 Less than 20% X CIRESU NEGRUSA 139 Less than 20% X CORCOVA CORCOVA 1.081 More than 20% X CORCOVA JIROV 1.402 More than 20% X DARVARI GEMENI 1.095 Less than 20% X GARLA MARE GARLA MARE 3.382 More than 20% X GODEANU PAUNESTI 206 Less than 20% X GODEANU SIROCA 204 Less than 20% X GROZESTI GROZESTI 453 Less than 20% X GROZESTI CARCENI 992 Less than 20% X GRUIA GRUIA 1.890 More than 20% X GRUIA POIANA GRUII 189 Less than 20% X HINOVA HINOVA 1.071 Less than 20% X ESELNITA ESELNITA 2.565 More than 20% X JIANA DANCEU 1.310 More than 20% X JIANA JIANA VECHE 1.080 More than 20% X STEFAN LIVEZILE 172 Less than 20% X ODOBLEJA OPRISOR OPRISOR 1.880 Less than 20% X OPRISOR PRISACEAUA 435 Less than 20% X PADINA OLTEANCA 89 Less than 20% X POROINA MARE POROINA MARE 319 Less than 20% X POROINA MARE STIGNITA 461 Less than 20% X PRUNISOR ZEGAIA 260 Less than 20% X PUNGHINA PUNGHINA 1.190 More than 20% X PUNGHINA DRINCEA 397 Less than 20% X RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 115 Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over PUNGHINA MAGURELE 78 Less than 20% X PUNGHINA RECEA 1.085 More than 20% X STANGACEAUA CERANGANUL 66 Less than 20% X STANGACEAUA TARSA 133 Less than 20% X TAMNA FATA CREMENII 322 More than 20% X TAMNA PLOPI 437 More than 20% X VANJULET VANJULET 1.539 More than 20% X VLADAIA ALMAJEL 733 More than 20% X VLADAIA STIRCOVITA 239 Less than 20% X VRATA VRATA 1.599 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 116 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 27: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Mehedinți County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 117 28. MUREȘ County TABLE 1. 28: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Mureș County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized areas 170- 257- 419 and 1-169 256 418 over ACATARI CORBESTI 118 Less than 20% X ACATARI SUVEICA 232 Less than 20% X ALUNIS FITCAU 486 Less than 20% X APOLD APOLD 944 More than 20% X APOLD DAIA 563 More than 20% X APOLD SAES 1.271 Less than 20% X BAHNEA BAHNEA 2.001 More than 20% X BAHNEA DAIA 192 More than 20% X BAHNEA IDICIU 387 More than 20% X BAND BAND 3.950 More than 20% X FANATELE BAND 301 Less than 20% X MADARASULUI BAND ISTAN-TAU 128 Less than 20% X BAND PETEA 215 Less than 20% X BAGACIU BAGACIU 1.341 More than 20% X BEICA DE JOS BEICA DE JOS 951 More than 20% X CRACIUNESTI CRACIUNESTI 1.040 More than 20% X CRACIUNESTI BUDIU MIC 430 More than 20% X EREMITU EREMITU 1.785 Less than 20% X ERNEI ICLAND 387 Less than 20% X FARAGAU TONCIU 954 More than 20% X FANTANELE BORDOSIU 294 More than 20% X FANTANELE CALIMANESTI 880 Less than 20% X FANTANELE ROUA 360 Less than 20% X GHINDARI GHINDARI 1.577 More than 20% X GLODENI GLODENI 2.570 More than 20% X GREBENISU LEORINTA 125 Less than 20% X DE CAMPIE HODAC HODAC 2.672 Less than 20% X LUNCA NEAGRA 513 More than 20% X BRADULUI MAGHERANI SILEA NIRAJULUI 414 Less than 20% X MICA CEUAS 917 More than 20% X MICA DEAJ 1.463 More than 20% X MIHESU DE SAULITA 129 More than 20% X CAMPIE NADES NADES 1.207 More than 20% X NADES TIGMANDRU 1.078 More than 20% X OGRA OGRA 1.606 More than 20% X 118 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized areas 170- 257- 419 and 1-169 256 418 over PANET CUIESD 877 More than 20% X PASARENI BOLINTINENI 261 More than 20% X PETELEA PETELEA 2.683 More than 20% X POGACEAUA POGACEAUA 1.218 More than 20% X POGACEAUA CIULEA 158 Less than 20% X RICIU ULIES 534 More than 20% X VALEA RICIU 154 Less than 20% X SANMARTINULUI SASCHIZ SASCHIZ 1.490 Less than 20% X SASCHIZ MIHAI VITEAZU 322 More than 20% X SANGER SANGER 1.413 More than 20% X SANPETRU DE DAMBU 591 Less than 20% X CAMPIE SUPLAC LASLAU MIC 363 More than 20% X SAULIA SAULIA 1.603 More than 20% X SAULIA LEORINTA-SAULIA 155 Less than 20% X TAURENI TAURENI 874 More than 20% X VARGATA GRAUSORUL 205 More than 20% X VARGATA VADU 271 More than 20% X VIISOARA VIISOARA 695 More than 20% X VIISOARA ORMENIS 426 More than 20% X VIISOARA SANTIOANA 538 More than 20% X VANATORI VANATORI 1.787 More than 20% X VANATORI SOARD 780 More than 20% X ZAGAR ZAGAR 936 More than 20% X ZAGAR SELEUS 256 More than 20% X ZAU DE BUJOR-HODAIE 65 More than 20% X CAMPIE CHIBED CHIBED 1.762 Less than 20% X SARATENI SARATENI 1.608 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 119 MAP 1. 28: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Mureș County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 120 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 29. NEAMȚ County TABLE 1. 29: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Neamț County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized areas 170- 257- 419 and 1-169 256 418 over BAHNA BAHNISOARA 397 Less than 20% X BAHNA IZVOARE 1.414 More than 20% X TUTCANII DIN BAHNA 276 Less than 20% X VALE BIRA REDIU 875 Less than 20% X BORCA SABASA 1.988 More than 20% X BOZIENI BOZIENI 757 Less than 20% X CANDESTI CANDESTI 1.284 Less than 20% X CANDESTI PADURENI 200 Less than 20% X CANDESTI TARDENII MICI 125 Less than 20% X CRACAOANI CRACAOANI 2.023 More than 20% X DOLJESTI BURUIENESTI 3.848 Less than 20% X DULCESTI POIANA 161 Less than 20% X FAUREI BUDESTI 1.017 Less than 20% X GIROV POPESTI 183 Less than 20% X ICUSESTI BALUSESTI 1.964 Less than 20% X ICUSESTI BATRANESTI 194 Less than 20% X ICUSESTI MESTEACAN 371 Less than 20% X ICUSESTI ROCNA 392 Less than 20% X ICUSESTI TABARA 131 Less than 20% X MARGINENI MARGINENI 1.798 Less than 20% X MARGINENI HARTESTI 248 Less than 20% X MARGINENI ITRINESTI 295 Less than 20% X ONICENI GORUN 355 Less than 20% X ONICENI PIETROSU 302 Less than 20% X ONICENI SOLCA 865 Less than 20% X PASTRAVENI RADENI 1.566 Less than 20% X PETRICANI TOLICI 1.616 Less than 20% X PIATRA POIENI 1.231 Less than 20% X SOIMULUI PIPIRIG LEGHIN 675 Less than 20% X PIPIRIG STANCA 1.526 Less than 20% X POIENARI POIENARI 899 Less than 20% X RAUCESTI OGLINZI 3.903 Less than 20% X RAZBOIENI BORSENI 372 More than 20% X SAGNA SAGNA 2.742 Less than 20% X STANITA GHIDION 358 Less than 20% X STANITA TODIRENI 352 Less than 20% X STANITA VEJA 273 Less than 20% X RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 121 Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized areas 170- 257- 419 and 1-169 256 418 over URECHENI URECHENI 2.550 Less than 20% X VALEA URSULUI CHILII 1.154 Less than 20% X VALEA VALEA URSULUI 946 Less than 20% X URSULUI VALEA URSULUI BUCIUM 685 Less than 20% X VALEA URSULUI GIURGENI 647 Less than 20% X MUNCELU DE VALEA URSULUI 434 Less than 20% X JOS VANATORI- VANATORI- 4.575 More than 20% X NEAMT NEAMT DOCHIA DOCHIA 2.042 Less than 20% X GHINDAOANI GHINDAOANI 1.849 Less than 20% X VALENI DAVID 89 Less than 20% X VALENI MORENI 300 More than 20% X VALENI MUNTENI 371 More than 20% X PANCESTI PATRICHENI 138 Less than 20% X PANCESTI PANCESTI 634 Less than 20% X PANCESTI TALPALAI 137 Less than 20% X BOGHICEA CAUSENI 198 Less than 20% X BOGHICEA NISTRIA 317 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 122 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 29: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Neamț County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 123 30. OLT County TABLE 1. 30: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Olt County Share of Number of inhabitants living in Population Roma living in marginalized areas * Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over BARZA BRANET 1.531 Less than 20% X BUCINISU BUCINISU 1.717 Less than 20% X CORBU CORBU 1.249 More than 20% X DOBRETU HOREZU 533 Less than 20% X FAGETELU BAGESTI 155 Less than 20% X GIUVARASTI GIUVARASTI 2.381 Less than 20% X GRADINARI PETCULESTI 1.114 More than 20% X GRADINARI SATU NOU 285 Less than 20% X IANCU JIANU IANCU JIANU 3.312 Less than 20% X IANCU JIANU DOBRICENI 648 Less than 20% X IZVOARELE ALIMANESTI 2.347 Less than 20% X OBOGA OBOGA 1.777 Less than 20% X OPORELU RADESTI 277 Less than 20% X PLESOIU ARCESTI COT 643 Less than 20% X PLESOIU DOBA 499 Less than 20% X PLESOIU SCHITU DIN DEAL 274 Less than 20% X POBORU SEACA 275 Less than 20% X RUSANESTI RUSANESTI 3.555 Less than 20% X SCHITU CATANELE 800 Less than 20% X SPRANCENATA BARSESTII DE SUS 579 Less than 20% X SPRANCENATA URIA 178 Less than 20% X STOENESTI STOENESTI 2.422 More than 20% X VERGULEASA CUCUETI 314 Less than 20% X VOINEASA VOINEASA 446 Less than 20% X GAVANESTI DAMBURILE 107 Less than 20% X GHIMPETENI GHIMPETENI 1.030 Less than 20% X GHIMPETENI GHIMPETENII NOI 500 Less than 20% X GURA PADINII GURA PADINII 1.265 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 124 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 30: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Olt County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 125 31. PRAHOVA County TABLE 1. 31: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Prahova County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over BUCOV BUCOV 4.783 More than 20% X CERASU SLON 2.204 Less than 20% X CHIOJDEANCA TRENU 635 Less than 20% X COLCEAG VALCELELE 619 Less than 20% X FILIPESTII DE DITESTI 3.978 More than 20% X PADURE GHERGHITA GHERGHITA 887 Less than 20% X GORNET NUCET 212 Less than 20% X PROVITA DE JOS DRAGANEASA 1.015 More than 20% X VALEA PROVITA DE SUS 143 Less than 20% X BRADULUI SANGERU SANGERU 2.483 More than 20% X SOTRILE PLAIU CIMPINEI 888 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 126 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 31: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Prahova County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 127 32. SATU MARE County TABLE 1. 32: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Satu Mare County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over ACIS ACAS 1.934 More than 20% X ANDRID IRINA 561 Less than 20% X APA APA 2.344 More than 20% X BIXAD BOINESTI 1.557 Less than 20% X BOTIZ BOTIZ 3.622 More than 20% X CAUAS CAUAS 684 More than 20% X CRAIDOROLT ERIU SANCRAI 651 More than 20% X CRAIDOROLT SATU MIC 266 More than 20% X DOROLT PETEA 464 More than 20% X HODOD LELEI 634 Less than 20% X NADISU HODOD 824 Less than 20% X HODODULUI LAZURI PELISOR 304 Less than 20% X MEDIESU AURIT MEDIESU AURIT 2.546 More than 20% X MEDIESU AURIT IOJIB 1.131 More than 20% X MOFTIN GHIROLT 176 More than 20% X MOFTIN SANMICLAUS 370 More than 20% X PISCOLT PISCOLT 2.252 More than 20% X SAUCA SAUCA 395 More than 20% X SOCOND SOCOND 639 More than 20% X SOCOND STANA 1.116 More than 20% X TARNA MARE BOCICAU 665 Less than 20% X TIREAM TIREAM 1.535 More than 20% X TURULUNG TURULUNG 2.523 More than 20% X VAMA VAMA 3.486 Less than 20% X VIILE SATU MARE TATARESTI 653 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 128 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 32: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Satu Mare County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 129 33. SĂLAJ County TABLE 1. 33: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Sălaj County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over BOBOTA DERSIDA 1.837 More than 20% X BOCSA BORLA 1.483 More than 20% X BUCIUMI BUCIUMI 1.340 More than 20% X CIZER CIZER 1.614 More than 20% X CRASNA HUSENI 570 More than 20% X CRASNA RATIN 552 More than 20% X CUZAPLAC RUGINOASA 98 Less than 20% X DRAGU DRAGU 737 More than 20% X DRAGU VOIVODENI 381 More than 20% X FILDU DE JOS FILDU DE SUS 441 More than 20% X GARBOU POPTELEAC 376 More than 20% X HIDA TRESTIA 309 Less than 20% X HOROATU CRASNEI STARCIU 962 More than 20% X ILEANDA ILEANDA 1.146 More than 20% X MARCA MARCA 1.273 More than 20% X MESESENII DE MESESENII DE JOS 851 Less than 20% X SUS MIRSID POPENI 876 More than 20% X NAPRADEA CHEUD 898 More than 20% X NUSFALAU NUSFALAU 3.214 More than 20% X PLOPIS IAZ 699 Less than 20% X ROMANASI PAUSA 531 More than 20% X SAG MAL 1.248 More than 20% X SAG TUSA 737 Less than 20% X SANMIHAIU SANTA MARIA 402 More than 20% X ALMASULUI SAMSUD VALEA POMILOR 616 More than 20% X SARMASAG LOMPIRT 833 More than 20% X VALCAU DE JOS VALCAU DE SUS 825 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 130 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 33: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Sălaj County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 131 34. SIBIU County TABLE 1. 34: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Sibiu County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over RASINARI PRISLOP 330 More than 20% X TARNAVA TARNAVA 2.273 More than 20% X ALTINA ALTINA 1.094 More than 20% X BAZNA BOIAN 1.518 More than 20% X BAZNA VELT 658 More than 20% X BIERTAN BIERTAN 1.372 More than 20% X BIERTAN RICHIS 679 More than 20% X BIRGHIS BARGHIS 683 Less than 20% X BRATEIU BRATEIU 2.319 More than 20% X BRATEIU BUZD 1.096 More than 20% X BRADENI BRADENI 863 More than 20% X BRADENI TELINE 134 More than 20% X CHIRPAR VESEUD 154 Less than 20% X CARTISOARA CARTISOARA 1.225 Less than 20% X GURA RAULUI GURA RAULUI 3.621 Less than 20% X HOGHILAG HOGHILAG 1.177 More than 20% X HOGHILAG PROD 253 Less than 20% X HOGHILAG VALCHID 742 More than 20% X IACOBENI IACOBENI 992 More than 20% X IACOBENI MOVILE 310 Less than 20% X IACOBENI NETUS 524 More than 20% X IACOBENI NOISTAT 486 More than 20% X JINA JINA 3.750 Less than 20% X LASLEA MALANCRAV 1.102 More than 20% X LASLEA ROANDOLA 201 More than 20% X LOAMNES ARMENI 608 Less than 20% X MIHAILENI METIS 316 More than 20% X MIHAILENI MOARDAS 252 Less than 20% X NOCRICH FOFELDEA 470 Less than 20% X NOCRICH TICHINDEAL 223 More than 20% X SEICA MARE BUIA 648 More than 20% X SEICA MICA SOROSTIN 525 Less than 20% X SURA MICA RUSCIORI 752 More than 20% X VURPAR VURPAR 2.557 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 132 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 34: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Sibiu County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 133 35. SUCEAVA County TABLE 1. 35: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Suceava County Number of inhabitants living Share of in marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over MITOCU MITOCU 3.016 More than 20% X DRAGOMIRNEI DRAGOMIRNEI SCHEIA SCHEIA 3.445 More than 20% X ADANCATA FETESTI 534 Less than 20% X ARBORE ARBORE 5.259 Less than 20% X ARBORE CLIT 1.174 Less than 20% X BAIA BOGATA 1.208 Less than 20% X BILCA BILCA 3.583 Less than 20% X BOSANCI BOSANCI 6.304 More than 20% X ILISESTI ILISESTI 2.352 Less than 20% X CORNU LUNCII DUMBRAVA 532 More than 20% X DORNESTI DORNESTI 3.664 More than 20% X DRAGOIESTI DRAGOIESTI 1.603 Less than 20% X DRAGUSENI BROSTENI 376 Less than 20% X FANTANELE STAMATE 2.121 Less than 20% X FORASTI TOLESTI 414 Less than 20% X FRATAUTII NOI FRATAUTII NOI 4.112 Less than 20% X IZVOARELE IZVOARELE 886 Less than 20% X SUCEVEI SUCEVEI IZVOARELE BRODINA 756 Less than 20% X SUCEVEI MARGINEA MARGINEA 8.552 Less than 20% X MALINI PARAIE 1.604 Less than 20% X MOLDOVA-SULITA MOLDOVA-SULITA 1.197 Less than 20% X MOLDOVA-SULITA BENIA 667 Less than 20% X MOLDOVITA MOLDOVITA 2.209 Less than 20% X MOLDOVITA DEMACUSA 992 Less than 20% X PALTINOASA CAPU CODRULUI 2.400 More than 20% X PARTESTII DE JOS PARTESTII DE JOS 1.945 More than 20% X PATRAUTI PATRAUTI 4.567 More than 20% X PREUTESTI BAHNA ARIN 270 Less than 20% X SLATINA HERLA 1.543 Less than 20% X STROIESTI ZAHARESTI 786 Less than 20% X SUCEVITA VOIEVODEASA 1.291 More than 20% X UDESTI CHILISENI 858 More than 20% X ULMA COSTILEVA 265 Less than 20% X VADU MOLDOVEI IONEASA 364 Less than 20% X VALEA MOLDOVEI MIRONU 2.433 More than 20% X VERESTI COROCAIESTI 2.412 Less than 20% X 134 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Number of inhabitants living Share of in marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over VERESTI HANCEA 1.157 More than 20% X VICOVU DE JOS VICOVU DE JOS 5.925 More than 20% X COMANESTI COMANESTI 1.068 Less than 20% X COMANESTI HUMORENI 1.026 More than 20% X HORODNIC DE HORODNIC DE SUS 5.133 More than 20% X SUS CAPU CAMPULUI CAPU CAMPULUI 2.214 More than 20% X HANTESTI HANTESTI 3.032 Less than 20% X BURLA BURLA 2.111 More than 20% X BALACEANA BALACEANA 1.520 Less than 20% X VOITINEL VOITINEL 4.387 More than 20% X CIPRIAN CIPRIAN 1.840 More than 20% X PORUMBESCU PORUMBESCU Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 135 MAP 1. 35: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Suceava County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 136 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 36. TELEORMAN County TABLE 1. 36: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Teleorman County Number of inhabitants living Share of in marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over BOTOROAGA CALUGARU 1.003 Less than 20% X BOTOROAGA TARNAVA 1.449 Less than 20% X BRANCENI BRANCENI 2.880 More than 20% X BUZESCU BUZESCU 3.922 More than 20% X CONTESTI CONTESTI 3.479 Less than 20% X COSMESTI CIUPERCENI 1.523 Less than 20% X DIDESTI DIDESTI 531 Less than 20% X DRAGANESTI- COMOARA 551 Less than 20% X VLASCA GALATENI GALATENI 1.776 More than 20% X GALATENI BASCOVENI 957 Less than 20% X LUNCA LUNCA 1.913 Less than 20% X LUNCA PRUNDU 1.437 More than 20% X MERENI MERENII DE JOS 1.760 More than 20% X NECSESTI NECSESTI 643 Less than 20% X NECSESTI BELCIUG 352 Less than 20% X ORBEASCA LACENI 2.413 Less than 20% X PIETROSANI PIETROSANI 2.941 More than 20% X PUTINEIU PUTINEIU 1.149 More than 20% X SACENI BUTCULESTI 395 Less than 20% X SACENI CIURARI 554 Less than 20% X SLOBOZIA MANDRA SLOBOZIA MANDRA 1.819 Less than 20% X TATARASTII DE JOS NEGRENI 480 Less than 20% X TATARASTII DE SUS TATARASTII DE SUS 1.348 More than 20% X TATARASTII DE SUS UDUPU 1.651 More than 20% X TRIVALEA-MOSTENI TRIVALEA-MOSTENI 1.037 Less than 20% X VARTOAPE GARAGAU 836 Less than 20% X ZAMBREASCA ZAMBREASCA 1.540 Less than 20% X BECIU SMARDAN 448 Less than 20% X UDA-CLOCOCIOV UDA-CLOCOCIOV 778 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 137 MAP 1. 36: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Teleorman County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 138 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 37. TIMIȘ County TABLE 1. 37: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Timiș County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over BARNA BOTINESTI 223 Less than 20% X CHEVERESU CHEVERESU MARE 1.289 More than 20% X MARE GHIZELA PANIOVA 240 Less than 20% X JAMU MARE JAMU MARE 1.323 Less than 20% X MORAVITA DEJAN 222 Less than 20% X CHECEA CHECEA 1.802 More than 20% X GOTTLOB GOTTLOB 1.716 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 139 MAP 1. 37: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Timiș County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 140 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 38. TULCEA County TABLE 1. 38: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Tulcea County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over BAIA CAUGAGIA 262 Less than 20% X CIUCUROVA CIUCUROVA 1.299 More than 20% X CIUCUROVA ATMAGEA 188 Less than 20% X DAENI DAENI 2.016 Less than 20% X HORIA FLORESTI 284 Less than 20% X IZVOARELE IULIA 344 Less than 20% X JURILOVCA VISINA 727 Less than 20% X DUNAVATU DE MURIGHIOL 199 Less than 20% X SUS SLAVA SLAVA CERCHEZA 852 Less than 20% X CERCHEZA TOPOLOG TOPOLOG 2.456 Less than 20% X TOPOLOG CALFA 152 Less than 20% X TOPOLOG MAGURELE 279 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 141 MAP 1. 38: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Tulcea County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis 142 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 39. VASLUI County TABLE 1. 39: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Vaslui County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over ALEXANDRU ALEXANDRU 801 Less than 20% X VLAHUTA VLAHUTA ALEXANDRU MORARENI 229 Less than 20% X VLAHUTA BANCA BANCA 1.008 Less than 20% X BANCA MICLESTI 257 Less than 20% X BANCA 1 DECEMBRIE 417 Less than 20% X BACANI BACANI 1.267 Less than 20% X BACANI BALTATENI 483 Less than 20% X BACESTI BACESTI 2.326 More than 20% X BACESTI BABUSA 433 Less than 20% X BACESTI PALTINIS 418 Less than 20% X BALTENI BALTENI-DEAL 444 Less than 20% X BEREZENI MUSATA 472 Less than 20% X BEREZENI RANCENI 573 Less than 20% X BOGDANA LACU BABEI 333 Less than 20% X BOGDANA SIMILISOARA 65 Less than 20% X BOGDANA SUCEVENI 219 Less than 20% X BOGDANESTI BOGDANESTI 1.063 Less than 20% X BOGDANESTI ORGOIESTI 193 Less than 20% X BOGDANESTI ULEA 406 Less than 20% X BOGDANESTI UNTESTI 889 Less than 20% X BOGDANITA CEPESTI 447 Less than 20% X BOGDANITA CARTIBASI 180 Less than 20% X BOGDANITA COROIESTI 240 Less than 20% X BOGDANITA RADAESTI 109 Less than 20% X BOGDANITA TUNSESTI 269 Less than 20% X BOTESTI BOTESTI 922 Less than 20% X BUNESTI- ROSIORI 182 Less than 20% X AVERESTI CODAESTI CODAESTI 1.986 Less than 20% X CODAESTI GHERGHELEU 454 Less than 20% X COROIESTI COROIESTI 543 Less than 20% X COROIESTI CHILIENI 214 Less than 20% X COROIESTII DE COROIESTI 165 Less than 20% X SUS COROIESTI HREASCA 354 Less than 20% X COROIESTI MIRENI 467 Less than 20% X COROIESTI MOVILENI 236 Less than 20% X COSTESTI COSTESTI 1.846 Less than 20% X RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 143 Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over COSTESTI CHITCANI 378 Less than 20% X CRETESTI BUDESTI 243 Less than 20% X CRETESTII DE CRETESTI 669 Less than 20% X SUS DANESTI DANESTI 605 Less than 20% X DANESTI BEREASA 246 Less than 20% X DANESTI BOTOAIA 71 Less than 20% X DANESTI EMIL RACOVITA 929 Less than 20% X DANESTI TATARANI 247 Less than 20% X DELENI DELENI 1.644 Less than 20% X DELESTI FUNDATURA 474 Less than 20% X DRAGOMIRESTI BELZENI 253 Less than 20% X DRAGOMIRESTI CIUPERCA 53 Less than 20% X DRAGOMIRESTI DOAGELE 1.156 More than 20% X DRAGOMIRESTI POPESTI 414 Less than 20% X DRAGOMIRESTI RADENI 1.273 Less than 20% X DRAGOMIRESTI TULESTI 193 Less than 20% X DRAGOMIRESTI VLADIA 448 Less than 20% X DRANCENI ALBITA 73 Less than 20% X DRANCENI GHERMANESTI 1.753 Less than 20% X DUDA-EPURENI DUDA 1.202 Less than 20% X DUMESTI DUMESTI 1.993 More than 20% X DUMESTI DUMESTII VECHI 434 Less than 20% X DUMESTI VALEA MARE 832 Less than 20% X EPURENI BURSUCI 1.018 Less than 20% X EPURENI HORGA 429 Less than 20% X FALCIU COPACEANA 617 Less than 20% X FALCIU RANZESTI 911 Less than 20% X GAGESTI TUPILATI 346 Less than 20% X GHERGHESTI GHERGHESTI 983 Less than 20% X GHERGHESTI CORODESTI 262 Less than 20% X GHERGHESTI SOCI 103 Less than 20% X GARCENI GARCENI 938 Less than 20% X GARCENI DUMBRAVENI 255 Less than 20% X GARCENI SLOBOZIA 498 Less than 20% X GARCENI TROHAN 270 Less than 20% X HOCENI BARBOSI 712 Less than 20% X HOCENI DELENI 526 Less than 20% X HOCENI OTELENI 570 Less than 20% X HOCENI SISCANI 332 Less than 20% X DIMITRIE PLOTONESTI 375 Less than 20% X CANTEMIR IANA IANA 1.185 Less than 20% X IANA HALARESTI 970 Less than 20% X IANA RECEA 411 Less than 20% X 144 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over IANA SILISTEA 992 Less than 20% X IANA VADURILE 312 Less than 20% X IVANESTI IVANESTI 1.224 Less than 20% X IVANESTI BROSTENI 433 Less than 20% X IVANESTI BUSCATA 251 Less than 20% X IVANESTI COSCA 342 Less than 20% X FUNDATURA IVANESTI 138 Less than 20% X MARE IVANESTI URSOAIA 277 Less than 20% X IVANESTI VALEA MARE 531 Less than 20% X LIPOVAT CAPUSNENI 277 Less than 20% X LIPOVAT FUNDU VAII 598 Less than 20% X LUNCA CONDREA 53 Less than 20% X BANULUI LUNCA LUNCA VECHE 101 Less than 20% X BANULUI MALUSTENI GHIREASCA 219 Less than 20% X MALUSTENI LUPESTI 495 Less than 20% X MALUSTENI MANASTIREA 126 Less than 20% X MALUSTENI MANZATESTI 391 Less than 20% X MALUSTENI TUTCANI 593 Less than 20% X MICLESTI CHIRCESTI 1.209 Less than 20% X MICLESTI POPESTI 444 Less than 20% X MUNTENII DE MANJESTI 812 Less than 20% X JOS OSESTI OSESTI 1.277 Less than 20% X OSESTI BUDA 1.436 Less than 20% X OSESTI PADURENI 374 Less than 20% X PADURENI IVANESTI 477 Less than 20% X PERIENI PERIENI 3.536 Less than 20% X POIENESTI POIENESTI 791 Less than 20% X POIENESTI FRASINU 396 Less than 20% X POGANA POGANA 753 Less than 20% X POGANA BOGESTI 655 Less than 20% X POGANA MASCUREI 556 Less than 20% X POGANA TOMESTI 816 Less than 20% X PUIESTI PUIESTI 1.321 Less than 20% X BARTALUS- PUIESTI 188 Less than 20% X MOCANI PUIESTI CALIMANESTI 395 Less than 20% X PUIESTI CETATUIA 432 Less than 20% X PUIESTI CRISTESTI 436 Less than 20% X PUIESTI FANTANELE 136 Less than 20% X PUIESTI FULGU 170 Less than 20% X PUIESTI GALTESTI 151 Less than 20% X PUIESTI LALESTI 495 Less than 20% X RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 145 Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over PUIESTI RUSI 408 Less than 20% X PUNGESTI PUNGESTI 892 Less than 20% X PUNGESTI ARMASOAIA 633 Less than 20% X PUNGESTI CURSESTI-DEAL 204 Less than 20% X PUNGESTI CURSESTI-VALE 293 Less than 20% X PUNGESTI STEJARU 272 More than 20% X REBRICEA DRAXENI 848 Less than 20% X REBRICEA MACRESTI 92 Less than 20% X REBRICEA RATESU CUZEI 530 Less than 20% X REBRICEA TATOMIRESTI 243 Less than 20% X TUFESTII DE REBRICEA 433 Less than 20% X JOS ROSIESTI GURA IDRICI 391 Less than 20% X ROSIESTI REDIU 196 Less than 20% X SOLESTI IAZ 404 Less than 20% X SOLESTI SERBOTESTI 806 Less than 20% X BUDU STANILESTI 295 Less than 20% X CANTEMIR STANILESTI CHERSACOSU 526 Less than 20% X STANILESTI POGANESTI 1.099 Less than 20% X SULETEA RASCANI 252 Less than 20% X TACUTA TACUTA 833 Less than 20% X TACUTA DUMASCA 365 Less than 20% X TACUTA MIRCESTI 324 Less than 20% X TACUTA PROTOPOPESTI 683 Less than 20% X TATARANI BALTATI 675 Less than 20% X TODIRESTI COTIC 358 Less than 20% X TODIRESTI HUC 573 Less than 20% X TUTOVA VIZURENI 190 Less than 20% X VALENI VALENI 2.875 Less than 20% X VETRISOAIA VETRISOAIA 2.662 Less than 20% X VINDEREI VINDEREI 934 Less than 20% X VINDEREI BRADESTI 557 Less than 20% X VINDEREI DOCANI 621 Less than 20% X VINDEREI DOCANEASA 385 Less than 20% X VINDEREI OBARSENI 945 Less than 20% X VINDEREI VALEA LUNGA 280 Less than 20% X VOINESTI VOINESTI 422 Less than 20% X VOINESTI AVRAMESTI 617 Less than 20% X VOINESTI BANCESTI 213 Less than 20% X VOINESTI GARDESTI 728 Less than 20% X VOINESTI MARASESTI 221 Less than 20% X VOINESTI OBARSENI 286 Less than 20% X OBARSENII VOINESTI 886 Less than 20% X LINGURARI VOINESTI RUGARIA 80 Less than 20% X 146 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over VOINESTI STANCASENI 203 Less than 20% X VUTCANI POSTA ELAN 184 Less than 20% X ZAPODENI TELEJNA 359 Less than 20% X ZORLENI POPENI 2.564 Less than 20% X IBANESTI IBANESTI 634 Less than 20% X IBANESTI MANZATI 680 Less than 20% X IBANESTI PUTU OLARULUI 137 Less than 20% X FRUNTISENI FRUNTISENI 1.010 Less than 20% X RAFAILA RAFAILA 1.833 Less than 20% X CIOCANI CRANG 453 Less than 20% X CIOCANI CRANGU NOU 272 Less than 20% X COZMESTI BALESTI 755 Less than 20% X COZMESTI FASTACI 1.131 More than 20% X DODESTI DODESTI 1.457 Less than 20% X FERESTI FERESTI 1.897 Less than 20% X PUSCASI PUSCASI 2.312 Less than 20% X PUSCASI TEISORU 514 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 147 MAP 1. 39: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Vaslui County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 148 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 40. VÂLCEA County TABLE 1. 40: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Vâlcea County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village 419 (number) marginalized 170- 257- areas 1-169 and 256 418 over BUJORENI LUNCA 739 Less than 20% X BUNESTI RAPANESTI 485 More than 20% X CAINENI CAINENII MARI 692 Less than 20% X DAESTI BABUESTI 97 Less than 20% X MADULARI DIMULESTI 174 Less than 20% X OTESANI SUB DEAL 57 Less than 20% X RACOVITA BALOTA 475 Less than 20% X SALATRUCEL SERBANESTI 439 Less than 20% X SUSANI RAMESTI 1.044 Less than 20% X VAIDEENI VAIDEENI 2.575 More than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 149 MAP 1. 40: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Vâlcea County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 150 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS 41. VRANCEA County TABLE 1. 41: List of rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Vrancea County Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over BALESTI BALESTI 1.941 Less than 20% X CHIOJDENI CATAUTI 279 Less than 20% X CHIOJDENI LUNCILE 998 More than 20% X CHIOJDENI MARACINI 119 More than 20% X CHIOJDENI SECIU 72 Less than 20% X CARLIGELE DALHAUTI 717 Less than 20% X CORBITA SERBANESTI 281 Less than 20% X COTESTI COTESTI 1.961 Less than 20% X DUMITRESTI BICESTII DE JOS 639 Less than 20% X DUMITRESTI BICESTII DE SUS 605 Less than 20% X DUMITRESTI DUMITRESTII-FATA 219 Less than 20% X DUMITRESTI GALOIESTI 607 Less than 20% X DUMITRESTI LASTUNI 343 Less than 20% X DUMITRESTI SIMINOC 141 Less than 20% X DUMITRESTI TINOASA 170 Less than 20% X GURA CALITEI DEALUL LUNG 107 Less than 20% X GURA CALITEI PLOPU 372 Less than 20% X GURA CALITEI RASCA 209 Less than 20% X HOMOCEA HOMOCEA 5.250 Less than 20% X JITIA JITIA 443 Less than 20% X JITIA JITIA DE JOS 416 Less than 20% X MERA MILCOVEL 347 Less than 20% X NARUJA PODU NARUJEI 472 Less than 20% X NEREJU NEREJU 1.294 Less than 20% X NEREJU BRADACESTI 293 Less than 20% X NEREJU CHIRICANI 442 Less than 20% X NEREJU NEREJU MIC 1.810 Less than 20% X NEREJU SAHASTRU 348 Less than 20% X POIANA DEALU CUCULUI 305 Less than 20% X CRISTEI POIANA MAHRIU 353 Less than 20% X CRISTEI POIANA PETREANU 192 Less than 20% X CRISTEI PUFESTI DOMNESTI-SAT 216 More than 20% X RACOASA VERDEA 779 Less than 20% X REGHIU JGHEABURI 82 Less than 20% X REGHIU SINDRILARI 1.139 Less than 20% X SIHLEA SIHLEA 2.302 Less than 20% X RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS | 151 Number of inhabitants living in Share of marginalized areas * Population Roma living in Commune Village (number) marginalized 419 areas 170- 257- 1-169 and 256 418 over SLOBOZIA SLOBOZIA 2.106 More than 20% X BRADULUI BRADULUI SLOBOZIA CORNETU 1.984 More than 20% X BRADULUI SLOBOZIA LIESTI 1.528 More than 20% X BRADULUI SLOBOZIA VALEA BECIULUI 471 More than 20% X BRADULUI STRAOANE VALENI 56 Less than 20% X SURAIA SURAIA 4.595 More than 20% X TANASOAIA CALIMANEASA 222 Less than 20% X TANASOAIA VLADNICU DE SUS 243 Less than 20% X VIDRA BURCA 1.430 Less than 20% X VIDRA VIISOARA 687 Less than 20% X VINTILEASCA BAHNELE 587 Less than 20% X VINTILEASCA NECULELE 453 Less than 20% X VIZANTEA- VIZANTEA 1.712 Less than 20% X LIVEZI MANASTIREASCA VARTESCOIU RAMNICEANCA 271 Less than 20% X VULTURU VULTURU 3.344 More than 20% X PLOSCUTENI ARGEA 482 Less than 20% X SPULBER MORARESTI 50 Less than 20% X SPULBER PAVALARI 142 Less than 20% X SPULBER SPULBER 549 Less than 20% X Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 152 | RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS MAP 1. 41: Rural localities (SIRINF units) with marginalized areas in Vrancea County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at census sector level for all rural administrative units. Sectors with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. PART II The Atlas of Local Human Development in Romania 154 | THE ATLAS OF LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA 3. PART II: LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL AND SMALL URBAN ROMANIA 3.1 Defining and Assessing Local Human Development in Romania This section explores the diversity of Romanian small settlements – both rural and small urban (those with fewer than 30,000 inhabitants) - from the point of view of local human development. We measured the human development of a village or of a town sublocality (or SIRUTA unit) in terms of its stock of community capital65 as represented by education, employment, housing, the size of the working age population, and the mobility experience of its population. This is a comprehensive take on human development similar to the approach taken in the UNDP’s Human Development Index,66 the multiple deprivation index in the UK,67 and some Romanian applications at the census sector68 and village levels.69 3.1.1 Methodology of Local Human Development in Rural and Small Urban Settlements The World Bank constructed a local human development index (LHDI) that made it possible to compare all of the sublocalities (SIRUTA units) from all communes and all towns with fewer than 30,000 inhabitants (Part II. Figure 1). The villages and sublocalities from towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the computation algorithm for the LHDI.70 Three out of the six indicators that we used to build the LHDI – education, employment and housing – are frequently used to measure development, poverty, or deprivation71 in small territorial units. They have previously been used to compute LHDI measures in Romania at the commune and city levels72 and were tested for validity. 65 Emery and Flora (2006). 66 UNDP (2013). 67 McLennan et al (2011). 68 Swinkels et al (2014a). 69 Sandu (2005). 70 SIRUTA units smaller than 50 inhabitants could not be included in our computations because of the high instability of measures related to such small territorial units. 71 The algorithms used in the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) in the United Kingdom in 2007 and 2010 used seven domains related to employment, income, education, housing, health, crime, and environment. The 38 indicators that defined the seven do- mains were selected to meet a set of criteria: ”domain specific and appropriate for the purpose (as direct as possible measures of that form of deprivation), measuring major features of that deprivation (not conditions just experienced by a very small number of people or areas), up-to-date, capable of being updated on a regular basis, statistically robust at the small area level and available for the whole of England at a small area level in a consistent form” (McLennan et al, 2014: 14). When we constructed our procedure for the LHDI, we also used factor analysis as an aggregation method as in the IMD. 72 Ionescu-Heroiu et al (2014). THE ATLAS OF LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA | 155 PART II. FIGURE 1: Dimensions and Indicators for Measuring the Local Human Development of Small Settlements (villages of more than 50 inhabitants and component localities for towns with less than 30,000 inhabitants) Why adding to index measures working age share of the local population, mobility experience of the population and a measure of development at basic administrative unit including the settlement (commune or small town)? A high percentage of working age population is a precondition for higher education and employment capital in Romania.73 Also, previous research has proved that mobility experience of a community (meaning commuting, return migration, and immigration) is a significant predictor of LHDI in communes and cities in Romania.74 In particular, remittances entering community and the network capital of former and current migrants are key variables that favor local development. The reason for including a measure of commune or town development in the evaluation of development for villages or sublocalities is twofold. On the one hand, communes and towns are the immediate environments that influence the quality of life in their different sublocalities. The better that environment is, the greater the chances of the sublocalities having access to good services and local institutions. The second reason is that the LHDI for communes 73 Computations for the LHDI in small communities, as indicated in Part II. Figure 1, support this assertion. 74 Ionescu-Heroiu et al (2014: 405). 156 | THE ATLAS OF LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA includes information that cannot be measured at the village level in the Romanian statistical system, such as life expectancy at birth. We did not include public services (such as schools, health institutions, and public transportation) in our measurement of the LHDI. While these are important factors in defining local well-being or poverty, unfortunately data on the existence of public services and on access to them are not available at such a disaggregated level. PART II. BOX 1 Local Human Development Index (LHDI) The LHDI was computed using a factor analysis of six variables (three of which were factor scores and three of which were single indicators). The index represents a modification of the algorithm used in the early versions of the background study for the National Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction 2015-2020. Changes were made in the following respects (Teșliuc et al., 2015): •  and The current algorithm of the index includes all villages that have more than 49 inhabitants all sublocalities of towns with fewer than 30,000 inhabitants, while in the initial version the index referred to villages of over 100 inhabitants and sublocalities of towns with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants. •  There are six dimensions in the new version compared to five in the previous one. •  Employment is measured by a single indicator here, compared to a factor score with a KMO value of less than 0.50 in the previous version. The LHDI as a factor score was transformed by a Hull score as to have a variation between about 0 (low development) to about 100 (high development). The criterion of validity for the new measure is consistently higher than for the previous one. There are about 12,300 rural villages75 within 2,861 rural communes in which about 9.3 million people are living. The main reason for focusing on villages is that, despite their diversity (Part II. Table 1) they are the most “natural” units of community in rural Romania. PART II. TABLE 1: Demographic Profile of Villages and Component Localities for Small Towns Included in the LHDI Computations Maximum Number of Mean popu- Minimum Total population living in popula- (sub)localities lation population reference localities tion Villages in rural areas 11,531 801.2 50 20,256 9,238,905* Component localities of towns that with fewer 1,008 2,742.5 51 27,416 2,764,514** than 30,000 inhabitants Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: * The total rural population at the time of the 2011 census was 9,262,851. ** The total population living in towns with fewer than 30,000 people was 2,765,566 according to the 2011 census. 75 The term ”village” will be used in this section to refer to villages within rural communes. There are also some villages that are component localities in cities but their situation is different. Some of them still have the characteristics of a traditional village, but others have simply retained the designation. THE ATLAS OF LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA | 157 Small settlements differ not only by their levels of development but also by their types of development. A village is comprehensively developed if it has high stocks of all five dimensions of community capital (education, housing, employment, working age, and mobility experience) in the national context. Villages can be considered to have upper- middle development in two ways: (i) structural as related mainly to education, working age population, and housing or (ii) mainly based on the mobility experience of the population.76 PART II. TABLE 2: Romania’s Small Settlements by Levels and Types of Developmen Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Note: Only 10 percent of the rural population lives in villages with a higher level of development compared to 40 percent of the total population of small towns. This lower level of development means that poverty is higher in villages than in small cities. As one can see from Part II. Table 2, the seven categories in the typography of local development are strongly differentiated in terms of their average levels of development. The fact that localities are differentiated not only by their level of development but also by their type of development is an indication of their high degree of structuring. As such or regrouped in five categories, they could be a basis for designing development policies at the territorial level. 3.1.2 Large Cities and Urban Connectivity in Local Human Development The local human development of small settlements of Romania is highly dependent on their location (for example, in the regional urban system, in historical and geographic regions, or within a communication system etc.) and their internal characteristics (such as the population composition, the cultural type of the locality, the demographic size of the locality, or the territorial form of settlement). The location of a village or small urban settlement within an urban 76 The construction of the typology was guided by a series of hypotheses specifying the profile for seven classes on all the six indicators of local human development – education, employment, working age, housing, mobility experience, and development level of commune or town. They state that in rural areas one can expect to find cumulative versus segmented or specialized de- velopment/ poverty and, to record a difference between working-age and housing poverty and also differences between structural development and development based on mobility experience. The tool that we used to construct the typology was a k-means clus- ter analysis in SPSS with predetermined clusters. 158 | THE ATLAS OF LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA regional space seems to be fundamentally associated with local human development (see Annex 3. Table 1). This is consistent with the theory of distance, density, and division,77 according to which the most important factors influencing local human development is not the proximity of the village to a large city with high economic density (those with more than 200,000 inhabitants) but also the connectivity of the commune or small town including reference settlements and, the development level of the large city itself. PART II. MAP 1: The Analytical Map of Convergence Areas towards Large Cities Source: Mapping computations and graphics by D. Sandu. The nine urban regions of great cities are shown, in the map below (Part II. Map 1). In reality, the borders are not as precise as shown by the map which was constructed using Euclidean distances. A reference locality is considered to be part of the urban region of the largest city of 200,000 inhabitants, function of its minimal distance of location versus the large nine cities. The new urban analytical regions overlap to a large degree with parts or subparts of historical and development regions. For example, the Iași and Craiova urban regions are very close to the configurations of North-East and South-West development regions and large parts of the Moldova and Oltenia historical regions. Also, Galați and Constanța are close to the configuration of South-East development region. As expected, the most developed small localities are in the two Transylvanian urban regions of Timișoara and Brașov (where average LHDI is equal to 66). For localities with high urban 77 World Bank (2009). THE ATLAS OF LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA | 159 connectivity, the effect of being a historical region is no longer a factor. Small settlements from the Constanța and Ploiești areas (from the Old Kingdom historical regions) have an average level of development that is equal to those in Brașov and Cluj, which are in the Transylvanian region. This finding shows that the high local development level in Transylvania is not due to effect of being a historical region but is a direct consequence of higher urban connectivity in Transylvania. PART II. TABLE 3: Local Human Development Index for Small Settlements by Urban Region and Urban Connectivity Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Urban connectivity tends to increase local human development in small settlements, except in Iași and Ploiești urban regions where LHDI is lower for medium urban connectivity than for low connectivity. One aspect of urban connectedness is the proximity of the locality to a European road which is well-maintained road that leads to large cities, whether in Romania within or abroad. The data presented in this Atlas show clearly that small settlements that are close to European roads tend to be characterized by comprehensive development and upper-middle levels of development. As showed in the table below, the best place to live from the point of view of human development is in a town in the Bucharest urban region that is located close to a European road. These towns have an average LHDI that is eight points higher than that of towns in the same region that are located far from a European road. 160 | THE ATLAS OF LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA PART II. TABLE 4: Local Human Development Index by Urban region, Proximity to European Roads and Type of Residency Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. The impact of proximity to a European road is consistently higher in rural areas than in urban areas (nine points on the scale of local development for villages and only four points in the case of small towns). The policy implication is clear: in Romania good roads seem to contribute to promoting development much more in villages than in towns. Types of local human development differ not only among localities but also among counties (see Annex 3. Table 2): •  development The counties where the largest shares of the population live in localities with comprehensive are Ilfov, Timiș, Brașov, Sibiu, Cluj and Arad. All of these are counties that are in or are in immediate proximity to large urban centers. •  At the other extreme, the lowest development levels can be found in Vaslui, Botoșani and Mehedinți counties with a low degree of urbanization that are not close to a large city. The same counties also have the most housing poverty. THE ATLAS OF LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA | 161 3.1.3 Local Human Development Between Density Centers and Distance-Division Peripheries Local human development in small settlements is not only affected by their proximity and connectivity to large towns, but is also influenced by proximity to administrative centers, population composition and population modernity. The simplified causal matrix in Annex 3. Table 1 clearly indicates that local development is higher in central villages within communes and in settlements that are not at the periphery of the county. This pattern is evident in each urban region (Part II. Table 5). In the Timișoara urban region, for example, villages that are commune centers and are not located at the periphery of the county are much more developed (with an LHDI score of 70), than villages that are peripheral within the commune and the county (with an LHDI score of 54). PART II. TABLE 5: Local Human Development of the Villages by Urban Region and Centrality of Location Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. The nine large urban centers in Romania vary widely in terms of their impact on village development. Timisoara, Cluj and Brașov have the most positive effect on village development (Part II. Figure 2), whereas Galați and Iași are at the other extreme, with a predominantly negative effect on rural development. The ethnic composition of the population also affects local development. Settlements with larger shares of Roma tends to be poorer and those with more Germans and Hungarians tend to be richer. The modernity of the population is both a cause and effect of local development. It tends to be higher in more developed localities, irrespective of their size and residential type.78 78 This statement is based on a regression analysis that is not showed here and that had the general fertility rate as a dependent variable. Lower fertility has a significant positive effect in terms of increasing individual modernity. 162 | THE ATLAS OF LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA PART II. FIGURE 2: Impact of Location Factors on Village Development Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: The figures indicate the values of regression coefficients. The control variables were population size, ethnic composition, and distance to different categories of cities. The analysis reveals that small settlements tend to have a development dynamics that goes between the effects of urban and administrative centers, on the one hand, and divisions associated with distance, administration and communication, on the other hand. 3.1.4 Marginalization and Local Human Development in Rural Romania As shown in section 2.1.8, rural marginalization is highly correlated with rural poverty at the commune level. Nonetheless, most marginalized areas are in medium-developed communes rather than in the poor ones. In this section, we analyze the relation between rural marginalization and local human development at the village level using the levels and types of local human development (as estimated based on LHDI) shown in Part II. Table 2. The next table (Part II. Table 6) shows that marginalized areas are spread across all villages with all different levels of local human development. However, 65 percent of all villages with marginalized areas are underdeveloped, having either the lowest development or the lowest housing development.79 Only 7 percent of villages with marginalized areas have a medium- high level of LHDI. On the other hand, the share of villages with marginalized areas decreases sharply from 39 percent of the lowest developed villages to 26 percent of those with low housing development, 14 percent of the medium developed villages, and only 1 percent of those with mobility or comprehensive development. So rural marginalization is highly associated with low local human development (LHDI). It is noteworthy that, in villages with high mobility capital, there is little opportunity for marginalized areas to form. 79 This is partly the result of the common indicators used to estimate rural marginalization and LHDI. THE ATLAS OF LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA | 163 PART II. TABLE 6: Villages with Rural Marginalized Areas (RMA) by Levels and Types of Local Human Development (LHD) and by Number of RMAs within the Village Villages with mar- Number of marginalized ginalized areas areas within the village LHD level Type of LHD Total No Yes 1 2 3-9 Low Lowest development 1,341 824 517 377 111 29 Medium-low Low housing development 1,947 1,445 502 324 111 67 Low labor market development 1,996 1,871 125 108 17 0 Medium Medium development 2,180 1,865 315 236 56 23 Medium-high Mobility development 1,901 1,886 15 14 1 0 Structural development 1,281 1,194 87 68 16 3 High Comprehensive development 475 471 4 4 0 0 Total 11,121 9,556 1,565 1,131 312 122 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: On levels and types of LHDI see Part II. Table 2. Marginalized communities exist in 1,605 villages, but in 40 cases data on LHDI are missing. The cells marked in color indicate the dominant patterns. Roma marginalized communities are considerably more likely to be located in medium or medium- high developed villages than in villages with low levels of development, as shown in Part II. Figure 3 and Annex 3. Table 3. In the low developed villages, non-Roma marginalized communities predominate. PART II. FIGURE 3: Villages with Rural Marginalized Areas (RMA) by Types of Local Human De- velopment and Type of Marginalized Communities within Villages, 2011 (number of villages) 100% 64 90% 104 43 34 80% 70% 79 171 49 18 Roma 60% communi ti es 50% 40% 410 50 Ethni ca l l y mi xed 30% 319 73 20 communi ti es 20% 94 Non-Roma 10% 18 communi ti es 0% Lowes t Low hous i ng Low l a bor Medi um Structura l devel opment devel opment ma rket devel opment devel opment devel opment Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. N=1,546 villages with marginalized communities. Notes: Roma communities are defined as rural marginalized areas where more than 20 percent of residents who self-identify as Roma. Ethnically mixed communities are defined as rural marginalized areas where fewer than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma. Non-Roma communities are defined as rural marginalized areas with no residents who self-identify as Roma. For levels and types of LHDI, see Part II. Table 2. Villages with comprehensive development or with mobility development are not included due to the small number of these cases. 164 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 3.2 Spatial Maps of Local Human Development in Rural and Small Urban Romania This section presents spatial maps of local human development by county. ALBA DÂMBOVIȚA SATU MARE ARAD DOLJ SĂLAJ ARGEȘ GALAȚI SIBIU BACĂU GIURGIU SUCEAVA BIHOR GORJ TELEORMAN BISTRIȚA-NĂSĂUD HARGHITA TIMIȘ BOTOȘANI HUNEDOARA TULCEA BRAȘOV IALOMIȚA VASLUI BRĂILA IAȘI VÂLCEA BUZĂU MARAMUREȘ VRANCEA CARAȘ-SEVERIN MEHEDINȚI CĂLĂRAȘI MUREȘ CLUJ NEAMȚ CONSTANȚA OLT COVASNA PRAHOVA LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 165 1. ALBA County TABLE 2. 1: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Alba County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Village Type of Local Human Development Population (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 34 7.8 4.271 1,6 Medium-low development 176 40.4 26.242 9,8 Medium development 18 4.1 12.549 4,7 Medium-high development 183 42.0 121.671 45,3 Comprehensive development 25 5.7 103.577 38,6 TOTAL 436 100 268.310 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) CIUGUD CIUGUD 542 CIUGUD DRIMBAR 401 CIUGUD LIMBA 359 CIUGUD HAPRIA 581 CIUGUD SEUSA 764 CIUGUD TELEAC 401 DAIA ROMANA DAIA ROMANA 2.773 GALDA DE JOS GALDA DE JOS 2.006 IGHIU SARD 2.208 MIHALT CISTEI 523 MUNICIPIUL AIUD AIUD 16.657 MUNICIPIUL BLAJ BLAJ 11.905 MUNICIPIUL SEBES SEBES 20.345 MUNICIPIUL SEBES LANCRAM 1.521 ORAS ABRUD ABRUD 3.856 ORAS CUGIR CUGIR 18.869 ORAS OCNA MURES OCNA MURES 6.863 166 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ORAS OCNA MURES RAZBOIENI-CETATE 1.286 ORAS TEIUS TEIUS 5.920 ORAS TEIUS COSLARIU NOU 91 SINTIMBRU SINTIMBRU 1.273 SINTIMBRU COSLARIU 394 SINTIMBRU GALTIU 441 VINTU DE JOS VINTU DE JOS 3.113 VINTU DE JOS VURPAR 485 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 167 MAP 2. 1: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Alba County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 168 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 2. ARAD County TABLE 2. 2: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Arad County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Village Type of Local Human Development Population (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 2 0,8 212 0,1 Medium-low development 69 26,3 13.602 5,0 Medium development 24 9,2 24.516 9,1 Medium-high development 139 53,1 161.556 60,0 Comprehensive development 28 10,7 69.516 25,8 TOTAL 262 100 269.402 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) Lista localităţilor cu cel mai mare LHDI (Dezvoltare comprehensivă) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) FANTINELE FANTANELE 2.141 FANTINELE TISA NOUA 949 FRUMUSENI FRUMUSENI 1.614 GHIOROC GHIOROC 1.653 GHIOROC CUVIN 1.483 GHIOROC MINIS 654 IRATOSU IRATOSU 1.803 LIVADA LIVADA 1.422 LIVADA SINLEANI 1.538 MACEA MACEA 3.874 ORAS INEU INEU 8.377 ORAS LIPOVA LIPOVA 7.292 ORAS SANTANA SANTANA 10.134 PAULIS PAULIS 1.751 PAULIS BARATCA 223 LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 169 Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) SAGU SAGU 2.006 SOFRONEA SOFRONEA 1.880 SOFRONEA SINPAUL 695 VLADIMIRESCU VLADIMIRESCU 6.445 VLADIMIRESCU CICIR 941 VLADIMIRESCU HORIA 2.117 VLADIMIRESCU MINDRULOC 1.207 ZABRANI ZABRANI 2.165 ZADARENI BODROGU NOU 246 ZADARENI ZADARENI 2.249 ZIMANDU NOU ZIMANDU NOU 1.575 ZIMANDU NOU ANDREI SAGUNA 1.452 ZIMANDU NOU ZIMANDCUZ 1.630 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 170 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 2: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Arad County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 171 3. ARGEȘ County TABLE 2. 3: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Argeș County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 20 3,8 9.920 2,6 Medium-low development 152 29,2 51.371 13,6 Medium development 51 9,8 44.802 11,9 Medium-high development 255 48,9 171.462 45,5 Comprehensive development 43 8,3 99.529 26,4 TOTAL 521 100 377.084 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) BASCOV VALEA URSULUI 908 BRADU BRADU 4.021 BRADU GEAMANA 3.109 BUDEASA BUDEASA MARE 1.169 BUDEASA BUDEASA MICA 803 BUDEASA CALOTESTI 693 BUDEASA GALASESTI 696 BUDEASA ROGOJINA 204 CALINESTI CIOCANESTI 995 CATEASCA RECEA 433 LERESTI VOINESTI 1.623 MARACINENI MARACINENI 3.228 MARACINENI ARGESELU 1.965 MICESTI MICESTI 1.673 MICESTI PURCARENI 1.650 172 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) MOSOAIA MOSOAIA 1.260 MOSOAIA CIOCANAI 669 MOSOAIA DEALU VIILOR 340 MOSOAIA HINTESTI 732 MOSOAIA SMEURA 2.237 MUNICIPIUL CURTEA DE ARGES CURTEA DE ARGES 26.572 ORAS COSTESTI COSTESTI 8.005 ORAS STEFANESTI STEFANESTI 1.911 ORAS STEFANESTI GOLESTI 1.263 ORAS STEFANESTI IZVORANI 939 ORAS STEFANESTI STEFANESTII NOI 3.809 ORAS STEFANESTI VALEA MARE-PODGORIA 4.318 ORAS STEFANESTI VIISOARA 719 ORAS STEFANESTI ZAVOI 1.053 ORAS TOPOLOVENI TOPOLOVENI 8.802 ORAS TOPOLOVENI GORANESTI 244 TITESTI VALEA STINII 1.026 VALEA IASULUI MUSTATESTI 659 VALEA IASULUI UNGURENI 372 VALEA IASULUI VALEA ULEIULUI 254 BASCOV VALEA URSULUI 908 BRADU BRADU 4.021 BRADU GEAMANA 3.109 BUDEASA BUDEASA MARE 1.169 BUDEASA BUDEASA MICA 803 BUDEASA CALOTESTI 693 BUDEASA GALASESTI 696 BUDEASA ROGOJINA 204 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 173 MAP 2. 3: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Argeș County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis 174 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 4. BACĂU County TABLE 2. 4: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Bacău County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 118 24,7 31.563 7,3 Medium-low development 141 29,6 80.113 18,6 Medium development 136 28,5 162.709 37,8 Medium-high development 69 14,5 126.570 29,4 Comprehensive development 13 2,7 29.453 6,8 TOTAL 477 100 430.408 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) HEMEIUS HEMEIUS 1.911 HEMEIUS FINTINELE 361 HEMEIUS LILIECI 2.483 LETEA VECHE LETEA VECHE 2.926 MAGURA MAGURA 2.219 MAGURA DEALU-MARE 896 MARGINENI MARGINENI 3.446 MARGINENI BARATI 1.590 MARGINENI LUNCANI 924 MARGINENI VALEA BUDULUI 415 ORAS TIRGU OCNA TIRGU OCNA 9.563 SAUCESTI SAUCESTI 2.183 SAUCESTI BOGDAN VODA 536 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 175 MAP 2. 4: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Bacău County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 176 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 5. BIHOR County TABLE 2. 5: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Bihor County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 11 2,5 3.013 0,8 Medium-low development 90 20,2 30.996 8,2 Medium development 114 25,6 113.556 30,1 Medium-high development 203 45,5 158.904 42,2 Comprehensive development 28 6,3 70.295 18,7 TOTAL 446 100 376.764 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) BIHARIA BIHARIA 3.493 BIHARIA CAUACEU 712 BORS BORS 1.306 BORS SANTAUL MARE 369 BORS SANTAUL MIC 537 BORS SANTION 1.734 CARPINET CARPINET 547 DRAGANESTI TALPE 249 LAZURI DE BEIUS LAZURI DE BEIUS 321 LUNCA LUNCA 963 MUNICIPIUL BEIUS BEIUS 10.298 MUNICIPIUL MARGHITA MARGHITA 13.871 NOJORID NOJORID 2.012 NOJORID LES 736 ORAS ALESD ALESD 7.486 LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 177 Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ORAS STEI STEI 6.529 OSORHEI OSORHEI 3.179 OSORHEI ALPAREA 1.105 OSORHEI FUGHIU 993 PALEU PALEU 1.242 PALEU SALDABAGIU DE MUNTE 773 SINMARTIN SINMARTIN 3.672 SINMARTIN BETFIA 451 SINMARTIN CIHEI 1.127 SINMARTIN HAIEU 1.183 SINMARTIN BAILE FELIX 495 SINTANDREI SINTANDREI 4.349 SINTANDREI PALOTA 563 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 178 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 5: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Bihor County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 179 6. BISTRIȚA-NĂSĂUD County TABLE 2. 6: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Bistrița-Năsăud County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 23 9,9 3.821 1,8 Medium-low development 73 31,3 27.384 13,0 Medium development 44 18,9 52.491 24,9 Medium-high development 88 37,8 107.565 51,0 Comprehensive development 5 2,1 19.607 9,3 TOTAL 233 100 210.868 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) Lista localităţilor cu cel mai mare LHDI (Dezvoltare comprehensivă) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) BUDACU DE JOS JELNA 793 ORAS BECLEAN BECLEAN 9.134 ORAS BECLEAN COLDAU 653 ORAS NASAUD NASAUD 8.095 SIEU-MAGHERUS SIEU-MAGHERUS 932 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 180 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 6: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Bistrița-Năsăud County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 181 7. BOTOȘANI County TABLE 2. 7: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Botoșani County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 117 35,7 43.054 14,1 Medium-low development 166 50,6 176.666 57,8 Medium development 31 9,5 44.844 14,7 Medium-high development 13 4,0 38.362 12,6 Comprehensive development 1 0,3 2.678 0,9 TOTAL 328 100 305.604 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) MIHAI EMINESCU CATAMARESTI-DEAL 2.678 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 182 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 7: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Botoșani County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 183 8. BRAȘOV County TABLE 2. 8: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Brașov County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 2 1,3 920 0,4 Medium-low development 27 17,3 12.179 5,2 Medium development 24 15,4 31.106 13,3 Medium-high development 75 48,1 69.191 29,6 Comprehensive development 28 17,9 120.212 51,5 TOTAL 156 100 233.608 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) BECLEAN HUREZ 492 BOD BOD 2.200 BOD COLONIA BOD 1.794 BRAN BRAN 1.492 BRAN PREDELUT 958 BRAN SOHODOL 1.508 BRAN SIMON 1.223 CRISTIAN CRISTIAN 4.490 FELDIOARA FELDIOARA 4.334 HALCHIU HALCHIU 3.035 HARMAN HARMAN 4.659 HARMAN PODU OLTULUI 743 MANDRA RAUSOR 496 MOIECIU MOIECIU DE JOS 2.222 MOIECIU CHEIA 488 184 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) MUNICIPIUL CODLEA CODLEA 21.708 ORAS GHIMBAV GHIMBAV 4.698 ORAS PREDEAL PREDEAL 3.675 ORAS PREDEAL TIMISU DE JOS 594 ORAS PREDEAL TIMISU DE SUS 468 ORAS RASNOV RASNOV 15.022 ORAS VICTORIA VICTORIA 7.386 ORAS ZARNESTI ZARNESTI 22.029 ORAS ZARNESTI TOHANU NOU 1.447 PREJMER PREJMER 5.297 PREJMER LUNCA CALNICULUI 2.793 SAMBATA DE SUS STATIUNEA CLIMATERICA SIMBATA 142 SINPETRU SINPETRU 4.819 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 185 MAP 2. 8: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Brașov County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 186 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 9. BRĂILA County TABLE 2. 9: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Brăila County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 23 17,4 4.996 3,5 Medium-low development 83 62,9 89.546 63,6 Medium development 16 12,1 26.685 18,9 Medium-high development 9 6,8 19.108 13,6 Comprehensive development 1 0,8 516 0,4 TOTAL 132 100 140.851 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) CHISCANI VARSATURA 516 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 187 MAP 2. 9: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Brăila County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis 188 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 10. BUZĂU County TABLE 2. 10: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Buzău County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 83 19,8 15.153 5,1 Medium-low development 172 41,1 102.464 34,5 Medium development 92 22,0 106.240 35,8 Medium-high development 66 15,8 58.498 19,7 Comprehensive development 6 1,4 14.398 4,9 TOTAL 419 100 296.753 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) BERCA BERCA 3.296 MARACINENI MARACINENI 2.996 MARACINENI CAPATINESTI 3.296 MARACINENI POTOCENI 1.987 VADU PASII BAJANI 711 VERNESTI VERNESTI 2.112 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 189 MAP 2. 10: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Buzău County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 190 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 11. CARAȘ-SEVERIN County TABLE 2. 11: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Caraș-Severin County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 11 4,6 1.500 0,7 Medium-low development 84 35,4 21.475 9,9 Medium development 49 20,7 43.062 19,9 Medium-high development 91 38,4 125.301 58,0 Comprehensive development 2 0,8 24.812 11,5 TOTAL 237 100 216.150 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) Lista localităţilor cu cel mai mare LHDI (Dezvoltare comprehensivă) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) MUNICIPIUL CARANSEBES CARANSEBES 24.146 PALTINIS PALTINIS 666 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 191 MAP 2. 11: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Caraș-Severin County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 192 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 12. CĂLĂRAȘI County TABLE 2. 12: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Călărași County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 11 7,2 1.668 0,7 Medium-low development 71 46,4 57.186 24,4 Medium development 53 34,6 121.511 51,5 Medium-high development 18 11,8 54.591 23,3 Comprehensive development 0 0,0 - - TOTAL 153 100 233.956 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) No locality with comprehensive development was identified in Călărași county. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 193 MAP 2. 12: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Călărași County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 194 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 13. CLUJ County TABLE 2. 13: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Cluj County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 50 13,0 7.814 2,8 Medium-low development 159 41,4 43.351 15,3 Medium development 38 9,9 38.718 13,7 Medium-high development 112 29,2 89.023 31,5 Comprehensive development 25 6,5 103.874 36,7 TOTAL 384 100 282.780 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) APAHIDA APAHIDA 5.966 APAHIDA CIMPENESTI 154 APAHIDA DEZMIR 1.515 APAHIDA SINNICOARA 1.927 APAHIDA SUB COASTA 98 BACIU BACIU 6.100 BACIU CORUSU 561 BACIU POPESTI 601 BACIU RADAIA 161 BACIU SUCEAGU 1.332 CASEIU URISOR 929 CHINTENI CHINTENI 1.310 CUZDRIOARA CUZDRIOARA 2.076 FELEACU FELEACU 1.827 FLORESTI FLORESTI 20.256 LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 195 Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) FLORESTI LUNA DE SUS 2.310 FLORESTI TAUTI 247 GILAU GILAU 6.464 JUCU JUCU DE MIJLOC 1.029 MIHAI VITEAZU MIHAI VITEAZU 4.129 MIHAI VITEAZU CORNESTI 769 MUNICIPIUL CAMPIA TURZII CAMPIA TURZII 22.223 MUNICIPIUL GHERLA GHERLA 20.092 SANDULESTI SANDULESTI 611 SANDULESTI COPACENI 1.187 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 196 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 13: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Cluj County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 197 14. CONSTANȚA County TABLE 2. 14: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Constanța County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 21 11,4 4.437 1,5 Medium-low development 65 35,1 37.389 12,9 Medium development 53 28,6 73.666 25,4 Medium-high development 26 14,1 72.044 24,9 Comprehensive development 20 10,8 102.214 35,3 TOTAL 185 100 289.750 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) AGIGEA SANATORIUL AGIGEA 442 AGIGEA STATIUNEA ZOOLOGICA MARINA AGIGEA 84 AGIGEA LAZU 1.613 AGIGEA AGIGEA 4.853 COSTINESTI COSTINESTI 1.376 COSTINESTI SCHITU 1.490 CUMPANA CUMPANA 12.333 LIMANU LIMANU 2.990 LIMANU 2 MAI 2.848 LIMANU VAMA VECHE 282 LUMINA LUMINA 7.800 MIHAIL KOGALNICEANU MIHAIL KOGALNICEANU 8.319 ORAS EFORIE EFORIE SUD 4.285 ORAS EFORIE EFORIE NORD 5.188 ORAS MURFATLAR MURFATLAR 9.144 198 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ORAS OVIDIU OVIDIU 11.892 ORAS OVIDIU POIANA 896 ORAS TECHIRGHIOL TECHIRGHIOL 7.292 TUZLA TUZLA 6.711 VALU LUI TRAIAN VALU LUI TRAIAN 12.376 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 199 MAP 2. 14: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Constanța County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 200 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 15. COVASNA County TABLE 2. 15: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Covasna County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 2 1,7 1.892 1,2 Medium-low development 15 12,5 6.648 4,4 Medium development 32 26,7 33.857 22,2 Medium-high development 66 55,0 80.209 52,7 Comprehensive development 5 4,2 29.579 19,4 TOTAL 120 100 152.185 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ARCUS ARCUS 1.519 ILIENI ILIENI 1.098 ILIENI SINCRAIU 374 MUNICIPIUL TARGU SECUIESC TARGU SECUIESC 16.940 ORAS COVASNA COVASNA 9.648 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 201 HAMAP 2. 15: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Covasna County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 202 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 16. DÂMBOVIȚA County TABLE 2. 16: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Dâmbovița County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 5 1,4 4.279 1,0 Medium-low development 40 11,1 14.598 3,3 Medium development 77 21,3 103.156 23,6 Medium-high development 208 57,6 214.184 49,0 Comprehensive development 31 8,6 100.895 23,1 TOTAL 361 100 437.112 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ANINOASA ANINOASA 2.347 ANINOASA SATENI 1.523 ANINOASA VIFORITA 2.474 BRANESTI BRANESTI 3.171 BRANESTI PRIBOIU 926 CREVEDIA CREVEDIA 2.925 CREVEDIA COCANI 616 CREVEDIA DIRZA 2.082 CREVEDIA MINASTIREA 898 CREVEDIA SAMURCASI 1.229 DARMANESTI DARMANESTI 3.664 DRAGODANA BOBOCI 627 GURA FOII GURA FOII 1.068 MOTAIENI MOTAIENI 1.512 MUNICIPIUL MORENI MORENI 18.687 LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 203 Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ORAS FIENI FIENI 6.203 ORAS GAESTI GAESTI 13.317 ORAS PUCIOASA PUCIOASA 11.009 ORAS TITU TITU 7.063 RAZVAD RAZVAD 4.266 RAZVAD VALEA VOIVOZILOR 3.023 SOTINGA TEIS 2.489 TARTASESTI TARTASESTI 2.305 TARTASESTI BILDANA 2.047 TARTASESTI GULIA 1.522 ULMI ULMI 1.239 ULMI COLANU 289 ULMI DUMBRAVA 583 ULMI UDRESTI 216 ULMI VIISOARA 1.370 VULCANA-PANDELE LACULETE-GARA 205 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 204 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 16: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Dâmbovița County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 205 17. DOLJ County TABLE 2. 17: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Dolj County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 65 18,6 18.817 4,9 Medium-low development 163 46,7 143.,877 37,1 Medium development 75 21,5 129.513 33,4 Medium-high development 42 12,0 77.638 20,0 Comprehensive development 4 1,1 17.466 4,5 TOTAL 349 100 387.311 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) CARCEA CARCEA 3.424 MALU MARE PREAJBA 1.467 ORAS FILIASI FILIASI 12.067 SIMNICU DE SUS DUDOVICESTI 508 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis 206 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 17: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Dolj County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 207 18. GALAȚI County TABLE 2. 18: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Galați County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 35 20,2 12.136 4,9 Medium-low development 83 48,0 99.198 40,1 Medium development 45 26,0 116.462 47,1 Medium-high development 6 3,5 11.220 4,5 Comprehensive development 4 2,3 8.151 3,3 TOTAL 173 100 247.167 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) SENDRENI SENDRENI 2.405 SMIRDAN SMIRDAN 2.540 VINATORI VINATORI 2.271 VINATORI COSTI 935 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 208 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 18: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Galați County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 209 19. GIURGIU County TABLE 2. 19: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Giurgiu County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 17 10,4 4.983 2,3 Medium-low development 66 40,2 68.735 31,6 Medium development 47 28,7 77.025 35,4 Medium-high development 33 20,1 65.243 30,0 Comprehensive development 1 0,6 1.700 0,8 TOTAL 164 100 217.686 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) JOITA BICU 1.700 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 210 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 19: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Giurgiu County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 211 20. GORJ County TABLE 2. 20: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Gorj County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 3 0,7 270 0,1 Medium-low development 74 18,0 16.131 6,2 Medium development 68 16,5 45.092 17,5 Medium-high development 249 60,6 144.505 56,0 Comprehensive development 17 4,1 52.187 20,2 TOTAL 411 100 258.185 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) BALESTI BALESTI 1.812 BALESTI CORNESTI 784 BILTENI MOI 1.023 DRAGUTESTI DRAGUTESTI 1.057 DRAGUTESTI CIRBESTI 1.106 DRAGUTESTI IASI-GORJ 927 LELESTI LELESTI 1.286 MUNICIPIUL MOTRU MOTRU 15.518 ORAS BUMBESTI-JIU BUMBESTI-JIU 5.783 ORAS BUMBESTI-JIU CURTISOARA 689 ORAS ROVINARI ROVINARI 11.147 ORAS ROVINARI VIRT 669 ORAS TIRGU CARBUNESTI TIRGU CARBUNESTI 4.491 ORAS TURCENI TURCENI 4.055 ORAS TURCENI JILTU 258 TURCINESTI TURCINESTI 1.113 TURCINESTI CARTIU 469 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 212 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 20: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Gorj County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 213 21. HARGHITA County TABLE 2. 21: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Harghita County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 2 0,9 477 0,2 Medium-low development 40 17,8 10.176 4,3 Medium development 20 8,9 16.245 6,9 Medium-high development 144 64,0 190.148 80,2 Comprehensive development 19 8,4 20.008 8,4 TOTAL 225 100 237.054 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) BRADESTI BRADESTI 1.207 BRADESTI TIRNOVITA 708 CICEU CICEU 2.544 DEALU TIBOD 222 FELICENI FELICENI 808 FELICENI ARVATENI 125 FELICENI OTENI 238 FELICENI POLONITA 334 FELICENI TAURENI 437 FELICENI VALENI 314 LELICENI FITOD 478 LELICENI LELICENI 424 ORAS BAILE TUSNAD BAILE TUSNAD 1.629 ORAS CRISTURU SECUIESC CRISTURU SECUIESC 7.836 ORAS VLAHITA BAILE HOMOROD 84 214 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) PAULENI-CIUC PAULENI-CIUC 605 PAULENI-CIUC DELNITA 647 PAULENI-CIUC SOIMENI 579 SECUIENI BODOGAIA 789 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 215 MAP 2. 21: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Harghita County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 216 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 22. HUNEDOARA County TABLE 2. 22: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Hunedoara County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 3 0,9 280 0,1 Medium-low development 64 19,1 9.581 3,8 Medium development 10 3,0 4.538 1,8 Medium-high development 230 68,7 175.515 70,1 Comprehensive development 28 8,4 60.453 24,1 TOTAL 335 100 250.367 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) BACIA BACIA 743 BACIA TIMPA 722 HARAU BIRSAU 562 ILIA ILIA 1.622 MUNICIPIUL ORASTIE ORASTIE 18.227 ORAS CALAN CALAN 8.006 ORAS CALAN STREISINGEORGIU 558 ORAS CALAN BATIZ 488 ORAS CALAN CALANU MIC 133 ORAS CALAN NADASTIA DE JOS 288 ORAS CALAN OHABA STRAIULUI 121 ORAS GEOAGIU AUREL VLAICU 789 ORAS GEOAGIU GELMAR 454 ORAS GEOAGIU GEOAGIU-BAI 391 ORAS HATEG HATEG 8.644 LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 217 Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ORAS HATEG NALATVAD 328 ORAS SIMERIA SIMERIA 10.117 ORAS SIMERIA CARPINIS 231 ORAS SIMERIA SIMERIA VECHE 391 ORAS SIMERIA SINTANDREI 670 ORAS SIMERIA SAULESTI 311 ORAS SIMERIA UROI 388 SANTAMARIA-ORLEA SANTAMARIA-ORLEA 769 SOIMUS SOIMUS 1.204 TELIUCU INFERIOR TELIUCU INFERIOR 1.295 TURDAS PRICAZ 1.077 VETEL VETEL 879 VETEL MINTIA 1.045 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 218 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 22: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Hunedoara County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 219 23. IALOMIȚA County TABLE 2. 23: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Ialomița County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 9 7,7 2.059 1,1 Medium-low development 59 50,4 67.498 35,5 Medium development 35 29,9 70.922 37,3 Medium-high development 13 11,1 34.264 18,0 Comprehensive development 1 0,9 15.308 8,1 TOTAL 117 100 190.051 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) MUNICIPIUL URZICENI URZICENI 15.308 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 220 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 23: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Ialomița County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 221 24. IAȘI County TABLE 2. 24: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Iași County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 81 20,7 27.630 6,7 Medium-low development 191 48,8 193.532 46,6 Medium development 73 18,7 97.098 23,4 Medium-high development 27 6,9 50.033 12,0 Comprehensive development 19 4,9 47.191 11,4 TOTAL 391 100 415.484 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ARONEANU ARONEANU 1.401 BIRNOVA BIRNOVA 1.468 BIRNOVA PAUN 1.276 BIRNOVA PIETRARIA 763 BIRNOVA VISAN 1.111 CIUREA HLINCEA 443 CIUREA LUNCA CETATUII 6.227 HOLBOCA HOLBOCA 2.737 HOLBOCA CRISTESTI 681 HOLBOCA DANCU 6.444 MIROSLAVA MIROSLAVA 2.221 MIROSLAVA HORPAZ 1.513 MIROSLAVA VALEA ADINCA 3.053 MIROSLAVA VALEA URSULUI 310 REDIU REDIU 1.889 222 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) REDIU BREAZU 1.430 TOMESTI TOMESTI 8.126 TOMESTI CHICEREA 1.116 VALEA LUPULUI VALEA LUPULUI 4.982 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 223 MAP 2. 24: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Iași County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 224 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 25. ILFOV County TABLE 2. 25: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Ilfov County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 0 0,0 - - Medium-low development 5 4,9 3.098 0,9 Medium development 7 6,9 8.677 2,5 Medium-high development 31 30,4 58.327 16,9 Comprehensive development 59 57,8 275.655 79,7 TOTAL 102 100 345.757 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) 1 DECEMBRIE 1 DECEMBRIE 7.817 AFUMATI AFUMATI 7.919 BALOTESTI BALOTESTI 6.286 BALOTESTI DUMBRAVENI 519 BALOTESTI SAFTICA 1.509 BERCENI BERCENI 5.942 BRANESTI BRANESTI 7.305 BRANESTI ISLAZ 1.609 BRANESTI PASAREA 1.325 BRANESTI VADU ANEI 128 CERNICA BALACEANCA 2.865 CHIAJNA CHIAJNA 4.511 CHIAJNA DUDU 1.728 CHIAJNA ROSU 8.020 CIOROGIRLA CIOROGIRLA 3.919 CLINCENI CLINCENI 4.708 CLINCENI OLTENI 1.881 CLINCENI ORDOREANU 219 LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 225 Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) CORBEANCA CORBEANCA 2.475 CORBEANCA OSTRATU 1.623 CORBEANCA PETRESTI 943 CORBEANCA TAMASI 2.031 CORNETU CORNETU 6.040 CORNETU BUDA 284 DOBROESTI DOBROESTI 5.274 DOBROESTI FUNDENI 4.051 DOMNESTI DOMNESTI 7.910 DOMNESTI TEGHES 772 DRAGOMIRESTI-VALE DRAGOMIRESTI-VALE 1.579 DRAGOMIRESTI-VALE DRAGOMIRESTI-DEAL 2.669 DRAGOMIRESTI-VALE ZURBAUA 995 GANEASA GANEASA 861 GLINA CATELU 2.790 GLINA MANOLACHE 308 JILAVA JILAVA 12.223 MOARA VLASIEI MOARA VLASIEI 4.411 MOARA VLASIEI CACIULATI 1.896 MOGOSOAIA MOGOSOAIA 7.625 ORAS BRAGADIRU BRAGADIRU 15.329 ORAS BUFTEA BUFTEA 19.202 ORAS CHITILA CHITILA 12.768 ORAS MAGURELE MAGURELE 5.760 ORAS MAGURELE ALUNISU 1.610 ORAS MAGURELE DUMITRANA 816 ORAS MAGURELE VARTEJU 2,641 ORAS OTOPENI OTOPENI 12.540 ORAS OTOPENI ODAILE 1.321 ORAS PANTELIMON PANTELIMON 25.596 ORAS POPESTI LEORDENI POPESTI LEORDENI 21.895 PERIS PERIS 5.682 PERIS BALTENI 484 SNAGOV SNAGOV 1.763 SNAGOV CIOFLICENI 1.223 SNAGOV GHERMANESTI 2.560 SNAGOV TINCABESTI 1.385 SNAGOV VLADICEASCA 341 STEFANESTII DE JOS STEFANESTII DE SUS 2.433 TUNARI TUNARI 5.007 TUNARI DIMIENI 329 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 226 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 25: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Ilfov County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 227 26. MARAMUREȘ County TABLE 2. 26: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Maramureș County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Village Type of Local Human Development Population (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 4 1,7 717 0,2 Medium-low development 41 17,7 12.922 4,1 Medium development 68 29,3 107.924 34,2 Medium-high development 105 45,3 165.834 52,5 Comprehensive development 14 6,0 28.540 9,0 TOTAL 232 100 315.937 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) GROSI GROSI 1.315 GROSI OCOLIS 487 GROSI SATU NOU DE JOS 1.055 ORAS BAIA SPRIE BAIA SPRIE 10.633 ORAS BAIA SPRIE TAUTII DE SUS 3.093 ORAS BAIA SPRIE SATU NOU DE SUS 1.093 ORAS TAUTII-MAGHERAUS TAUTII-MAGHERAUS 2.761 ORAS TAUTII-MAGHERAUS BAITA 1.686 ORAS TAUTII-MAGHERAUS BUSAG 548 ORAS TAUTII-MAGHERAUS MERISOR 265 RECEA RECEA 1.187 RECEA LAPUSEL 1.446 RECEA MOCIRA 955 RECEA SASAR 2.016 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 228 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 26: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Maramureș County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 229 27. MEHEDINȚI County TABLE 2. 27: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Mehedinți County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 79 25,0 17.776 10,6 Medium-low development 142 44,9 66.604 39,6 Medium development 53 16,8 37.939 22,5 Medium-high development 41 13,0 42.197 25,1 Comprehensive development 1 0,3 3.844 2,3 TOTAL 316 100 168.360 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) SIMIAN SIMIAN 3.844 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 230 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 27: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Mehedinți County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 231 28. MUREȘ County TABLE 2. 28: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Mureș County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 29 6,8 6.463 1,7 Medium-low development 130 30,4 35.372 9,4 Medium development 96 22,4 88.967 23,6 Medium-high development 151 35,3 157.947 42,0 Comprehensive development 22 5,1 87.634 23,3 TOTAL 428 100 376.383 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ALBESTI ALBESTI 3.546 CEUASU DE CIMPIE VOINICENI 1.144 CORUNCA BOZENI 136 CORUNCA CORUNCA 2.649 CRISTESTI CRISTESTI 4.754 GANESTI SEUCA 1.163 GHEORGHE DOJA LEORDENI 396 LIVEZENI LIVEZENI 2.225 LIVEZENI IVANESTI 472 MUNICIPIUL SIGHISOARA SIGHISOARA 25.605 ORAS IERNUT IERNUT 5.382 ORAS LUDUS LUDUS 12.486 ORAS UNGHENI UNGHENI 3.803 ORAS UNGHENI CERGHIZEL 468 PANET SINTIOANA DE MURES 1.393 SINCRAIU DE MURES SINCRAIU DE MURES 5.385 SINCRAIU DE MURES NAZNA 2.104 232 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) SINGEORGIU DE MURES SINGEORGIU DE MURES 8.800 SINTANA DE MURES SINTANA DE MURES 3.441 SINTANA DE MURES BARDESTI 546 SINTANA DE MURES CHINARI 698 SINTANA DE MURES CURTENI 1.038 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 233 MAP 2. 28: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Mureș County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 234 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 29. NEAMȚ County TABLE 2. 29: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Neamț County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 63 19,0 14.798 4,5 Medium-low development 100 30,1 64.804 19,8 Medium development 100 30,1 143.086 43,7 Medium-high development 61 18,4 92.261 28,2 Comprehensive development 8 2,4 12.436 3,8 TOTAL 332 100 327.385 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ALEXANDRU CEL BUN VIISOARA 622 ALEXANDRU CEL BUN BISERICANI 95 ALEXANDRU CEL BUN BISTRITA 1.881 ALEXANDRU CEL BUN VADURI 755 ALEXANDRU CEL BUN VADURELE 1.085 DUMBRAVA ROSIE DUMBRAVA ROSIE 2.957 ORAS BICAZ BICAZ 3.387 ORAS BICAZ DODENI 1.654 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 235 MAP 2. 29: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Neamț County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 236 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 30. OLT County TABLE 2. 30: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Olt County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 47 12,7 11.432 3,5 Medium-low development 188 50,7 123.481 37,5 Medium development 114 30,7 131.501 40,0 Medium-high development 22 5,9 62.570 19,0 Comprehensive development 0 0,0 - - TOTAL 371 100 328.984 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) No locality with comprehensive development was identified in Olt county. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 237 MAP 2. 30: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Olt County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 238 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 31. Judeţul PRAHOVA TABLE 2. 31: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Prahova County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 7 1,6 977 0,2 Medium-low development 66 15,5 25.051 4,8 Medium development 95 22,2 98.792 19,1 Medium-high development 199 46,6 221.714 42,8 Comprehensive development 60 14,1 171.579 33,1 TOTAL 427 100 518.113 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ARICESTII RAHTIVANI ARICESTII RAHTIVANI 2.721 ARICESTII RAHTIVANI BUDA 496 ARICESTII RAHTIVANI NEDELEA 2.449 ARICESTII RAHTIVANI STOENESTI 1.379 ARICESTII RAHTIVANI TIRGSORU NOU 1.659 BANESTI BANESTI 3.096 BANESTI URLETA 2.144 BARCANESTI BARCANESTI 3.226 BARCANESTI GHIGHIU 755 BARCANESTI TATARANI 3.013 BERCENI CARTIERUL DIMBU 465 BERCENI CORLATESTI 1.432 BLEJOI BLEJOI 3.638 BLEJOI PLOIESTIORI 3.222 BLEJOI TINTARENI 1.715 LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 239 Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) BRAZI BATESTI 1.716 BREBU BREBU MEGIESESC 2.613 BUCOV BUCOV 4.783 BUCOV CHITORANI 1.212 BUCOV PLEASA 4.123 CORNU CORNU DE JOS 3.456 CORNU CORNU DE SUS 1.060 FLORESTI CATINA 1.205 LIPANESTI LIPANESTI 2.160 LIPANESTI SIPOTU 2.354 LIPANESTI ZAMFIRA 652 MAGURELE MAGURELE 3.297 ORAS AZUGA AZUGA 4.440 ORAS BAICOI BAICOI 11.047 ORAS BAICOI LILIESTI 2.807 ORAS BAICOI SCHELA 438 ORAS BAICOI TUFENI 930 ORAS BAICOI TINTEA 1,396 ORAS BOLDESTI-SCAENI BOLDESTI-SCAENI 10,105 ORAS BREAZA BREAZA DE JOS 4,292 ORAS BREAZA BREAZA DE SUS 6.068 ORAS BREAZA FRASINET 509 ORAS BREAZA PODU VADULUI 1.598 ORAS BREAZA GURA BELIEI 935 ORAS BUSTENI BUSTENI 6.376 ORAS BUSTENI POIANA TAPULUI 2.518 ORAS COMARNIC COMARNIC 3.667 ORAS COMARNIC POSADA 1.359 ORAS PLOPENI PLOPENI 7.718 ORAS SINAIA SINAIA 10.410 ORAS VALENII DE MUNTE VALENII DE MUNTE 12.257 PAULESTI PAULESTI 2.401 PAULESTI COCOSESTI 914 PAULESTI GAGENI 2.143 PAULESTI PAULESTII NOI 428 POIANA CAMPINA POIANA CAMPINA 3.097 POIANA CAMPINA BOBOLIA 1.032 POIANA CAMPINA PIETRISU 510 POIANA CAMPINA RAGMAN 107 SCORTENI MISLEA 1.910 TELEGA DOFTANA 465 TIRGSORU VECHI STREJNICU 6.108 240 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) TIRGSORU VECHI ZAHANAUA 220 VALEA CALUGAREASCA VALEA CALUGAREASCA 2.419 VALEA CALUGAREASCA VALEA POPII 914 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 241 MAP 2. 31: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Prahova County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 242 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 32. SATU MARE County TABLE 2. 32: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Satu Mare County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 10 4,6 2.777 1,2 Medium-low development 47 21,5 16.363 6,9 Medium development 70 32,0 65.394 27,4 Medium-high development 85 38,8 115.567 48,4 Comprehensive development 7 3,2 38.595 16,2 TOTAL 219 100 238.696 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) CAMIN CAMIN 1.388 CAPLENI CAPLENI 3.031 MUNICIPIUL CAREI CAREI 20.775 ODOREU MARTINESTI 607 ORAS NEGRESTI-OAS NEGRESTI-OAS 10.334 PAULESTI PAULESTI 1.231 URZICENI URZICENI 1.229 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 243 MAP 2. 32: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Satu Mare County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 244 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 33. SĂLAJ County TABLE 2. 33: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Sălaj County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 18 6,9 2.755 1,7 Medium-low development 92 35,4 27.161 16,3 Medium development 55 21,2 46.933 28,1 Medium-high development 92 35,4 68.287 40,9 Comprehensive development 3 1,2 21.807 13,1 TOTAL 260 100 166.943 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) CRISENI CRISENI 1.403 ORAS JIBOU JIBOU 8.751 ORAS SIMLEU SILVANIEI SIMLEU SILVANIEI 11.653 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 245 MAP 2. 33: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Sălaj County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 246 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 34. SIBIU County TABLE 2. 34: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Sibiu County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 4 2,4 993 0,5 Medium-low development 34 20,7 13.597 6,8 Medium development 22 13,4 23.744 11,9 Medium-high development 77 47,0 84.609 42,6 Comprehensive development 27 16,5 75.842 38,2 TOTAL 164 100 198.785 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ALMA ALMA 787 AXENTE SEVER AXENTE SEVER 2.114 AXENTE SEVER AGIRBICIU 1.269 CRISTIAN CRISTIAN 3.665 DIRLOS DIRLOS 1.883 ORAS AVRIG AVRIG 8.637 ORAS AVRIG BRADU 938 ORAS AVRIG MIRSA 2.436 ORAS CISNADIE CISNADIE 13.838 ORAS CISNADIE CISNADIOARA 444 ORAS COPSA MICA COPSA MICA 5.404 ORAS OCNA SIBIULUI OCNA SIBIULUI 3.422 ORAS TALMACIU TALMACIU 5.476 LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 247 Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) ORLAT ORLAT 3.205 POPLACA POPLACA 1.802 SADU SADU 2.365 SEICA MICA SEICA MICA 1.064 SELIMBAR SELIMBAR 4.180 SELIMBAR BUNGARD 568 SELIMBAR MOHU 697 SELIMBAR VESTEM 1.583 SLIMNIC SLIMNIC 2.569 SURA MARE SURA MARE 2.974 SURA MARE HAMBA 795 SURA MICA SURA MICA 1.854 VALEA VIILOR VALEA VIILOR 1.362 VALEA VIILOR MOTIS 511 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 248 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 34: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Sibiu County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 249 35. SUCEAVA County TABLE 2. 35: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Suceava County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 15 3,8 5.818 1,1 Medium-low development 107 27,0 41.796 7,8 Medium development 146 36,8 209.997 39,0 Medium-high development 119 30,0 199.425 37,0 Comprehensive development 10 2,5 81.808 15,2 TOTAL 397 100 538.844 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) IPOTESTI IPOTESTI 3.759 IPOTESTI LISAURA 879 IPOTESTI TISAUTI 997 MOARA BULAI 1.036 MUNICIPIUL FALTICENI FALTICENI 24.066 MUNICIPIUL RADAUTI RADAUTI 23.822 ORAS GURA HUMORULUI GURA HUMORULUI 12.985 ORAS SIRET SIRET 7.031 SCHEIA SCHEIA 3.445 SCHEIA SFINTU ILIE 3.788 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 250 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 35: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Suceava County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 251 36. TELEORMAN County TABLE 2. 36: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Teleorman County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 41 18,0 14.356 4,4 Medium-low development 147 64,5 160.715 48,9 Medium development 33 14,5 69.393 21,1 Medium-high development 7 3,1 84.146 25,6 Comprehensive development 0 0,0 - - TOTAL 228 100 328.610 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) No locality with comprehensive development was identified in Teleorman county. 252 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 36: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Teleorman County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 253 37. TIMIȘ County TABLE 2. 37: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Timiș County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 0 0,0 - - Medium-low development 50 17,5 14.823 4,7 Medium development 29 10,1 19.762 6,2 Medium-high development 167 58,4 182.826 57,4 Comprehensive development 40 14,0 101.340 31,8 TOTAL 286 100 318.751 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) BILED BILED 3.294 COMLOSU MARE COMLOSU MIC 853 DAROVA DAROVA 1.818 DUMBRAVITA DUMBRAVITA 7.522 GHIRODA GHIRODA 4.605 GHIRODA GIARMATA-VII 1.595 GIARMATA GIARMATA 5.210 GIARMATA CERNETEAZ 1.292 GIROC GIROC 5.652 GIROC CHISODA 2.736 JEBEL JEBEL 3.584 LOVRIN LOVRIN 3.223 MOSNITA NOUA MOSNITA NOUA 2.833 MOSNITA NOUA ALBINA 386 MOSNITA NOUA MOSNITA VECHE 1.590 254 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) MOSNITA NOUA RUDICICA 79 MOSNITA NOUA URSENI 1.315 ORAS BUZIAS BUZIAS 4.746 ORAS BUZIAS BACOVA 1.500 ORAS DETA DETA 5.553 ORAS RECAS RECAS 4.722 ORTISOARA ORTISOARA 2.289 PARTA PARTA 2.172 PECIU NOU PECIU NOU 3.092 PECIU NOU DINIAS 969 PECIU NOU SINMARTINU SIRBESC 921 PISCHIA PISCHIA 1.116 SACALAZ SACALAZ 4.596 SACALAZ BEREGSAU MARE 1.747 SACALAZ BEREGSAU MIC 861 SAG SAG 3.009 SANDRA SANDRA 2.286 SINANDREI SINANDREI 3.065 SINANDREI CARANI 1.773 SINANDREI COVACI 879 SINMIHAIU ROMAN SINMIHAIU ROMAN 2.805 SINMIHAIU ROMAN SINMIHAIU GERMAN 865 SINMIHAIU ROMAN UTVIN 2.451 VICTOR VLAD DELAMARINA VICTOR VLAD DELAMARINA 398 VOITEG VOITEG 1.938 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 255 MAP 2. 37: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Timiș County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis 256 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 38. TULCEA County TABLE 2. 38: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Tulcea County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 10 8,9 1.865 1,4 Medium-low development 37 33,0 24.804 18,3 Medium development 44 39,3 63.707 47,0 Medium-high development 20 17,9 44.277 32,7 Comprehensive development 1 0,9 829 0,6 TOTAL 112 100 135.482 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) BAIA CEAMURLIA DE SUS 829 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 257 MAP 2. 38: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Tulcea County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 258 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 39. VASLUI County TABLE 2. 39: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Vaslui County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 194 46,5 57.427 20,7 Medium-low development 192 46,0 146.604 52,9 Medium development 24 5,8 37.898 13,7 Medium-high development 7 1,7 35.061 12,7 Comprehensive development 0 0,0 - - TOTAL 417 100 276.990 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) No locality with comprehensive development was identified in Vaslui county. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 259 MAP 2. 39: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Vaslui County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 260 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 40. VÂLCEA County TABLE 2. 40: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Vâlcea County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 24 4,6 3.436 1,4 Medium-low development 238 45,6 62.072 24,4 Medium development 86 16,5 58.714 23,1 Medium-high development 151 28,9 96.859 38,1 Comprehensive development 23 4,4 33.283 13,1 TOTAL 522 100 254.364 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) BUDESTI BUDESTI 1.376 BUDESTI LINIA 627 BUDESTI RACOVITA 890 BUJORENI OLTENI 1.082 BUJORENI BUJORENI 320 BUJORENI MALU ALB 207 MIHAESTI BULETA 880 MIHAESTI ARSANCA 260 MIHAESTI BIRSESTI 725 MIHAESTI GOVORA 339 MIHAESTI MAGURA 621 MIHAESTI MUNTENI 245 MIHAESTI NEGRENI 440 LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 261 Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) MIHAESTI RUGETU 247 MUNICIPIUL DRAGASANI DRAGASANI 16.405 ORAS BABENI TATARANI 338 ORAS CALIMANESTI CACIULATA 229 ORAS CALIMANESTI PAUSA 367 ORAS HOREZU HOREZU 3.496 PAUSESTI-MAGLASI PAUSESTI-MAGLASI 810 PAUSESTI-MAGLASI VLADUCENI 736 VLADESTI VLADESTI 1.547 VLADESTI PRIPORU 1.096 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. 262 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 40: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Vâlcea County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | 263 41. VRANCEA County TABLE 2. 41: List of rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Vrancea County (A) Distribution by type of Local Human Development Type of Local Human Village Population Development (SIRUTA unit) Number % Number % Lowest development 71 21,5 21.825 8,4 Medium-low development 149 45,2 72.748 27,9 Medium development 74 22,4 99.041 38,0 Medium-high development 31 9,4 58.969 22,6 Comprehensive development 5 1,5 8.184 3,1 TOTAL 330 100 260.767 100 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. (B) The list of localities with the highest LHDI (comprehensive development) Administrative Unit Village Population (SIRSUP unit) (SIRUTA unit) (locuitori) CIMPINEANCA CIMPINEANCA 1.992 CIMPINEANCA VILCELE 1.020 GOLESTI GOLESTI 3.489 GOLESTI CEARDAC 626 VINATORI PETRESTI 1.057 Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis 264 | LOCAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MAP 2. 41: Rural and small urban localities (SIRINF units) by level of local human development in Vrancea County Source: Word Bank estimations based on 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Analysis at the village (SIRUTA unit) level for all rural and small urban (with less than 30,000 inhabitants) administrative units. Villages and component localities of small towns with less than 50 inhabitants were not included in the analysis. REFERENCES | 265 References Anan, K., Karacsony, S., Anton, S., Balica, M., Botonogu, F., Catana, A., Dan, A., Danchev, P., Farcasanu, D., Ferre, C., Florescu, R., Grigoras, V., Ionita, S., Ivasiuc, A., Kits, B., Kullman, A., de Laat, J., Magheru, M., Mathema, A., Mihalache, C., Moarcas, M., Ofiteru, L., Rokx, C., Rostas, I., Stanculescu, M. S., Swinkels, R., Tan, L., Thapa, D., and Weber, M. (2014) Achieving Roma inclusion in Romania : what does it take? (Vol. 2). Raport final. Washington D.C.: Grupul Băncii Mondiale. Disponibil la adresa: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/02/19362999/achieving-roma-inclusion- romania-take-vol-2-2-final-report Banca Mondială (2009) World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography. /www-wds.worldbank.org/ Washington D.C.: Grupul Băncii Mondiale. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/12/03/000333038_2008120323495 8/Rendered/PDF/437380REVISED01BLIC1097808213760720.pdf Bădescu, G., Grigoraş, V., Rughiniş, C., Voicu, M., and Voicu, O. (2007) Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor. Fundația pentru o Societate Deschisă, București. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ /www.edrc.ro/ docs/docs/cercetari/Barometrul-incluziunii-romilor.pdf Berescu, C., Celac, M., Ciobanu, O. și Manolache, C. (2006) Locuirea şi sărăcia extremă. Cazul romilor. Bucuresti: Editura Universitară Ion Mincu. Berescu, C., Celac M., Botonogu F, Marin V. și Balteanu A. (2007) Metodologie de reabilitare a locuirii în zone afectate de degradare fizică şi excluziune socială. Raport nepublicat pregătit pentru Ministerul Dezvoltării Regional și Administrației Publice. Berescu C. (2010) Locuire și sărăcie. O privire interdisciplinară asupra spațiului locuirii sărace. Teză de doctorat nepublicată. Universitatea de Arhitectura si Urbanism Ion Mincu Bucuresti. Botonogu, F. (coord.) (2011) Ferentari. Comunităţi ascunse. Centrul de Politici pentru Roma și Minorităţi, București: Expert. Chelcea, L. (2000) ”Grupuri marginale în zone centrale: gentrificare, drepturi de proprietate și acumulare primitivă postsocialistă în Bucuresti”. In Sociologie Românească, Nr. 3-4, 51-68. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ /www.arsociologie.ro/sociologieromaneasca/arhiva/21-revista- sociologie-romaneasca/rezumate/887-chelcea-3-4-2000 Chircă, C., Teşliuc, E. (coord) (1999) De la sărăcie la dezvoltare rurală, Banca Mondială și Comisia Națională pentru Statistică, București. Colini, L., Czischke, D., Güntner, S., Tosics, I., and Ramsden, P. (2013) Against divided cities in Europe. Cities of Tomorrow – Action Today. URBACT II Capitalisation. Disponibil la adresa: file:/ /C:/Users/ / Georgiana/Downloads/19765_Urbact_WS4_DIVIDED_low_FINAL.pdf Comisia Europeană (2011) Cities of Tomorrow: challenges, visions, ways forward. DG Regional /ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/ Policy. Bruxelles: Comisia Europeană. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ sources/docgener/studies/pdf/citiesoftomorrow/citiesoftomorrow_final.pdf Comisia Europeană (2013) Common Guidance of the European Commission’ Directorates-General Agri, Empl, Mare and Regio on community-led local development in European Structural and Investment Fund. Versiune draft - 30 ianuarie 2013. Brussels: Comisia Europeană. Disponibil la /www.mdrap.ro/userfiles/espon_CLLD_guidance_2013_01_30%201.pdf adresa: http:/ Constantinescu, M., Niţulescu, D., Băjenaru, C. (2005) “Zone precare de locuire în spaţiul urban”, in Calitatea Vieţii, XVI, nr. 1–2, pp. 65–85, Disponibil la adresa: http:/ /www.iccv.ro/oldiccv/romana/ revista/rcalvit/pdf/cv2005.1-2.a04.pdf. 266 | REFERENCES Daragiu, M., Daragiu, L.A. (2012) Liderii romi şi contribuţia acestora în procesul de incluziune socială a comunităţilor. Studiu de caz în judeţul Bihor. Fundaţia Ruhama, www.ruhama.ro Duminică, G., Preda, M. (2003) Accesul romilor pe piaţa muncii. București: Editura Cărţii de Agribusiness. Disponibil la adresa: http://www.agentiaimpreuna.ro/files/publicatii/Accesul_ romilor_pe_piata_muncii.pdf Emery, M., Flora, C. (2006) “Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework”, in Community Development, 37(1), 19-35. Fleck, G., Rughinis, C. (eds.) (2008) Come Closer. Inclusion and Exclusion of Roma in Present Day. Romanian Society. Human Dynamics. Disponibil la adresa: https:/ /www.academia.edu/285918/ Come_Closer._Inclusion_and_Exclusion_of_Roma_In_Present_Day_Romanian_Society FRA - European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, PNUD și Comisia Europeană (2012) The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States. Survey results at a glance. Raport pregătit de FRA și PNUD pentru Comisia Europeană, în baza studiului regional privind romii realizat de PNUD/BM/ /fra. EC în 2011. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/2099-FRA-2012-Roma-at-a-glance_EN.pdf Giurcă, D. (coord.) (2012) Incluziunea romilor din România: politici, instituţii, experienţe. Proiect “EU INCLUSIVE – transfer de date şi experienţe privind integrarea pe piaţa muncii a romilor între România, Bulgaria, Italia şi Spania” POSDRU/98/6.4/S/63841, implementat de Fundația Soros /www.soros.ro/ro/program_articol.php?articol=400# România. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ Groza, O. (coord), Muntele, I., Ţurcănaşu, G., Rusu, A., Boamfă, I., Atlas Teritorial al României. Instrument de analiză teritorială, Disponibil la adresa: http:/ /www.mdrl.ro/_documente/atlas/index. htm. ICCV – Institutul de Cercetare a Calității Vieții (2010) Legal şi egal pe piaţa muncii pentru comunităţile de romi. Diagnoza factorilor care influenţează nivelul de ocupare la populaţia de romi din România. Project ”L@EGAL 2 – investiţie europeană pentru viitorul romilor din România” POSDRU/70/6.2./S/30873. București: Fundația Soros România. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ /www. fundatia.ro/sites/default/files/Raport%20-%20Legal%20si%20egal.pdf Ionescu-Heroiu, M., Burduja, S. I., Sandu, D., Cojocaru, St., Blankespoor, B., Iorga, E., Moretti, E., Moldovan, C., Man, T., Rus, R. și van der Weide, R. (2013a) Romania - Competitive cities: reshaping the economic geography of Romania. Romania regional development program. Washington D.C.: Banca Mondială. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ /documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/12/19060303/ romania-competitive-cities-reshaping-economic-geography-romania-vol-1-2-full-report MADR - Ministerul Agriculturii şi Dezvoltării Rurale (2013) Programul Naţional de Dezvoltare Rurală, Versiunea Noiembrie 2013. Disponibil la adresa: www.pndr.ro. McLennan, D., Barnes, H., Noble, M., Davies, J., Garratt, E., & Dibben, C. (2011) The English indices of deprivation 2010. London: Department for Communities and Local Government, Available at: https:/ / www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6871/1871208.pdf Pop, L. (coord.) (2004) Harta saraciei in Romania Metodologia utilizata si prezentarea rezultatelor, Raport pregătit pentru Comisia Prezidențială Anti-sărăcie și Incluziune Socială (CASPIS) de către /sedac. Universitatea din București și Institutul Național de Statistică, Disponibil la adresa: http:/ ciesin.columbia.edu/povmap/downloads/methods/Harta_saraciei_in_Romania.pdf Preda, M. (coord) (2009) Riscuri şi inechităţi sociale în România. Raportul Comisiei Prezidențiale pentru Analiza Riscurilor Sociale şi Demografice. Iasi: Polirom. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ /www. presidency.ro/static/CPARSDR_raport_extins.pdf Preoteasa, A. M., Cace, S., and Duminică, G. (coord.) (2009) Strategia naţională de îmbunătăţire a situaţiei romilor: vocea comunităţilor. Agenţia de Dezvoltare Comunitară ”Împreună”. Disponibil la adresa: http://www.agentiaimpreuna.ro/files/publicatii/10-RAPORT_tipar-p-ro.pdf REFERENCES | 267 RegGov - Regional Governance of Sustainable Integrated development of Deprived Urban Areas (2011) Raport final. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ /www.sodertalje.se/mainupload/dokument/ Kommun%20o%20demokrati/Politik%20och%20p%C3%A5verkan/Kommunstyrelsen/Samma ntr%C3%A4deshandlingar/2011/2011-10-27/13T_KS20111027.pdf Rughiniş, C. (2000) “Proiecte de dezvoltare în comunități de romi: echilibrarea unei relații asimetrice”, in Revista de Cercetări Sociale, Nr. 3-4: 77-96. Sandu, D. (1998) Rural community poverty in Romania Targets for poverty alleviation by Romania Social Development Fund, World Bank Report. Sandu, D. (2005) Dezvoltare comunitara: cercetare, practică, ideologie. Iași: Polirom. Sandu, D. (2005) Roma Social Mapping Targeting by a Community Poverty Survey, Raport Banca /sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu/ Mondială. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ Sandu, D., Voineagu, V., și Panduru, F. (2009) Development of Comunăs in Romania. Institutul Național de Statistică, Universitatea din București. Sandu, D. (2011) ”Social Disparities in the Regional Development and Policies of Romania”, in International Review of Social Research, Volume 1, Issue 1, February 2011, pp. 1-30, Disponibil la /sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu/ adresa: http:/ Simler, K. (coord.) (2014) Poverty Mapping in Romania Making Better Policies through Better- Targeted Interventions, Raport Comisia Europeană și Banca Mondială. Stănculescu, M. S. (ed.) (1999) Sărăcia în România 1995-1998, Vol. I. Coordonate, dimensiuni şi factori, UNDP Poverty Alleviation Project, București: UNDP. Stănculescu, M. S., Berevoescu, I. (coord.) (2004) Sărac lipit, caut altă viaţă! Fenomenul sărăciei extreme şi al zonelor sărace în România 2001, București: Nemira. Stănculescu, M. S. (2005) K-Typologies of the rural and small urban communities in Romania, Raport Banca Mondială. Stănculescu, M. S. (coord.), Marin, M., Branişte, S. (2010) Calitatea vieţii şi gradul de satisfacţie privind locuirea în cartierul Cetate, municipiul Alba Iulia. Raport final, financed by Asociaţia Intercomunitară de Dezvoltare Alba Iulia, proiect ”Legături între regenerarea urbană, planificarea spaţială – NODUS WG6”, Programul Operaţional de Cooperare Teritorială URBACT. Disponibil la adresa: www.albaiulia- aida.ro/nodus/NODUS%20WG6%20-%20Studiu%20Sociologic%20(Raport%20Final%20 Stănculescu M.S., Marin, M. (2011) ”Using triangulation in targeting social interventions for at-risk- children”, in Review of Research and Social Intervention, vol. 33/2011/iunie, pp. 131-140. Stănculescu, M. S., Marin, M. (2012) Supporting Invisible Children. Evaluation Report. UNICEF, /www.unicef.org/romania/Raport_HIC_engleza. București: Vanemonde. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ pdf Stănculescu, M. S. (coord.) Marin, M., and Popp, A. (2012) Being a Child in Romania. A Multidimensional Diagnosis. UNICEF, București: Vanemonde. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ /www.unicef.org/romania/ Being_a_child.pdf Stănculescu, M.S. (coord.), Anton, S., Iamandi-Cioinaru, C., Corad, B., Neculau, G., and Trocea, A. (2013) Helping invisible children. Second evaluation report. UNICEF, București: Vanemonde. /www.unicef.org/romania/HIC.eng.web.pdf Disponibil la adresa: http:/ Swinkels, R., Stănculescu, M.S., Anton, S., Koo, B., Man, T., and Moldovan, C. (2014a) The Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas in Romania. Project Elaboration of Integration Strategies for Urban Poor and Disadvantaged Communities. Banca Mondială, București. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ /backend. elard.eu/uploads/wb-project-in-ro/atlas_24april_en.pdf 268 | REFERENCES Swinkels, R., Stănculescu, M.S., Anton, S., Corad, B., Iamandi-Cioinaru, C., Neculau, G., Trocea, A., Man, T., Moldovan, C., and Koo, B. (2014b) Integrated Intervention Tool. Project Elaboration of Integration Strategies for Urban Poor and Disadvantaged Communities. Banca Mondială, București. /backend.elard.eu/uploads/wb-project-in-ro/atlas_24april_en.pdf Disponibil la adresa: http:/ Tarnovschi, D. (coord.) (2012) Situaţia romilor în România, 2011. Între incluziune socialã şi migraţie. Raport de țară în cadrul proiectului “EU INCLUSIVE – transfer de date şi experienţe privind integrarea pe piaţa muncii a romilor între România, Bulgaria, Italia şi Spania” POSDRU/98/6.4/S/63841, implementat de Fundația Soros România. Disponibil la adresa: http:/ /www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii. php# Teșliuc, E., Grigoraș, V., Stănculescu, M.S. (coord.) (2015) Studiu de fundamentare pentru strategia națională privind reducerea sărăciei și creșterea incluziunii sociale (2015-2020), Washington: The World Bank, ISBN: 978-973-0-20536-7 UNDP (2013) Human Development Report. The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. New York: UNDP. Voicu, B., Voicu, M. (2004) ”Knowledge Divide”, in Romania Series, Papers No.1-6, Raport Banca Mondială, București. Zamfir, E., Zamfir, C. (coord.) (1993) Ţiganii între ignorare şi îngrijorare. București: Alternative Zamfir, C., Preda, M. (coord.) (2002) Romii în România. București: Expert. 269 | ANNEX Annexes Annex 1: Rural Marginalized Areas ANNEX 1. TABLE 1: Distribution of Census Sectors by Residency and Population Size of the Administrative (SIRSUP), Unit, 2011 Census sectors Number of Administrative unit Total Average number Minimum per Maximum per administrative Resident population: number per locality locality locality units RURAL: 2.861 46.547 16 2 61 119-499 12 85 7 4 11 500-999 76 615 8 3 21 1,000<2,000 663 6.775 10 2 37 2,000<3,000 782 10.783 14 6 36 3,000<7,500 1.236 25.152 20 7 61 7,500<20,000 91 3.107 34 17 58 20,000<30,000 1 30 30 30 30 SMALL TOWNS (*) 253 13.268 52 10 149 1,000<2,000 1 12 12 12 12 2,000<3,000 6 80 13 10 16 3,000<7,500 87 2.675 31 12 62 7,500<20,000 131 7.325 56 27 100 20,000<30,000 28 3.176 113 67 149 Source: World Bank calculations using data from 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: The distribution of census sectors at the village (SIRUTA unit) level is presented in Part I. Table 1. * Small towns are defined as those with fewer than 30,000 inhabitants. Overall in Romania there are 253 small towns. ANNEX | 270 ANNEX 1. TABLE 2: Rates of Marginalization of Key Groups in Rural and Urban Areas, 2011 RURAL: URBAN Non- Marginalized Marginalized Non-marginalized Key indicators marginalized Total Total Areas Areas Areas Areas % % % % % % POPULATION (resident population) 6,2 93,9 100 3,2 96,8 100 Roma ethnicity (self-identified) 38,7 61,3 100 30,8 69,2 100 Non-Roma 4,7 95,3 100 2,6 97,4 100 People with disabilities, chronic diseases, or other health conditions 4,9 95,1 100 3,4 96,6 100 Elderly 65+ years old 4,1 95,9 100 1,2 98,8 100 Children 0-17 years old 9,6 90,4 100 5,8 94,2 100 Population 15-64 years old who completed 4 grades or less 21,0 79,0 100 18,2 81,8 100 Population 15-64 years old who completed 8 grades or less 9,9 90,1 100 8,8 91,2 100 Working age population (15-64 years old) not in education 5,8 94,2 100 2,9 97,1 100 Proportion of people aged 15-64 years old neither in education nor have ever 21 79 100 6,3 93,7 100 been in formal employment (employees, employers, or pensioners) HOUSEHOLDS 100 2,6 97,4 100 Households with 5+ members 8,3 91,7 100 6,4 93,6 100 Households with 3+ children 15,9 84,1 100 14,8 85,2 100 DWELLINGS 5,2 94,8 100 2,5 97,5 100 Dwellings not connected to piped water 9,9 90,1 100 11,9 88,1 100 Dwellings not connected to sewage system 7,8 92,2 100 11,9 88,1 100 Dwellings not connected to electricity 26,6 73,4 100 24,7 75,3 100 Overcrowded dwellings* 10,7 89,3 100 4,0 96,0 100 Households with insecure tenure 5,9 94,1 100 7,3 92,7 100 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. For urban areas, Swinkels et al (2014a: 281). Notes: * In urban areas, overcrowded is defined as less than 15.33 square meters per person. In rural areas, overcrowded is based on the Eurostat indicator for overcrowding without the condition referring to a room for the household. See also Part I. Figure 2. 271 | ANNEX ANNEX 1. TABLE 3: Percentage of People from Rural Areas Neither Working as Employee Nor in Education by Age, Gender, and Type of Area (%)     Share of people not employed or in school Share of people not employee or in school Non- Years Old Marginalized Non-marginalized Marginalized marginalized 15-19   36 17 51 23 20-64 Total 45 36 88 64 Bărbaţi 38 33 85 59 Femei 53 40 90 69 Bărbaţi, etnie romă 62 62 92 81 Bărbaţi, neromi 30 32 83 59 Femei, etnie romă 69 64 95 88   Femei, non-roma 47 39 88 69 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. ANNEX | 272 ANNEX 1. TABLE 4: Proportions of Individuals Living in Dwellings without Basic Services by Ethnicity and Type of Area (%) RURAL: URBAN Diff Diff Non- (Roma Non- (Roma Individuals Total Roma Total Roma Roma - non- Roma - non- Roma) Roma) Non- 66 75 65 10 8 31 8 23 Piped water marginalized from the public Marginalized 86 82 88 -5 34 49 30 19 network Total 67 78 66 11 9 37 8 28 Non- 99 99 99 1 63 88 63 26 Hot water from marginalized the public Marginalized 100 100 100 0 92 96 91 5 network Total 99 100 99 1 64 91 63 27 Non- 94 98 94 4 16 53 15 38 Sewage marginalized disposal system Marginalized 99 100 99 0 59 77 54 22 connected to a public sewage- disposal plant Total 94 98 94 4 17 60 16 44 Non- 0,7 3,9 0,6 3 0,1 1,7 0,1 2 marginalized Electric lighting Marginalized 5,3 9,5 3,7 6 3,9 10,3 2,2 8 Total 1,0 6,1 0,7 5 0,2 4,4 0,2 4 Non- 89 93 89 4 25 66 24 41 marginalized Gas from a public network for Marginalized 98 98 98 -1 73 88 69 19 cooking Total 90 95 89 6 26 73 25 47 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. ANNEX 1. TABLE 5: Rates of Marginalization by Locality Size and by Region in Rural and Urban Areas, 2011 (% of population) RURAL: URBAN Non- Non- Marginalized Marginalized Key indicators marginalized Total marginalized Total Areas Areas Areas Areas % % % % % % LOCALITY SIZE 6,2 93,9 100 3,2 96,8 100 (resident population) < 2.000 5,6 94,4 100 11,2 88,8 100 2.000<4.999 6,7 93,3 100 6,9 93,1 100 5.000<9.999 5,6 94,4 100 9,0 91,0 100 10.000<19.999 2,0 98,0 100 6,3 93,7 100 20.000<149.999 - - 100 3,6 96,4 100 150.000** - - 100 1,1 98,9 100 ANNEX | 273 RURAL: URBAN Non- Non- Marginalized Marginalized Key indicators marginalized Total marginalized Total Areas Areas Areas Areas Bucharest - - 100 0,8 99,2 100 DEVELOPMENT REGION North-East 11,3 88,7 100 4,3 95,7 100 South-East 6,8 93,2 100 4,2 95,8 100 South-Muntenia 4,0 96,0 100 2,9 97,1 100 South-West 4,5 95,5 100 2,5 97,5 100 West 1,2 98,8 100 3,7 96,3 100 North-West 4,4 95,6 100 3,1 96,9 100 Center 8,0 92,0 100 4,3 95,7 100 Bucharest-Ilfov 0,6 99,4 100 1,2 98,8 100 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. For urban areas, Swinkels et al (2014a: 13). ANNEX 1. TABLE 6: Rates of Rural Marginalization by Type of Marginalized Community and by Region, 2011 (% of rural population) RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS RURAL NON- Ethnically MARGINALIZED AREAS Roma Non-Roma Total mixed communities communities communities North-East 88.7 11.3 1.8 1.2 8.3 South-East 93.2 6.8 2.7 0.8 3.2 South- 96.0 4.0 2.6 0.4 0.9 Muntenia South-West 95.5 4.5 2.1 0.6 1.8 West 98.8 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.5 North-West 95.6 4.4 3.1 0.4 0.9 Center 92.1 7.9 4.8 1.4 1.6 Bucharest-Ilfov 99.4 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 Total 93.9 6.2 2.5 0.7 2.9 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Roma communities are defined as rural marginalized areas where more than 20 percent of residents self- identify as Roma. Ethnically mixed communities are defined as rural marginalized areas where fewer than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma. Non-Roma communities are defined as rural marginalized areas with no residents who self-identify as Roma. 274 | ANNEX ANNEX 1. TABLE 7: Rates of Rural Marginalization by Type of Marginalized Community and by County, 2011 (% of rural population) RURAL MARGINALIZED AREAS RURAL NON- MARGINALIZED Ethnically Roma Non-Roma AREAS All mixed communities communities communities Alba 96.8 3.2 2.1 0.2 0.9 Arad 98.2 1.8 1.1 0.3 0.4 Argeș 95.1 4.9 2.6 0.6 1.7 Bacău 89.8 10.2 2.8 1.5 5.9 Bihor 94.5 5.5 4.9 0.3 0.3 Bistrița-Năsăud 92.4 7.6 3.4 1.2 3.0 Botoșani 88.7 11.3 0.6 1.2 9.4 Brăila 93.3 6.7 1.5 2.2 3.0 Brașov 87.7 12.3 8.2 2.3 1.8 Buzău 94.0 6.0 2.9 0.7 2.4 Călărași 95.2 4.8 2.8 1.2 0.8 Caraș-Severin 98.0 2.0 0.4 0.6 1.0 Cluj 98.9 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.3 Constanța 96.7 3.3 0.5 0.9 1.9 Covasna 87.0 13.0 6.7 2.9 3.4 Dâmbovița 95.2 4.8 4.5 0.2 0.2 Dolj 92.1 7.9 4.3 1.2 2.4 Galați 88.8 11.2 5.1 0.7 5.4 Giurgiu 96.4 3.6 1.6 0.6 1.3 Gorj 98.6 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.4 Harghita 96.1 3.9 0.5 1.2 2.2 Hunedoara 99.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 Ialomița 92.6 7.4 6.0 0.3 1.1 Iași 85.4 14.6 1.5 1.2 11.8 Ilfov 99.4 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 Maramureș 97.6 2.4 0.9 0.0 1.5 Mehedinți 91.2 8.8 4.5 0.9 3.4 Mureș 92.2 7.8 6.0 1.1 0.7 Neamț 94.3 5.7 1.2 0.4 4.1 Olt 97.0 3.0 0.5 0.3 2.2 Prahova 98.7 1.3 0.9 0.1 0.3 Sălaj 93.8 6.2 5.5 0.5 0.2 Satu Mare 95.7 4.3 3.2 0.7 0.4 Sibiu 91.0 9.0 5.7 1.5 1.8 Suceava 94.5 5.5 2.8 0.9 1.9 Teleorman 96.8 3.2 1.3 0.2 1.7 Timiș 99.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 Tulcea 97.6 2.4 0.4 0.2 1.7 Vâlcea 98.9 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 Vaslui 77.3 22.7 1.2 2.2 19.2 Vrancea 91.5 8.5 4.0 0.6 3.9 Total 93.9 6.2 2.5 0.7 2.9 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Roma communities are defined as rural marginalized areas where more than 20 percent of residents self- identify as Roma. Ethnically mixed communities are defined as rural marginalized areas where fewer than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma. Non-Roma communities are defined as rural marginalized areas with no residents who self-identify as Roma. ANNEX | 275 ANNEX 1. TABLE 8: Villages with Rural Marginalized Areas (RMA) by Village Population Size and Number of RMAs within the Village (number of villages) Villages with Number of marginalized areas marginalized areas within the village Total No Yes 1 2 3-9 Very small villages (1-200 2.310 2.100 210 201 9 0 inhabitants) Small villages (201-500 inhabitants) 3.448 3.045 403 318 81 4 Medium villages (>500-2,000 4.765 4.015 750 515 163 72 inhabitants) Large villages (>2,000 inhabitants) 968 726 242 128 63 51 Total 11.491 9.886 1.605 1.162 316 127 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Out of all 12,373 villages (SIRUTA units) in rural areas at the time of the 2011 census, 882 villages did not enter in the analysis either because they have only census sectors not of households or because they have fewer than 50 inhabitants. 276 | ANNEX ANNEX 1. TABLE 9: Villages with Rural Marginalized Areas by Type of Marginalized Community and by Distance to a City, Administrative Position within Commune, and Type of Terrain, 2011 (% of villages) Total Non-Roma Ethnically mixed Roma % N communities communities communities Villages close to city (0.5-10 km) 33 18 49 100 199 Villages located at moderate distance 59 13 29 100 1,063 from any city (>10-32 km) Remote villages (>32 km) 76 13 11 100 343 Peripheral villages 67 12 21 100 1,127 Central villages 41 16 43 100 478 Mountain 24 12 64 100 158 Hilly-mountain 32 15 53 100 233 Hilly-plain 52 15 33 100 392 Plain 78 12 10 100 772 Total 59 14 27 100 1,605 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: Roma communities are defined as rural marginalized areas where more than 20 percent of residents self- identify as Roma. Ethnically mixed communities are defined as rural marginalized areas where fewer than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma. Non-Roma communities are defined as rural marginalized areas with no residents who self-identify as Roma. The cells marked in color indicate the dominant patterns. ANNEX 1. TABLE 10: Communes with Rural Marginalized Areas (RMA) by Size of Commune Population and Number of RMAs within the Commune (number of communes) Communes with Number of marginalized areas marginalized areas within the commune Total No Yes 1 2 3-15 Small communes (<2,000 inhabitants) 751 559 192 117 32 43 Medium communes (2,000<5,000 1,711 1,070 641 311 125 205 inhabitants) Large communes (5,000+ inhabitants) 399 240 159 63 43 53 Total 2,861 1,869 992 491 200 301 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. ANNEX | 277 ANNEX 1. TABLE 11: Communes with Rural Marginalized Areas by Type of Marginalized Communities within the Commune and by Population Size, Urban Connectivity, and the Location of the Commune within the County (% of communes) Total ONLY ONLY Roma Ethnically mixed Non-Roma % N communities communities communities Small communes (<2,000 inhabitants) 52 15 34 100 192 Medium communes (2,000-5,000 31 20 49 100 641 inhabitants) Large communes (5,000+ inhabitants) 22 20 58 100 159 Low urban connectivity 33 22 44 100 169 Medium urban connectivity 33 16 51 100 633 High urban connectivity 33 25 42 100 164 Communes without remote villages 29 27 44 100 400 Communes with remote villages (32+ 36 13 51 100 592 km to city) Not situated at the county boundary 36 21 43 100 514 Situated at the county boundary, which is the following distance from the county 31 17 53 100 478 capital city: - 50 minutes at most 26 20 54 100 217 - >50-75 minutes 35 13 52 100 183 - 75 minutes or more 35 17 49 100 78 Total 33 19 48 100 992 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: ONLY non-Roma communities are defined as communes in which all rural marginalized areas have no residents who self-identify as Roma. ONLY Roma communities are defined as communes in which all rural marginalized areas have more than 20 percent of residents who self-identify as Roma. Ethnically mixed communities (one in which more than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma) with two or more marginalized areas containing both non-Roma and Roma communities. Urban connectivity is estimated based on an index (IURCON) that uses a set of distances between each commune and its neighboring small, medium, large, and very large cities. The higher the IURCON value, the better connected the commune is to a city. Remote communes (those with low urban connectivity) are those localities in the lowest quintile of IURCON. High urban connectivity refers to the highest quintile of IURCON. The cells marked in color indicate the dominant patterns. 278 | ANNEX ANNEX 1. TABLE 12: Communes with Rural Marginalized Areas by Type of Marginalized Communities within Each Commune and by Membership of the Commune in a LAG or FLAG (% of communes) Total ONLY ONLY Roma Ethnically mixed Non-Roma % N communities communities communities Not member in a LAG or FLAG 35 21 45 100 276 Member in a LAG or FLAG 33 18 49 100 716 Total 33 19 48 100 992 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: ONLY non-Roma communities are defined as communes in which all rural marginalized areas have no residents who self-identify as Roma. ONLY Roma communities are defined as communes in which all rural marginalized areas have more than 20 percent of residents who self-identify as Roma. Ethnically mixed communities (one in which more than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma) with two or more marginalized areas containing both non-Roma and Roma communities. Figures for membership in LAGs and FLAGs relate to the end of 2014 (MARD). For this assignment we used the most updated list of LAGs approved for financing under LEADER, which is available at: http:/ /leader-romania.ro/leader/2011/Lista_Grupurile_de_Actiune_Locala_ autorizate_pentru_functionare_de_MADR_si_date_de_contact_GAL_la_data_de_03.11.2011_.pdf. The LAGs are currently being revised for the new European funds programming period 2014-2020. The analysis presented in this table must be revised when the new list of LAGs becomes available. The cells marked in color indicate the dominant patterns ANNEX 1. TABLE 13: Communes with Rural Marginalized Areas (RMA) by Relative Income Poverty and Type of Marginalized Communities within Each Commune, 2011 (% of communes) Total ONLY Ethnically ONLY Roma Non-Roma mixed % N communities communities communities Low income poverty (AROP lowest quintile) 20 62 18 100 45 Medium income poverty (AROP) 37 25 38 100 537 High income poverty (AROP highest quintile) 31 6 64 100 410 Total 33 19 48 100 992 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Notes: ONLY non-Roma communities are defined as communes in which all rural marginalized areas have no residents who self-identify as Roma. ONLY Roma communities are defined as communes in which all rural marginalized areas have more than 20 percent of residents who self-identify as Roma. Ethnically mixed communities (one in which more than 20 percent of residents self-identify as Roma) with two or more marginalized areas containing both non-Roma and Roma communities. Figures for income poverty (AROP) are taken from the most recent World Bank poverty maps (Simler, coord., 2014). The cells marked in color indicate the dominant patterns. ANNEX | 279 Annex 2: Rates of Marginalization by Commune (Rural Territorial-Administrative Unit) ANNEX 2. TABLE 1: Rate of marginalization at commune level in Bucharest-Ilfov development region Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in total Type of County Code Commune population marginalization population (2011 marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) Census) ILFOV 100834 AFUMATI 7,919 4.89 0 0 ILFOV 100969 BALOTESTI 8,314 3.30 0 0 ILFOV 101145 BERCENI 5,942 0.81 0 0 ILFOV 101298 BRANESTI 10,367 0.32 0 0 ILFOV 101742 CERNICA 10,886 11.46 0 0 ILFOV 101902 CIOLPANI 4,811 0.96 0 0 ILFOV 101957 CIOROGARLA 6,188 5.49 0 0 ILFOV 102035 CLINCENI 6,808 1.00 0 0 ILFOV 102160 CORBEANCA 7,072 1.05 0 0 ILFOV 102213 CORNETU 6,324 5.65 0 0 ILFOV 102473 DASCALU 3,154 1.01 0 0 ILFOV 102525 DARASTI-ILFOV 3,026 0.56 0 0 ILFOV 102543 1 DECEMBRIE 7,817 6.01 0 0 ILFOV 102570 DOMNESTI 8,682 2.00 0 0 DRAGOMIRESTI- ILFOV 102605 5,243 0.15 0 0 VALE Average ILFOV 103130 GANEASA 4,963 23.17 6.1-<12% marginalization ILFOV 103443 GRADISTEA 3,268 1.01 0 0 ILFOV 103513 GRUIU 7,412 0.07 0 0 ILFOV 104243 MOARA VLASIEI 6,307 0.44 0 0 Marginalization ILFOV 104421 NUCI 3,098 2.13 0.1-<6.1% below average ILFOV 104546 PERIS 7,557 0.15 0 0 ILFOV 104582 PETRACHIOAIA 3,498 8.63 0 0 ILFOV 105160 SNAGOV 7,272 0.08 0 0 STEFANESTII DE ILFOV 105419 5,775 15.53 0 0 JOS ILFOV 105570 TUNARI 5,336 8.41 0 0 Average ILFOV 105936 VIDRA 9,516 12.36 6.1-<12% marginalization ILFOV 179249 CHIAJNA 14,259 0.39 0 0 ILFOV 179310 DOBROESTI 9,325 0.47 0 0 ILFOV 179347 GLINA 8,592 19.36 0 0 ILFOV 179383 JILAVA 12,223 12.30 0 0 ILFOV 179463 MOGOSOAIA 7,625 1.85 0 0 ILFOV 179588 COPACENI 3,131 1.21 0 0 280 | ANNEX ANNEX 2. TABLE 2: Rate of marginalization at commune level in Centre development region Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in total Type of County Code Commune population marginalization population (2011 marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) Census) ALBA 1071 CIUGUD 3,048 0.30 0 0 ALBA 2130 ALBAC 2,089 1.63 0 0 ALBA 2309 ALMASU MARE 1,289 0.47 0 0 ALBA 2381 ARIESENI 1,765 0.00 0 0 ALBA 2577 AVRAM IANCU 1,636 10.09 0 0 ALBA 2988 BERGHIN 1,893 4.28 0 0 ALBA 3039 BISTRA 4,540 0.55 0 0 ALBA 3397 BLANDIANA 923 1.73 0 0 ALBA 3459 BUCIUM 1,454 0.00 0 0 Severe ALBA 3761 CENADE 943 11.03 24+% marginalization Marginalization ALBA 3805 CERGAU 1,490 12.15 12-<24% above average ALBA 3841 CERU-BACAINTI 269 0.00 0 0 Marginalization ALBA 3958 CETATEA DE BALTA 2,930 31.13 12-<24% above average ALBA 4008 CIURULEASA 1,197 0.17 0 0 ALBA 4106 CALNIC 1,681 24.21 0 0 ALBA 4142 CRICAU 1,912 1.46 0 0 CRACIUNELU DE ALBA 4188 1,954 0.77 0 0 JOS ALBA 4240 DAIA ROMANA 2,773 0.25 0 0 ALBA 4268 DOSTAT 956 2.41 0 0 ALBA 4302 FARAU 1,569 4.40 0 0 ALBA 4366 GALDA DE JOS 4,516 0.29 0 0 ALBA 4482 GARBOVA 2,050 7.76 0 0 ALBA 4525 GARDA DE SUS 1,714 0.00 0 0 Marginalization ALBA 4703 HOPARTA 1,152 17.01 12-<24% above average Marginalization ALBA 4767 HOREA 2,143 3.41 0.1-<6.1% below average ALBA 4927 IGHIU 6,283 2.63 0 0 ALBA 4981 INTREGALDE 577 0.00 0 0 Average ALBA 5103 JIDVEI 4,617 23.20 6.1-<12% marginalization ALBA 5167 LIVEZILE 1,192 0.50 0 0 ALBA 5210 LOPADEA NOUA 2,759 0.33 0 0 LUNCA ALBA 5309 2,404 11.69 0 0 MURESULUI ALBA 5336 LUPSA 3,052 0.00 0 0 ALBA 5577 METES 2,860 0.21 0 0 ALBA 5700 MIHALT 3,051 1.21 0 0 ALBA 5755 MIRASLAU 1,985 3.98 0 0 ALBA 5826 MOGOS 731 0.00 0 0 ALBA 6048 NOSLAC 1,661 4.09 0 0 ALBA 6119 OCOLIS 616 0.00 0 0 ANNEX | 281 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in total Type of County Code Commune population marginalization population (2011 marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) Census) ALBA 6164 OHABA 757 2.51 0 0 ALBA 6217 PIANU 3,082 0.32 0 0 ALBA 6271 POIANA VADULUI 1,139 0.00 0 0 ALBA 6397 PONOR 540 0.00 0 0 ALBA 6468 POSAGA 1,048 0.00 0 0 ALBA 6547 RADESTI 1,200 2.42 0 0 ALBA 6592 RAMETEA 1,126 0.27 0 0 Average ALBA 6627 RAMET 574 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization ALBA 6761 ROSIA MONTANA 2,656 12.58 0 0 Average ALBA 6930 ROSIA DE SECAS 1,542 4.73 6.1-<12% marginalization ALBA 6976 SALCIUA 1,428 0.00 0 0 Marginalization ALBA 7044 SALISTEA 2,197 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization ALBA 7099 SASCIORI 5,757 0.54 12-<24% above average Marginalization ALBA 7197 SCARISOARA 1,661 15.29 12-<24% above average Average ALBA 7348 SANCEL 2,411 5.02 6.1-<12% marginalization ALBA 7384 SANTIMBRU 2,723 1.65 0 0 Marginalization ALBA 7446 SOHODOL 1,729 2.37 0.1-<6.1% below average ALBA 7767 STREMT 2,418 0.04 0 0 ALBA 7810 SIBOT 2,236 3.13 0 0 Marginalization ALBA 7865 SONA 4,067 5.48 0.1-<6.1% below average ALBA 7945 SPRING 2,420 3.39 0 0 Marginalization ALBA 8014 SUGAG 2,726 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average ALBA 8158 UNIREA 4,796 14.93 0 0 ALBA 8229 VADU MOTILOR 1,348 0.00 0 0 ALBA 8354 VALEA LUNGA 2,907 3.92 0 0 ALBA 8425 VIDRA 1,691 0.18 0 0 ALBA 8826 VINTU DE JOS 4,801 1.69 0 0 ALBA 9019 CUT 1,075 1.58 0 0 BUCERDEA Marginalization ALBA 9026 2,235 13.56 12-<24% GRANOASA above average Severe BRASOV 40526 APATA 3,169 17.20 24+% marginalization BRASOV 40544 BECLEAN 1,826 9.86 0 0 BRASOV 40606 BOD 3,994 0.40 0 0 BRASOV 40633 BRAN 5,181 0.25 0 0 Marginalization BRASOV 40688 BUDILA 4,197 6.08 12-<24% above average Severe BRASOV 40704 BUNESTI 2,357 25.20 24+% marginalization 282 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in total Type of County Code Commune population marginalization population (2011 marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) Census) Severe BRASOV 40768 CATA 2,463 21.88 24+% marginalization Marginalization BRASOV 40820 CINCU 1,587 10.84 12-<24% above average Severe BRASOV 40857 COMANA 2,721 18.60 24+% marginalization BRASOV 40900 CRISTIAN 4,490 0.07 0 0 BRASOV 40928 DUMBRAVITA 4,624 3.20 0 0 BRASOV 40955 FELDIOARA 6,154 3.23 0 0 BRASOV 40991 FUNDATA 852 0.00 0 0 BRASOV 41033 HALCHIU 4,218 4.69 0 0 BRASOV 41088 HARMAN 5,402 4.57 0 0 Marginalization BRASOV 41113 HARSENI 2,103 4.80 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization BRASOV 41177 HOGHIZ 5,025 3.68 12-<24% above average Severe BRASOV 41248 HOMOROD 2,209 18.02 24+% marginalization Average BRASOV 41284 JIBERT 2,250 12.18 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe BRASOV 41346 LISA 1,744 7.86 24+% marginalization Severe BRASOV 41382 MAIERUS 2,920 38.97 24+% marginalization BRASOV 41417 MANDRA 2,762 2.24 0 0 BRASOV 41471 MOIECIU 4,892 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BRASOV 41541 ORMENIS 1,976 41.95 12-<24% above average Marginalization BRASOV 41578 PARAU 1,874 7.68 12-<24% above average BRASOV 41621 POIANA MARULUI 3,315 0.00 0 0 BRASOV 41667 PREJMER 8,472 6.02 0 0 Average BRASOV 41701 RACOS 3,336 20.41 6.1-<12% marginalization BRASOV 41738 RECEA 3,118 3.94 0 0 Marginalization BRASOV 41818 SERCAIA 2,822 4.00 12-<24% above average Average BRASOV 41854 SINCA 3,401 3.59 6.1-<12% marginalization BRASOV 41925 SANPETRU 4,819 1.60 0 0 Severe BRASOV 41943 SOARS 1,755 9.86 24+% marginalization Severe BRASOV 42003 TARLUNGENI 8,320 28.88 24+% marginalization Severe BRASOV 42058 TELIU 4,198 17.51 24+% marginalization Severe BRASOV 42076 TICUSU 908 18.94 24+% marginalization BRASOV 42101 UCEA 2,195 1.55 0 0 Marginalization BRASOV 42156 UNGRA 1,949 7.54 12-<24% above average Marginalization BRASOV 42183 VAMA BUZAULUI 3,220 3.32 12-<24% above average ANNEX | 283 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in total Type of County Code Commune population marginalization population (2011 marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) Census) BRASOV 42236 VISTEA 2,026 11.01 0 0 BRASOV 42307 VOILA 2,660 6.39 0 0 Marginalization BRASOV 42398 VULCAN 4,567 4.53 0.1-<6.1% below average BRASOV 42449 SINCA NOUA 1,690 0.00 0 0 Severe BRASOV 42456 CRIZBAV 2,518 1.11 24+% marginalization BRASOV 42464 SAMBATA DE SUS 1,581 3.16 0 0 BRASOV 42472 HOLBAV 1,309 0.00 0 0 BRASOV 42480 DRAGUS 1,162 0.00 0 0 Severe BRASOV 42498 AUGUSTIN 1,860 49.19 24+% marginalization COVASNA 63553 COMANDAU 1,006 0.60 0 0 Average COVASNA 63633 BARCANI 3,688 3.09 6.1-<12% marginalization COVASNA 63688 SITA BUZAULUI 4,584 0.00 0 0 COVASNA 63777 AITA MARE 1,715 0.06 0 0 Severe COVASNA 63802 BATANI 4,403 12.24 24+% marginalization Severe COVASNA 63866 BELIN 2,859 45.68 24+% marginalization Average COVASNA 63893 BODOC 2,553 0.43 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe COVASNA 63937 BOROSNEU MARE 3,097 1.19 24+% marginalization Marginalization COVASNA 64005 BRATES 1,531 0.00 12-<24% above average Severe COVASNA 64041 BRADUT 4,728 13.52 24+% marginalization Marginalization COVASNA 64096 BRETCU 3,550 2.25 12-<24% above average Average COVASNA 64130 CATALINA 3,378 0.12 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization COVASNA 64194 CERNAT 3,978 0.18 0.1-<6.1% below average COVASNA 64238 CHICHIS 1,537 0.59 0 0 COVASNA 64265 DOBARLAU 2,135 0.94 0 0 Marginalization COVASNA 64318 GHELINTA 4,815 1.00 12-<24% above average COVASNA 64345 GHIDFALAU 2,660 0.19 0 0 Severe COVASNA 64390 HAGHIG 2,315 30.32 24+% marginalization COVASNA 64425 ILIENI 2,036 0.00 0 0 COVASNA 64461 LEMNIA 1,936 0.41 0 0 COVASNA 64504 MALNAS 1,087 0.09 0 0 Severe COVASNA 64568 MOACSA 1,201 3.08 24+% marginalization Marginalization COVASNA 64602 OJDULA 3,519 23.05 12-<24% above average Marginalization COVASNA 64639 OZUN 4,430 2.93 0.1-<6.1% below average COVASNA 64719 POIAN 1,768 0.00 0 0 284 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in total Type of County Code Commune population marginalization population (2011 marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) Census) COVASNA 64773 RECI 2,304 0.00 0 0 Average COVASNA 64826 SANZIENI 4,582 0.13 6.1-<12% marginalization Average COVASNA 64871 TURIA 4,027 0.02 6.1-<12% marginalization Average COVASNA 64906 VALEA CRISULUI 2,307 0.30 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe COVASNA 64942 VALCELE 4,475 48.54 24+% marginalization COVASNA 64997 VARGHIS 1,647 0.00 0 0 Marginalization COVASNA 65011 ZAGON 5,282 0.00 12-<24% above average Average COVASNA 65048 ZABALA 4,597 9.03 6.1-<12% marginalization COVASNA 65099 VALEA MARE 1,051 0.00 0 0 COVASNA 65105 MERENI 1,324 0.00 0 0 COVASNA 65113 ARCUS 1,519 0.53 0 0 COVASNA 65121 BIXAD 1,799 1.89 0 0 COVASNA 65139 MICFALAU 1,805 0.17 0 0 Severe COVASNA 65147 DALNIC 956 0.73 24+% marginalization Marginalization COVASNA 65154 ESTELNIC 1,182 0.00 12-<24% above average HARGHITA 83151 BRADESTI 1,915 0.16 0 0 HARGHITA 83197 FELICENI 3,297 0.70 0 0 HARGHITA 83375 PAULENI-CIUC 1,831 0.00 0 0 Marginalization HARGHITA 83785 ATID 2,705 6.21 0.1-<6.1% below average Average HARGHITA 83847 AVRAMESTI 2,465 10.83 6.1-<12% marginalization HARGHITA 83936 BILBOR 2,638 0.00 0 0 HARGHITA 83963 CAPALNITA 2,026 4.00 0 0 Average HARGHITA 83981 CIUCSANGEORGIU 4,839 1.28 6.1-<12% marginalization HARGHITA 84086 CIUMANI 4,328 0.00 0 0 HARGHITA 84102 CARTA 2,709 0.00 0 0 HARGHITA 84148 CORBU 1,520 4.74 0 0 Marginalization HARGHITA 84175 CORUND 6,135 2.61 12-<24% above average HARGHITA 84237 DANESTI 2,292 0.26 0 0 HARGHITA 84264 DEALU 3,907 0.15 0 0 HARGHITA 84344 DITRAU 5,483 0.02 0 0 HARGHITA 84380 DARJIU 1,036 5.69 0 0 HARGHITA 84415 FRUMOASA 3,682 1.71 0 0 HARGHITA 84460 GALAUTAS 2,498 1.12 0 0 HARGHITA 84558 JOSENI 5,536 0.87 0 0 HARGHITA 84594 LAZAREA 3,424 0.91 0 0 HARGHITA 84629 LUETA 3,439 0.00 0 0 HARGHITA 84656 LUNCA DE JOS 5,328 0.00 0 0 HARGHITA 84754 LUNCA DE SUS 3,242 0.00 0 0 ANNEX | 285 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in total Type of County Code Commune population marginalization population (2011 marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) Census) Marginalization HARGHITA 84825 LUPENI 4,473 3.09 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization HARGHITA 84923 MARTINIS 2,838 0.25 0.1-<6.1% below average HARGHITA 85056 MERESTI 1,339 0.37 0 0 HARGHITA 85074 MIHAILENI 2,644 0.45 0 0 HARGHITA 85127 MUGENI 3,491 0.40 0 0 HARGHITA 85243 OCLAND 1,293 0.31 0 0 Severe HARGHITA 85289 PLAIESII DE JOS 3,033 1.38 24+% marginalization Marginalization HARGHITA 85341 PRAID 6,502 2.65 12-<24% above average HARGHITA 85412 REMETEA 6,165 0.00 0 0 Marginalization HARGHITA 85467 SACEL 1,253 18.12 12-<24% above average HARGHITA 85528 SARMAS 3,804 0.32 0 0 Marginalization HARGHITA 85582 SECUIENI 2,644 21.29 12-<24% above average HARGHITA 85626 SICULENI 2,726 0.00 0 0 HARGHITA 85680 SANCRAIENI 2,526 4.87 0 0 HARGHITA 85760 SANDOMINIC 6,110 1.36 0 0 Marginalization HARGHITA 85788 SANMARTIN 2,322 0.04 12-<24% above average HARGHITA 85840 SANSIMION 3,482 0.14 0 0 Marginalization HARGHITA 85877 SUBCETATE 1,832 3.49 0.1-<6.1% below average HARGHITA 85920 SUSENI 5,114 2.39 0 0 Marginalization HARGHITA 85984 SIMONESTI 3,776 1.30 12-<24% above average Marginalization HARGHITA 86133 TULGHES 3,279 0.30 0.1-<6.1% below average HARGHITA 86188 TUSNAD 2,147 5.54 0 0 Marginalization HARGHITA 86222 ULIES 1,193 4.78 12-<24% above average HARGHITA 86311 VARSAG 1,580 0.00 0 0 HARGHITA 86339 VOSLABENI 1,929 1.04 0 0 Average HARGHITA 86366 ZETEA 5,643 1.19 6.1-<12% marginalization HARGHITA 86438 MADARAS 2,199 0.14 0 0 HARGHITA 86446 COZMENI 2,115 2.88 0 0 HARGHITA 86453 TOMESTI 2,563 0.39 0 0 HARGHITA 86461 CICEU 2,679 0.07 0 0 HARGHITA 86479 LELICENI 2,010 1.04 0 0 HARGHITA 86487 PORUMBENI 1,805 0.50 0 0 HARGHITA 86495 RACU 1,607 0.00 0 0 Severe HARGHITA 86501 SATU MARE 1,995 0.20 24+% marginalization HARGHITA 86519 SANTIMBRU 2,063 2.23 0 0 MURES 114355 CRISTESTI 5,824 10.29 0 0 SANCRAIU DE MURES 114382 7,489 4.17 0 0 MURES 286 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in total Type of County Code Commune population marginalization population (2011 marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) Census) SANGEORGIU DE MURES 114417 9,304 7.94 0 0 MURES SANTANA DE MURES 114453 5,723 6.76 0 0 MURES MURES 114603 ALBESTI 5,345 13.17 0 0 Marginalization MURES 114970 ACATARI 4,738 10.19 0.1-<6.1% below average MURES 115076 ADAMUS 5,147 14.96 0 0 Average MURES 115147 ALUNIS 3,236 18.20 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe MURES 115183 APOLD 2,892 21.89 24+% marginalization MURES 115236 ATINTIS 1,575 6.73 0 0 Severe MURES 115307 BAHNEA 3,739 34.50 24+% marginalization Severe MURES 115389 BAND 6,446 25.67 24+% marginalization MURES 115520 BATOS 3,926 9.98 0 0 Severe MURES 115575 BAGACIU 2,474 31.16 24+% marginalization MURES 115600 BALA 756 7.01 0 0 MURES 115637 BALAUSERI 4,889 13.54 0 0 Marginalization MURES 115708 BEICA DE JOS 2,305 29.93 12-<24% above average MURES 115771 BICHIS 805 9.32 0 0 MURES 115824 BOGATA 2,018 9.56 0 0 MURES 115851 BREAZA 2,473 10.55 0 0 MURES 115897 BRANCOVENESTI 3,972 7.50 0 0 CEUASU DE MURES 115959 5,964 10.33 0 0 CAMPIE MURES 116046 CHETANI 2,665 3.68 0 0 MURES 116126 CHIHERU DE JOS 1,644 7.42 0 0 MURES 116171 COROISANMARTIN 1,447 15.34 0 0 MURES 116224 COZMA 562 0.00 0 0 Marginalization MURES 116288 CRACIUNESTI 4,470 24.30 12-<24% above average MURES 116340 CRAIESTI 924 0.00 0 0 MURES 116395 CUCERDEA 1,525 0.66 0 0 MURES 116439 CUCI 1,822 10.15 0 0 MURES 116493 DANES 4,874 16.74 0 0 MURES 116545 DEDA 4,113 8.49 0 0 Average MURES 116590 EREMITU 3,893 4.03 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization MURES 116652 ERNEI 5,835 16.33 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe MURES 116723 FARAGAU 1,683 38.09 24+% marginalization Marginalization MURES 116796 FANTANELE 4,693 3.92 12-<24% above average MURES 116867 GALESTI 3,067 1.47 0 0 MURES 116938 GANESTI 3,573 9.63 0 0 ANNEX | 287 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in total Type of County Code Commune population marginalization population (2011 marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) Census) MURES 116983 GHEORGHE DOJA 2,982 5.00 0 0 Average MURES 117042 GHINDARI 3,250 7.08 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization MURES 117113 GLODENI 3,817 11.47 12-<24% above average MURES 117177 GORNESTI 5,577 9.31 0 0 GREBENISU DE Average MURES 117275 1,684 12.53 6.1-<12% CAMPIE marginalization MURES 117319 GURGHIU 6,091 7.83 0 0 Average MURES 117426 HODAC 5,104 0.22 6.1-<12% marginalization MURES 117505 HODOSA 1,261 9.04 0 0 MURES 117550 IBANESTI 4,357 0.00 0 0 MURES 117667 ICLANZEL 2,126 1.83 0 0 MURES 117783 IDECIU DE JOS 2,109 8.82 0 0 MURES 117925 LIVEZENI 3,266 15.62 0 0 MURES 117998 LUNCA 2,625 1.90 0 0 Average MURES 118058 LUNCA BRADULUI 2,035 5.31 6.1-<12% marginalization Average MURES 118094 MAGHERANI 1,309 5.81 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization MURES 118209 MICA 4,539 26.37 12-<24% above average MIHESU DE Marginalization MURES 118370 2,447 11.77 0.1-<6.1% CAMPIE below average Severe MURES 118469 NADES 2,484 18.40 24+% marginalization MURES 118511 NEAUA 1,369 7.52 0 0 Severe MURES 118575 OGRA 2,387 29.20 24+% marginalization MURES 118637 PAPIU ILARIAN 963 0.42 0 0 Average MURES 118691 PANET 6,033 8.80 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization MURES 118753 PASARENI 1,919 11.15 12-<24% above average Severe MURES 118799 PETELEA 2,977 47.03 24+% marginalization Severe MURES 118824 POGACEAUA 2,117 15.12 24+% marginalization MURES 118931 RASTOLITA 2,073 0.48 0 0 Marginalization MURES 118995 RICIU 3,748 7.55 12-<24% above average MURES 119153 RUSII-MUNTI 2,144 7.37 0 0 Marginalization MURES 119206 SASCHIZ 1,965 8.96 12-<24% above average Marginalization MURES 119386 SANGER 2,400 13.42 12-<24% above average MURES 119466 SANPAUL 4,233 30.90 0 0 SANPETRU DE Average MURES 119527 3,060 12.84 6.1-<12% CAMPIE marginalization MURES 119590 SOLOVASTRU 2,888 10.60 0 0 MURES 119625 STANCENI 1,450 0.00 0 0 288 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in total Type of County Code Commune population marginalization population (2011 marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) Census) Average MURES 119661 SUPLAC 2,249 11.69 6.1-<12% marginalization MURES 119723 SUSENI 2,253 12.29 0 0 Marginalization MURES 119750 SAULIA 2,018 16.30 12-<24% above average MURES 119803 SINCAI 1,622 10.17 0 0 Severe MURES 119858 TAURENI 989 14.16 24+% marginalization MURES 119974 VALEA LARGA 3,098 2.42 0 0 Marginalization MURES 120076 VARGATA 1,945 14.34 12-<24% above average MURES 120138 VATAVA 1,987 6.79 0 0 MURES 120174 VETCA 892 10.99 0 0 Severe MURES 120218 VIISOARA 1,659 31.95 24+% marginalization Severe MURES 120254 VANATORI 3,901 29.94 24+% marginalization MURES 120316 VOIVODENI 1,756 9.05 0 0 Severe MURES 120343 ZAGAR 1,192 38.84 24+% marginalization Marginalization MURES 120370 ZAU DE CAMPIE 3,236 10.11 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization MURES 120478 CHIBED 1,762 1.82 0.1-<6.1% below average MURES 120487 CORUNCA 2,785 3.12 0 0 Severe MURES 120496 SARATENI 1,608 14.74 24+% marginalization MURES 120502 MADARAS 1,299 10.55 0 0 MURES 120511 BERENI 1,203 1.33 0 0 SIBIU 143487 CRISTIAN 3,665 0.08 0 0 SIBIU 143502 POPLACA 1,802 2.50 0 0 Marginalization SIBIU 143520 RASINARI 5,416 5.95 0.1-<6.1% below average SIBIU 143557 SELIMBAR 7,028 1.37 0 0 Marginalization SIBIU 143646 TARNAVA 2,858 30.20 12-<24% above average Marginalization SIBIU 143888 ALTINA 1,562 25.16 12-<24% above average SIBIU 143922 APOLDU DE JOS 1,350 1.48 0 0 SIBIU 143959 ARPASU DE JOS 2,502 2.64 0 0 SIBIU 143995 ATEL 1,429 10.78 0 0 SIBIU 144116 AXENTE SEVER 3,690 5.69 0 0 Average SIBIU 144152 BAZNA 3,792 28.45 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization SIBIU 144198 BIERTAN 2,590 17.37 12-<24% above average Average SIBIU 144232 BIRGHIS 2,015 6.80 6.1-<12% marginalization SIBIU 144303 BLAJEL 2,284 17.43 0 0 Severe SIBIU 144349 BRATEIU 3,415 36.84 24+% marginalization ANNEX | 289 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in total Type of County Code Commune population marginalization population (2011 marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) Census) Severe SIBIU 144376 BRADENI 1,441 37.27 24+% marginalization SIBIU 144410 BRUIU 703 9.25 0 0 Average SIBIU 144456 CHIRPAR 1,434 9.90 6.1-<12% marginalization SIBIU 144508 CARTA 906 4.08 0 0 Severe SIBIU 144535 CARTISOARA 1,243 0.00 24+% marginalization SIBIU 144553 DARLOS 2,820 21.10 0 0 Average SIBIU 144599 GURA RAULUI 3,621 0.47 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe SIBIU 144615 HOGHILAG 2,172 24.26 24+% marginalization Severe SIBIU 144651 IACOBENI 2,757 34.68 24+% marginalization Severe SIBIU 144713 JINA 3,750 4.27 24+% marginalization Marginalization SIBIU 144731 LASLEA 3,327 29.55 12-<24% above average Average SIBIU 144795 LOAMNES 2,997 0.30 6.1-<12% marginalization SIBIU 144866 LUDOS 746 6.17 0 0 SIBIU 144893 MARPOD 1,017 4.62 0 0 SIBIU 144964 MERGHINDEAL 1,212 16.34 0 0 SIBIU 144991 MICASASA 2,058 1.51 0 0 Severe SIBIU 145042 MIHAILENI 1,036 23.46 24+% marginalization SIBIU 145104 MOSNA 3,335 12.59 0 0 Marginalization SIBIU 145140 NOCRICH 2,868 8.05 12-<24% above average SIBIU 145202 ORLAT 3,205 1.31 0 0 SIBIU 145220 PAUCA 1,929 2.44 0 0 SIBIU 145275 POIANA SIBIULUI 2,548 1.53 0 0 PORUMBACU DE SIBIU 145293 3,061 8.30 0 0 JOS SIBIU 145355 RACOVITA 2,760 0.00 0 0 SIBIU 145382 RAU SADULUI 571 0.00 0 0 SIBIU 145408 ROSIA 5,241 0.36 0 0 SIBIU 145471 SADU 2,365 0.63 0 0 SIBIU 145603 SLIMNIC 3,581 0.56 0 0 Marginalization SIBIU 145667 SEICA MARE 4,470 3.85 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization SIBIU 145738 SEICA MICA 1,589 2.45 12-<24% above average SIBIU 145765 SURA MARE 3,769 4.75 0 0 Average SIBIU 145792 SURA MICA 2,606 14.85 6.1-<12% marginalization SIBIU 145907 TILISCA 1,574 1.02 0 0 SIBIU 145934 TURNU ROSU 2,415 0.87 0 0 SIBIU 145961 VALEA VIILOR 1,873 9.29 0 0 Severe SIBIU 145998 VURPAR 2,557 0.59 24+% marginalization 290 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in total Type of County Code Commune population marginalization population (2011 marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) Census) SIBIU 146012 ALMA 1,886 4.45 0 0 SIBIU 146021 BOITA 1,613 0.00 0 0 ANNEX 2. TABLE 3: Rate of marginalization at commune level in North East development region Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) BACAU 20313 HEMEIUS 4,755 0.13 0 0 BACAU 20359 LETEA VECHE 5,817 0.00 0 0 BACAU 20411 MAGURA 4,151 0.07 0 0 Marginalization BACAU 20466 MARGINENI 7,993 0.08 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe BACAU 20607 GURA VAII 4,711 7.64 24+% marginalization Marginalization BACAU 20670 STEFAN CEL MARE 4,742 18.89 12-<24% above average BACAU 21007 AGAS 5,884 0.02 0 0 BACAU 21098 ARDEOANI 2,182 0.00 0 0 BACAU 21123 ASAU 6,698 3.14 0 0 BACAU 21196 BALCANI 7,173 2.09 0 0 Marginalization BACAU 21249 BERESTI-BISTRITA 1,983 10.19 12-<24% above average Marginalization BACAU 21338 BERESTI-TAZLAU 5,342 0.06 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe BACAU 21418 BERZUNTI 4,625 9.25 24+% marginalization BACAU 21454 BARSANESTI 4,527 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BACAU 21506 BLAGESTI 7,080 11.85 12-<24% above average BACAU 21560 BOGDANESTI 2,550 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BACAU 21597 BRUSTUROASA 3,138 0.38 0.1-<6.1% below average BACAU 21668 BUHOCI 4,119 0.10 0 0 Average BACAU 21720 CASIN 3,387 1.86 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization BACAU 21757 CAIUTI 5,252 2.09 0.1-<6.1% below average BACAU 21855 CLEJA 6,761 0.00 0 0 Severe BACAU 21891 COLONESTI 2,106 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe BACAU 21971 CORBASCA 4,914 32.58 24+% marginalization Severe BACAU 22059 COTOFANESTI 3,199 21.38 24+% marginalization Severe BACAU 22111 DAMIENESTI 1,715 0.06 24+% marginalization Marginalization BACAU 22237 DEALU MORII 2,739 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization BACAU 22380 DOFTEANA 9,346 1.23 0.1-<6.1% below average ANNEX | 291 Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) BACAU 22460 FARAOANI 3,932 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BACAU 22488 FILIPENI 2,286 0.00 12-<24% above average BACAU 22576 FILIPESTI 4,346 2.97 0 0 Average BACAU 22665 GAICEANA 3,069 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Average BACAU 22718 GHIMES-FAGET 5,094 1.98 6.1-<12% marginalization BACAU 22781 GARLENI 5,914 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BACAU 22834 GLAVANESTI 3,321 0.57 0.1-<6.1% below average BACAU 22898 HELEGIU 6,567 0.00 0 0 Severe BACAU 22941 HORGESTI 4,583 0.15 24+% marginalization Average BACAU 23047 HURUIESTI 2,578 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization IZVORU Marginalization BACAU 23127 1,537 0.00 12-<24% BERHECIULUI above average Severe BACAU 23207 LIPOVA 2,890 0.35 24+% marginalization BACAU 23289 LIVEZI 5,038 6.23 0 0 BACAU 23350 LUIZI-CALUGARA 3,553 0.00 0 0 BACAU 23387 MAGIRESTI 3,994 0.03 0 0 BACAU 23449 MANASTIREA CASIN 4,730 0.15 0 0 Average BACAU 23494 MOTOSENI 3,505 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization BACAU 23644 NEGRI 2,709 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BACAU 23715 NICOLAE BALCESCU 7,169 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Average BACAU 23797 OITUZ 8,152 0.01 6.1-<12% marginalization Average BACAU 23868 ONCESTI 1,621 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization BACAU 23948 ORBENI 3,760 0.08 12-<24% above average BACAU 23975 PALANCA 3,319 0.00 0 0 Severe BACAU 24034 PARAVA 2,681 16.82 24+% marginalization Marginalization BACAU 24089 PARINCEA 3,588 0.70 12-<24% above average Severe BACAU 24187 PANCESTI 3,919 2.37 24+% marginalization BACAU 24276 PARGARESTI 4,445 0.00 0 0 BACAU 24338 PARJOL 5,525 0.00 0 0 Severe BACAU 24427 PLOPANA 3,059 0.26 24+% marginalization Average BACAU 24524 PODU TURCULUI 4,617 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Average BACAU 24631 PODURI 6,962 3.30 6.1-<12% marginalization BACAU 24711 RACOVA 3,328 0.00 0 0 Average BACAU 24766 RACACIUNI 7,252 1.72 6.1-<12% marginalization 292 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization BACAU 24837 RACHITOASA 5,080 1.06 12-<24% above average Severe BACAU 24999 ROSIORI 2,097 0.05 24+% marginalization BACAU 25068 SASCUT 8,564 2.65 0 0 Marginalization BACAU 25148 SANDULENI 3,863 0.00 12-<24% above average BACAU 25228 SAUCESTI 4,772 0.13 0 0 Average BACAU 25291 SCORTENI 2,676 1.53 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe BACAU 25362 SECUIENI 2,131 0.09 24+% marginalization BACAU 25488 SOLONT 3,298 1.33 0 0 Marginalization BACAU 25521 STANISESTI 4,514 0.00 12-<24% above average Average BACAU 25629 STRUGARI 2,507 0.76 6.1-<12% marginalization BACAU 25692 TAMASI 2,738 0.00 0 0 Severe BACAU 25745 TATARASTI 2,397 0.08 24+% marginalization BACAU 25825 TARGU TROTUS 4,969 0.00 0 0 BACAU 25861 TRAIAN 2,319 0.00 0 0 Average BACAU 25932 UNGURENI 3,509 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization BACAU 26029 URECHESTI 3,344 0.12 0 0 Severe BACAU 26083 VALEA SEACA 3,867 33.10 24+% marginalization Severe BACAU 26118 VULTURENI 2,071 0.19 24+% marginalization BACAU 26289 ZEMES 4,368 0.02 0 0 Average BACAU 26320 SARATA 1,914 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe BACAU 26338 BUCIUMI 2,984 23.22 24+% marginalization Average BACAU 26346 GIOSENI 3,249 1.05 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization BACAU 26353 ODOBESTI 2,397 0.04 12-<24% above average BACAU 26361 PRAJESTI 1,869 0.00 0 0 BACAU 26379 ITESTI 1,598 0.38 0 0 BOTOSANI 35759 CURTESTI 4,577 0.22 0 0 BOTOSANI 35839 RACHITI 4,443 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BOTOSANI 35884 STAUCENI 3,619 0.19 12-<24% above average Severe BOTOSANI 36131 ALBESTI 6,387 3.52 24+% marginalization BOTOSANI 36202 AVRAMENI 3,751 0.13 0 0 Marginalization BOTOSANI 36300 BALUSENI 4,670 5.01 0.1-<6.1% below average BOTOSANI 36373 BRAESTI 1,937 0.00 0 0 BOTOSANI 36426 BROSCAUTI 2,928 0.03 0 0 BOTOSANI 36499 CALARASI 3,553 0.00 0 0 ANNEX | 293 Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization BOTOSANI 36532 CONCESTI 1,761 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization BOTOSANI 36569 COPALAU 4,053 2.12 0.1-<6.1% below average Average BOTOSANI 36649 CORDARENI 1,783 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization BOTOSANI 36676 CORLATENI 2,211 0.00 12-<24% above average Average BOTOSANI 36756 CORNI 6,545 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Average BOTOSANI 36809 COTUSCA 4,627 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Average BOTOSANI 36907 CRISTESTI 4,535 0.97 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe BOTOSANI 36952 CRISTINESTI 3,617 0.08 24+% marginalization BOTOSANI 37011 DERSCA 3,124 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BOTOSANI 37057 DANGENI 3,033 0.10 12-<24% above average Average BOTOSANI 37100 DOBARCENI 2,729 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization BOTOSANI 37173 DRAGUSENI 2,556 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe BOTOSANI 37217 DURNESTI 3,741 0.35 24+% marginalization Severe BOTOSANI 37324 FRUMUSICA 5,657 0.97 24+% marginalization Marginalization BOTOSANI 37397 GEORGE ENESCU 3,279 1.19 12-<24% above average Severe BOTOSANI 37459 GORBANESTI 3,434 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization BOTOSANI 37547 HAVARNA 4,569 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe BOTOSANI 37618 HANESTI 2,176 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization BOTOSANI 37672 HILISEU-HORIA 3,415 0.00 12-<24% above average BOTOSANI 37734 HLIPICENI 3,420 1.17 0 0 Average BOTOSANI 37770 HUDESTI 6,067 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization BOTOSANI 37823 IBANESTI 3,901 0.00 0 0 BOTOSANI 37850 LEORDA 2,181 0.00 0 0 Average BOTOSANI 37912 LUNCA 4,355 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization BOTOSANI 37958 MANOLEASA 3,315 0.03 12-<24% above average BOTOSANI 38063 MIHAI EMINESCU 6,954 0.07 0 0 BOTOSANI 38161 MIHAILENI 2,326 1.93 0 0 Severe BOTOSANI 38241 MIHALASENI 2,214 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe BOTOSANI 38321 MILEANCA 2,726 0.00 24+% marginalization Average BOTOSANI 38376 MITOC 1,878 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization 294 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization BOTOSANI 38456 NICSENI 2,604 0.27 0.1-<6.1% below average BOTOSANI 38492 PALTINIS 2,794 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BOTOSANI 38544 POMARLA 2,661 0.00 12-<24% above average Severe BOTOSANI 38580 PRAJENI 3,210 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization BOTOSANI 38633 RADAUTI-PRUT 3,339 0.09 12-<24% above average Marginalization BOTOSANI 38679 RAUSENI 2,817 0.50 12-<24% above average BOTOSANI 38731 RIPICENI 1,917 0.00 0 0 BOTOSANI 38811 ROMA 3,249 0.12 0 0 Average BOTOSANI 38848 ROMANESTI 1,944 0.05 6.1-<12% marginalization BOTOSANI 38893 SANTA MARE 2,749 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BOTOSANI 38982 SUHARAU 4,792 0.10 12-<24% above average Average BOTOSANI 39051 SULITA 3,060 1.34 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization BOTOSANI 39122 SENDRICENI 3,895 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization BOTOSANI 39220 STIUBIENI 2,695 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average BOTOSANI 39266 TODIRENI 3,323 1.38 0 0 Marginalization BOTOSANI 39328 TRUSESTI 5,229 1.72 12-<24% above average Marginalization BOTOSANI 39391 TUDORA 5,096 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe BOTOSANI 39417 UNGURENI 6,623 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization BOTOSANI 39532 UNTENI 2,771 0.11 12-<24% above average BOTOSANI 39612 VACULESTI 1,948 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BOTOSANI 39658 VIISOARA 1,953 0.00 12-<24% above average BOTOSANI 39694 VARFU CAMPULUI 3,420 0.00 0 0 BOTOSANI 39738 VLADENI 4,560 0.02 0 0 Marginalization BOTOSANI 39792 VLASINESTI 3,132 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Average BOTOSANI 39836 VORNICENI 4,052 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization BOTOSANI 39872 VORONA 7,492 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization BOTOSANI 39942 LOZNA 1,890 0.00 12-<24% above average Severe BOTOSANI 39959 DIMACHENI 1,413 0.00 24+% marginalization BOTOSANI 39967 CANDESTI 1,847 0.00 0 0 Severe BOTOSANI 39975 COSULA 2,944 20.58 24+% marginalization Severe BOTOSANI 39983 BLANDESTI 2,000 0.00 24+% marginalization ANNEX | 295 Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) BOTOSANI 40035 ADASENI 1,388 0.00 0 0 Marginalization IASI 95088 BARNOVA 5,782 0.03 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization IASI 95159 HOLBOCA 11,971 2.13 0.1-<6.1% below average IASI 95239 REDIU 4,577 0.39 0 0 Marginalization IASI 95293 TOMESTI 11,051 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average IASI 95499 ION NECULCE 5,445 0.00 0 0 IASI 95612 ALEXANDRU I. CUZA 2,912 0.03 0 0 Average IASI 95667 ANDRIESENI 4,177 0.12 6.1-<12% marginalization IASI 95747 ARONEANU 3,402 0.00 0 0 Marginalization IASI 95792 BALTATI 4,975 0.08 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization IASI 95872 BELCESTI 10,555 0.56 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization IASI 95943 BIVOLARI 4,180 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average IASI 96003 UNGHENI 4,173 0.00 0 0 Marginalization IASI 96058 BRAESTI 3,108 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization IASI 96110 BUTEA 2,698 0.74 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization IASI 96147 CEPLENITA 3,966 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe IASI 96192 CIORTESTI 3,979 0.00 24+% marginalization IASI 96254 CIUREA 11,640 6.13 0 0 Marginalization IASI 96334 COARNELE CAPREI 3,091 0.00 12-<24% above average Average IASI 96370 COMARNA 4,732 1.18 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe IASI 96423 COSTULENI 4,276 0.12 24+% marginalization Marginalization IASI 96478 COTNARI 7,248 0.81 12-<24% above average Average IASI 96593 COZMESTI 2,664 0.23 6.1-<12% marginalization IASI 96637 CRISTESTI 3,994 0.35 0 0 IASI 96664 CUCUTENI 1,244 0.72 0 0 Severe IASI 96717 DAGATA 4,599 5.76 24+% marginalization Average IASI 96815 DELENI 9,969 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization IASI 96888 DOBROVAT 2,515 0.00 12-<24% above average Severe IASI 96904 DOLHESTI 2,638 21.19 24+% marginalization Severe IASI 96940 DUMESTI 4,576 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization IASI 97009 ERBICENI 5,457 0.05 0.1-<6.1% below average 296 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) Severe IASI 97063 FOCURI 3,852 0.18 24+% marginalization Marginalization IASI 97090 GOLAIESTI 3,732 0.03 12-<24% above average IASI 97189 GORBAN 2,879 0.03 0 0 Marginalization IASI 97241 GRAJDURI 3,563 8.73 12-<24% above average Marginalization IASI 97321 GROPNITA 3,154 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization IASI 97394 GROZESTI 1,769 0.00 12-<24% above average IASI 97438 HALAUCESTI 5,541 0.00 0 0 IASI 97465 HELESTENI 2,669 0.00 0 0 Severe IASI 97517 HORLESTI 2,983 0.00 24+% marginalization IASI 97553 IPATELE 1,865 0.00 0 0 Marginalization IASI 97606 LESPEZI 5,250 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization IASI 97679 LETCANI 6,497 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe IASI 97722 LUNGANI 5,854 31.82 24+% marginalization Severe IASI 97777 MADARJAC 1,587 0.82 24+% marginalization IASI 97811 MIRCESTI 3,750 0.16 0 0 Severe IASI 97875 MIRONEASA 4,521 8.05 24+% marginalization IASI 97919 MIROSLAVA 11,958 0.11 0 0 IASI 98051 MIROSLOVESTI 4,533 5.74 0 0 Marginalization IASI 98113 MOGOSESTI 5,242 0.00 12-<24% above average IASI 98168 MOGOSESTI-SIRET 3,689 0.03 0 0 IASI 98202 MOSNA 1,767 0.00 0 0 Average IASI 98220 MOTCA 4,939 11.44 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization IASI 98257 MOVILENI 3,278 0.18 12-<24% above average Severe IASI 98300 OTELENI 3,232 0.03 24+% marginalization Marginalization IASI 98337 PLUGARI 3,615 0.08 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization IASI 98435 POPESTI 4,085 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization IASI 98505 POPRICANI 7,393 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization IASI 98603 PRISACANI 3,254 0.18 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization IASI 98649 PROBOTA 3,479 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization IASI 98685 RADUCANENI 7,200 4.60 12-<24% above average Average IASI 98738 ROMANESTI 1,908 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization ANNEX | 297 Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) IASI 98774 RUGINOASA 5,981 0.02 0 0 Marginalization IASI 98827 SCHITU DUCA 4,354 0.60 12-<24% above average Marginalization IASI 98916 SCANTEIA 4,289 0.02 12-<24% above average Marginalization IASI 98998 SCOBINTI 7,458 0.04 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe IASI 99058 SINESTI 4,171 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe IASI 99101 SIRETEL 4,130 0.00 24+% marginalization STOLNICENI-PRAJ Marginalization IASI 99165 5,250 7.26 12-<24% ESCU above average Marginalization IASI 99209 STRUNGA 3,879 0.00 12-<24% above average Severe IASI 99290 SCHEIA 3,067 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization IASI 99370 SIPOTE 5,384 0.04 12-<24% above average Average IASI 99441 TANSA 2,558 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization IASI 99478 TATARUSI 5,409 0.39 0 0 Marginalization IASI 99539 TODIRESTI 5,048 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe IASI 99600 TRIFESTI 3,774 0.64 24+% marginalization Severe IASI 99673 TIBANA 7,273 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization IASI 99780 TIBANESTI 7,119 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization IASI 99879 TIGANASI 4,036 0.02 12-<24% above average IASI 99922 TUTORA 2,067 0.00 0 0 IASI 99968 VALEA SEACA 5,471 2.23 0 0 Marginalization IASI 100004 VICTORIA 4,282 0.00 12-<24% above average Average IASI 100086 VANATORI 4,624 0.95 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization IASI 100148 VLADENI 3,993 0.00 12-<24% above average Severe IASI 100219 VOINESTI 6,815 6.10 24+% marginalization Average IASI 100273 BALS 3,375 0.80 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization IASI 100282 COSTESTI 1,743 0.00 12-<24% above average Severe IASI 100308 DRAGUSENI 1,436 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe IASI 100317 FANTANELE 2,138 0.00 24+% marginalization IASI 100326 HARMANESTI 2,183 0.00 0 0 IASI 100335 RACHITENI 3,084 0.00 0 0 298 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) Severe IASI 100344 ROSCANI 1,442 0.00 24+% marginalization IASI 100353 VALEA LUPULUI 4,982 0.00 0 0 Severe IASI 100362 CIOHORANI 1,781 10.33 24+% marginalization NEAMT 120771 DUMBRAVA ROSIE 6,759 0.15 0 0 NEAMT 120824 SAVINESTI 6,333 2.67 0 0 NEAMT 120888 CORDUN 6,333 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 120922 HORIA 5,826 2.85 0 0 NEAMT 121108 AGAPIA 3,893 0.00 0 0 Severe NEAMT 121153 BAHNA 3,174 15.50 24+% marginalization NEAMT 121242 BALTATESTI 4,102 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 121297 BICAZ-CHEI 4,089 2.76 0 0 NEAMT 121340 BICAZU ARDELEAN 4,030 0.00 0 0 Average NEAMT 121386 BIRA 1,680 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization NEAMT 121466 BARGAUANI 3,505 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 121607 BODESTI 4,472 3.15 0 0 Marginalization NEAMT 121652 BORCA 6,148 3.43 0.1-<6.1% below average NEAMT 121732 BORLESTI 6,938 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 121796 BOTESTI 4,989 0.00 0 0 Marginalization NEAMT 121876 BOZIENI 2,716 0.00 12-<24% above average NEAMT 121938 BRUSTURI 3,852 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 122025 CEAHLAU 2,180 0.18 0 0 Marginalization NEAMT 122061 CANDESTI 3,232 0.00 12-<24% above average NEAMT 122132 COSTISA 2,883 0.00 0 0 Marginalization NEAMT 122187 CRACAOANI 3,944 12.42 12-<24% above average NEAMT 122249 DAMUC 2,761 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 122285 DOBRENI 1,842 0.00 0 0 Marginalization NEAMT 122347 DOLJESTI 7,220 0.25 0.1-<6.1% below average NEAMT 122392 DRAGOMIRESTI 2,231 3.77 0 0 Average NEAMT 122463 DULCESTI 2,293 0.09 6.1-<12% marginalization NEAMT 122551 FARCASA 2,866 1.36 0 0 Marginalization NEAMT 122613 FAUREI 1,987 0.05 12-<24% above average NEAMT 122668 GHERAESTI 4,854 0.02 0 0 Marginalization NEAMT 122702 GIROV 4,645 1.44 0.1-<6.1% below average NEAMT 122828 GARCINA 4,336 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 122864 GRINTIES 2,213 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 122908 GRUMAZESTI 5,182 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 122953 HANGU 3,619 0.00 0 0 Severe NEAMT 123013 ICUSESTI 3,952 2.00 24+% marginalization ANNEX | 299 Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) NEAMT 123102 ION CREANGA 5,001 0.00 0 0 Marginalization NEAMT 123175 MARGINENI 3,253 0.00 12-<24% above average NEAMT 123228 MOLDOVENI 2,207 0.00 0 0 Severe NEAMT 123255 ONICENI 3,388 0.00 24+% marginalization Average NEAMT 123371 PASTRAVENI 3,595 0.08 6.1-<12% marginalization Average NEAMT 123424 PETRICANI 5,286 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Average NEAMT 123479 PIATRA SOIMULUI 5,587 1.56 6.1-<12% marginalization Average NEAMT 123521 PIPIRIG 8,372 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization NEAMT 123601 PANGARATI 4,672 0.02 0 0 NEAMT 123674 PODOLENI 4,196 0.02 0 0 Marginalization NEAMT 123709 POIENARI 1,453 0.28 12-<24% above average NEAMT 123790 POIANA TEIULUI 4,451 0.00 0 0 Average NEAMT 123914 RAUCESTI 7,781 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Average NEAMT 123969 RAZBOIENI 2,272 1.98 6.1-<12% marginalization NEAMT 124028 REDIU 4,247 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 124073 ROMANI 3,939 0.00 0 0 Marginalization NEAMT 124153 SAGNA 3,883 0.08 0.1-<6.1% below average NEAMT 124206 SABAOANI 9,901 0.01 0 0 NEAMT 124233 SECUIENI 2,967 0.00 0 0 Severe NEAMT 124331 STANITA 1,966 0.00 24+% marginalization NEAMT 124411 STEFAN CEL MARE 3,024 0.07 0 0 NEAMT 124493 TARCAU 3,062 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 124563 TASCA 2,235 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 124616 TAZLAU 2,224 0.04 0 0 NEAMT 124634 TAMASENI 6,493 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 124661 TIMISESTI 3,492 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 124723 TRIFESTI 4,551 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 124750 TUPILATI 2,186 0.00 0 0 NEAMT 124803 TIBUCANI 3,886 1.72 0 0 Marginalization NEAMT 124849 URECHENI 3,343 1.50 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe NEAMT 124885 VALEA URSULUI 3,874 0.00 24+% marginalization ALEXANDRU CEL NEAMT 124938 4,876 0.06 0 0 BUN Average NEAMT 125016 VANATORI-NEAMT 7,595 3.24 6.1-<12% marginalization NEAMT 125061 ZANESTI 4,902 0.00 0 0 Average NEAMT 125098 DOCHIA 2,187 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization NEAMT 125105 RUGINOASA 1,782 0.00 0 0 300 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) Average NEAMT 125114 GHINDAOANI 1,849 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe NEAMT 125123 VALENI 1,380 23.77 24+% marginalization NEAMT 125132 DRAGANESTI 1,389 0.00 0 0 Severe NEAMT 125141 PANCESTI 1,350 0.00 24+% marginalization NEAMT 125150 GADINTI 1,983 0.05 0 0 NEAMT 125169 NEGRESTI 1,632 1.78 0 0 Marginalization NEAMT 125178 BOGHICEA 2,376 5.26 12-<24% above average SUCEAVA 146281 IPOTESTI 5,635 0.00 0 0 MITOCU Average SUCEAVA 146325 4,438 9.42 6.1-<12% DRAGOMIRNEI marginalization Marginalization SUCEAVA 146432 SCHEIA 9,577 3.63 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization SUCEAVA 146799 ADANCATA 4,032 1.09 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization SUCEAVA 146860 ARBORE 6,719 0.70 12-<24% above average Average SUCEAVA 146904 BAIA 6,405 0.39 6.1-<12% marginalization SUCEAVA 146995 BALCAUTI 3,070 0.00 0 0 Average SUCEAVA 147036 BILCA 3,583 1.48 6.1-<12% marginalization SUCEAVA 147054 BOGDANESTI 3,909 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 147072 BOROAIA 4,589 0.00 0 0 Marginalization SUCEAVA 147134 BOSANCI 6,719 3.01 0.1-<6.1% below average SUCEAVA 147161 BOTOSANA 2,144 0.05 0 0 SUCEAVA 147205 BREAZA 1,512 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 147241 BRODINA 3,320 0.27 0 0 SUCEAVA 147465 BUNESTI 2,348 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 147526 CACICA 3,712 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 147580 CALAFINDESTI 2,549 0.00 0 0 Marginalization SUCEAVA 147660 ILISESTI 2,761 0.58 12-<24% above average SUCEAVA 147713 CARLIBABA 1,717 0.00 0 0 Marginalization SUCEAVA 147786 CORNU LUNCII 6,614 3.49 0.1-<6.1% below average SUCEAVA 147884 CRUCEA 1,833 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 147937 DARMANESTI 5,228 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 148097 DOLHESTI 3,502 4.17 0 0 SUCEAVA 148131 DORNA-ARINI 2,841 0.00 0 0 DORNA SUCEAVA 148202 2,827 0.85 0 0 CANDRENILOR Marginalization SUCEAVA 148293 DORNESTI 3,926 6.14 0.1-<6.1% below average Average SUCEAVA 148328 DRAGOIESTI 2,349 0.38 6.1-<12% marginalization Average SUCEAVA 148382 DRAGUSENI 2,422 0.66 6.1-<12% marginalization ANNEX | 301 Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) SUCEAVA 148426 DUMBRAVENI 7,480 0.37 0 0 Average SUCEAVA 148453 FANTANELE 4,848 0.33 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization SUCEAVA 148514 FORASTI 4,451 2.29 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization SUCEAVA 148667 FRATAUTII NOI 5,736 0.00 12-<24% above average SUCEAVA 148694 FRATAUTII VECHI 4,394 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 148729 FRUMOSU 3,220 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 148765 FUNDU MOLDOVEI 3,594 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 148872 GALANESTI 2,573 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 148916 GRAMESTI 3,032 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 148970 GRANICESTI 4,440 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 149049 HORODNICENI 3,283 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 149101 HORODNIC DE JOS 2,003 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 149138 IACOBENI 1,842 0.00 0 0 Marginalization SUCEAVA 149183 IZVOARELE SUCEVEI 2,063 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization SUCEAVA 149290 MARGINEA 8,552 0.13 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization SUCEAVA 149316 MALINI 6,306 0.63 0.1-<6.1% below average MANASTIREA SUCEAVA 149370 3,233 0.00 0 0 HUMORULUI SUCEAVA 149414 MOARA 4,384 0.00 0 0 Severe SUCEAVA 149502 MOLDOVA-SULITA 1,865 1.18 24+% marginalization Marginalization SUCEAVA 149539 MOLDOVITA 4,970 0.02 0.1-<6.1% below average SUCEAVA 149584 MUSENITA 1,871 0.21 0 0 SUCEAVA 149655 OSTRA 3,009 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 149682 PANACI 2,159 0.00 0 0 Marginalization SUCEAVA 149753 PALTINOASA 4,909 6.60 12-<24% above average Average SUCEAVA 149780 PARTESTII DE JOS 2,778 3.96 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization SUCEAVA 149833 PATRAUTI 4,567 21.09 12-<24% above average SUCEAVA 149851 POIANA STAMPEI 2,077 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 149931 POJORATA 2,908 0.83 0 0 Marginalization SUCEAVA 149968 PREUTESTI 6,725 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average SUCEAVA 150043 PUTNA 3,569 0.06 0 0 SUCEAVA 150070 RADASENI 3,575 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 150114 RASCA 5,052 0.14 0 0 SUCEAVA 150178 SADOVA 2,285 0.79 0 0 SUCEAVA 150196 SATU MARE 3,594 0.03 0 0 SUCEAVA 150221 SIMINICEA 2,710 0.30 0 0 Marginalization SUCEAVA 150258 SLATINA 4,821 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average SUCEAVA 150294 STRAJA 5,094 0.00 0 0 302 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization SUCEAVA 150310 STROIESTI 3,304 1.06 0.1-<6.1% below average SUCEAVA 150356 STULPICANI 5,904 0.97 0 0 Severe SUCEAVA 150418 SUCEVITA 2,762 9.27 24+% marginalization SUCEAVA 150445 SARU DORNEI 3,972 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 150524 TODIRESTI 5,259 0.00 0 0 Marginalization SUCEAVA 150588 UDESTI 7,566 4.10 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization SUCEAVA 150702 ULMA 2,007 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization SUCEAVA 150766 VADU MOLDOVEI 3,993 0.23 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe SUCEAVA 150891 VALEA MOLDOVEI 3,838 39.08 24+% marginalization SUCEAVA 150935 VAMA 5,426 1.55 0 0 SUCEAVA 150980 VATRA MOLDOVITEI 4,099 0.00 0 0 Average SUCEAVA 151022 VERESTI 6,289 10.48 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization SUCEAVA 151077 VICOVU DE JOS 5,925 1.84 0.1-<6.1% below average SUCEAVA 151120 VOLOVAT 4,952 1.05 0 0 SUCEAVA 151157 VULTURESTI 3,395 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 151246 ZAMOSTEA 2,849 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 151344 ZVORISTEA 6,124 0.00 0 0 Severe SUCEAVA 151433 COMANESTI 2,094 16.38 24+% marginalization SUCEAVA 151442 IASLOVAT 3,163 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 151451 CIOCANESTI 1,384 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 151460 SERBAUTI 2,847 0.00 0 0 Marginalization SUCEAVA 151479 HORODNIC DE SUS 5,136 6.54 12-<24% above average SUCEAVA 151488 FANTANA MARE 2,237 0.00 0 0 SUCEAVA 151497 COSNA 1,453 0.00 0 0 Marginalization SUCEAVA 151503 CAPU CAMPULUI 2,214 5.60 12-<24% above average Average SUCEAVA 151512 HANTESTI 3,607 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe SUCEAVA 151521 BURLA 2,111 7.91 24+% marginalization Marginalization SUCEAVA 151530 BALACEANA 1,520 0.20 12-<24% above average SUCEAVA 151549 HARTOP 2,269 0.00 0 0 Severe SUCEAVA 151558 VOITINEL 4,387 11.78 24+% marginalization CIPRIAN Severe SUCEAVA 151567 1,840 10.43 24+% PORUMBESCU marginalization SUCEAVA 151576 BERCHISESTI 2,849 4.63 0 0 SUCEAVA 151585 POIENI-SOLCA 1,629 0.00 0 0 VASLUI 162014 ALBESTI 2,893 0.00 0 0 ALEXANDRU Severe VASLUI 162069 1,550 0.00 24+% VLAHUTA marginalization ANNEX | 303 Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) VASLUI 162149 ARSURA 1,717 0.00 0 0 Marginalization VASLUI 162194 BANCA 5,389 0.00 12-<24% above average Severe VASLUI 162327 BACANI 2,814 0.43 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 162381 BACESTI 4,107 12.61 24+% marginalization Marginalization VASLUI 162452 BALTENI 1,523 0.46 12-<24% above average Average VASLUI 162498 BEREZENI 4,780 0.08 6.1-<12% marginalization VASLUI 162559 BLAGESTI 1,515 0.20 0 0 Severe VASLUI 162595 BOGDANA 1,602 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 162693 BOGDANESTI 3,242 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 162791 BOGDANITA 1,437 0.14 24+% marginalization Marginalization VASLUI 162871 BOTESTI 2,049 0.00 12-<24% above average Average VASLUI 162924 BUNESTI-AVERESTI 2,592 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Average VASLUI 163002 CODAESTI 4,362 0.02 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe VASLUI 163057 COROIESTI 2,014 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 163137 COSTESTI 2,953 0.41 24+% marginalization Marginalization VASLUI 163208 CRETESTI 1,790 0.39 12-<24% above average Severe VASLUI 163253 DANESTI 2,205 0.00 24+% marginalization Average VASLUI 163324 DELENI 2,257 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Average VASLUI 163379 DELESTI 2,358 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe VASLUI 163486 DRAGOMIRESTI 4,900 12.22 24+% marginalization Average VASLUI 163618 DRANCENI 3,973 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization VASLUI 163681 DUDA-EPURENI 4,397 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe VASLUI 163734 DUMESTI 3,334 8.34 24+% marginalization Marginalization VASLUI 163789 EPURENI 3,081 0.00 12-<24% above average Average VASLUI 163832 FALCIU 5,103 0.08 6.1-<12% marginalization Average VASLUI 163903 GAGESTI 2,024 0.05 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe VASLUI 163967 GHERGHESTI 2,595 1.43 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 164062 GARCENI 2,443 3.89 24+% marginalization 304 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) VASLUI 164133 GRIVITA 3,293 0.06 0 0 Severe VASLUI 164197 HOCENI 2,794 0.04 24+% marginalization Average VASLUI 164277 DIMITRIE CANTEMIR 2,676 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe VASLUI 164339 IANA 3,870 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 164393 IVANESTI 4,495 1.40 24+% marginalization VASLUI 164543 IVESTI 2,409 0.00 0 0 VASLUI 164598 LAZA 3,114 0.03 0 0 Marginalization VASLUI 164687 LIPOVAT 3,960 0.71 12-<24% above average Marginalization VASLUI 164749 LUNCA BANULUI 3,501 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe VASLUI 164829 MALUSTENI 2,462 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 164892 MICLESTI 2,636 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization VASLUI 164936 MUNTENII DE JOS 3,584 0.11 0.1-<6.1% below average VASLUI 165069 OLTENESTI 2,515 0.00 0 0 Severe VASLUI 165130 OSESTI 3,157 1.74 24+% marginalization Marginalization VASLUI 165185 PADURENI 4,028 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Average VASLUI 165274 PERIENI 3,536 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe VASLUI 165336 POIENESTI 2,855 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 165416 POGANA 2,992 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 165470 PUIESTI 4,661 0.02 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 165611 PUNGESTI 3,223 8.04 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 165719 REBRICEA 3,451 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization VASLUI 165817 ROSIESTI 3,151 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization VASLUI 165899 SOLESTI 3,623 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization VASLUI 165979 STANILESTI 5,117 0.02 12-<24% above average VASLUI 166057 STEFAN CEL MARE 3,160 0.03 0 0 Average VASLUI 166137 SULETEA 2,288 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization VASLUI 166182 TANACU 2,040 0.00 0 0 Marginalization VASLUI 166235 TACUTA 3,248 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization VASLUI 166315 TATARANI 2,171 0.05 12-<24% above average ANNEX | 305 Share of Roma Siruta Rate of Total population population in Type of County Code Commune marginalization (2011 Census) total population marginalization TAU (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization VASLUI 166413 TODIRESTI 3,214 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization VASLUI 166529 TUTOVA 3,311 0.03 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization VASLUI 166636 VALENI 4,022 0.07 0.1-<6.1% below average Average VASLUI 166672 VETRISOAIA 2,830 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization VASLUI 166707 VIISOARA 1,909 0.16 0 0 Severe VASLUI 166770 VINDEREI 4,025 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 166869 VOINESTI 3,757 0.00 24+% marginalization VASLUI 166985 VULTURESTI 2,236 0.00 0 0 Average VASLUI 167035 VUTCANI 2,035 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization VASLUI 167071 ZAPODENI 3,724 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization VASLUI 167179 ZORLENI 8,595 0.45 12-<24% above average Severe VASLUI 167222 IBANESTI 1,451 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 167231 FRUNTISENI 1,795 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 167240 RAFAILA 1,835 0.00 24+% marginalization VASLUI 167259 POGONESTI 1,561 0.00 0 0 Severe VASLUI 167268 CIOCANI 1,638 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 167277 COZMESTI 2,202 14.80 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 167286 DODESTI 1,724 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VASLUI 167295 FERESTI 1,897 0.00 24+% marginalization VASLUI 167302 MUNTENII DE SUS 2,763 0.00 0 0 VASLUI 167311 POCHIDIA 1,629 0.00 0 0 Severe VASLUI 167320 PUSCASI 3,328 0.51 24+% marginalization ANNEX 2. TABLE 4: Rate of marginalization at commune level in North West development region Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization BIHOR 26582 SANMARTIN 9,572 7.20 0.1-<6.1% below average BIHOR 26653 SANTANDREI 4,912 3.09 0 0 BIHOR 26742 ASTILEU 3,561 5.11 0 0 Marginalization BIHOR 27070 ABRAM 2,808 11.25 12-<24% above average 306 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization BIHOR 27169 ABRAMUT 3,071 12.67 12-<24% above average BIHOR 27212 AUSEU 3,033 8.84 0 0 BIHOR 27285 AVRAM IANCU 3,316 18.55 0 0 Marginalization BIHOR 27329 BALC 3,281 16.31 12-<24% above average Marginalization BIHOR 27383 BATAR 4,920 24.33 12-<24% above average BIHOR 27436 BIHARIA 4,205 1.55 0 0 BIHOR 27506 BOIANU MARE 1,343 0.82 0 0 Marginalization BIHOR 27560 BOROD 3,843 6.17 12-<24% above average BIHOR 27631 BORS 3,946 0.76 0 0 Average BIHOR 27686 BRATCA 5,158 5.08 6.1-<12% marginalization BIHOR 27757 BRUSTURI 3,469 7.29 0 0 Severe BIHOR 27846 BUDUREASA 2,581 23.48 24+% marginalization BIHOR 27908 BUDUSLAU 1,907 4.04 0 0 BIHOR 27935 BULZ 2,104 2.66 0 0 BIHOR 27971 BUNTESTI 4,253 0.19 0 0 BIHOR 28077 CABESTI 1,848 1.41 0 0 BIHOR 28139 CAPALNA 1,663 2.95 0 0 BIHOR 28193 CARPINET 1,932 2.12 0 0 BIHOR 28246 CEFA 2,272 11.27 0 0 BIHOR 28335 CEICA 3,591 0.86 0 0 BIHOR 28415 CETARIU 2,165 2.59 0 0 Marginalization BIHOR 28497 CHERECHIU 2,416 3.10 12-<24% above average BIHOR 28530 CHISLAZ 3,135 6.03 0 0 BIHOR 28610 CIUHOI 2,333 5.27 0 0 Marginalization BIHOR 28665 CIUMEGHIU 4,297 23.23 12-<24% above average BIHOR 28709 CAMPANI 2,427 0.00 0 0 BIHOR 28763 COCIUBA MARE 2,798 7.65 0 0 Marginalization BIHOR 28816 COPACEL 2,297 11.58 0.1-<6.1% below average BIHOR 28889 CRISTIORU DE JOS 1,354 2.14 0 0 BIHOR 28941 CURATELE 2,509 1.28 0 0 Marginalization BIHOR 29001 CURTUISENI 3,780 13.68 12-<24% above average BIHOR 29038 DERNA 2,616 1.22 0 0 Marginalization BIHOR 29092 DIOSIG 6,816 22.67 12-<24% above average Average BIHOR 29154 DOBRESTI 5,260 14.94 6.1-<12% marginalization BIHOR 29243 DRAGANESTI 2,967 2.53 0 0 Severe BIHOR 29341 DRAGESTI 2,586 33.22 24+% marginalization ANNEX | 307 Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization BIHOR 29403 FINIS 3,680 7.77 12-<24% above average BIHOR 29467 GIRISU DE CRIS 3,588 8.84 0 0 BIHOR 29519 HIDISELU DE SUS 3,315 4.62 0 0 Severe BIHOR 29573 HOLOD 3,309 21.31 24+% marginalization HUSASAU DE Marginalization BIHOR 29662 2,395 19.42 12-<24% TINCA above average Marginalization BIHOR 29724 INEU 4,399 28.96 12-<24% above average BIHOR 29760 LAZURI DE BEIUS 1,518 0.00 0 0 Severe BIHOR 29813 LAZARENI 3,233 24.74 24+% marginalization BIHOR 29902 LUGASU DE JOS 3,580 19.25 0 0 BIHOR 29948 LUNCA 2,887 0.90 0 0 BIHOR 30014 MADARAS 2,828 4.17 0 0 BIHOR 30069 MAGESTI 2,717 5.56 0 0 BIHOR 30149 NOJORID 5,240 2.69 0 0 BIHOR 30229 OLCEA 2,773 12.55 0 0 Marginalization BIHOR 30274 OSORHEI 6,532 11.51 0.1-<6.1% below average BIHOR 30336 PIETROASA 3,209 7.20 0 0 BIHOR 30416 POCOLA 1,571 0.83 0 0 BIHOR 30470 POMEZEU 2,922 2.36 0 0 BIHOR 30568 POPESTI 7,362 4.46 0 0 Marginalization BIHOR 30648 RABAGANI 2,073 9.65 12-<24% above average BIHOR 30719 REMETEA 2,906 5.71 0 0 BIHOR 30773 RIENI 3,050 13.08 0 0 BIHOR 30844 ROSIA 2,384 0.00 0 0 Average BIHOR 30871 SACADAT 1,910 9.69 6.1-<12% marginalization BIHOR 30988 SALACEA 3,036 3.69 0 0 BIHOR 31011 SALARD 4,340 2.72 0 0 BIHOR 31057 SAMBATA 1,475 0.75 0 0 BIHOR 31128 SARBI 2,609 1.07 0 0 BIHOR 31208 SPINUS 1,285 10.74 0 0 SUPLACU DE BIHOR 31262 4,356 15.27 0 0 BARCAU Marginalization BIHOR 31333 SIMIAN 3,876 13.91 12-<24% above average BIHOR 31379 SINTEU 1,021 0.00 0 0 Severe BIHOR 31422 SOIMI 2,543 15.53 24+% marginalization Average BIHOR 31510 SUNCUIUS 3,259 7.73 6.1-<12% marginalization BIHOR 31565 TARCEA 2,690 11.86 0 0 BIHOR 31609 TARCAIA 1,969 0.10 0 0 Average BIHOR 31654 TAUTEU 4,063 17.18 6.1-<12% marginalization 308 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) BIHOR 31716 TILEAGD 6,968 9.31 0 0 Marginalization BIHOR 31789 TINCA 7,793 14.92 12-<24% above average BIHOR 31841 TULCA 2,773 10.96 0 0 BIHOR 31878 TETCHEA 3,141 21.84 0 0 BIHOR 31921 UILEACU DE BEIUS 2,050 0.10 0 0 BIHOR 31976 VADU CRISULUI 4,009 9.20 0 0 BIHOR 32045 VIISOARA 1,336 0.22 0 0 BIHOR 32090 VARCIOROG 2,304 0.95 0 0 BIHOR 32153 TAMASEU 2,019 2.97 0 0 BIHOR 32161 PALEU 2,523 0.20 0 0 SANNICOLAU BIHOR 32179 2,194 16.59 0 0 ROMAN BIHOR 32187 ROSIORI 3,113 1.90 0 0 BIHOR 32195 GEPIU 1,797 14.69 0 0 BIHOR 32201 TOBOLIU 2,088 6.32 0 0 BISTRITA-NA BISTRITA Average 32633 3,815 0.03 6.1-<12% SAUD BARGAULUI marginalization BISTRITA-NA 32660 BRANISTEA 3,047 0.03 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA Average 32704 BUDACU DE JOS 2,772 17.93 6.1-<12% SAUD marginalization BISTRITA-NA Severe 32768 BUDESTI 1,856 14.28 24+% SAUD marginalization BISTRITA-NA Average 32811 CAIANU MIC 3,357 0.39 6.1-<12% SAUD marginalization BISTRITA-NA 32884 CETATE 2,330 20.04 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA 32955 CICEU-GIURGESTI 1,505 1.93 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA Marginalization 33015 CHIOCHIS 3,086 2.50 0.1-<6.1% SAUD below average BISTRITA-NA 33122 CHIUZA 1,866 0.96 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA 33177 COSBUC 1,524 0.00 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA Average 33202 DUMITRA 4,282 2.01 6.1-<12% SAUD marginalization BISTRITA-NA 33248 FELDRU 7,669 0.00 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA 33275 GALATII BISTRITEI 2,201 8.45 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA Marginalization 33337 ILVA MARE 2,274 1.01 12-<24% SAUD above average BISTRITA-NA 33364 ILVA MICA 3,264 0.43 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA JOSENII Marginalization 33382 4,541 6.78 12-<24% SAUD BARGAULUI above average BISTRITA-NA Average 33435 LECHINTA 5,678 17.31 6.1-<12% SAUD marginalization BISTRITA-NA 33514 LESU 2,510 0.00 0 0 SAUD ANNEX | 309 Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) BISTRITA-NA Marginalization 33541 LIVEZILE 4,250 6.54 12-<24% SAUD above average BISTRITA-NA 33603 LUNCA ILVEI 3,086 0.00 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA 33621 MAIERU 7,089 0.00 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA 33658 MATEI 2,563 5.70 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA Marginalization 33729 MAGURA ILVEI 1,821 5.82 0.1-<6.1% SAUD below average BISTRITA-NA 33765 MARISELU 2,383 5.25 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA MICESTII DE 33845 1,086 3.04 0 0 SAUD CAMPIE BISTRITA-NA 33881 MILAS 1,286 4.67 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA 33952 MONOR 1,390 5.68 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA 33989 NIMIGEA 5,075 6.58 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA 34075 NUSENI 3,037 0.46 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA Marginalization 34155 PARVA 2,371 0.00 12-<24% SAUD above average BISTRITA-NA Severe 34173 PETRU RARES 3,351 25.75 24+% SAUD marginalization BISTRITA-NA PRUNDU 34235 5,633 0.21 0 0 SAUD BARGAULUI BISTRITA-NA 34262 REBRA 3,163 0.00 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA Average 34280 REBRISOARA 4,269 0.00 6.1-<12% SAUD marginalization BISTRITA-NA 34333 RODNA 5,777 7.05 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA Marginalization 34360 ROMULI 1,672 0.00 12-<24% SAUD above average BISTRITA-NA 34397 SALVA 2,738 0.00 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA SILIVASU DE Average 34422 1,011 9.10 6.1-<12% SAUD CIMPIE marginalization BISTRITA-NA SANMIHAIU DE Average 34477 1,459 8.70 6.1-<12% SAUD CIMPIE marginalization BISTRITA-NA Marginalization 34547 SPERMEZEU 3,123 0.00 0.1-<6.1% SAUD below average BISTRITA-NA Average 34618 SANT 3,228 0.00 6.1-<12% SAUD marginalization BISTRITA-NA 34645 SIEU 2,827 7.64 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA 34690 SIEU-MAGHERUS 3,756 13.15 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA 34770 SIEU-ODORHEI 2,262 0.27 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA 34850 SIEUT 2,652 2.53 0 0 SAUD 310 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) BISTRITA-NA 34903 SINTEREAG 3,576 2.49 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA Severe 34985 TEACA 5,329 23.16 24+% SAUD marginalization BISTRITA-NA Average 35054 TELCIU 5,798 0.10 6.1-<12% SAUD marginalization BISTRITA-NA Severe 35090 TIHA BARGAULUI 5,722 4.14 24+% SAUD marginalization BISTRITA-NA Severe 35152 TARLISUA 3,113 0.58 24+% SAUD marginalization BISTRITA-NA 35269 URIU 3,208 4.18 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA Marginalization 35312 URMENIS 1,949 8.41 12-<24% SAUD above average BISTRITA-NA Marginalization 35429 ZAGRA 3,527 5.61 12-<24% SAUD above average BISTRITA-NA 179659 NEGRILESTI 2,447 0.25 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA Marginalization 179686 DUMITRITA 2,730 19.49 12-<24% SAUD above average BISTRITA-NA 179720 POIANA ILVEI 1,407 0.00 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA 179944 RUNCU SALVEI 1,228 0.00 0 0 SAUD BISTRITA-NA Severe 179953 CICEU - MIHAIESTI 1,286 22.55 24+% SAUD marginalization CLUJ 55062 CUZDRIOARA 2,733 7.61 0 0 CLUJ 55106 JICHISU DE JOS 1,152 0.00 0 0 CLUJ 55160 MICA 3,566 2.08 0 0 CLUJ 55277 MIHAI VITEAZU 5,423 1.49 0 0 CLUJ 55311 SANDULESTI 1,798 0.22 0 0 CLUJ 55473 AGHIRESU 7,116 7.95 0 0 CLUJ 55598 AITON 1,085 1.11 0 0 CLUJ 55623 ALUNIS 1,223 0.08 0 0 CLUJ 55687 APAHIDA 10,685 3.86 0 0 CLUJ 55776 ASCHILEU 1,601 7.37 0 0 CLUJ 55838 BACIU 10,317 6.39 0 0 CLUJ 55918 BAISOARA 1,940 2.32 0 0 CLUJ 56014 BELIS 1,211 0.08 0 0 Marginalization CLUJ 56096 BOBALNA 1,572 3.94 0.1-<6.1% below average CLUJ 56210 BONTIDA 4,856 19.81 0 0 CLUJ 56265 BORSA 1,600 2.81 0 0 CLUJ 56327 BUZA 1,264 3.96 0 0 CLUJ 56354 CAIANU 2,355 2.55 0 0 CLUJ 56425 CALARASI 2,021 0.40 0 0 Average CLUJ 56461 CALATELE 2,243 8.34 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization CLUJ 56522 CAMARASU 2,655 21.58 12-<24% above average CLUJ 56568 CAPUSU MARE 3,295 5.64 0 0 ANNEX | 311 Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization CLUJ 56666 CASEIU 4,437 9.49 0.1-<6.1% below average CLUJ 56773 CATINA 1,993 4.01 0 0 CLUJ 56844 CEANU MARE 3,531 5.98 0 0 CLUJ 56988 CHINTENI 3,065 0.59 0 0 Marginalization CLUJ 57083 CHIUIESTI 2,332 1.07 0.1-<6.1% below average CLUJ 57163 CIUCEA 1,547 0.39 0 0 CLUJ 57225 CIURILA 1,594 3.45 0 0 CLUJ 57314 CATCAU 2,100 0.29 0 0 CLUJ 57350 COJOCNA 4,194 20.39 0 0 CLUJ 57449 CORNESTI 1,493 3.42 0 0 CLUJ 57546 DABACA 1,543 6.42 0 0 CLUJ 57582 FELEACU 3,923 2.52 0 0 CLUJ 57644 FIZESU GHERLII 2,564 16.15 0 0 CLUJ 57706 FLORESTI 22,813 4.89 0 0 CLUJ 57742 FRATA 4,242 11.60 0 0 CLUJ 57831 GEACA 1,626 4.80 0 0 CLUJ 57902 GILAU 8,300 7.78 0 0 CLUJ 57948 GARBAU 2,440 4.02 0 0 CLUJ 58008 IARA 3,889 7.33 0 0 CLUJ 58142 ICLOD 4,263 2.21 0 0 CLUJ 58204 IZVORU CRISULUI 1,632 0.00 0 0 CLUJ 58259 JUCU 4,270 0.84 0 0 Average CLUJ 58311 LUNA 4,268 10.45 6.1-<12% marginalization Average CLUJ 58357 MAGURI-RACATAU 2,242 0.04 6.1-<12% marginalization CLUJ 58393 MANASTIRENI 1,481 5.33 0 0 CLUJ 58464 MARGAU 1,484 0.07 0 0 CLUJ 58534 MARISEL 1,488 0.07 0 0 CLUJ 58552 MINTIU GHERLII 3,746 4.62 0 0 CLUJ 58623 MOCIU 3,313 11.20 0 0 CLUJ 58721 MOLDOVENESTI 3,317 3.50 0 0 Average CLUJ 58794 PALATCA 1,218 8.70 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization CLUJ 58856 PANTICEU 1,844 13.12 12-<24% above average Average CLUJ 58918 PETRESTII DE JOS 1,512 2.58 6.1-<12% marginalization CLUJ 58990 PLOSCOS 702 1.71 0 0 CLUJ 59041 POIENI 4,842 5.18 0 0 CLUJ 59130 RECEA-CRISTUR 1,412 18.34 0 0 CLUJ 59238 RISCA 1,446 0.00 0 0 Marginalization CLUJ 59283 SACUIEU 1,466 13.03 12-<24% above average CLUJ 59327 SAVADISLA 4,392 1.78 0 0 CLUJ 59416 SIC 2,459 0.41 0 0 CLUJ 59434 SANCRAIU 1,633 0.00 0 0 312 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization CLUJ 59498 SANMARTIN 1,384 3.97 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization CLUJ 59586 SANPAUL 2,382 15.37 0.1-<6.1% below average CLUJ 59657 SUATU 1,737 9.44 0 0 CLUJ 59693 TRITENII DE JOS 4,240 0.47 0 0 CLUJ 59764 TURENI 2,278 7.55 0 0 CLUJ 59826 TAGA 1,947 3.24 0 0 CLUJ 59880 UNGURAS 2,777 1.48 0 0 CLUJ 59942 VAD 2,008 0.30 0 0 Average CLUJ 60026 VALEA IERII 888 0.11 6.1-<12% marginalization CLUJ 60062 VIISOARA 5,493 8.85 0 0 CLUJ 60099 VULTURENI 1,516 6.00 0 0 CLUJ 60169 NEGRENI 2,321 2.33 0 0 MARAMURES 106363 GROSI 2,857 0.07 0 0 MARAMURES 106407 RECEA 6,000 1.07 0 0 MARAMURES 106620 SARASAU 2,238 2.19 0 0 MARAMURES 106648 VADU IZEI 2,659 0.00 0 0 Marginalization MARAMURES 107001 ARDUSAT 2,738 0.00 12-<24% above average MARAMURES 107047 ARINIS 1,084 0.28 0 0 MARAMURES 107083 ASUAJU DE SUS 1,441 0.49 0 0 BAITA DE SUB MARAMURES 107118 1,871 1.23 0 0 CODRU MARAMURES 107154 BAIUT 2,340 0.00 0 0 MARAMURES 107190 BASESTI 1,452 4.34 0 0 MARAMURES 107234 BICAZ 1,124 0.00 0 0 Marginalization MARAMURES 107270 BISTRA 4,174 0.17 0.1-<6.1% below average Average MARAMURES 107314 BARSANA 4,474 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization MARAMURES 107350 BOCICOIU MARE 3,818 0.00 0 0 MARAMURES 107403 BOGDAN VODA 3,208 0.00 0 0 MARAMURES 107430 BOIU MARE 1,131 0.00 0 0 MARAMURES 107485 BOTIZA 2,717 0.00 0 0 MARAMURES 107519 BUDESTI 3,055 0.00 0 0 MARAMURES 107546 CALINESTI 3,178 0.03 0 0 Average MARAMURES 107582 CERNESTI 3,741 3.07 6.1-<12% marginalization MARAMURES 107662 CICARLAU 3,691 0.00 0 0 CAMPULUNG LA MARAMURES 107715 2,485 3.62 0 0 TISA COPALNIC-MANA MARAMURES 107733 5,673 7.47 0 0 STUR Marginalization MARAMURES 107868 COROIENI 2,219 19.06 12-<24% above average MARAMURES 107920 CUPSENI 3,581 0.00 0 0 MARAMURES 107975 DESESTI 2,341 0.09 0 0 MARAMURES 108035 DUMBRAVITA 4,372 0.25 0 0 ANNEX | 313 Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) MARAMURES 108106 FARCASA 4,015 1.54 0 0 MARAMURES 108151 GIULESTI 3,113 0.03 0 0 Marginalization MARAMURES 108204 IEUD 4,318 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average MARAMURES 108222 LAPUS 3,709 0.05 0 0 MARAMURES 108240 LEORDINA 2,547 0.04 0 0 MARAMURES 108268 MIRESU MARE 4,766 1.38 0 0 MARAMURES 108348 MOISEI 9,264 0.03 0 0 MARAMURES 108366 OARTA DE JOS 1,243 0.00 0 0 MARAMURES 108400 OCNA SUGATAG 3,853 2.10 0 0 MARAMURES 108455 PETROVA 2,525 0.59 0 0 POIENILE DE SUB Marginalization MARAMURES 108473 10,073 0.02 12-<24% MUNTE above average REMETEA MARAMURES 108491 2,834 8.33 0 0 CHIOARULUI MARAMURES 108552 REMETI 3,040 1.22 0 0 MARAMURES 108598 REPEDEA 4,716 0.34 0 0 MARAMURES 108614 RONA DE JOS 1,776 0.11 0 0 Marginalization MARAMURES 108632 RONA DE SUS 3,855 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Average MARAMURES 108669 ROZAVLEA 3,085 0.52 6.1-<12% marginalization MARAMURES 108696 RUSCOVA 5,541 3.28 0 0 Marginalization MARAMURES 108712 SATULUNG 5,837 19.86 0.1-<6.1% below average MARAMURES 108794 SACALASENI 2,299 3.35 0 0 MARAMURES 108874 SACEL 3,500 0.09 0 0 MARAMURES 108918 SALSIG 1,641 10.24 0 0 MARAMURES 108945 SAPANTA 2,903 0.03 0 0 Marginalization MARAMURES 109005 STRAMTURA 3,652 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Average MARAMURES 109041 SUCIU DE SUS 3,868 4.52 6.1-<12% marginalization MARAMURES 109096 SISESTI 5,289 0.00 0 0 VALEA MARAMURES 109354 2,025 8.59 0 0 CHIOARULUI MARAMURES 109425 VIMA MICA 1,448 0.00 0 0 MARAMURES 109504 VISEU DE JOS 4,934 1.07 0 0 MARAMURES 179604 POIENILE IZEI 940 0.00 0 0 MARAMURES 179613 SIEU 2,348 0.00 0 0 MARAMURES 179622 GROSII TIBLESULUI 2,095 1.62 0 0 MARAMURES 179837 COAS 1,402 0.07 0 0 Marginalization MARAMURES 179846 COLTAU 2,557 36.64 12-<24% above average MARAMURES 179855 GARDANI 1,151 0.00 0 0 MARAMURES 179864 ONCESTI 1,549 0.00 0 0 SALAJ 139937 AGRIJ 1,370 27.52 0 0 SALAJ 139982 ALMASU 2,237 9.75 0 0 SALAJ 140084 BABENI 1,742 1.84 0 0 314 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) SALAJ 140146 BALAN 3,722 2.71 0 0 SALAJ 140208 BANISOR 2,022 1.14 0 0 SALAJ 140244 BENESAT 1,536 0.07 0 0 Marginalization SALAJ 140280 BOBOTA 3,766 15.72 12-<24% above average Average SALAJ 140324 BOCSA 3,206 8.76 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization SALAJ 140379 BUCIUMI 2,586 15.93 12-<24% above average SALAJ 140440 CAMAR 1,741 6.15 0 0 SALAJ 140477 CARASTELEC 1,089 3.21 0 0 SALAJ 140501 CHIESD 2,420 10.04 0 0 Marginalization SALAJ 140547 CIZER 2,196 11.48 12-<24% above average SALAJ 140583 COSEIU 1,198 2.00 0 0 Average SALAJ 140627 CRASNA 6,485 8.65 6.1-<12% marginalization SALAJ 140672 CREACA 2,803 2.14 0 0 SALAJ 140770 CRISTOLT 1,235 0.00 0 0 SALAJ 140823 CRISENI 2,641 4.24 0 0 Marginalization SALAJ 140869 CUZAPLAC 1,864 8.37 0.1-<6.1% below average SALAJ 140958 DOBRIN 1,660 2.41 0 0 Severe SALAJ 141027 DRAGU 1,427 29.64 24+% marginalization Marginalization SALAJ 141081 FILDU DE JOS 1,441 22.83 12-<24% above average SALAJ 141134 GALGAU 2,456 3.66 0 0 Marginalization SALAJ 141232 GARBOU 2,044 9.10 12-<24% above average SALAJ 141312 HALMASD 2,393 15.09 0 0 SALAJ 141376 HERECLEAN 3,575 2.27 0 0 Marginalization SALAJ 141447 HIDA 2,787 2.69 0.1-<6.1% below average HOROATU Average SALAJ 141535 2,485 7.48 6.1-<12% CRASNEI marginalization Marginalization SALAJ 141580 ILEANDA 2,256 10.82 12-<24% above average SALAJ 141722 IP 3,648 11.43 0 0 SALAJ 141786 LETCA 1,846 1.95 0 0 SALAJ 141884 LOZNA 1,072 0.28 0 0 Average SALAJ 141946 MARCA 2,542 6.57 6.1-<12% marginalization SALAJ 142006 MAERISTE 3,081 2.63 0 0 Average SALAJ 142079 MESESENII DE JOS 3,117 5.45 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization SALAJ 142122 MIRSID 2,159 19.31 12-<24% above average Marginalization SALAJ 142177 NAPRADEA 2,652 16.89 12-<24% above average ANNEX | 315 Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) Average SALAJ 142239 NUSFALAU 3,600 16.56 6.1-<12% marginalization SALAJ 142284 PERICEI 3,768 6.37 0 0 Marginalization SALAJ 142337 PLOPIS 2,405 6.61 12-<24% above average SALAJ 142373 POIANA BLENCHII 1,221 9.91 0 0 Average SALAJ 142426 ROMANASI 2,894 14.41 6.1-<12% marginalization SALAJ 142499 RUS 1,071 1.12 0 0 SALAJ 142550 SALATIG 2,913 0.00 0 0 Severe SALAJ 142612 SAG 3,276 20.73 24+% marginalization SANMIHAIU Marginalization SALAJ 142676 1,617 19.54 12-<24% ALMASULUI above average SALAJ 142710 SOMES-ODORHEI 2,671 6.33 0 0 SALAJ 142774 SURDUC 3,461 6.10 0 0 Marginalization SALAJ 142854 SAMSUD 1,723 4.88 12-<24% above average Marginalization SALAJ 142881 SARMASAG 6,092 7.93 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization SALAJ 142952 VALCAU DE JOS 2,851 14.70 12-<24% above average SALAJ 143021 VARSOLT 2,209 4.16 0 0 SALAJ 143067 ZALHA 864 0.58 0 0 SALAJ 143147 ZIMBOR 1,081 4.90 0 0 SALAJ 179631 TREZNEA 947 8.45 0 0 SALAJ 179695 SIMISNA 1,103 7.98 0 0 SALAJ 180037 BOGHIS 1,858 22.98 0 0 SATU MARE 136553 CAPLENI 3,031 4.06 0 0 Marginalization SATU MARE 136713 ACIS 2,827 26.85 12-<24% above average Marginalization SATU MARE 136768 ANDRID 2,506 6.82 12-<24% above average Average SATU MARE 136802 APA 2,681 14.25 6.1-<12% marginalization SATU MARE 136919 BATARCI 3,707 0.67 0 0 SATU MARE 136964 BELTIUG 3,228 18.00 0 0 SATU MARE 137032 BERVENI 3,376 6.22 0 0 Marginalization SATU MARE 137069 BIXAD 6,504 0.48 0.1-<6.1% below average SATU MARE 137103 BARSAU 2,434 0.00 0 0 SATU MARE 137130 BOGDAND 2,872 5.15 0 0 Average SATU MARE 137185 BOTIZ 3,622 4.75 6.1-<12% marginalization SATU MARE 137229 CALINESTI-OAS 4,811 0.56 0 0 SATU MARE 137274 CAMARZANA 2,355 0.00 0 0 Average SATU MARE 137292 CAUAS 2,388 16.79 6.1-<12% marginalization SATU MARE 137363 CEHAL 1,594 0.00 0 0 SATU MARE 137407 CERTEZE 5,636 0.00 0 0 316 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) Severe SATU MARE 137443 CRAIDOROLT 2,215 15.40 24+% marginalization SATU MARE 137504 CRUCISOR 2,546 6.60 0 0 SATU MARE 137540 CULCIU 3,884 0.85 0 0 SATU MARE 137611 DOBA 2,760 12.68 0 0 Average SATU MARE 137675 DOROLT 3,806 6.59 6.1-<12% marginalization SATU MARE 137728 FOIENI 1,840 5.65 0 0 SATU MARE 137746 GHERTA MICA 3,412 1.20 0 0 SATU MARE 137764 HALMEU 4,968 2.96 0 0 Average SATU MARE 137844 HODOD 3,056 4.78 6.1-<12% marginalization SATU MARE 137899 HOMOROADE 1,791 4.58 0 0 Marginalization SATU MARE 137960 LAZURI 5,562 3.29 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization SATU MARE 138084 MEDIESU AURIT 6,683 7.09 12-<24% above average SATU MARE 138164 MICULA 3,659 8.66 0 0 Average SATU MARE 138208 MOFTIN 4,293 9.64 6.1-<12% marginalization SATU MARE 138280 ODOREU 4,946 7.00 0 0 SATU MARE 138351 ORASU NOU 3,806 0.50 0 0 SATU MARE 138431 PAULESTI 4,909 10.39 0 0 SATU MARE 138501 PETRESTI 1,588 10.52 0 0 SATU MARE 138538 PIR 1,614 9.23 0 0 Average SATU MARE 138574 PISCOLT 3,161 14.87 6.1-<12% marginalization SATU MARE 138618 POMI 2,182 5.87 0 0 SATU MARE 138663 SANISLAU 3,515 11.58 0 0 SATU MARE 138734 SANTAU 2,377 12.54 0 0 SATU MARE 138770 SACASENI 1,178 12.56 0 0 Marginalization SATU MARE 138805 SAUCA 1,376 20.93 12-<24% above average Severe SATU MARE 138869 SOCOND 2,641 38.39 24+% marginalization SATU MARE 138921 SUPUR 4,231 10.66 0 0 Average SATU MARE 139009 TARNA MARE 3,774 2.15 6.1-<12% marginalization SATU MARE 139054 TEREBESTI 1,750 22.06 0 0 Marginalization SATU MARE 139107 TIREAM 2,226 20.13 12-<24% above average SATU MARE 139143 TARSOLT 3,059 0.00 0 0 SATU MARE 139170 TURT 5,593 1.72 0 0 Marginalization SATU MARE 139214 TURULUNG 3,680 8.72 12-<24% above average SATU MARE 139250 URZICENI 1,447 8.15 0 0 SATU MARE 139287 VALEA VINULUI 2,067 4.40 0 0 Marginalization SATU MARE 139330 VAMA 3,486 0.37 0.1-<6.1% below average SATU MARE 139358 VETIS 4,788 5.45 0 0 ANNEX | 317 Share of Roma Siruta Total population Rate of Type of County Code Commune population in total marginalization marginalization TAU (2011 Census) population (interval) (2011 Census) Average SATU MARE 139394 VIILE SATU MARE 3,514 13.38 6.1-<12% marginalization SATU MARE 179677 CAMIN 1,388 7.28 0 0 SATU MARE 179873 AGRIS 2,003 0.00 0 0 SATU MARE 179882 CIUMESTI 1,407 4.76 0 0 SATU MARE 180028 PORUMBESTI 2,530 16.52 0 0 SATU MARE 180091 RASCA 3,052 0.07 0 0 ANNEX 2. TABLE 5: Rate of marginalization at commune level in South East development region Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) BRAILA 42708 CHISCANI 5,340 3.48 0 0 BRAILA 42771 SURDILA-GRECI 1,505 0.00 0 0 BRAILA 42824 BARAGANUL 3,062 3.85 0 0 BRAILA 42842 BERTESTII DE JOS 3,110 10.93 0 0 BRAILA 42913 BORDEI VERDE 2,654 0.30 0 0 Severe BRAILA 42968 CIOCILE 2,802 2.14 24+% marginalization BRAILA 43019 CIRESU 3,106 1.48 0 0 Marginalization BRAILA 43073 DUDESTI 3,613 1.88 12-<24% above average Marginalization BRAILA 43117 FRECATEI 1,344 0.45 12-<24% above average Average BRAILA 43180 GALBENU 3,168 6.28 6.1-<12% marginalization BRAILA 43242 GEMENELE 1,819 0.00 0 0 BRAILA 43279 GRADISTEA 2,308 10.44 0 0 BRAILA 43313 GROPENI 3,296 2.46 0 0 BRAILA 43466 JIRLAU 3,059 4.35 0 0 Average BRAILA 43493 MARASU 2,913 0.31 6.1-<12% marginalization BRAILA 43563 MAXINENI 3,310 1.30 0 0 BRAILA 43625 MIRCEA VODA 3,167 0.41 0 0 Average BRAILA 43652 MOVILA MIRESII 4,051 5.97 6.1-<12% marginalization BRAILA 43698 RACOVITA 1,149 0.26 0 0 Marginalization BRAILA 43732 RAMNICELU 2,074 11.57 12-<24% above average BRAILA 43787 ROMANU 1,782 0.39 0 0 Severe BRAILA 43812 ROSIORI 2,808 0.89 24+% marginalization BRAILA 43867 SALCIA TUDOR 2,563 0.00 0 0 BRAILA 43929 SCORTARU NOU 1,261 0.00 0 0 BRAILA 43992 SILISTEA 1,638 0.00 0 0 BRAILA 44060 STANCUTA 3,464 0.12 0 0 SURDILA-GAISE BRAILA 44113 2,501 2.28 0 0 ANCA 318 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization BRAILA 44140 SUTESTI 4,428 27.48 12-<24% above average BRAILA 44177 TICHILESTI 3,864 2.95 0 0 Average BRAILA 44202 TRAIAN 3,339 3.80 6.1-<12% marginalization TUDOR BRAILA 44257 2,107 2.14 0 0 VLADIMIRESCU Marginalization BRAILA 44300 TUFESTI 5,226 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe BRAILA 44328 ULMU 3,877 2.61 24+% marginalization BRAILA 44355 UNIREA 2,399 7.38 0 0 BRAILA 44391 VADENI 4,127 0.44 0 0 Average BRAILA 44435 VICTORIA 3,721 1.69 6.1-<12% marginalization BRAILA 44462 VISANI 2,495 13.91 0 0 Average BRAILA 44505 VIZIRU 5,906 18.02 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization BRAILA 44532 ZAVOAIA 3,152 3.68 12-<24% above average BRAILA 44560 CAZASU 2,939 0.88 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 44863 AMARU 2,640 1.29 0.1-<6.1% below average BUZAU 44934 BALTA ALBA 2,590 0.97 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 44989 BALACEANU 1,632 2.39 12-<24% above average BUZAU 45003 BECENI 4,403 0.07 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 45101 BERCA 8,534 0.57 0.1-<6.1% below average BUZAU 45245 BISOCA 2,791 0.00 0 0 BUZAU 45334 BLAJANI 1,132 0.00 0 0 BUZAU 45361 BOLDU 2,380 6.81 0 0 Average BUZAU 45389 BOZIORU 1,161 0.43 6.1-<12% marginalization Average BUZAU 45496 BRADEANU 2,565 3.04 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe BUZAU 45539 BRAESTI 2,399 0.00 24+% marginalization BUZAU 45619 BREAZA 2,913 2.71 0 0 Severe BUZAU 45673 BUDA 2,870 13.94 24+% marginalization Severe BUZAU 45753 CALVINI 4,536 40.39 24+% marginalization BUZAU 45815 C.A. ROSETTI 3,713 0.13 0 0 BUZAU 45888 CANESTI 898 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 45959 CATINA 2,544 8.33 12-<24% above average Marginalization BUZAU 46019 CERNATESTI 3,847 0.18 0.1-<6.1% below average BUZAU 46108 CHILIILE 623 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 46180 CHIOJDU 3,509 0.00 12-<24% above average ANNEX | 319 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization BUZAU 46251 CILIBIA 1,864 5.47 12-<24% above average BUZAU 46313 CISLAU 4,697 3.34 0 0 BUZAU 46377 COCHIRLEANCA 5,092 0.22 0 0 BUZAU 46439 COLTI 1,094 0.00 0 0 BUZAU 46484 COSTESTI 4,817 6.98 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 46554 COZIENI 2,139 0.56 12-<24% above average BUZAU 46769 GALBINASI 4,116 2.94 0 0 BUZAU 46803 GHERASENI 3,456 1.71 0 0 BUZAU 46830 GHERGHEASA 2,493 1.76 0 0 Average BUZAU 46867 GLODEANU SARAT 4,469 6.22 6.1-<12% marginalization GLODEANU-SILI BUZAU 46910 3,998 1.23 0 0 STEA BUZAU 47006 GREBANU 5,319 8.40 0 0 BUZAU 47079 GURA TEGHII 3,439 0.00 0 0 BUZAU 47159 LARGU 1,526 0.07 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 47186 LOPATARI 4,242 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization BUZAU 47300 LUCIU 2,911 6.53 12-<24% above average Marginalization BUZAU 47337 MAGURA 2,241 13.74 12-<24% above average BUZAU 47373 MARACINENI 8,279 0.33 0 0 BUZAU 47417 MARGARITESTI 697 0.00 0 0 BUZAU 47453 MEREI 6,803 3.79 0 0 Severe BUZAU 47578 MIHAILESTI 2,084 26.92 24+% marginalization BUZAU 47630 MANZALESTI 2,591 0.00 0 0 BUZAU 47774 MOVILA BANULUI 2,726 7.67 0 0 BUZAU 47818 MURGESTI 966 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 47854 NAENI 1,805 0.44 12-<24% above average BUZAU 48021 ODAILE 882 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 48138 PADINA 4,111 1.61 0.1-<6.1% below average BUZAU 48165 PARDOSI 453 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 48227 PANATAU 2,537 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average BUZAU 48487 PIETROASELE 3,301 4.45 0 0 BUZAU 48557 PARSCOV 5,654 1.13 0 0 BUZAU 48682 PODGORIA 3,236 1.58 0 0 BUZAU 48771 POSTA CALNAU 5,968 1.31 0 0 BUZAU 48842 PUIESTI 4,146 5.62 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 48922 RACOVITENI 1,424 0.49 12-<24% above average Severe BUZAU 48968 RAMNICELU 4,789 39.24 24+% marginalization Average BUZAU 49019 ROBEASCA 1,124 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization 320 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Average BUZAU 49046 RUSETU 3,720 3.06 6.1-<12% marginalization BUZAU 49073 SAGEATA 4,949 0.12 0 0 BUZAU 49153 SAHATENI 3,248 0.09 0 0 BUZAU 49206 SAPOCA 3,305 0.21 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 49233 SARULESTI 1,346 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization BUZAU 49313 SCORTOASA 3,076 4.06 0.1-<6.1% below average Average BUZAU 49439 SCUTELNICI 2,346 4.05 6.1-<12% marginalization BUZAU 49484 SIRIU 3,211 0.00 0 0 Average BUZAU 49545 SMEENI 6,649 1.34 6.1-<12% marginalization BUZAU 49625 STALPU 3,193 7.14 0 0 BUZAU 49643 TISAU 4,704 0.00 0 0 Marginalization BUZAU 49769 TOPLICENI 4,080 2.97 0.1-<6.1% below average BUZAU 49849 TINTESTI 4,518 4.69 0 0 BUZAU 49894 ULMENI 3,199 5.19 0 0 BUZAU 49956 VADU PASII 9,311 1.24 0 0 VALEA BUZAU 50022 5,425 0.18 0 0 RAMNICULUI Marginalization BUZAU 50068 VALEA SALCIEI 776 0.00 12-<24% above average Average BUZAU 50102 VERNESTI 8,633 8.73 6.1-<12% marginalization Average BUZAU 50228 VINTILA VODA 3,131 0.03 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe BUZAU 50326 VIPERESTI 3,493 11.77 24+% marginalization BUZAU 50399 VALCELELE 1,587 5.92 0 0 Average BUZAU 50415 ZARNESTI 5,459 8.43 6.1-<12% marginalization BUZAU 50479 ZIDURI 4,402 3.63 0 0 BUZAU 50549 UNGURIU 2,415 0.12 0 0 BUZAU 50564 FLORICA 1,597 1.19 0 0 CONSTANTA 60570 AGIGEA 6,992 0.23 0 0 CONSTANTA 60598 23 August 5,483 0.36 0 0 CONSTANTA 60632 LIMANU 6,270 1.34 0 0 CONSTANTA 60721 TUZLA 6,711 0.00 0 0 Marginalization CONSTANTA 60883 ADAMCLISI 2,250 0.00 12-<24% above average CONSTANTA 60945 ALBESTI 3,428 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 61005 ALIMAN 2,876 0.14 0 0 Marginalization CONSTANTA 61121 CASTELU 4,856 7.06 12-<24% above average CONSTANTA 61167 CERCHEZU 1,399 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 61210 CHIRNOGENI 3,283 0.61 0 0 Average CONSTANTA 61256 CIOBANU 3,223 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization ANNEX | 321 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) CONSTANTA 61283 CIOCARLIA 3,220 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 61318 COBADIN 8,779 3.84 0 0 CONSTANTA 61372 COGEALAC 5,039 0.06 0 0 CONSTANTA 61452 COMANA 1,804 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 61513 CORBU 5,689 0.79 0 0 Average CONSTANTA 61559 CRUCEA 2,945 0.14 6.1-<12% marginalization CONSTANTA 61620 CUMPANA 12,333 1.76 0 0 CONSTANTA 61675 DELENI 2,388 0.00 0 0 Severe CONSTANTA 61737 DOBROMIR 3,031 0.00 24+% marginalization CONSTANTA 61808 GARLICIU 1,619 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 61826 GHINDARESTI 1,973 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 61871 INDEPENDENTA 3,121 0.03 0 0 CONSTANTA 61951 ION CORVIN 1,996 1.40 0 0 CONSTANTA 62020 ISTRIA 2,443 0.00 0 0 Average CONSTANTA 62057 LIPNITA 3,168 1.23 6.1-<12% marginalization CONSTANTA 62137 MERENI 2,227 1.17 0 0 MIHAIL CONSTANTA 62191 9,978 2.45 0 0 KOGALNICEANU Marginalization CONSTANTA 62253 MIHAI VITEAZU 3,244 4.84 12-<24% above average Average CONSTANTA 62280 MIRCEA VODA 4,886 0.45 6.1-<12% marginalization NICOLAE CONSTANTA 62440 4,757 1.45 0 0 BALCESCU CONSTANTA 62486 OLTINA 2,593 0.00 0 0 Marginalization CONSTANTA 62538 OSTROV 5,069 3.69 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization CONSTANTA 62609 PANTELIMON 1,608 0.00 12-<24% above average CONSTANTA 62672 PECINEAGA 3,189 0.34 0 0 CONSTANTA 62707 PESTERA 3,307 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 62761 POARTA ALBA 5,208 0.63 0 0 Average CONSTANTA 62798 RASOVA 3,762 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization CONSTANTA 62823 SARAIU 1,282 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 62878 SACELE 2,101 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 62903 SEIMENI 2,023 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 62949 SILISTEA 1,373 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 62985 TARGUSOR 1,616 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 63045 TOPALU 1,785 0.00 0 0 Marginalization CONSTANTA 63072 TOPRAISAR 5,533 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average CONSTANTA 63125 VALU LUI TRAIAN 12,376 1.80 0 0 CONSTANTA 63152 LUMINA 8,948 1.37 0 0 CONSTANTA 63161 DUMBRAVENI 552 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 63170 VULTURU 625 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 63189 TORTOMAN 1,697 0.00 0 0 322 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) CONSTANTA 63198 AMZACEA 2,712 0.00 0 0 Average CONSTANTA 63278 HORIA 1,115 0.09 6.1-<12% marginalization CONSTANTA 63286 COSTINESTI 2,866 0.42 0 0 CONSTANTA 63294 BARAGANU 1,991 0.30 0 0 Severe CONSTANTA 63300 CUZA VODA 3,586 21.47 24+% marginalization CONSTANTA 63318 SALIGNY 2,158 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 63326 GRADINA 1,050 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTA 63334 FANTANELE 1,585 0.00 0 0 GALATI 75114 SENDRENI 3,641 0.03 0 0 GALATI 75150 VANATORI 4,864 0.00 0 0 Average GALATI 75221 DRAGANESTI 4,852 8.62 6.1-<12% marginalization GALATI 75258 MUNTENI 6,791 10.71 0 0 Severe GALATI 75356 BERESTI-MERIA 3,771 0.32 24+% marginalization Marginalization GALATI 75515 BARCEA 4,957 16.44 12-<24% above average Marginalization GALATI 75542 BALABANESTI 2,080 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe GALATI 75613 BALASESTI 2,295 0.00 24+% marginalization GALATI 75668 BALENI 2,332 0.13 0 0 Severe GALATI 75686 BANEASA 1,825 0.88 24+% marginalization Marginalization GALATI 75711 BRANISTEA 3,972 0.03 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe GALATI 75766 BRAHASESTI 8,847 59.17 24+% marginalization Marginalization GALATI 75819 BUCIUMENI 2,326 16.34 12-<24% above average Severe GALATI 75864 CAVADINESTI 3,125 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe GALATI 75917 CERTESTI 2,209 0.81 24+% marginalization Average GALATI 75953 COROD 7,334 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Average GALATI 76004 CORNI 2,066 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization GALATI 76040 COSMESTI 5,196 0.79 0 0 GALATI 76111 COSTACHE NEGRI 2,287 0.04 0 0 GALATI 76139 CUCA 2,150 0.00 0 0 Average GALATI 76157 CUDALBI 6,319 0.05 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe GALATI 76175 DRAGUSENI 4,899 1.43 24+% marginalization Marginalization GALATI 76255 FARTANESTI 5,184 0.19 0.1-<6.1% below average GALATI 76282 FOLTESTI 3,057 3.21 0 0 Average GALATI 76317 FRUMUSITA 4,800 14.88 6.1-<12% marginalization ANNEX | 323 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) GALATI 76353 FUNDENI 3,669 0.00 0 0 Severe GALATI 76406 GHIDIGENI 5,821 26.97 24+% marginalization Marginalization GALATI 76497 GOHOR 3,193 0.22 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization GALATI 76558 GRIVITA 2,977 4.50 0.1-<6.1% below average GALATI 76585 INDEPENDENTA 4,375 1.62 0 0 Marginalization GALATI 76601 IVESTI 8,441 18.20 12-<24% above average Severe GALATI 76638 JORASTI 1,779 0.06 24+% marginalization Average GALATI 76674 LIESTI 8,902 7.67 6.1-<12% marginalization GALATI 76692 MATCA 11,605 0.00 0 0 Marginalization GALATI 76718 MASTACANI 4,606 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Average GALATI 76745 MOVILENI 3,269 16.43 6.1-<12% marginalization GALATI 76763 NAMOLOASA 2,180 0.00 0 0 Average GALATI 76807 NICORESTI 3,602 0.42 6.1-<12% marginalization GALATI 76932 OANCEA 1,441 0.62 0 0 GALATI 76969 PECHEA 10,152 0.18 0 0 GALATI 76996 PISCU 4,746 1.12 0 0 Severe GALATI 77028 PRIPONESTI 2,223 0.00 24+% marginalization GALATI 77082 REDIU 1,891 0.00 0 0 GALATI 77126 SCANTEIESTI 2,490 0.04 0 0 GALATI 77153 SCHELA 3,690 0.00 0 0 SLOBOZIA GALATI 77180 4,024 0.00 0 0 CONACHI GALATI 77224 SMARDAN 4,810 0.00 0 0 Average GALATI 77260 SMULTI 1,342 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization GALATI 77288 SUCEVENI 1,819 0.00 0 0 TUDOR GALATI 77313 4,872 0.31 0 0 VLADIMIRESCU Marginalization GALATI 77331 TULUCESTI 7,200 0.07 0.1-<6.1% below average GALATI 77377 TEPU 2,399 0.29 0 0 Marginalization GALATI 77402 UMBRARESTI 6,628 5.66 0.1-<6.1% below average GALATI 77475 VALEA MARULUI 3,894 0.00 0 0 Severe GALATI 77509 VARLEZI 2,001 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe GALATI 77536 VLADESTI 1,977 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization GALATI 77561 RADESTI 1,490 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization GALATI 77579 NEGRILESTI 2,405 0.21 12-<24% above average 324 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Average GALATI 77587 POIANA 1,686 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization GALATI 77595 CUZA VODA 2,580 0.00 0 0 GALATI 77601 SUHURLUI 1,291 0.00 0 0 Marginalization TULCEA 159785 BAIA 4,758 0.36 0.1-<6.1% below average TULCEA 159847 BEIDAUD 1,608 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 159883 C.A. ROSETTI 910 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 159945 CARCALIU 2,457 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 159963 CASIMCEA 2,976 2.18 0 0 TULCEA 160047 CEATALCHIOI 593 0.17 0 0 CEAMURLIA DE TULCEA 160092 2,163 0.37 0 0 JOS TULCEA 160127 CERNA 3,529 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 160172 CHILIA VECHE 2,132 0.23 0 0 Severe TULCEA 160225 CIUCUROVA 1,977 14.82 24+% marginalization TULCEA 160261 CRISAN 1,228 0.00 0 0 Marginalization TULCEA 160305 DAENI 2,016 0.00 12-<24% above average TULCEA 160323 DOROBANTU 1,429 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 160387 FRECATEI 3,426 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 160430 GRECI 5,117 0.25 0 0 TULCEA 160458 GRINDU 1,356 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 160476 HAMCEARCA 1,414 0.00 0 0 Marginalization TULCEA 160528 HORIA 1,248 0.00 12-<24% above average Average TULCEA 160564 IZVOARELE 2,049 0.20 6.1-<12% marginalization TULCEA 160617 JIJILA 5,312 0.00 0 0 Marginalization TULCEA 160644 JURILOVCA 3,935 0.15 0.1-<6.1% below average TULCEA 160680 LUNCAVITA 4,244 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 160724 MAHMUDIA 2,341 0.09 0 0 TULCEA 160779 MALIUC 856 0.12 0 0 TULCEA 160831 MIHAI BRAVU 2,356 0.30 0 0 MIHAIL TULCEA 160877 2,735 1.02 0 0 KOGALNICEANU Marginalization TULCEA 160911 MURIGHIOL 3,217 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average TULCEA 160993 NALBANT 2,522 0.04 0 0 TULCEA 161035 NICULITEL 4,297 5.26 0 0 TULCEA 161053 NUFARU 2,273 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 161106 OSTROV 1,925 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 161133 PARDINA 527 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 161151 PECENEAGA 1,569 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 161179 SARICHIOI 5,856 0.05 0 0 SFANTU TULCEA 161231 797 0.00 0 0 GHEORGHE Marginalization TULCEA 161259 SLAVA CERCHEZA 1,666 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average ANNEX | 325 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) TULCEA 161286 SMARDAN 1,077 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 161302 SOMOVA 4,388 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 161348 STEJARU 1,570 0.00 0 0 Marginalization TULCEA 161384 TOPOLOG 4,698 0.57 12-<24% above average TULCEA 161464 TURCOAIA 3,187 0.00 0 0 VALEA TULCEA 161482 3,266 0.00 0 0 NUCARILOR TULCEA 161525 I.C.BRATIANU 1,187 0.67 0 0 TULCEA 161543 VACARENI 2,201 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 161552 BESTEPE 1,667 0.00 0 0 TULCEA 161561 VALEA TEILOR 1,447 1.24 0 0 VRANCEA 174780 CAMPINEANCA 3,501 0.43 0 0 VRANCEA 174824 GOLESTI 4,115 0.00 0 0 ANDREIASU DE VRANCEA 175126 1,655 0.00 0 0 JOS Average VRANCEA 175206 BALESTI 1,941 0.88 6.1-<12% marginalization VRANCEA 175224 BARSESTI 1,299 0.00 0 0 VRANCEA 175260 BOGHESTI 1,680 0.00 0 0 VRANCEA 175368 BOLOTESTI 4,231 0.02 0 0 VRANCEA 175439 BORDESTI 1,683 3.27 0 0 VRANCEA 175466 BROSTENI 2,054 0.00 0 0 Severe VRANCEA 175509 CHIOJDENI 2,322 25.45 24+% marginalization VRANCEA 175590 CIORASTI 3,150 6.83 0 0 VRANCEA 175670 CAMPURI 3,475 0.23 0 0 Average VRANCEA 175732 CARLIGELE 3,116 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Average VRANCEA 175787 CORBITA 1,793 0.28 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization VRANCEA 175885 COTESTI 4,641 0.17 0.1-<6.1% below average VRANCEA 175938 DUMBRAVENI 4,281 0.33 0 0 Severe VRANCEA 175983 DUMITRESTI 4,602 0.00 24+% marginalization VRANCEA 176150 FITIONESTI 2,286 0.00 0 0 VRANCEA 176212 GAROAFA 4,037 0.12 0 0 VRANCEA 176301 GUGESTI 5,942 0.34 0 0 Severe VRANCEA 176338 GURA CALITEI 2,473 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe VRANCEA 176445 HOMOCEA 6,625 8.02 24+% marginalization VRANCEA 176506 JARISTEA 4,204 0.33 0 0 Severe VRANCEA 176551 JITIA 1,609 0.00 24+% marginalization VRANCEA 176613 MAICANESTI 4,612 1.82 0 0 Average VRANCEA 176686 MERA 3,453 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization VRANCEA 176748 MILCOVUL 2,995 0.47 0 0 VRANCEA 176793 MOVILITA 3,183 0.00 0 0 326 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) VRANCEA 176855 NANESTI 2,055 0.34 0 0 Marginalization VRANCEA 176891 NARUJA 1,659 0.00 12-<24% above average Severe VRANCEA 176944 NEREJU 4,187 0.00 24+% marginalization VRANCEA 177003 NISTORESTI 1,917 0.00 0 0 VRANCEA 177101 PALTIN 1,861 0.00 0 0 VRANCEA 177236 PAUNESTI 5,898 0.15 0 0 Marginalization VRANCEA 177263 POIANA CRISTEI 2,650 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization VRANCEA 177352 PUFESTI 3,646 3.59 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization VRANCEA 177405 RACOASA 3,162 3.23 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization VRANCEA 177469 REGHIU 2,126 0.09 12-<24% above average VRANCEA 177557 RUGINESTI 3,497 0.80 0 0 Marginalization VRANCEA 177600 SIHLEA 5,039 5.89 0.1-<6.1% below average SLOBOZIA Severe VRANCEA 177655 7,010 70.39 24+% BRADULUI marginalization SLOBOZIA VRANCEA 177726 1,699 0.00 0 0 CIORASTI VRANCEA 177762 SOVEJA 2,159 0.00 0 0 Marginalization VRANCEA 177799 STRAOANE 3,235 0.19 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization VRANCEA 177842 SURAIA 4,595 3.16 0.1-<6.1% below average Average VRANCEA 177879 TANASOAIA 1,972 0.05 6.1-<12% marginalization VRANCEA 177986 TATARANU 3,952 1.06 0 0 VRANCEA 178046 TAMBOESTI 2,887 48.08 0 0 VRANCEA 178117 TULNICI 3,450 2.26 0 0 VRANCEA 178180 TIFESTI 5,197 0.08 0 0 VRANCEA 178279 URECHESTI 2,532 0.83 0 0 VRANCEA 178313 VALEA SARII 1,608 0.00 0 0 Average VRANCEA 178377 VIDRA 6,295 0.65 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization VRANCEA 178475 VINTILEASCA 1,981 0.00 12-<24% above average Average VRANCEA 178545 VIZANTEA-LIVEZI 3,793 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization VRANCEA 178607 VANATORI 5,164 0.06 0 0 Marginalization VRANCEA 178689 VARTESCOIU 3,151 0.03 0.1-<6.1% below average VRANCEA 178750 VRANCIOAIA 2,576 0.00 0 0 Average VRANCEA 178821 VULTURU 6,277 3.57 6.1-<12% marginalization VRANCEA 178885 NEGRILESTI 1,816 0.00 0 0 Average VRANCEA 178894 PLOSCUTENI 3,114 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization VRANCEA 178901 POPESTI 2,753 0.11 0 0 ANNEX | 327 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) VRANCEA 178910 PAULESTI 1,834 0.00 0 0 VRANCEA 178929 BILIESTI 1,833 0.00 0 0 VRANCEA 178938 GOLOGANU 3,040 0.00 0 0 VRANCEA 178947 OBREJITA 1,583 1.07 0 0 VRANCEA 178956 RASTOACA 1,811 0.00 0 0 Marginalization VRANCEA 178965 SPULBER 1,279 0.00 12-<24% above average ANNEX 2. TABLE 6: Rate of marginalization at commune level in South Muntenia development region Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) ARGES 13187 BASCOV 10,218 0.76 0 0 ARGES 13276 BRADU 7,130 1.23 0 0 ARGES 13365 MARACINENI 5,193 1.50 0 0 VALEA MARE Marginalization ARGES 13524 4,066 22.55 12-<24% PRAVAT above average ALBESTII DE Average ARGES 13819 5,456 0.42 6.1-<12% ARGES marginalization ALBESTII DE ARGES 13891 1,578 0.00 0 0 MUSCEL ARGES 13935 ALBOTA 3,842 0.29 0 0 Marginalization ARGES 13999 ANINOASA 3,299 18.28 12-<24% above average ARGES 14049 AREFU 2,405 0.00 0 0 ARGES 14085 BABANA 2,820 0.00 0 0 ARGES 14165 BAICULESTI 5,826 1.87 0 0 ARGES 14272 BALILESTI 4,105 4.12 0 0 BELETI-NEGRE ARGES 14352 1,941 1.03 0 0 STI Severe ARGES 14405 BEREVOESTI 3,372 27.22 24+% marginalization ARGES 14450 BARLA 5,142 0.06 0 0 ARGES 14584 BOGATI 4,636 1.14 0 0 ARGES 14673 BOTENI 2,495 1.60 0 0 ARGES 14726 BOTESTI 1,207 0.00 0 0 ARGES 14753 BRADULET 1,867 0.00 0 0 ARGES 14851 BUDEASA 4,004 2.05 0 0 Marginalization ARGES 14922 BUGHEA DE JOS 2,862 12.09 12-<24% above average ARGES 14940 BUZOESTI 5,975 0.05 0 0 ARGES 15064 CALDARARU 2,562 0.31 0 0 Average ARGES 15108 CALINESTI 10,872 0.74 6.1-<12% marginalization ARGES 15233 CATEASCA 4,006 0.72 0 0 ARGES 15313 CEPARI 2,289 0.00 0 0 Severe ARGES 15402 CETATENI 3,057 25.35 24+% marginalization ARGES 15448 CICANESTI 2,107 0.00 0 0 328 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) ARGES 15493 CIOFRANGENI 2,326 0.00 0 0 ARGES 15554 CIOMAGESTI 1,172 0.00 0 0 ARGES 15652 COCU 2,420 0.00 0 0 Marginalization ARGES 15741 CORBENI 5,384 0.07 12-<24% above average ARGES 15830 CORBI 3,784 0.50 0 0 ARGES 15901 COSESTI 5,358 9.29 0 0 ARGES 15983 COTMEANA 2,148 0.00 0 0 ARGES 16132 CUCA 2,108 0.00 0 0 Marginalization ARGES 16285 DAVIDESTI 3,111 21.83 12-<24% above average ARGES 16329 DAMBOVICIOARA 943 0.00 0 0 ARGES 16365 DARMANESTI 3,513 0.57 0 0 ARGES 16427 DOBRESTI 1,808 0.06 0 0 ARGES 16454 DOMNESTI 3,201 1.09 0 0 Severe ARGES 16472 DRAGOSLAVELE 2,613 21.24 24+% marginalization ARGES 16506 DRAGANU 2,026 0.00 0 0 ARGES 16551 GODENI 3,037 0.46 0 0 ARGES 16613 HARSESTI 2,480 1.85 0 0 Severe ARGES 16659 HARTIESTI 2,165 27.39 24+% marginalization ARGES 16739 IZVORU 2,292 16.01 0 0 Marginalization ARGES 16757 LEORDENI 5,994 3.65 0.1-<6.1% below average Average ARGES 16908 LERESTI 4,632 6.54 6.1-<12% marginalization LUNCA ARGES 16944 2,954 0.00 0 0 CORBULUI Marginalization ARGES 17049 MALURENI 4,825 8.37 12-<24% above average Average ARGES 17101 MERISANI 4,569 6.39 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization ARGES 17209 MICESTI 4,388 0.11 12-<24% above average Average ARGES 17254 MIHAESTI 5,909 19.50 6.1-<12% marginalization ARGES 17334 MIOARELE 1,624 0.00 0 0 ARGES 17398 MIROSI 2,544 0.00 0 0 ARGES 17423 MORARESTI 2,105 0.00 0 0 ARGES 17496 MOSOAIA 5,693 0.44 0 0 ARGES 17575 MOZACENI 2,242 0.00 0 0 Average ARGES 17619 MUSATESTI 3,870 1.14 6.1-<12% marginalization ARGES 17726 NEGRASI 2,387 1.09 0 0 ARGES 17771 NUCSOARA 1,442 0.07 0 0 ARGES 17824 OARJA 2,948 2.85 0 0 ARGES 17851 PIETROSANI 5,702 5.00 0 0 POIENARII DE ARGES 17913 1,117 1.43 0 0 ARGES ANNEX | 329 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) POIENARII DE ARGES 17968 3,299 7.67 0 0 MUSCEL ARGES 18028 POIANA LACULUI 6,642 0.09 0 0 ARGES 18162 POPESTI 2,191 0.00 0 0 ARGES 18242 PRIBOIENI 3,549 2.09 0 0 ARGES 18331 RATESTI 3,166 6.60 0 0 ARGES 18411 RECEA 2,992 2.84 0 0 ARGES 18475 ROCIU 2,673 0.34 0 0 ARGES 18527 RUCAR 5,752 0.97 0 0 Marginalization ARGES 18554 SALATRUCU 2,220 0.54 12-<24% above average ARGES 18581 SAPATA 1,782 0.22 0 0 Average ARGES 18670 SCHITU GOLESTI 4,679 15.09 6.1-<12% marginalization Average ARGES 18741 SLOBOZIA 4,619 1.82 6.1-<12% marginalization ARGES 18778 STALPENI 4,868 0.47 0 0 Marginalization ARGES 18858 STOENESTI 4,379 12.22 12-<24% above average ARGES 18938 STOLNICI 3,382 3.08 0 0 ARGES 19007 SUSENI 3,467 0.58 0 0 STEFAN CEL MA ARGES 19114 2,443 0.04 0 0 RE ARGES 19141 SUICI 2,561 0.00 0 0 ARGES 19212 TEIU 1,594 2.01 0 0 Marginalization ARGES 19249 TIGVENI 3,444 0.35 12-<24% above average Marginalization ARGES 19338 TITESTI 4,937 3.36 12-<24% above average ARGES 19392 UDA 2,174 0.00 0 0 ARGES 19560 UNGHENI 3,187 0.03 0 0 ARGES 19631 VALEA DANULUI 2,802 0.00 0 0 ARGES 19695 VALEA IASULUI 2,533 0.00 0 0 ARGES 19793 VEDEA 4,041 0.00 0 0 ARGES 19999 VLADESTI 3,092 9.80 0 0 ARGES 20048 RACA 1,271 0.00 0 0 Average ARGES 20055 VULTURESTI 2,887 2.29 6.1-<12% marginalization Average ARGES 20063 BUGHEA DE SUS 2,997 30.13 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization CALARASI 92587 MODELU 9,839 1.94 12-<24% above average CALARASI 92961 BORCEA 7,986 0.19 0 0 CALARASI 93085 CIOCANESTI 4,257 0.47 0 0 CALARASI 93281 CUZA VODA 4,045 0.00 0 0 CALARASI 93325 DICHISENI 1,734 0.12 0 0 CALARASI 93370 DOR MARUNT 6,809 9.40 0 0 CALARASI 93441 DOROBANTU 3,065 1.47 0 0 Average CALARASI 93487 DRAGALINA 8,537 11.01 6.1-<12% marginalization 330 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Average CALARASI 93539 DRAGOS VODA 2,862 4.82 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization CALARASI 93664 GRADISTEA 4,853 0.74 0.1-<6.1% below average CALARASI 93771 INDEPENDENTA 3,466 0.23 0 0 CALARASI 93815 JEGALIA 4,229 0.02 0 0 Marginalization CALARASI 93851 LEHLIU 2,730 6.70 12-<24% above average CALARASI 93931 LUPSANU 3,499 0.63 0 0 ALEXANDRU CALARASI 94125 2,816 0.21 0 0 ODOBESCU CALARASI 94223 PERISORU 5,114 0.06 0 0 Marginalization CALARASI 94312 ROSETI 6,070 0.10 12-<24% above average STEFAN CEL MA CALARASI 94562 3,236 0.00 0 0 RE CALARASI 94580 STEFAN VODA 2,270 2.25 0 0 CALARASI 94606 ULMU 1,561 0.00 0 0 CALARASI 94651 UNIREA 2,636 0.00 0 0 CALARASI 94731 VALCELELE 1,863 0.00 0 0 CALARASI 94768 VLAD TEPES 2,336 3.42 0 0 CALARASI 100638 MITRENI 4,323 5.25 0 0 CALARASI 101083 BELCIUGATELE 2,484 4.79 0 0 CALARASI 101724 CASCIOARELE 1,912 2.77 0 0 Marginalization CALARASI 101804 CHIRNOGI 7,455 20.25 0.1-<6.1% below average CALARASI 101822 CHISELET 3,392 19.84 0 0 Average CALARASI 102419 CURCANI 5,672 32.28 6.1-<12% marginalization CALARASI 102838 FRASINET 1,845 9.92 0 0 Average CALARASI 102945 FRUMUSANI 5,859 19.13 6.1-<12% marginalization CALARASI 103014 FUNDENI 5,658 8.98 0 0 CALARASI 103568 GURBANESTI 1,380 6.45 0 0 Average CALARASI 103764 ILEANA 3,702 3.86 6.1-<12% marginalization CALARASI 104083 LUICA 2,272 3.74 0 0 CALARASI 104181 MANASTIREA 5,612 14.06 0 0 Marginalization CALARASI 104323 NANA 2,568 17.41 12-<24% above average NICOLAE Marginalization CALARASI 104341 1,776 2.87 0.1-<6.1% BALCESCU below average Marginalization CALARASI 104635 PLATARESTI 4,178 4.14 0.1-<6.1% below average CALARASI 104751 RADOVANU 4,394 2.05 0 0 Marginalization CALARASI 104886 SARULESTI 3,262 25.41 12-<24% above average CALARASI 105222 SOHATU 3,240 3.06 0 0 Severe CALARASI 105259 SPANTOV 4,605 31.25 24+% marginalization CALARASI 105384 SOLDANU 3,565 25.13 0 0 ANNEX | 331 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization CALARASI 105455 TAMADAU MARE 2,640 2.58 12-<24% above average CALARASI 105605 ULMENI 4,962 13.04 0 0 Average CALARASI 105712 VALEA ARGOVEI 2,637 2.77 6.1-<12% marginalization CALARASI 105829 VASILATI 4,389 1.46 0 0 Average CALARASI 179962 GALBINASI 3,772 21.82 6.1-<12% marginalization Average CALARASI 180055 CRIVAT 2,243 4.28 6.1-<12% marginalization DAMBOVITA 65379 ANINOASA 6,344 0.06 0 0 DAMBOVITA 65413 DOICESTI 4,584 0.13 0 0 DAMBOVITA 65431 RAZVAD 8,521 0.15 0 0 DAMBOVITA 65477 SOTANGA 7,143 0.18 0 0 DAMBOVITA 65501 ULMI 4,359 1.97 0 0 DAMBOVITA 65645 MOTAIENI 2,069 0.43 0 0 DAMBOVITA 65707 GURA FOII 2,140 0.65 0 0 DAMBOVITA 65752 PETRESTI 5,791 0.19 0 0 Average DAMBOVITA 65869 IEDERA 4,052 8.84 6.1-<12% marginalization DAMBOVITA 66009 BRANESTI 4,097 0.02 0 0 DAMBOVITA 66152 BRANISTEA 4,398 2.18 0 0 Marginalization DAMBOVITA 66198 BALENI 8,368 14.60 12-<24% above average DAMBOVITA 66223 BARBULETU 2,361 0.00 0 0 DAMBOVITA 66330 BEZDEAD 4,595 0.00 0 0 DAMBOVITA 66401 BILCIURESTI 1,889 1.43 0 0 DAMBOVITA 66438 BUCIUMENI 4,586 0.00 0 0 DAMBOVITA 66474 BUCSANI 6,864 2.32 0 0 DAMBOVITA 66526 CANDESTI 2,886 0.00 0 0 DAMBOVITA 66580 COBIA 3,180 0.03 0 0 Severe DAMBOVITA 66697 COJASCA 8,276 71.96 24+% marginalization DAMBOVITA 66731 COMISANI 5,400 0.06 0 0 Marginalization DAMBOVITA 66768 CONTESTI 5,123 15.24 12-<24% above average DAMBOVITA 66857 CORBII MARI 8,316 10.26 0 0 Marginalization DAMBOVITA 66955 CORNATELU 1,675 3.76 12-<24% above average Marginalization DAMBOVITA 67014 CORNESTI 7,142 0.11 0.1-<6.1% below average COSTESTII DIN Average DAMBOVITA 67121 3,485 21.00 6.1-<12% VALE marginalization Marginalization DAMBOVITA 67167 CRANGURILE 3,394 22.54 12-<24% above average DAMBOVITA 67256 DARMANESTI 4,810 1.48 0 0 DAMBOVITA 67292 DOBRA 3,657 0.00 0 0 DAMBOVITA 67327 DRAGODANA 6,775 0.21 0 0 DAMBOVITA 67407 DRAGOMIRESTI 8,867 6.20 0 0 DAMBOVITA 67470 FINTA 4,225 0.00 0 0 DAMBOVITA 67522 GLODENI 4,226 0.17 0 0 332 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Average DAMBOVITA 67595 GURA OCNITEI 7,319 7.26 6.1-<12% marginalization DAMBOVITA 67648 GURA SUTII 5,462 6.68 0 0 DAMBOVITA 67675 HULUBESTI 3,101 0.00 0 0 Marginalization DAMBOVITA 67737 I. L. CARAGIALE 7,697 15.88 12-<24% above average DAMBOVITA 67773 LUCIENI 3,131 1.69 0 0 Marginalization DAMBOVITA 67835 LUDESTI 5,137 25.50 12-<24% above average DAMBOVITA 67906 LUNGULETU 5,586 0.05 0 0 DAMBOVITA 67942 MALU CU FLORI 2,484 0.04 0 0 DAMBOVITA 68002 MANESTI 5,127 12.76 0 0 Marginalization DAMBOVITA 68048 MATASARU 5,462 7.51 0.1-<6.1% below average DAMBOVITA 68128 MOGOSANI 4,444 2.63 0 0 Average DAMBOVITA 68182 MOROENI 5,227 17.95 6.1-<12% marginalization DAMBOVITA 68253 MORTENI 3,042 0.66 0 0 DAMBOVITA 68280 NUCET 4,057 4.78 0 0 DAMBOVITA 68324 OCNITA 4,325 0.02 0 0 Average DAMBOVITA 68342 ODOBESTI 5,183 8.26 6.1-<12% marginalization DAMBOVITA 68404 PIETROSITA 3,170 0.00 0 0 Average DAMBOVITA 68431 POIANA 3,739 9.82 6.1-<12% marginalization Severe DAMBOVITA 68468 POTLOGI 8,981 32.58 24+% marginalization DAMBOVITA 68529 PRODULESTI 3,427 5.60 0 0 DAMBOVITA 68565 PUCHENI 1,861 0.00 0 0 DAMBOVITA 68716 RUNCU 4,327 0.05 0 0 DAMBOVITA 68789 SALCIOARA 4,081 0.25 0 0 DAMBOVITA 68887 SELARU 3,494 0.92 0 0 Marginalization DAMBOVITA 68921 TATARANI 5,225 2.07 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization DAMBOVITA 68976 ULIESTI 4,407 0.09 0.1-<6.1% below average DAMBOVITA 69063 VALEA LUNGA 4,770 0.00 0 0 DAMBOVITA 69170 VALEA MARE 2,400 4.42 0 0 DAMBOVITA 69250 VACARESTI 5,246 0.74 0 0 VALENI-DIMBO DAMBOVITA 69303 2,754 0.00 0 0 VITA DAMBOVITA 69330 VISINA 4,103 0.00 0 0 DAMBOVITA 69394 VISINESTI 1,974 0.00 0 0 Average DAMBOVITA 69447 VIRFURI 1,842 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization DAMBOVITA 69526 VOINESTI 6,203 0.08 0 0 Average DAMBOVITA 69615 VULCANA-BAI 3,052 0.07 6.1-<12% marginalization DAMBOVITA 101341 BREZOAELE 4,012 0.70 0 0 DAMBOVITA 101564 BUTIMANU 2,435 5.59 0 0 DAMBOVITA 101840 CIOCANESTI 5,571 9.39 0 0 ANNEX | 333 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) DAMBOVITA 102286 CREVEDIA 7,750 0.63 0 0 DAMBOVITA 104387 NICULESTI 4,964 3.18 0 0 SLOBOZIA DAMBOVITA 105142 2,165 0.23 0 0 MOARA DAMBOVITA 105534 TARTASESTI 5,874 2.13 0 0 VULCANA-PAN DAMBOVITA 179640 5,134 0.33 0 0 DELE DAMBOVITA 179711 VLADENI 2,807 10.01 0 0 DAMBOVITA 179891 RACIU 3,464 0.64 0 0 Average DAMBOVITA 179908 PIETRARI 2,533 0.95 6.1-<12% marginalization DAMBOVITA 179917 RAU ALB 1,564 0.00 0 0 DAMBOVITA 179926 RASCAETI 2,241 0.04 0 0 DAMBOVITA 179935 PERSINARI 2,750 5.16 0 0 GIURGIU 100549 SLOBOZIA 2,377 15.10 0 0 ADUNATII-COPA GIURGIU 100781 6,621 1.15 0 0 CENI GIURGIU 101001 BANEASA 5,227 6.14 0 0 GIURGIU 101163 BOLINTIN-DEAL 5,921 0.32 0 0 Average GIURGIU 101378 BUCSANI 3,906 0.23 6.1-<12% marginalization GIURGIU 101519 BULBUCATA 1,591 0.00 0 0 GIURGIU 101617 BUTURUGENI 4,079 6.20 0 0 Average GIURGIU 101662 CALUGARENI 6,148 0.73 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization GIURGIU 101984 CLEJANI 3,809 16.15 12-<24% above average GIURGIU 102071 COLIBASI 3,529 4.08 0 0 GIURGIU 102106 COMANA 7,222 7.88 0 0 GIURGIU 102348 CREVEDIA MARE 5,221 7.05 0 0 GIURGIU 102446 DAIA 2,851 0.70 0 0 FLORESTI-STOE GIURGIU 102794 9,173 0.31 0 0 NESTI GIURGIU 102909 FRATESTI 5,361 5.45 0 0 Marginalization GIURGIU 103087 GAISENI 5,514 7.09 12-<24% above average Severe GIURGIU 103194 GAUJANI 2,513 14.13 24+% marginalization Marginalization GIURGIU 103238 GHIMPATI 6,064 7.06 0.1-<6.1% below average GIURGIU 103309 GOGOSARI 1,975 2.43 0 0 GIURGIU 103354 GOSTINU 2,032 0.05 0 0 Severe GIURGIU 103372 GOSTINARI 2,634 23.65 24+% marginalization GIURGIU 103407 GRADINARI 3,578 0.53 0 0 GIURGIU 103470 GREACA 2,543 0.39 0 0 GIURGIU 103639 HOTARELE 3,939 4.16 0 0 GIURGIU 103693 IEPURESTI 2,225 0.09 0 0 Marginalization GIURGIU 103899 IZVOARELE 3,930 1.45 0.1-<6.1% below average GIURGIU 103997 JOITA 3,864 1.42 0 0 334 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization GIURGIU 104047 LETCA NOUA 3,817 3.75 12-<24% above average GIURGIU 104118 MIHAI BRAVU 2,586 1.39 0 0 GIURGIU 104225 MARSA 2,742 0.00 0 0 GIURGIU 104485 OGREZENI 4,906 0.00 0 0 GIURGIU 104519 OINACU 3,357 0.33 0 0 GIURGIU 104680 PRUNDU 4,386 16.55 0 0 GIURGIU 104715 PUTINEIU 2,486 7.00 0 0 Marginalization GIURGIU 104788 RASUCENI 2,652 4.60 12-<24% above average GIURGIU 104831 ROATA DE JOS 8,296 4.94 0 0 Marginalization GIURGIU 104975 SCHITU 1,985 2.07 12-<24% above average GIURGIU 105106 SINGURENI 3,191 8.77 0 0 GIURGIU 105295 STANESTI 3,000 0.90 0 0 Marginalization GIURGIU 105348 STOENESTI 2,249 1.16 12-<24% above average GIURGIU 105623 ULMI 7,818 0.03 0 0 GIURGIU 105776 VALEA DRAGULUI 3,230 8.67 0 0 Marginalization GIURGIU 105874 VARASTI 6,317 21.64 12-<24% above average GIURGIU 105909 VEDEA 3,108 12.32 0 0 GIURGIU 105972 VANATORII MICI 4,933 0.16 0 0 Marginalization GIURGIU 154709 TOPORU 2,340 3.21 0.1-<6.1% below average GIURGIU 179739 MALU 2,376 0.84 0 0 GIURGIU 179748 COSOBA 2,611 0.00 0 0 GIURGIU 179757 HERASTI 2,369 19.29 0 0 GIURGIU 179766 ISVOARELE 1,751 2.46 0 0 GIURGIU 179775 SABARENI 2,864 1.82 0 0 IALOMITA 92783 ALBESTI 1,288 0.00 0 0 IALOMITA 92872 ANDRASESTI 2,212 5.97 0 0 IALOMITA 92907 BALACIU 1,860 1.67 0 0 IALOMITA 92989 BORDUSANI 4,786 3.78 0 0 IALOMITA 93021 BUCU 2,323 0.13 0 0 Marginalization IALOMITA 93101 CIOCHINA 3,217 0.53 0.1-<6.1% below average Average IALOMITA 93156 CIULNITA 2,400 0.08 6.1-<12% marginalization IALOMITA 93209 COCORA 2,058 2.82 0 0 IALOMITA 93236 COSAMBESTI 1,902 0.05 0 0 IALOMITA 93575 FACAENI 5,438 1.42 0 0 IALOMITA 93600 GHEORGHE DOJA 2,555 0.04 0 0 GHEORGHE IALOMITA 93628 2,319 0.22 0 0 LAZAR IALOMITA 93646 GIURGENI 1,507 0.00 0 0 IALOMITA 93717 GRINDU 2,209 0.91 0 0 IALOMITA 93735 GRIVITA 3,379 0.09 0 0 MIHAIL IALOMITA 93995 3,000 0.03 0 0 KOGALNICEANU ANNEX | 335 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) IALOMITA 94045 MILOSESTI 2,735 0.15 0 0 IALOMITA 94081 MOVILA 1,842 1.09 0 0 Average IALOMITA 94107 MUNTENI-BUZAU 3,428 0.29 6.1-<12% marginalization IALOMITA 94161 PERIETI 3,586 0.20 0 0 Marginalization IALOMITA 94269 REVIGA 2,742 1.50 12-<24% above average IALOMITA 94330 SALCIOARA 2,336 1.67 0 0 IALOMITA 94376 SAVENI 3,276 0.00 0 0 Marginalization IALOMITA 94429 SCANTEIA 3,851 0.16 0.1-<6.1% below average SFANTU IALOMITA 94456 2,038 0.00 0 0 GHEORGHE Average IALOMITA 94492 STELNICA 1,774 0.68 6.1-<12% marginalization IALOMITA 94535 SUDITI 2,026 0.00 0 0 Average IALOMITA 94688 VALEA CIORII 1,855 0.05 6.1-<12% marginalization IALOMITA 94795 VLADENI 2,156 0.70 0 0 IALOMITA 100709 CIOCARLIA 806 0.00 0 0 IALOMITA 100736 MANASIA 4,405 3.81 0 0 IALOMITA 100754 ADANCATA 2,723 0.07 0 0 IALOMITA 100852 ALEXENI 2,410 6.31 0 0 IALOMITA 100870 ARMASESTI 2,368 0.00 0 0 Marginalization IALOMITA 100923 AXINTELE 2,657 0.79 12-<24% above average Marginalization IALOMITA 101056 BARCANESTI 3,895 16.43 12-<24% above average Average IALOMITA 101243 BRAZII 1,358 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization IALOMITA 102240 COSERENI 4,570 0.02 0 0 IALOMITA 102641 DRAGOESTI 1,082 0.37 0 0 IALOMITA 102703 DRIDU 3,551 0.28 0 0 IALOMITA 103283 GARBOVI 3,958 0.68 0 0 Marginalization IALOMITA 103862 ION ROATA 3,752 12.13 12-<24% above average IALOMITA 103960 JILAVELE 3,538 2.15 0 0 IALOMITA 104270 MOVILITA 2,759 3.12 0 0 IALOMITA 105026 SINESTI 2,972 12.08 0 0 VALEA IALOMITA 105794 1,892 3.65 0 0 MACRISULUI Marginalization IALOMITA 179702 TRAIAN 3,168 16.41 12-<24% above average Severe IALOMITA 179784 BORANESTI 2,454 35.37 24+% marginalization IALOMITA 179793 BUESTI 1,074 0.00 0 0 IALOMITA 179800 MAIA 1,847 0.81 0 0 IALOMITA 179819 OGRADA 2,803 2.71 0 0 IALOMITA 179828 ROSIORI 2,174 0.00 0 0 IALOMITA 179971 COLELIA 1,212 0.99 0 0 IALOMITA 179980 MARCULESTI 1,505 0.00 0 0 336 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) IALOMITA 179999 MOLDOVENI 1,247 0.00 0 0 IALOMITA 180000 PLATONESTI 1,798 0.00 0 0 IALOMITA 180019 SARATENI 1,290 5.04 0 0 IALOMITA 180046 GURA IALOMITEI 2,660 0.00 0 0 Severe IALOMITA 180064 BARBULESTI 5,902 79.70 24+% marginalization PRAHOVA 130552 BARCANESTI 9,384 3.20 0 0 PRAHOVA 130614 BERCENI 6,186 0.10 0 0 PRAHOVA 130678 BLEJOI 8,575 1.70 0 0 PRAHOVA 130712 BRAZI 8,094 0.11 0 0 Marginalization PRAHOVA 130785 BUCOV 10,388 5.10 0.1-<6.1% below average PRAHOVA 130847 PAULESTI 5,886 0.41 0 0 TARGSORU VE PRAHOVA 130892 9,117 0.08 0 0 CHI PRAHOVA 131274 POIANA CAMPINA 4,746 0.34 0 0 PRAHOVA 131461 DUMBRAVESTI 3,537 8.59 0 0 PRAHOVA 131835 GURA VITIOAREI 6,003 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 131899 ADUNATI 2,104 0.00 0 0 ALBESTI-PALEO PRAHOVA 131933 5,683 0.18 0 0 LOGU PRAHOVA 131988 ALUNIS 3,661 2.65 0 0 PRAHOVA 132011 APOSTOLACHE 2,164 2.36 0 0 ARICESTII PRAHOVA 132075 8,704 2.78 0 0 RAHTIVANI ARICESTII PRAHOVA 132137 1,224 0.16 0 0 ZELETIN PRAHOVA 132164 BABA ANA 3,894 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 132226 BALTA DOAMNEI 2,652 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 132271 BALTESTI 3,434 11.01 0 0 PRAHOVA 132315 BANESTI 5,240 0.15 0 0 PRAHOVA 132342 BERTEA 3,239 0.00 0 0 BOLDESTI-GRAD PRAHOVA 132379 1,817 0.28 0 0 ISTEA PRAHOVA 132404 BREBU 7,103 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 132459 CALUGARENI 1,279 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 132486 CARBUNESTI 1,642 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 132510 CEPTURA 4,717 0.00 0 0 Average PRAHOVA 132574 CERASU 4,628 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization Average PRAHOVA 132645 CHIOJDEANCA 1,728 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization PRAHOVA 132681 CIORANI 6,720 0.42 0 0 COCORASTII PRAHOVA 132716 3,229 0.12 0 0 MISLII Marginalization PRAHOVA 132752 COLCEAG 5,103 0.31 0.1-<6.1% below average PRAHOVA 132805 CORNU 4,516 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 132841 COSMINELE 1,068 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 132896 DRAJNA 5,168 0.00 0 0 ANNEX | 337 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) PRAHOVA 133018 DRAGANESTI 4,941 3.93 0 0 PRAHOVA 133090 DUMBRAVA 4,505 16.56 0 0 FILIPESTII DE Average PRAHOVA 133161 10,358 4.31 6.1-<12% PADURE marginalization FILIPESTII DE TA PRAHOVA 133214 7,689 15.96 0 0 RG PRAHOVA 133278 FANTANELE 1,953 0.31 0 0 PRAHOVA 133330 FLORESTI 6,993 2.66 0 0 PRAHOVA 133394 FULGA 3,482 3.62 0 0 Marginalization PRAHOVA 133429 GHERGHITA 1,977 0.00 12-<24% above average PRAHOVA 133508 GORGOTA 5,207 0.31 0 0 Marginalization PRAHOVA 133562 GORNET 2,928 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average PRAHOVA 133615 GORNET-CRICOV 2,318 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 133688 GURA VADULUI 2,285 0.04 0 0 PRAHOVA 133722 IORDACHEANU 5,150 0.16 0 0 PRAHOVA 133795 IZVOARELE 6,577 1.60 0 0 PRAHOVA 133866 JUGURENI 613 0.49 0 0 PRAHOVA 133919 LAPOS 1,229 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 133964 LIPANESTI 5,308 1.21 0 0 PRAHOVA 134014 MAGURELE 4,749 0.53 0 0 PRAHOVA 134050 MAGURENI 5,777 0.02 0 0 PRAHOVA 134096 MANECIU 10,331 0.24 0 0 PRAHOVA 134194 MANESTI 3,994 0.33 0 0 PRAHOVA 134336 PACURETI 2,149 0.05 0 0 PRAHOVA 134390 PLOPU 2,359 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 134443 PODENII NOI 4,860 6.71 0 0 POIENARII PRAHOVA 134559 5,163 0.39 0 0 BURCHII PRAHOVA 134648 POSESTI 3,990 1.38 0 0 PRAHOVA 134755 PREDEAL-SARARI 2,337 0.00 0 0 Marginalization PRAHOVA 134853 PROVITA DE JOS 2,264 10.03 12-<24% above average Average PRAHOVA 134899 PROVITA DE SUS 2,042 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization PRAHOVA 134942 PUCHENII MARI 8,825 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 135020 RAFOV 5,297 1.23 0 0 PRAHOVA 135128 SALCIA 1,171 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 135146 SALCIILE 1,945 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 135164 SCORTENI 5,634 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 135226 SECARIA 1,243 0.00 0 0 Severe PRAHOVA 135244 SANGERU 5,449 16.52 24+% marginalization PRAHOVA 135315 STARCHIOJD 3,770 0.98 0 0 PRAHOVA 135404 SURANI 1,655 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 135431 SIRNA 4,935 1.28 0 0 PRAHOVA 135501 SOIMARI 3,026 0.00 0 0 Marginalization PRAHOVA 135547 SOTRILE 3,328 16.02 12-<24% above average 338 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) PRAHOVA 135618 STEFESTI 2,137 0.19 0 0 PRAHOVA 135654 TALEA 1,074 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 135681 TATARU 969 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 135725 TEISANI 3,565 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 135789 TELEGA 5,523 0.24 0 0 PRAHOVA 135850 TINOSU 2,443 0.29 0 0 PRAHOVA 135896 TOMSANI 4,461 0.29 0 0 VALEA PRAHOVA 135949 10,657 0.31 0 0 CALUGAREASCA PRAHOVA 136107 VALEA DOFTANEI 6,162 0.16 0 0 PRAHOVA 136134 VARBILAU 6,644 11.17 0 0 PRAHOVA 136198 VALCANESTI 3,502 6.25 0 0 COCORASTII CO PRAHOVA 136241 2,837 2.47 0 0 LT PRAHOVA 136250 OLARI 2,146 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 136269 VADU SAPAT 1,678 0.00 0 0 PRAHOVA 136278 BATRANI 2,147 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 151709 CIUPERCENI 1,549 0.39 0 0 TELEORMAN 151736 ISLAZ 5,339 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 151763 LITA 2,687 0.11 0 0 TELEORMAN 151816 NANOV 3,586 1.76 0 0 TELEORMAN 151834 POROSCHIA 4,166 2.86 0 0 TELEORMAN 151932 CREVENICU 1,564 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 151996 BALACI 2,034 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 152038 BABAITA 3,032 0.10 0 0 TELEORMAN 152083 BLEJESTI 3,950 1.06 0 0 TELEORMAN 152127 BOGDANA 2,493 0.08 0 0 Marginalization TELEORMAN 152172 BOTOROAGA 5,899 0.51 0.1-<6.1% below average TELEORMAN 152234 BRAGADIRU 3,969 0.55 0 0 Average TELEORMAN 152252 BRANCENI 2,881 6.56 6.1-<12% marginalization TELEORMAN 152270 BUJORENI 1,092 0.64 0 0 TELEORMAN 152314 BUJORU 2,027 0.69 0 0 Average TELEORMAN 152332 BUZESCU 3,922 24.22 6.1-<12% marginalization TELEORMAN 152350 CALINESTI 3,473 0.32 0 0 TELEORMAN 152412 CALMATUIU 2,188 0.91 0 0 CALMATUIU DE TELEORMAN 152467 2,282 0.66 0 0 SUS TELEORMAN 152500 CERVENIA 3,190 2.48 0 0 TELEORMAN 152528 CIOLANESTI 3,143 0.10 0 0 Average TELEORMAN 152564 CONTESTI 3,479 2.13 6.1-<12% marginalization Average TELEORMAN 152582 COSMESTI 2,600 0.27 6.1-<12% marginalization TELEORMAN 152617 CRANGENI 2,878 0.24 0 0 TELEORMAN 152662 CRANGU 1,467 16.70 0 0 Marginalization TELEORMAN 152724 DIDESTI 1,322 0.45 12-<24% above average ANNEX | 339 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) TELEORMAN 152760 DOBROTESTI 4,605 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 152797 DRACSENEI 1,791 1.68 0 0 DRAGANESTI DE TELEORMAN 152868 2,154 0.60 0 0 VEDE DRAGANESTI-VL Marginalization TELEORMAN 152902 4,325 3.82 0.1-<6.1% ASCA below average TELEORMAN 152948 FURCULESTI 3,063 2.74 0 0 TELEORMAN 152993 FRUMOASA 2,203 0.32 0 0 Marginalization TELEORMAN 153026 GALATENI 2,967 6.00 12-<24% above average TELEORMAN 153062 GRATIA 3,005 2.46 0 0 TELEORMAN 153106 IZVOARELE 2,578 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 153124 LISA 2,107 1.61 0 0 Severe TELEORMAN 153151 LUNCA 3,350 19.34 24+% marginalization TELEORMAN 153204 MAVRODIN 2,693 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 153240 MAGURA 2,811 1.21 0 0 TELEORMAN 153277 MALDAENI 4,092 0.00 0 0 Average TELEORMAN 153295 MERENI 3,084 2.85 6.1-<12% marginalization TELEORMAN 153339 MARZANESTI 3,885 3.84 0 0 TELEORMAN 153384 MOSTENI 1,622 0.68 0 0 TELEORMAN 153400 NASTURELU 2,619 0.00 0 0 Severe TELEORMAN 153437 NECSESTI 1,306 0.00 24+% marginalization TELEORMAN 153473 OLTENI 3,289 0.70 0 0 Marginalization TELEORMAN 153507 ORBEASCA 7,625 0.18 0.1-<6.1% below average TELEORMAN 153543 PERETU 6,329 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 153561 PIATRA 3,392 3.71 0 0 Marginalization TELEORMAN 153589 PIETROSANI 2,941 9.28 12-<24% above average TELEORMAN 153605 PLOSCA 5,900 0.42 0 0 PLOPII-SLAVIT TELEORMAN 153623 2,581 0.85 0 0 ESTI TELEORMAN 153696 POENI 3,118 5.61 0 0 TELEORMAN 153776 VITANESTI 2,945 1.80 0 0 Marginalization TELEORMAN 153829 PUTINEIU 2,371 8.48 12-<24% above average TELEORMAN 153865 RADOIESTI 2,187 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 153909 RASMIRESTI 993 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 153936 SALCIA 2,659 1.13 0 0 Severe TELEORMAN 153972 SACENI 1,373 0.36 24+% marginalization TELEORMAN 154013 SCRIOASTEA 3,853 3.24 0 0 TELEORMAN 154068 SCURTU MARE 1,838 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 154139 SEACA 2,270 5.07 0 0 TELEORMAN 154166 SFINTESTI 1,153 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 154184 SEGARCEA-VALE 3,211 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 154228 SILISTEA 2,513 0.00 0 0 340 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) SILISTEA-GUM TELEORMAN 154282 2,633 0.00 0 0 ESTI TELEORMAN 154308 SARBENI 1,617 0.00 0 0 SLOBOZIA Average TELEORMAN 154344 1,819 0.00 6.1-<12% MANDRA marginalization TELEORMAN 154380 SMARDIOASA 2,385 10.94 0 0 TELEORMAN 154415 STEJARU 1,968 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 154460 SUHAIA 2,338 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 154497 STOROBANEASA 3,101 0.48 0 0 TELEORMAN 154521 TALPA 2,055 0.00 0 0 TATARASTII DE Marginalization TELEORMAN 154585 3,779 0.37 0.1-<6.1% JOS below average TATARASTII DE Severe TELEORMAN 154665 3,197 14.36 24+% SUS marginalization TELEORMAN 154736 TRAIAN 1,902 7.15 0 0 TRIVALEA-MOS Average TELEORMAN 154754 2,837 0.00 6.1-<12% TENI marginalization TELEORMAN 154790 TROIANUL 3,048 1.15 0 0 TELEORMAN 154834 TIGANESTI 4,508 0.64 0 0 TELEORMAN 154852 VEDEA 3,592 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 154914 VIISOARA 1,889 0.00 0 0 Average TELEORMAN 154932 VARTOAPE 3,145 0.60 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization TELEORMAN 154978 ZAMBREASCA 1,540 0.00 12-<24% above average TELEORMAN 154996 NENCIULESTI 2,477 0.00 0 0 Marginalization TELEORMAN 155083 BECIU 1,641 0.00 12-<24% above average TELEORMAN 155092 BEUCA 1,371 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 155109 DRACEA 1,358 0.88 0 0 TELEORMAN 155118 FANTANELE 1,700 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 155127 FRASINET 2,623 1.41 0 0 TELEORMAN 155136 PURANI 1,524 0.00 0 0 TELEORMAN 155145 SAELELE 2,293 0.00 0 0 Marginalization TELEORMAN 155154 UDA-CLOCOCIOV 1,582 0.00 12-<24% above average ANNEX 2. TABLE 7: Rate of marginalization at commune level in South West development region Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) DOLJ 69964 BUCOVAT 4,213 0.00 0 0 DOLJ 70094 ISALNITA 3,770 2.02 0 0 Marginalization DOLJ 70110 PODARI 6,909 9.25 0.1-<6.1% below average DOLJ 70174 SIMNICU DE SUS 4,627 0.26 0 0 DOLJ 70520 AFUMATI 2,633 2.62 0 0 DOLJ 70566 ALMAJ 1,974 0.00 0 0 ANNEX | 341 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization DOLJ 70637 AMARASTII DE JOS 5,520 22.16 12-<24% above average DOLJ 70673 AMARASTII DE SUS 1,703 8.93 0 0 DOLJ 70726 APELE VII 2,112 0.38 0 0 Marginalization DOLJ 70744 ARGETOAIA 4,382 0.00 12-<24% above average Average DOLJ 70897 BISTRET 4,356 16.09 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization DOLJ 70940 BIRCA 3,689 20.44 12-<24% above average Marginalization DOLJ 70968 BOTOSESTI-PAIA 809 0.37 12-<24% above average Marginalization DOLJ 70986 BRABOVA 1,550 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization DOLJ 71055 BRADESTI 4,431 0.52 0.1-<6.1% below average DOLJ 71126 BRALOSTITA 3,684 0.00 0 0 Average DOLJ 71199 BRATOVOESTI 3,313 0.12 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization DOLJ 71260 BREASTA 3,906 6.89 0.1-<6.1% below average DOLJ 71340 BULZESTI 1,590 0.00 0 0 Marginalization DOLJ 71457 CALOPAR 3,723 18.26 12-<24% above average Severe DOLJ 71518 CARAULA 2,423 30.46 24+% marginalization Severe DOLJ 71536 CARPEN 2,375 0.00 24+% marginalization DOLJ 71572 CASTRANOVA 3,394 1.41 0 0 DOLJ 71607 CALARASI 5,977 0.03 0 0 DOLJ 71634 CELARU 4,593 1.55 0 0 Severe DOLJ 71698 CERAT 4,226 34.07 24+% marginalization Marginalization DOLJ 71723 CERNATESTI 1,929 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization DOLJ 71787 CETATE 5,368 17.10 12-<24% above average DOLJ 71812 CIOROIASI 1,595 0.31 0 0 DOLJ 71858 CIUPERCENII NOI 5,274 0.46 0 0 Marginalization DOLJ 71885 COSOVENI 3,237 14.49 12-<24% above average COTOFENII DIN DOLJ 71910 2,337 0.30 0 0 DOS DOLJ 71956 DANETI 6,257 0.02 0 0 Average DOLJ 72034 DESA 4,740 0.44 6.1-<12% marginalization DOLJ 72052 DIOSTI 3,054 0.88 0 0 Average DOLJ 72098 DOBRESTI 2,443 0.29 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization DOLJ 72150 DRAGOTESTI 2,174 0.14 0.1-<6.1% below average DOLJ 72221 DRANIC 2,738 0.73 0 0 342 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) DOLJ 72276 FARCAS 1,951 9.89 0 0 DOLJ 72383 GALICEA MARE 4,268 0.09 0 0 DOLJ 72409 GHERCESTI 1,690 0.00 0 0 Marginalization DOLJ 72463 GIGHERA 3,131 7.98 12-<24% above average DOLJ 72506 GIUBEGA 2,036 0.00 0 0 DOLJ 72533 GIURGITA 2,883 7.70 0 0 Marginalization DOLJ 72579 GINGIOVA 2,478 10.13 0.1-<6.1% below average DOLJ 72604 GOGOSU 723 0.00 0 0 Average DOLJ 72640 GOICEA 2,760 0.07 6.1-<12% marginalization DOLJ 72677 GOIESTI 3,113 0.64 0 0 Marginalization DOLJ 72819 GRECESTI 1,706 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average DOLJ 72882 IZVOARE 1,643 0.00 0 0 DOLJ 72926 LEU 4,824 0.15 0 0 Severe DOLJ 72953 LIPOVU 3,313 33.81 24+% marginalization DOLJ 72980 MACESU DE JOS 1,338 0.30 0 0 DOLJ 73013 MACESU DE SUS 1,348 5.27 0 0 DOLJ 73031 MAGLAVIT 4,875 7.02 0 0 DOLJ 73068 MALU MARE 3,780 9.50 0 0 DOLJ 73102 MELINESTI 3,890 1.59 0 0 DOLJ 73246 MISCHII 1,760 0.23 0 0 DOLJ 73317 MARSANI 4,745 1.33 0 0 DOLJ 73335 MOTATEI 6,935 0.00 0 0 DOLJ 73371 MURGASI 2,508 0.00 0 0 Severe DOLJ 73460 NEGOI 2,235 40.76 24+% marginalization Marginalization DOLJ 73503 ORODEL 2,731 0.18 12-<24% above average Average DOLJ 73567 OSTROVENI 5,062 3.32 6.1-<12% marginalization Average DOLJ 73594 PERISOR 1,746 0.34 6.1-<12% marginalization DOLJ 73629 PIELESTI 3,609 0.72 0 0 DOLJ 73665 PISCU VECHI 2,499 5.72 0 0 Average DOLJ 73709 PLENITA 4,686 4.23 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization DOLJ 73736 POIANA MARE 10,740 3.31 0.1-<6.1% below average DOLJ 73772 PREDESTI 1,905 1.15 0 0 DOLJ 73852 RADOVAN 1,432 11.59 0 0 Severe DOLJ 73905 RAST 3,343 8.32 24+% marginalization DOLJ 73923 ROBANESTI 2,395 0.00 0 0 Severe DOLJ 73996 SADOVA 7,976 17.55 24+% marginalization Severe DOLJ 74028 SALCUTA 2,319 35.66 24+% marginalization ANNEX | 343 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization DOLJ 74073 SCAESTI 2,139 0.05 12-<24% above average DOLJ 74108 SEACA DE CAMP 1,965 0.51 0 0 Severe DOLJ 74135 SEACA DE PADURE 1,042 0.00 24+% marginalization Severe DOLJ 74171 SECU 1,140 0.00 24+% marginalization DOLJ 74224 SILISTEA CRUCII 1,609 9.07 0 0 DOLJ 74242 SOPOT 1,836 0.00 0 0 DOLJ 74322 TEASC 3,253 0.03 0 0 Marginalization DOLJ 74359 TERPEZITA 1,673 0.48 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization DOLJ 74411 TESLUI 2,432 2.38 0.1-<6.1% below average DOLJ 74509 TUGLUI 2,834 0.49 0 0 DOLJ 74536 UNIREA 3,814 1.00 0 0 Marginalization DOLJ 74554 URZICUTA 3,128 22.12 12-<24% above average DOLJ 74581 VALEA STANCIULUI 5,642 3.15 0 0 Marginalization DOLJ 74616 VELA 1,943 0.00 12-<24% above average DOLJ 74705 VERBITA 1,342 0.00 0 0 Average DOLJ 74732 VARTOP 1,658 27.50 6.1-<12% marginalization DOLJ 74750 VARVORU DE JOS 2,955 0.20 0 0 Severe DOLJ 74842 CATANE 1,832 43.83 24+% marginalization DOLJ 74859 CARCEA 3,424 1.96 0 0 DOLJ 74867 CARNA 1,363 12.55 0 0 COTOFENII DIN Severe DOLJ 74875 1,904 27.78 24+% FATA marginalization DOLJ 74883 DOBROTESTI 1,733 0.00 0 0 DOLJ 74891 GALICIUICA 1,512 1.19 0 0 Severe DOLJ 74907 GHIDICI 2,408 0.00 24+% marginalization Average DOLJ 74915 GHINDENI 1,936 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization DOLJ 74923 INTORSURA 1,508 0.53 0 0 DOLJ 74931 PLESOI 1,395 0.00 0 0 Marginalization DOLJ 74949 ROJISTE 2,421 0.00 12-<24% above average DOLJ 74956 TALPAS 1,262 0.63 0 0 GORJ 77910 BALESTI 7,404 3.21 0 0 GORJ 78016 DRAGUTESTI 4,996 0.00 0 0 GORJ 78089 TURCINESTI 2,226 0.00 0 0 Marginalization GORJ 78472 ALBENI 2,587 0.12 12-<24% above average GORJ 78542 ALIMPESTI 1,854 0.00 0 0 GORJ 78604 ANINOASA 3,914 1.18 0 0 GORJ 78668 ARCANI 1,346 0.07 0 0 GORJ 78711 BAIA DE FIER 3,984 0.00 0 0 344 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) GORJ 78748 BALANESTI 2,117 0.00 0 0 GORJ 78828 BARBATESTI 1,674 0.48 0 0 BENGESTI-CIOC Average GORJ 78873 3,116 10.59 6.1-<12% ADIA marginalization GORJ 78926 BERLESTI 2,149 0.00 0 0 GORJ 79004 BALTENI 7,126 2.53 0 0 GORJ 79077 BOLBOSI 3,126 0.00 0 0 GORJ 79157 BORASCU 3,492 1.12 0 0 GORJ 79237 BRANESTI 2,426 0.00 0 0 GORJ 79362 BUMBESTI-PITIC 2,105 0.00 0 0 GORJ 79406 BUSTUCHIN 3,376 1.13 0 0 GORJ 79497 CAPRENI 2,174 0.09 0 0 GORJ 79585 CATUNELE 2,551 0.00 0 0 GORJ 79656 CIUPERCENI 1,596 0.00 0 0 GORJ 79736 CALNIC 2,145 0.28 0 0 GORJ 79834 CRASNA 5,133 0.06 0 0 GORJ 79932 CRUSET 3,357 0.30 0 0 GORJ 80043 DANCIULESTI 2,269 0.13 0 0 GORJ 80123 DANESTI 3,875 0.18 0 0 GORJ 80249 DRAGOTESTI 2,505 0.08 0 0 GORJ 80285 FARCASESTI 3,289 0.00 0 0 GORJ 80365 GLOGOVA 1,889 0.00 0 0 GORJ 80427 GODINESTI 2,061 1.31 0 0 Average GORJ 80506 HUREZANI 1,613 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization GORJ 80560 IONESTI 2,252 0.00 0 0 GORJ 80613 JUPANESTI 2,072 0.14 0 0 GORJ 80677 LELESTI 1,854 0.00 0 0 GORJ 80711 LICURICI 2,272 0.00 0 0 Marginalization GORJ 80766 LOGRESTI 2,731 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average GORJ 80846 MATASARI 5,027 0.06 0 0 GORJ 80908 MUSETESTI 1,985 0.00 0 0 GORJ 80980 NEGOMIR 3,555 0.00 0 0 GORJ 81095 PADES 4,800 0.13 0 0 GORJ 81184 PESTISANI 3,732 1.21 0 0 GORJ 81264 PLOPSORU 6,234 0.00 0 0 Marginalization GORJ 81380 POLOVRAGI 2,820 14.33 12-<24% above average GORJ 81415 PRIGORIA 3,124 0.00 0 0 ROSIA DE Marginalization GORJ 81497 3,132 4.34 12-<24% AMARADIA above average GORJ 81576 RUNCU 5,311 0.08 0 0 GORJ 81656 SAMARINESTI 1,739 0.00 0 0 GORJ 81754 SACELU 1,542 0.00 0 0 GORJ 81816 SAULESTI 2,110 0.00 0 0 Marginalization GORJ 81861 SCOARTA 4,844 13.36 0.1-<6.1% below average GORJ 81987 SCHELA 1,674 0.66 0 0 ANNEX | 345 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) GORJ 82047 SLIVILESTI 3,227 0.00 0 0 GORJ 82136 STANESTI 2,310 0.09 0 0 GORJ 82243 STEJARI 2,585 0.00 0 0 GORJ 82314 STOINA 2,376 0.00 0 0 Average GORJ 82396 TELESTI 2,473 6.31 6.1-<12% marginalization GORJ 82555 TURBUREA 4,076 0.00 0 0 GORJ 82680 TANTARENI 5,289 9.21 0 0 GORJ 82733 URDARI 3,024 0.00 0 0 GORJ 82779 VAGIULESTI 2,642 0.04 0 0 GORJ 82831 VLADIMIR 2,793 0.00 0 0 Marginalization MEHEDINTI 109826 SIMIAN 9,650 7.34 0.1-<6.1% below average Marginalization MEHEDINTI 110027 OBARSIA-CLOSANI 953 0.00 12-<24% above average MEHEDINTI 110296 BALA 3,963 0.81 0 0 MEHEDINTI 110456 BALTA 1,120 0.00 0 0 MEHEDINTI 110535 BALACITA 2,830 7.35 0 0 Marginalization MEHEDINTI 110571 BACLES 2,070 0.00 12-<24% above average Severe MEHEDINTI 110688 BALVANESTI 995 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization MEHEDINTI 110740 BREZNITA-MOTRU 1,520 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average MEHEDINTI 110820 BREZNITA-OCOL 3,859 1.04 0 0 MEHEDINTI 110875 BROSTENI 2,865 1.99 0 0 Average MEHEDINTI 110946 BURILA MARE 2,239 0.98 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization MEHEDINTI 111006 BUTOIESTI 3,344 4.16 12-<24% above average Marginalization MEHEDINTI 111097 CAZANESTI 2,303 0.00 12-<24% above average Average MEHEDINTI 111220 CIRESU 572 0.70 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization MEHEDINTI 111275 CORCOVA 5,431 4.82 12-<24% above average MEHEDINTI 111417 CORLATEL 1,366 15.30 0 0 MEHEDINTI 111444 CUJMIR 3,221 1.37 0 0 MEHEDINTI 111480 DEVESEL 3,287 8.67 0 0 Severe MEHEDINTI 111550 DARVARI 2,490 3.05 24+% marginalization MEHEDINTI 111587 DUMBRAVA 1,574 0.00 0 0 MEHEDINTI 111685 FLORESTI 2,603 0.00 0 0 Severe MEHEDINTI 111783 GARLA MARE 3,382 31.37 24+% marginalization Severe MEHEDINTI 111818 GODEANU 632 0.00 24+% marginalization MEHEDINTI 111863 GOGOSU 3,799 12.13 0 0 MEHEDINTI 111916 GRECI 1,292 0.00 0 0 Severe MEHEDINTI 111989 GROZESTI 1,990 0.25 24+% marginalization 346 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization MEHEDINTI 112030 GRUIA 3,030 32.18 12-<24% above average Marginalization MEHEDINTI 112076 HINOVA 2,849 0.04 12-<24% above average MEHEDINTI 112129 HUSNICIOARA 1,393 0.00 0 0 Marginalization MEHEDINTI 112245 ESELNITA 2,565 22.30 12-<24% above average MEHEDINTI 112263 ILOVAT 1,291 0.00 0 0 MEHEDINTI 112334 ILOVITA 1,316 0.08 0 0 MEHEDINTI 112370 ISVERNA 2,145 0.37 0 0 MEHEDINTI 112469 IZVORU BARZII 2,703 0.00 0 0 Average MEHEDINTI 112548 JIANA 4,695 17.81 6.1-<12% marginalization Marginalization MEHEDINTI 112600 LIVEZILE 1,678 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average MEHEDINTI 112664 MALOVAT 2,780 0.79 0 0 MEHEDINTI 112744 OBARSIA DE CAMP 1,780 0.00 0 0 Severe MEHEDINTI 112771 OPRISOR 2,315 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization MEHEDINTI 112806 PADINA 1,469 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average MEHEDINTI 112879 PATULELE 3,636 0.33 0 0 MEHEDINTI 112904 DUBOVA 785 2.80 0 0 MEHEDINTI 112959 PODENI 854 0.00 0 0 MEHEDINTI 112995 PONOARELE 2,425 0.21 0 0 Severe MEHEDINTI 113153 POROINA MARE 1,048 0.00 24+% marginalization MEHEDINTI 113206 PRISTOL 1,457 0.00 0 0 Marginalization MEHEDINTI 113233 PRUNISOR 2,029 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe MEHEDINTI 113395 PUNGHINA 2,936 25.48 24+% marginalization MEHEDINTI 113466 ROGOVA 1,359 0.66 0 0 MEHEDINTI 113493 SALCIA 2,794 0.00 0 0 Average MEHEDINTI 113518 STANGACEAUA 1,367 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization MEHEDINTI 113607 SVINITA 925 0.86 0 0 MEHEDINTI 113625 SISESTI 2,959 0.00 0 0 MEHEDINTI 113698 SOVARNA 1,270 0.00 0 0 Marginalization MEHEDINTI 113732 TAMNA 3,260 16.90 12-<24% above average MEHEDINTI 113849 VANATORI 1,964 1.22 0 0 Marginalization MEHEDINTI 113894 VANJULET 1,884 18.90 12-<24% above average Marginalization MEHEDINTI 113929 VLADAIA 1,735 16.83 12-<24% above average MEHEDINTI 113974 VOLOIAC 1,694 0.00 0 0 MEHEDINTI 114060 BRANISTEA 1,827 0.00 0 0 Severe MEHEDINTI 114079 VRATA 1,599 22.58 24+% marginalization OLT 125374 SLATIOARA 2,585 0.97 0 0 ANNEX | 347 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) OLT 125490 DRAGHICENI 1,828 0.00 0 0 OLT 125588 GARCOV 2,303 0.00 0 0 OLT 125659 BABICIU 2,084 0.34 0 0 OLT 125677 BALDOVINESTI 1,089 0.00 0 0 OLT 125757 BARASTI 1,793 0.00 0 0 Average OLT 125846 BARZA 2,532 2.76 6.1-<12% marginalization OLT 125873 BOBICESTI 3,314 0.12 0 0 OLT 125962 BRASTAVATU 4,830 1.45 0 0 OLT 125999 BREBENI 3,016 7.89 0 0 OLT 126022 BRANCOVENI 2,730 0.00 0 0 Marginalization OLT 126077 BUCINISU 2,145 0.37 0.1-<6.1% below average OLT 126102 CEZIENI 1,830 0.00 0 0 OLT 126148 CILIENI 3,244 0.00 0 0 OLT 126166 CARLOGANI 2,329 0.00 0 0 OLT 126228 COLONESTI 2,072 0.00 0 0 Marginalization OLT 126326 CORBU 2,458 12.94 12-<24% above average OLT 126380 COTEANA 2,435 1.15 0 0 OLT 126406 CRAMPOIA 3,651 0.00 0 0 OLT 126433 CURTISOARA 4,192 0.91 0 0 OLT 126503 CUNGREA 2,178 0.00 0 0 OLT 126585 DANEASA 3,827 2.25 0 0 OLT 126647 DEVESELU 3,157 0.13 0 0 Marginalization OLT 126674 DOBRETU 1,227 0.00 12-<24% above average OLT 126718 DOBROSLOVENI 3,736 1.37 0 0 OLT 126772 DOBROTEASA 1,831 0.00 0 0 OLT 126825 DOBRUN 1,546 0.00 0 0 Marginalization OLT 126905 FAGETELU 1,219 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average OLT 126978 FALCOIU 4,004 2.27 0 0 OLT 127019 FARCASELE 4,683 1.17 0 0 OLT 127064 GANEASA 3,775 0.13 0 0 Marginalization OLT 127126 GIUVARASTI 2,381 0.00 12-<24% above average OLT 127144 GOSTAVATU 2,919 2.91 0 0 Severe OLT 127171 GRADINARI 2,370 23.80 24+% marginalization OLT 127224 GROJDIBODU 2,857 0.35 0 0 OLT 127251 IANCA 3,560 1.94 0 0 Marginalization OLT 127288 IANCU JIANU 4,118 3.06 12-<24% above average OLT 127322 ICOANA 1,917 0.00 0 0 OLT 127368 IZBICENI 4,807 2.79 0 0 Marginalization OLT 127386 IZVOARELE 3,485 0.00 12-<24% above average OLT 127411 LELEASCA 1,640 0.00 0 0 OLT 127493 MARUNTEI 4,163 0.43 0 0 348 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) OLT 127536 MIHAESTI 1,678 0.00 0 0 OLT 127563 MILCOV 1,546 0.52 0 0 OLT 127625 MORUNGLAV 2,545 0.12 0 0 OLT 127689 MOVILENI 3,443 0.12 0 0 NICOLAE OLT 127714 1,271 0.08 0 0 TITULESCU OLT 127750 OBARSIA 2,902 1.69 0 0 Severe OLT 127812 OBOGA 1,777 0.00 24+% marginalization Marginalization OLT 127858 OPORELU 1,250 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average OLT 127901 OPTASI-MAGURA 1,247 0.16 0 0 OLT 127938 ORLEA 2,331 0.39 0 0 OLT 127983 OSICA DE SUS 5,215 2.36 0 0 OLT 128052 PERIETI 2,215 0.00 0 0 OLT 128178 PARSCOVENI 3,062 0.00 0 0 Marginalization OLT 128221 PLESOIU 3,105 0.00 12-<24% above average Marginalization OLT 128301 POBORU 2,034 0.00 12-<24% above average OLT 128436 PRISEACA 1,580 0.00 0 0 OLT 128472 RADOMIRESTI 3,402 0.15 0 0 OLT 128524 REDEA 3,006 0.37 0 0 OLT 128560 ROTUNDA 2,841 0.18 0 0 Marginalization OLT 128588 RUSANESTI 4,434 0.83 0.1-<6.1% below average OLT 128613 SCARISOARA 3,002 4.33 0 0 Average OLT 128659 SCHITU 2,660 0.04 6.1-<12% marginalization OLT 128864 SEACA 2,061 0.19 0 0 OLT 128882 SAMBURESTI 1,209 0.25 0 0 OLT 128962 SPINENI 2,069 0.87 0 0 Severe OLT 129040 SPRANCENATA 2,694 1.19 24+% marginalization Marginalization OLT 129095 STOENESTI 2,422 10.94 12-<24% above average OLT 129111 STOICANESTI 2,638 0.42 0 0 OLT 129139 STREJESTI 3,237 0.77 0 0 OLT 129184 STUDINA 2,985 0.00 0 0 OLT 129246 SERBANESTI 2,902 0.17 0 0 OLT 129282 STEFAN CEL MARE 1,808 1.22 0 0 OLT 129317 TATULESTI 1,088 0.00 0 0 OLT 129380 TESLUI 2,737 0.11 0 0 OLT 129460 TIA MARE 4,496 0.00 0 0 OLT 129503 TOPANA 991 0.00 0 0 OLT 129567 TRAIAN 3,264 0.09 0 0 OLT 129585 TUFENI 3,038 0.00 0 0 OLT 129629 URZICA 2,283 0.00 0 0 OLT 129656 VALEA MARE 3,829 2.40 0 0 OLT 129718 VADASTRA 1,449 0.35 0 0 ANNEX | 349 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) OLT 129745 VADASTRITA 3,437 0.00 0 0 OLT 129763 VALENI 2,826 1.52 0 0 Marginalization OLT 129816 VERGULEASA 3,139 1.75 0.1-<6.1% below average OLT 129898 VISINA 2,930 0.00 0 0 OLT 129914 VITOMIRESTI 2,282 0.00 0 0 OLT 129987 VALCELE 2,526 0.00 0 0 OLT 130026 VLADILA 1,925 0.16 0 0 Average OLT 130062 VOINEASA 2,229 1.44 6.1-<12% marginalization OLT 130124 VULPENI 2,255 0.00 0 0 OLT 130231 VULTURESTI 2,591 0.00 0 0 OLT 130286 BALTENI 1,694 0.00 0 0 OLT 130295 CALUI 1,519 0.07 0 0 Marginalization OLT 130302 GAVANESTI 2,050 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average Severe OLT 130311 GHIMPETENI 1,530 0.46 24+% marginalization OLT 130320 GRADINILE 1,507 0.27 0 0 Marginalization OLT 130339 GURA PADINII 1,693 0.24 12-<24% above average OLT 130348 IPOTESTI 1,441 7.01 0 0 OLT 130357 OSICA DE JOS 1,567 2.74 0 0 OLT 130366 SARBII - MAGURA 2,053 0.00 0 0 OLT 130375 VISINA NOUA 1,767 0.96 0 0 OLT 130384 SOPARLITA 1,279 0.63 0 0 VALCEA 168229 ALUNU 4,109 3.82 0 0 VALCEA 168309 AMARASTI 1,826 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 168559 BARBATESTI 3,318 0.03 0 0 VALCEA 168675 BERISLAVESTI 2,769 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 168755 BOISOARA 1,313 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 168791 BUDESTI 5,694 0.95 0 0 Average VALCEA 168880 BUJORENI 4,410 3.42 6.1-<12% marginalization Average VALCEA 168960 BUNESTI 2,639 6.90 6.1-<12% marginalization VALCEA 169039 CERNISOARA 3,782 0.00 0 0 Average VALCEA 169119 CAINENI 2,500 7.48 6.1-<12% marginalization VALCEA 169182 COPACENI 2,603 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 169253 COSTESTI 3,244 0.22 0 0 VALCEA 169306 CRETENI 2,151 1.16 0 0 Marginalization VALCEA 169351 DAESTI 2,899 8.97 0.1-<6.1% below average VALCEA 169404 DANICEI 2,041 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 169547 DRAGOESTI 1,980 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 169583 FAURESTI 1,559 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 169681 FARTATESTI 3,976 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 169896 FRANCESTI 4,988 9.44 0 0 VALCEA 169994 GALICEA 3,748 0.00 0 0 350 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) VALCEA 170097 GHIOROIU 1,822 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 170168 GLAVILE 2,027 0.05 0 0 VALCEA 170220 GOLESTI 2,540 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 170346 GRADISTEA 2,622 2.59 0 0 VALCEA 170444 GUSOENI 1,535 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 170514 IONESTI 4,130 0.17 0 0 VALCEA 170612 LALOSU 2,478 15.78 0 0 VALCEA 170685 LADESTI 2,036 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 170792 LAPUSATA 2,154 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 170872 LIVEZI 2,301 0.04 0 0 VALCEA 170952 LUNGESTI 3,045 7.00 0 0 VALCEA 171021 MALAIA 1,703 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 171067 MATEESTI 3,096 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 171101 MACIUCA 1,797 0.00 0 0 Average VALCEA 171209 MADULARI 1,459 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization VALCEA 171272 MALDARESTI 1,809 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 171325 MIHAESTI 6,443 0.47 0 0 VALCEA 171469 MILCOIU 1,265 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 171539 MUEREASCA 2,467 1.26 0 0 NICOLAE VALCEA 171628 3,462 0.00 0 0 BALCESCU VALCEA 171806 OLANU 2,890 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 171879 ORLESTI 3,198 0.00 0 0 Marginalization VALCEA 171931 OTESANI 2,641 0.57 0.1-<6.1% below average VALCEA 171995 PAUSESTI 2,717 0.00 0 0 PAUSESTI-MAG VALCEA 172082 3,992 4.23 0 0 LASI VALCEA 172153 PERISANI 2,326 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 172279 PESCEANA 1,692 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 172340 PIETRARI 2,881 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 172377 POPESTI 2,972 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 172457 PRUNDENI 3,990 0.38 0 0 Marginalization VALCEA 172509 RACOVITA 1,822 7.90 12-<24% above average VALCEA 172581 ROESTI 2,105 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 172698 ROSIILE 2,759 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 172812 RUNCU 980 0.51 0 0 Marginalization VALCEA 172894 SALATRUCEL 1,983 0.50 0.1-<6.1% below average VALCEA 172947 SCUNDU 1,861 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 172992 SINESTI 2,297 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 173061 SLATIOARA 3,293 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 173132 STANESTI 1,270 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 173230 STOENESTI 3,409 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 173374 STOILESTI 3,747 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 173533 STROESTI 2,809 0.07 0 0 VALCEA 173597 SUTESTI 2,031 0.30 0 0 ANNEX | 351 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) VALCEA 173686 SIRINEASA 2,404 0.33 0 0 VALCEA 173748 STEFANESTI 3,248 0.00 0 0 Marginalization VALCEA 173793 SUSANI 3,291 0.12 0.1-<6.1% below average VALCEA 173855 TETOIU 2,683 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 173935 TOMSANI 3,729 0.48 0 0 Marginalization VALCEA 174021 VAIDEENI 3,946 5.78 12-<24% above average VALCEA 174085 VALEA MARE 2,610 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 174156 VLADESTI 2,883 2.64 0 0 VALCEA 174218 VOICESTI 1,612 3.23 0 0 VALCEA 174254 VOINEASA 1,455 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 174290 ZATRENI 2,498 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 174496 TITESTI 898 0.67 0 0 VALCEA 174502 DICULESTI 1,981 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 174511 LACUSTENI 1,477 0.00 0 0 VALCEA 174520 MITROFANI 945 0.00 0 0 352 | ANNEX ANNEX 2. TABLE 8: Rate of marginalization at commune level in West development region Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) ARAD 9280 FANTINELE 3,090 0.55 0 0 ARAD 9333 LIVADA 2,960 0.27 0 0 ARAD 9360 SOFRONEA 2,575 0.00 0 0 ARAD 9397 VLADIMIRESCU 10,710 0.49 0 0 ARAD 9743 ALMAS 2,532 1.78 0 0 ARAD 9798 APATEU 3,176 2.74 0 0 ARAD 9832 ARCHIS 1,515 5.35 0 0 Marginalization ARAD 9887 BATA 1,088 3.31 12-<24% above average ARAD 9930 BELIU 3,057 3.86 0 0 Marginalization ARAD 10006 BIRCHIS 1,854 8.63 12-<24% above average ARAD 10051 BARSA 1,791 1.95 0 0 ARAD 10104 BARZAVA 2,707 0.78 0 0 ARAD 10195 BOCSIG 3,231 0.96 0 0 ARAD 10239 BRAZII 1,155 0.00 0 0 Marginalization ARAD 10293 BUTENI 3,403 0.41 12-<24% above average ARAD 10346 CARAND 1,036 5.69 0 0 ARAD 10373 CERMEI 2,722 6.80 0 0 ARAD 10417 CHISINDIA 1,340 3.58 0 0 ARAD 10453 CONOP 2,258 0.89 0 0 Average ARAD 10514 COVASINT 2,573 24.37 6.1-<12% marginalization Average ARAD 10532 CRAIVA 2,880 10.94 6.1-<12% marginalization ARAD 10649 DEZNA 1,198 0.17 0 0 ARAD 10701 DIECI 1,490 1.68 0 0 ARAD 10765 USUSAU 1,392 0.00 0 0 ARAD 10827 FELNAC 2,931 12.79 0 0 ARAD 10872 GHIOROC 3,790 0.50 0 0 ARAD 10916 GRANICERI 2,254 6.26 0 0 ARAD 10943 GURAHONT 3,973 1.36 0 0 ARAD 11058 HALMAGIU 2,852 0.11 0 0 Average ARAD 11174 HALMAGEL 1,305 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization ARAD 11236 HASMAS 1,300 2.38 0 0 ARAD 11307 IGNESTI 679 0.15 0 0 ARAD 11352 IRATOSU 2,395 1.63 0 0 ARAD 11398 MACEA 5,762 5.97 0 0 ARAD 11423 MISCA 3,733 24.40 0 0 ARAD 11478 MONEASA 864 0.00 0 0 ARAD 11502 OLARI 1,937 8.52 0 0 ARAD 11539 PAULIS 4,120 4.44 0 0 ARAD 11637 PEREGU MARE 1,625 0.92 0 0 ANNEX | 353 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Average ARAD 11664 PETRIS 1,525 0.33 6.1-<12% marginalization ARAD 11735 PILU 2,060 11.70 0 0 ARAD 11762 PLESCUTA 1,219 0.41 0 0 ARAD 11842 SAVARSIN 2,890 0.03 0 0 ARAD 11940 SECUSIGIU 5,509 4.47 0 0 ARAD 11995 SELEUS 3,044 0.39 0 0 Average ARAD 12037 SEMLAC 3,667 8.40 6.1-<12% marginalization ARAD 12055 SINTEA MARE 3,742 9.27 0 0 ARAD 12126 SOCODOR 2,367 7.82 0 0 ARAD 12144 SAGU 3,776 6.30 0 0 ARAD 12206 SEITIN 2,936 9.06 0 0 ARAD 12224 SEPREUS 2,481 12.49 0 0 ARAD 12242 SICULA 4,301 1.35 0 0 ARAD 12288 SILINDIA 904 0.55 0 0 ARAD 12340 SIMAND 3,982 8.59 0 0 Average ARAD 12368 SIRIA 8,103 10.58 6.1-<12% marginalization ARAD 12402 SISTAROVAT 358 0.28 0 0 ARAD 12457 TAUT 1,779 0.96 0 0 Marginalization ARAD 12509 TARNOVA 5,935 1.97 0.1-<6.1% below average VARADIA DE ARAD 12572 1,755 0.17 0 0 MURES ARAD 12643 VINGA 6,150 10.57 0 0 ARAD 12689 VARFURILE 2,715 1.40 0 0 ARAD 12778 ZABRANI 4,251 0.02 0 0 ARAD 12812 ZARAND 2,677 3.06 0 0 ARAD 12849 ZERIND 1,320 1.82 0 0 ARAD 12876 ZIMANDU NOU 4,657 1.85 0 0 ARAD 12912 DOROBANTI 1,635 1.83 0 0 ARAD 12920 FRUMUSENI 2,543 0.55 0 0 ARAD 12938 ZADARENI 2,495 0.08 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 50987 OCNA DE FIER 656 0.00 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 51243 ARMENIS 2,454 1.02 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 51305 BANIA 1,752 1.48 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 51332 BAUTAR 2,604 0.50 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 51387 BERLISTE 1,164 15.72 0 0 Marginalization CARAS-SEVERIN 51449 BERZASCA 2,848 4.71 0.1-<6.1% below average CARAS-SEVERIN 51500 BERZOVIA 3,891 8.28 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 51546 BOLVASNITA 1,405 0.00 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 51573 BOZOVICI 2,924 3.66 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 51626 BREBU 1,164 0.00 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 51662 BREBU NOU 119 0.00 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 51699 BUCHIN 2,039 0.54 0 0 Marginalization CARAS-SEVERIN 51751 BUCOSNITA 2,978 0.00 12-<24% above average 354 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) Marginalization CARAS-SEVERIN 51804 CARASOVA 3,110 5.53 12-<24% above average CARAS-SEVERIN 51840 CARBUNARI 1,008 0.00 0 0 CONSTANTIN CARAS-SEVERIN 51877 2,692 8.36 0 0 DAICOVICIU CICLOVA CARAS-SEVERIN 51948 1,550 5.61 0 0 ROMANA CARAS-SEVERIN 51984 CIUCHICI 1,338 10.84 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 52035 CIUDANOVITA 657 1.37 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 52062 COPACELE 1,111 0.00 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 52115 CORNEA 1,890 0.00 0 0 Average CARAS-SEVERIN 52160 CORNEREVA 3,190 0.00 6.1-<12% marginalization CARAS-SEVERIN 52570 DALBOSET 1,650 0.55 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 52650 DOCLIN 1,741 2.87 0 0 Marginalization CARAS-SEVERIN 52696 DOGNECEA 2,009 0.15 12-<24% above average CARAS-SEVERIN 52721 DOMASNEA 1,402 2.35 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 52758 EZERIS 1,255 2.63 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 52785 FARLIUG 1,956 1.69 0 0 Marginalization CARAS-SEVERIN 52856 FOROTIC 1,708 3.92 0.1-<6.1% below average CARAS-SEVERIN 52909 GARNIC 1,268 0.00 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 52936 GLIMBOCA 1,808 0.00 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 52954 GORUIA 790 2.91 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 52990 GRADINARI 1,956 9.25 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53023 IABLANITA 2,281 1.23 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53069 LAPUSNICEL 1,081 1.02 0 0 LAPUSNICU MA CARAS-SEVERIN 53103 1,647 0.36 0 0 RE CARAS-SEVERIN 53130 LUNCAVITA 2,613 1.72 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53167 LUPAC 2,677 1.08 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53210 MARGA 1,151 2.09 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53247 MAURENI 2,646 0.00 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53274 MEHADIA 4,128 0.15 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53327 MEHADICA 870 2.87 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53345 NAIDAS 1,139 0.00 0 0 Marginalization CARAS-SEVERIN 53372 OBREJA 3,252 0.83 0.1-<6.1% below average CARAS-SEVERIN 53425 PALTINIS 2,408 0.17 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53489 CORONINI 1,748 0.00 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53513 POJEJENA 2,884 1.01 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53577 PRIGOR 2,577 0.97 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53639 RAMNA 1,560 0.19 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53675 RACASDIA 1,976 22.22 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 53700 EFTIMIE MURGU 1,628 0.18 0 0 RUSCA CARAS-SEVERIN 53728 1,834 0.00 0 0 MONTANA ANNEX | 355 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) CARAS-SEVERIN 53755 SACU 1,485 3.64 0 0 SASCA CARAS-SEVERIN 53791 1,593 3.89 0 0 MONTANA CARAS-SEVERIN 53853 SICHEVITA 2,230 1.35 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 54056 SLATINA-TIMIS 3,074 0.00 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 54109 SOCOL 1,933 5.38 0 0 Severe CARAS-SEVERIN 54163 SOPOTU NOU 1,157 0.52 24+% marginalization CARAS-SEVERIN 54270 TEREGOVA 3,981 0.98 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 54305 TICVANIU MARE 1,984 32.41 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 54350 TARNOVA 1,731 0.17 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 54387 TOPLET 2,625 3.50 0 0 Average CARAS-SEVERIN 54412 TURNU RUIENI 3,342 0.12 6.1-<12% marginalization CARAS-SEVERIN 54485 VALIUG 741 0.00 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 54500 VARADIA 1,371 24.29 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 54537 VERMES 1,566 0.00 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 54573 VRANI 1,070 15.79 0 0 CARAS-SEVERIN 54617 ZAVOI 3,946 0.89 0 0 ZORLENTU MA CARAS-SEVERIN 54699 1,015 0.69 0 0 RE HUNEDOARA 86749 CARJITI 681 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 86883 GHELARI 1,983 0.25 0 0 TELIUCU HUNEDOARA 86936 2,344 0.21 0 0 INFERIOR HUNEDOARA 87246 BANITA 1,211 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 87362 CRISCIOR 3,841 0.57 0 0 HUNEDOARA 87745 BAIA DE CRIS 2,611 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 87843 BALSA 871 0.57 0 0 HUNEDOARA 87996 BARU 2,696 2.23 0 0 HUNEDOARA 88047 BACIA 1,827 0.44 0 0 HUNEDOARA 88092 BAITA 3,712 0.35 0 0 HUNEDOARA 88216 BATRANA 127 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 88261 BERIU 3,138 0.89 0 0 HUNEDOARA 88350 BLAJENI 1,192 0.00 0 0 Marginalization HUNEDOARA 88449 BOSOROD 2,062 0.00 0.1-<6.1% below average HUNEDOARA 88546 BRANISCA 1,767 0.34 0 0 BRETEA HUNEDOARA 88644 3,052 0.36 0 0 ROMANA HUNEDOARA 88788 BUCES 1,961 1.22 0 0 HUNEDOARA 88868 BUCURESCI 1,553 0.00 0 0 BULZESTII DE HUNEDOARA 88920 271 0.00 0 0 SUS HUNEDOARA 89026 BUNILA 306 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 89080 BURJUC 873 0.46 0 0 HUNEDOARA 89151 CERBAL 474 0.00 0 0 CERTEJU DE HUNEDOARA 89240 3,126 0.00 0 0 SUS 356 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) HUNEDOARA 89348 DENSUS 1,577 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 89428 DOBRA 3,345 1.32 0 0 HUNEDOARA 89687 GURASADA 1,492 0.07 0 0 HUNEDOARA 89801 HARAU 2,231 1.48 0 0 HUNEDOARA 89856 ILIA 3,662 0.03 0 0 HUNEDOARA 89954 LAPUGIU DE JOS 1,659 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 90066 LELESE 406 0.00 0 0 LUNCA CERNII DE Severe HUNEDOARA 90119 905 0.00 24+% JOS marginalization HUNEDOARA 90208 LUNCOIU DE JOS 1,815 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 90262 MARTINESTI 956 0.94 0 0 ORASTIOARA DE HUNEDOARA 90342 2,079 0.05 0 0 SUS HUNEDOARA 90431 PESTISU MIC 1,207 0.00 0 0 Average HUNEDOARA 90538 PUI 4,122 1.77 6.1-<12% marginalization HUNEDOARA 90663 RAPOLTU MARE 1,960 2.14 0 0 HUNEDOARA 90725 RACHITOVA 1,330 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 90805 RIBITA 1,347 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 90878 RAU DE MORI 3,153 4.06 0 0 Marginalization HUNEDOARA 90994 ROMOS 2,604 2.11 0.1-<6.1% below average HUNEDOARA 91054 SARMIZEGETUSA 1,209 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 91116 SALASU DE SUS 2,359 0.42 0 0 SANTAMARIA-OR HUNEDOARA 91232 3,251 5.11 0 0 LEA HUNEDOARA 91330 SOIMUS 3,371 0.27 0 0 HUNEDOARA 91447 TOMESTI 1,075 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 91535 TOPLITA 715 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 91624 TOTESTI 1,893 3.17 0 0 HUNEDOARA 91688 TURDAS 1,801 19.88 0 0 GENERAL HUNEDOARA 91731 896 1.12 0 0 BERTHELOT HUNEDOARA 91795 VATA DE JOS 3,728 0.75 0 0 HUNEDOARA 91937 VALISOARA 1,197 0.00 0 0 HUNEDOARA 91982 VETEL 2,872 5.36 0 0 Marginalization HUNEDOARA 92097 VORTA 876 0.00 12-<24% above average HUNEDOARA 92177 ZAM 1,875 0.16 0 0 TIMIS 155261 DUMBRAVITA 7,522 0.00 0 0 TIMIS 155289 GHIRODA 6,200 0.27 0 0 TIMIS 155314 GIROC 8,388 0.70 0 0 TIMIS 155546 BALINT 1,596 2.19 0 0 TIMIS 155591 BANLOC 2,631 9.81 0 0 TIMIS 155662 BARA 388 0.00 0 0 TIMIS 155724 BEBA VECHE 1,539 1.17 0 0 BECICHERECU TIMIS 155760 2,853 2.80 0 0 MIC ANNEX | 357 Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) TIMIS 155797 BELINT 2,789 0.25 0 0 TIMIS 155840 BETHAUSEN 3,057 0.10 0 0 TIMIS 155911 BILED 3,294 4.10 0 0 Marginalization TIMIS 155957 BARNA 1,640 0.00 12-<24% above average TIMIS 156035 BOGDA 460 0.00 0 0 TIMIS 156106 BOLDUR 2,439 0.00 0 0 TIMIS 156151 BRESTOVAT 674 1.19 0 0 TIMIS 156213 CARPINIS 4,477 5.41 0 0 TIMIS 156259 CENAD 4,207 12.34 0 0 TIMIS 156277 CENEI 2,670 0.49 0 0 CHEVERESU MA Average TIMIS 156311 2,272 19.32 6.1-<12% RE marginalization TIMIS 156437 COMLOSU MARE 4,737 18.15 0 0 TIMIS 156473 COSTEIU 3,635 2.31 0 0 TIMIS 156534 CRICIOVA 1,587 0.00 0 0 TIMIS 156589 CURTEA 1,193 2.10 0 0 TIMIS 156623 DAROVA 3,049 0.49 0 0 TIMIS 156669 DENTA 2,982 2.38 0 0 TIMIS 156712 DUDESTII VECHI 4,203 5.28 0 0 TIMIS 156767 DUMBRAVA 2,659 0.11 0 0 TIMIS 156927 FARDEA 1,750 1.49 0 0 TIMIS 157004 FOENI 1,737 1.09 0 0 TIMIS 157031 GAVOJDIA 3,034 1.02 0 0 Average TIMIS 157193 GHIZELA 1,155 0.09 6.1-<12% marginalization TIMIS 157246 GIARMATA 6,502 1.65 0 0 TIMIS 157273 GIERA 1,239 7.99 0 0 TIMIS 157317 GIULVAZ 3,075 5.50 0 0 Marginalization TIMIS 157362 JAMU MARE 2,971 2.79 0.1-<6.1% below average TIMIS 157424 JEBEL 3,584 4.05 0 0 TIMIS 157451 LENAUHEIM 5,109 10.86 0 0 TIMIS 157497 LIEBLING 3,723 4.27 0 0 TIMIS 157530 LOVRIN 3,223 3.41 0 0 TIMIS 157585 MARGINA 2,186 0.41 0 0 TIMIS 157683 MASLOC 2,285 2.80 0 0 TIMIS 157736 MANASTIUR 1,658 1.81 0 0 Marginalization TIMIS 157781 MORAVITA 2,289 3.84 0.1-<6.1% below average TIMIS 157834 MOSNITA NOUA 6,203 0.90 0 0 TIMIS 157898 NADRAG 2,836 0.07 0 0 TIMIS 157923 NITCHIDORF 1,523 0.33 0 0 TIMIS 157969 OHABA LUNGA 1,084 1.11 0 0 TIMIS 158010 ORTISOARA 4,190 0.84 0 0 TIMIS 158065 PECIU NOU 4,982 0.70 0 0 TIMIS 158109 PERIAM 4,505 7.39 0 0 TIMIS 158136 PIETROASA 1,120 0.00 0 0 358 | ANNEX Share of Roma Siruta Total Rate of population in Type of County Code Commune population marginalization total population marginalization TAU (2011 Census) (interval) (2011 Census) TIMIS 158181 PISCHIA 3,051 3.47 0 0 TIMIS 158243 RACOVITA 3,168 3.82 0 0 TIMIS 158396 REMETEA MARE 2,302 0.09 0 0 SACOSU TIMIS 158449 3,307 4.93 0 0 TURCESC TIMIS 158528 SATCHINEZ 4,743 10.46 0 0 TIMIS 158564 SACALAZ 7,204 0.47 0 0 TIMIS 158608 SECAS 299 0.00 0 0 TIMIS 158653 SANANDREI 5,717 0.45 0 0 SANMIHAIU TIMIS 158699 6,121 0.74 0 0 ROMAN SANPETRU MA TIMIS 158733 3,145 13.48 0 0 RE TIMIS 158779 SAG 3,009 0.90 0 0 TIMIS 158804 STIUCA 1,813 0.00 0 0 TIMIS 158859 TEREMIA MARE 4,019 1.64 0 0 TIMIS 158895 TOMESTI 2,093 1.91 0 0 TOPOLOVATU TIMIS 158966 2,574 1.98 0 0 MARE TIMIS 159035 TORMAC 2,714 0.26 0 0 TIMIS 159071 TRAIAN VUIA 2,059 5.54 0 0 TIMIS 159142 UIVAR 2,453 4.65 0 0 TIMIS 159213 VARIAS 5,682 3.85 0 0 VICTOR VLAD TIMIS 159259 2,604 0.88 0 0 DELAMARINA TIMIS 159339 VOITEG 2,437 2.63 0 0 TIMIS 159366 BIRDA 1,846 0.60 0 0 Marginalization TIMIS 159375 CHECEA 1,838 29.71 12-<24% above average TIMIS 159384 DUDESTII NOI 3,179 5.32 0 0 TIMIS 159393 FIBIS 1,590 0.25 0 0 TIMIS 159400 GHILAD 2,078 8.47 0 0 Marginalization TIMIS 159419 GOTTLOB 2,041 4.07 12-<24% above average TIMIS 159428 IECEA MARE 2,231 5.24 0 0 TIMIS 159437 PARTA 2,172 4.65 0 0 TIMIS 159446 PADURENI 1,938 1.14 0 0 TIMIS 159455 SARAVALE 2,628 20.66 0 0 TIMIS 159464 SANDRA 2,882 0.69 0 0 TIMIS 159473 TOMNATIC 3,144 6.77 0 0 TIMIS 159482 VALCANI 1,350 0.59 0 0 TIMIS 159491 LIVEZILE 1,566 0.89 0 0 TIMIS 159507 PESAC 1,990 5.63 0 0 TIMIS 159516 BUCOVAT 1,601 2.81 0 0 TIMIS 159525 OTELEC 1,499 0.00 0 0 ANNEX | 359 Annex 3: Local Human Development ANNEX 3. TABLE 1: Predictors of Local Human Development for Small Settlements in Romania, 2011 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. 360 | ANNEX ANNEX 3. TABLE 2: Typology of Local Human Development for Villages by County, 2011 Source: World Bank calculations using data from the 2011 Population and Housing Census. Note: Braila is typical of housing poverty as 74 percent of its population is in the low housing development category. ANNEX | 361 Annex 4: Field Instruments for the Validation Study Marginalized rural communities - Commune Form - Name of the locality.................................................................................County.................................................... Name and surname.................................................................................................................................................... Institution.................................................................. Department... ....................................................................... Position.................................................. Phone ..............................................Email .............................................. Type of locality (from the database) 1. with marginalized areas 2. with no marginalized areas Fill out date |___|___| |___|___| 2015 1. Introduction Brief overview of the project and of the research team 2. Marginalized areas Q1. Are there any marginalized areas in your locality (poor population, with a low-level of education, poor access to infrastructure, bad living conditions, etc)? 1. Yes 2. No If Yes, Q1a. How many? |___|___| 362 | ANNEX Q2. Marginalized areas identified based on the data The table below presents the marginalized areas identified using census data and other statistical indicators. For each area, please identify the census sector and tell us whether it is marginalized or not. Name of the Census sector Total population Roma population Area validated by local village in the sector in the sector authorities 1. Yes 2. No Q3. Marginalized areas, validated and identified by local authorities In the table below, please fill in the marginalized areas that have been validated by local authorities and any others identified that have been identified, if any. Area Village Geographic delineation Name Census sector* code Area 1 ..... * See the table above, for the areas identified in the database Please mark on the map every marginalized area, using the codes from 1 to n, from the Q3 table. ANNEX | 363 For every area, a Marginalized Area Form must be filled out. Name of the locality...................................................................................... County.................................................................................................................... Marginalized Rural Communities - Marginalized Area Form – Marginalized Areas |___| (marked on the map and in the Q3 table of the Commune Form under code |___|) A. Local authority representatives Name of the area or locally acknowledged name Name of the village/ villages it which belongs to Area delineation Name of streets or landmarks delineating it ..................................................................................................................................................... Type of area 1. Roma community (irrespective of the ethnicity stated in the census) 2. Community of foreigners 3. Other type, namely……………………………………………………............................................. Area history This marginalized area dates since when? 1. Before 1990 2. After 1990, indicative year |___|___||___|___| How did the community emerge and why is it in this status? ..................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................... The area where the 1. within the built-up area, in the middle of the village community is located is: 2. within the built-up area, at the outskirts of the village 3. outside the built-up area For code 2 or 3 a. municipality |___|___| , |___|___| km or |___|___|___| min walking b. school |___|___| , |___|___| km or |___|___|___| min walking What`s the indicative distance from the area to...? c. medical center |___|___| , |___|___| km or |___|___|___| min walking d. the closest grocery store |___|___| , |___|___|km or |___|___|___| min walking For code 2 or 3 1. Earth 4. Mixed; over 50% earth 2. Gravel 5. Mixed; over 50% gravel The road connecting the area to the village is made 3. Asphalt 6. Mixed; over 50% asphalt of? What types of road are 1. Earth 2. Gravel 3. Asphalt most commonly seen in the area? 364 | ANNEX Geographic barriers Are there any geographic barriers (natural/ man-made or any other type of physical obstacles) that prevent the inhabitants of the marginalized area from taking the shortest road to get to the center of the commune/ separate the area from the rest of the commune? 1. Yes 2. No Which are they? River, railway, fence, hill, valley, forest, landfill, water treatment plant, etc. ..................................................................................................................................................... Population in the marginalized area: Estimated number of |___|___|___| inhabitants Estimated number of |___|___|___| households Estimation number of |___|___|___| people without an identity card (CNP) Roma population Estimation number |___|___|___| Profile of the population in Do they move often? ...................................................................................................... the area Are there more young or more old people? .......................................................... Are there many children in the area?..................................................................................... Income of the population in What do the people in the area do? ................................................................................ the area: Which are their main sources of income?.......................................................................... Social benefits given to the |___|___|___| Number of GMI beneficiaries (GMI-Guaranteed Minimum Income) people in the marginalized area |___|___|___| Number of ASF beneficiaries (ASF-Support benefits and family allowances) (files receiving payments in |___|___|___| Number of heating benefits beneficiaries May 2015 or in winter 2014) |___|___|___| Number of files for benefits given to people with special needs, including people with disabilities |___|___|___| Number of child protection files Community relations What`s the relation between the commune inhabitants and the people living in this area? Do they treat them in the same way as the rest of the community? Do they avoid them? They don`t trust them? ....................................................................................................................................................... Is there a formal or informal community leader? .................................................. In the area, are there 1. Yes 2. No any crime or public order issues? If Yes, what kind of crime occurs more often (theft, fights, scandals, domestic violence, etc)? The biggest part of the area 1. blocks of flats is comprised of... 2. brick/ concrete houses 3. adobe/timber house 4. improvised dwellings (cardboard, metal sheet, etc) 5. other type, namely……………………………………………………............................................. Households: Total number of households |___|___|___| in the area, out of which: - privately owned |___|___|___| ANNEX | 365 - owned by the municipality |___|___|___| empty housing units and |___|___|___| rented out to the residents in the area If there are housing units owned by the municipality, rented out to the population, During the past 5 years, have there been any eviction cases? On what grounds? Type of ownership that is What type of land ownership is most common in the marginalized community most common in the area (personal property of belonging to a relative, leased from the municipality, leased from an individual/ company, used without any type of legal documents, concessioned from the municipality, an individual or a company?) Estimation of number of households without any ownership documents over |___|___|___| the land/dwelling What`s the status of the 1. they might crumble any day now 2. deteriorated, in need of consolidation dwellings in the area? 3. sturdy, but not looked after 4. sturdy and looked after Overcorwding Are the households in the area overcrowded?................................................................ Water supply system |___|___| ... running water inside the household from the public system Number of households |___|___| ... running water inside the household from a private supply with... |___|___| ... running water outside the household from the public system |___|___| ... running water outside the household from a private supply Sewage network |___|___| Number of households connected to the public sewage system |___|___| Number of households connected to a private sewage system Bathroom |___|___| Number of households with an indoor bathroom Electricity |___|___| Number of households connected to the grid Street lighting Is there any street lighting in the area? 1. Yes 2. No Waste collection In ther area, are there any waste collection and storage services? 1. Yes 2. No Environmental risks Is the area prone to flooding? If yes, have there been any floods in the past 5 years? Is the community close to a landfill? Is household waste or any other type of waste stored close to the households? Is the community at risk of landslide or any other type of environmental risks? Main problems in the area PB1. PB2. PB3. Interventions in the area ÎDuring the past 5 years, how have local authorities tried to solve these issues? What about any other government organizations or NGOs? 366 | ANNEX B. Representatives of the marginalized community Discussions with the inhabitants of the marginalized area on the following topics: • Area history The area has been around since...? Who lives here (young people, old people, children), and for how long, etc?. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ • Housing Type of ownership over the land/ household ............................................................................................................................. Condition of the households ............................................................................................................................................................ Housing conditions, overcrowding …………………………………........................................................................................................... • Infrastructure (streets, water, sewage, electricity) Streets ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Water .................................................................................................................................................................................................... Sewage ................................................................................................................................................................................................ Electricity ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Employment and income Formal/ informal livelihood ............................................................................................................................................................. Pensions or other social benefits ................................................................................................................................................... Why has the respondent not been able to find work? .............................................................................................................. Access to public services Street lighting ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Public transport ................................................................................................................................................................................. School .................................................................................................................................................................................................. Kindergarten ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Pharmacy ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Medical center ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Stores .................................................................................................................................................................................................... Waste collection and storage services ......................................................................................................................................... Crime and public order ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Community relations (how they interact with the other people in the commune, if they feel isolated, if the others avoid them or the area) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ANNEX | 367 C. Observation sheet Take an overview photo of the marginalized area After the field visit, fill out in the table below indicating if the following exist in the marginalized area: a. broken fences 1. Yes 2. No b. roofs in bad state 1. Yes 2. No c. many deteriorating houses 1. Yes 2. No d. many kids on the street 1. Yes 2. No e. kids not wearing clothes 1. Yes 2. No f. waste/ dirt 1. Yes 2. No g. blankets/ carpets on the fence 1. Yes 2. No h. mostly earth roads 1. Yes 2. No i. mostly gravel roads 1. Yes 2. No j. mostly asphalt roads 1. Yes 2. No Programme Title: Sectoral Operational Program Human Resources Development 2007-2013 Invest in people! Project Title: Inputs into the Government of Romania’s Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction (2015-2020). Editor: The World Bank. Publishing Date: 30 May 2016 This report does not necessarily represent the position of the European Union or the Romanian Government. ISBN: 978-973-0-21725-4