Citizen Segments

Grouped citizen profiles for planning, outreach, and service monitoring.

Planning view

Population scope: These citizen segments use the complete active respondent population. Region and LGU filters do not apply to this clustering model.

Unified Citizen Segment Overview

Each row combines the group's profile description, population size, service-stage relationship, and practical planning use. Technical cluster numbers are retained only as audit references.
Citizen Group Size Service Relationship Profile Description Planning Use
Working male homeowners Technical reference: Cluster 0 880 19.6% of respondents Working male homeowners (Segment A) is most different on Aware, where its result is higher than the service average.
Enrolled in School?: No (95.91%)
Source of Electricty: ELECTRICITY OWN Connection (92.05%)
4Ps Beneficiary: No (89.32%)
 This segment represents a distinct citizen group whose profile and service-stage pattern can help explain differences in awareness, availment, satisfaction, and need for action.
Young single student citizens Technical reference: Cluster 1 271 6.0% of respondents Young single student citizens (Segment B) has lower awareness than the service average, suggesting that communication reach may be weaker for this citizen group.
Place of Work: Not Applicable (96.68%)
Civil Status: Single (92.62%)
Age Group: 18→24 (91.14%)
 Use this group to tailor youth, student, or working-age outreach through practical and accessible channels.
Retired or older home-secure citizens Technical reference: Cluster 2 707 15.7% of respondents Retired or older home-secure citizens (Segment C) is close to the service average across the main stages, so its profile traits are more useful for describing the group than for identifying a large service-stage gap.
Enrolled in School?: No (99.43%)
Place of Work: Not Applicable (94.34%)
Source of Electricty: ELECTRICITY OWN Connection (92.22%)
 This segment represents a distinct citizen group whose profile and service-stage pattern can help explain differences in awareness, availment, satisfaction, and need for action.
Married locally working men Technical reference: Cluster 3 1358 30.2% of respondents Married locally working men (Segment D) is most different on Availed, where its result is higher than the service average.
Enrolled in School?: No (97.28%)
Civil Status: Married (85.2%)
Source of Electricty: ELECTRICITY OWN Connection (81.08%)
 Use the strongest information channels in this group when planning awareness campaigns and follow-up messaging.
Married women outside school or reported work Technical reference: Cluster 4 1284 28.5% of respondents Married women outside school or reported work (Segment E) is close to the service average across the main stages, so its profile traits are more useful for describing the group than for identifying a large service-stage gap.
Enrolled in School?: No (97.82%)
Place of Work: Not Applicable (93.77%)
Sex: Female (89.56%)
 This segment represents a distinct citizen group whose profile and service-stage pattern can help explain differences in awareness, availment, satisfaction, and need for action.

Clustering results: This is the primary location for detailed citizen-group characteristics and service-stage profiles. Service Delivery Review uses only a concise citizen-segment summary when combining evidence across analytical methods.

Working male homeowners (Segment A) · Cluster 0

Working male homeowners

Cluster Characteristics

  • Enrolled in School? (A6=2) - No 95.91%
  • Source of Electricty (B5=1) - ELECTRICITY OWN Connection 92.05%
  • 4Ps Beneficiary (B1=2) - No 89.32%
  • House Ownership (B2=1) - OWNER, OWNER-LIKE POSSESSION OF HOUSE AND LOT 77.61%
  • Sex (A2=1) - Male 64.43%
  • Employment Status (A7=1) - Working at least 40 hrs/wk 64.09%

Service Stage Profile

Aware 77.1%
Above average vs service average 73.7%
Availed 60.2%
Near average vs service average 63.0%
Satisfied 92.1%
Near average vs service average 92.9%
Action Needed 46.9%
Near average vs service average 46.8%
Young single student citizens (Segment B) · Cluster 1

Young single student citizens

Cluster Characteristics

  • Place of Work (A8=95) - Not Applicable 96.68%
  • Civil Status (A4=1) - Single 92.62%
  • Age Group (A3.1=1) - 18→24 91.14%
  • Source of Electricty (B5=1) - ELECTRICITY OWN Connection 88.93%
  • Enrolled in School? (A6=1) - Yes 88.93%
  • Employment Status (A7=7) - Student (not working) 80.81%

Service Stage Profile

Aware 69.4%
Below average vs service average 73.7%
Availed 64.3%
Near average vs service average 63.0%
Satisfied 91.8%
Near average vs service average 92.9%
Action Needed 48.2%
Near average vs service average 46.8%
Retired or older home-secure citizens (Segment C) · Cluster 2

Retired or older home-secure citizens

Cluster Characteristics

  • Enrolled in School? (A6=2) - No 99.43%
  • Place of Work (A8=95) - Not Applicable 94.34%
  • Source of Electricty (B5=1) - ELECTRICITY OWN Connection 92.22%
  • House Ownership (B2=1) - OWNER, OWNER-LIKE POSSESSION OF HOUSE AND LOT 84.3%
  • 4Ps Beneficiary (B1=2) - No 81.47%
  • Employment Status (A7=8) - Retired (not working) / Too old to work 70.3%

Service Stage Profile

Aware 72.7%
Near average vs service average 73.7%
Availed 62.2%
Near average vs service average 63.0%
Satisfied 93.6%
Near average vs service average 92.9%
Action Needed 45.4%
Near average vs service average 46.8%
Married locally working men (Segment D) · Cluster 3

Married locally working men

Cluster Characteristics

  • Enrolled in School? (A6=2) - No 97.28%
  • Civil Status (A4=2) - Married 85.2%
  • Source of Electricty (B5=1) - ELECTRICITY OWN Connection 81.08%
  • Sex (A2=1) - Male 78.42%
  • Place of Work (A8=1) - W/in the barangay 75.48%
  • House Ownership (B2=1) - OWNER, OWNER-LIKE POSSESSION OF HOUSE AND LOT 68.92%

Service Stage Profile

Aware 75.6%
Near average vs service average 73.7%
Availed 66.1%
Above average vs service average 63.0%
Satisfied 94.0%
Near average vs service average 92.9%
Action Needed 47.9%
Near average vs service average 46.8%
Married women outside school or reported work (Segment E) · Cluster 4

Married women outside school or reported work

Cluster Characteristics

  • Enrolled in School? (A6=2) - No 97.82%
  • Place of Work (A8=95) - Not Applicable 93.77%
  • Sex (A2=2) - Female 89.56%
  • Source of Electricty (B5=1) - ELECTRICITY OWN Connection 80.37%
  • Civil Status (A4=2) - Married 79.98%
  • 4Ps Beneficiary (B1=2) - No 66.9%

Service Stage Profile

Aware 73.9%
Near average vs service average 73.7%
Availed 62.3%
Near average vs service average 63.0%
Satisfied 93.2%
Near average vs service average 92.9%
Action Needed 45.5%
Near average vs service average 46.8%

Statistical Support

This section checks which profile variables meaningfully separate the citizen segments. Categorical variables use Chi-square, while age uses Kruskal-Wallis. Effect size shows the strength of the relationship, so larger values are more useful for explaining the segments.
Profile Variable Method Effect Size p-value Reader Meaning
Sex
A2 		Chi-square 0.543 <0.001 Strong relationship
Age Group
A3.1 		Chi-square 0.513 <0.001 Strong relationship
Age
A3 		Kruskal-Wallis 0.512 <0.001 Strong relationship
Relationship to HH Head
A1 		Chi-square 0.41 <0.001 Strong relationship
Civil Status
A4 		Chi-square 0.387 <0.001 Strong relationship
Highest Educational Attainment
A5 		Chi-square 0.324 <0.001 Strong relationship
4Ps Beneficiary
B1 		Chi-square 0.268 <0.001 Strong relationship
House Ownership
B2 		Chi-square 0.105 <0.001 Moderate relationship

Clustering Model Comparison

Candidate models are ranked by quantitative acceptance, bootstrap stability, separation, and balance. Acceptance requires silhouette ≥ 0.350, Davies-Bouldin < 1.000, a minimum cluster share ≥ 5%, and mean bootstrap ARI ≥ 0.700. A separate profile review remains required before planning use.
Rank Model Best k Silhouette Calinski-Harabasz Davies-Bouldin Balance Minimum Share Stability ARI Acceptance Features
1 Socio-housing core Selected
MCA + KMeans · 4500 respondents 		5 0.358 2256.167 0.915 0.2 0.06 0.945 Quantitatively accepted
Profile review: Required 		12 variables
A1, A2, A3.1, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, B1, B2, B5, B6
2 Full profile without IDs
MCA + KMeans · 4500 respondents 		4 0.324 1708.895 1.094 0.221 0.092 0.965 Not accepted
Profile review: Required 		14 variables
A1, A2, A3.1, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6
3 Focused profile
MCA + KMeans · 4500 respondents 		3 0.333 1316.428 1.204 0.142 0.101 0.954 Not accepted
Profile review: Required 		8 variables
A2, A3.1, A4, A5, B1, B2, B5, B6
4 Housing-enriched
MCA + KMeans · 4500 respondents 		4 0.34 1561.264 1.116 0.173 0.098 0.928 Not accepted
Profile review: Required 		10 variables
A2, A3.1, A4, A5, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6

Segment Map

Model Selection

Profile Signal Map

How to Read the Advanced View

Segment Map: shows how respondents are positioned based on similar profile patterns. Points that appear closer together have more similar response characteristics.
Profile Signal Map: shows which demographic, housing, and background signals help explain the placement of the citizen segments.
Model Selection: supports the selected number of segments by checking where adding more groups gives less additional separation.
Best k
5
Silhouette
0.358
Calinski-Harabasz
2256.167
Davies-Bouldin
0.915
Thesis-Style Metric Interpretation

Interpretation. The clustering analysis identified five (5) optimal clusters within the dataset. The resulting Silhouette Score of 0.358 indicates moderate separation among clusters, suggesting that respondents within the same cluster share similar characteristics while still allowing some overlap with neighboring clusters. The Calinski-Harabasz Index of 2256.167 provides strong evidence of meaningful partitioning by comparing between-cluster variation with within-cluster variation. The Davies-Bouldin Index of 0.915 indicates acceptable cluster compactness and separation; lower values represent better cluster quality.

Academic Assessment

  • Silhouette = 0.358 (0.250-0.499) → Acceptable for social science and survey datasets where categorical responses often create overlapping groups.
  • Calinski-Harabasz = 2256.167 (> 2000) → Strong evidence of meaningful partitioning.
  • Davies-Bouldin = 0.915 (< 1) → Good indication of cluster quality.

Therefore, the five (5)-cluster solution can be considered statistically acceptable and suitable for interpretation, particularly in a CSIS survey context where perfect separation among citizen groups is rarely expected.