Encuesta Nacional de Programas Presupuestales 2016
Peru, 2016 - 2017
Get MicrodataCreated on
Dec 05, 2019
Last modified
Dec 05, 2019
Page views
71494
Downloads
1039
¿en quÉ provincia sucedio el intento de extorsion?_nombre (P602C_12A_NOM)
Data file: CAP_600_URBANO_1
Overview
Valid:
2202
Invalid:
0
Type:
Discrete
Start:
3984
End:
4005
Width:
22
Range:
-
Format:
character
Questions and instructions
Categories
| Value | Category | Cases | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABANCAY | 10 |
0.5%
|
|
| AIJA | 1 |
0%
|
|
| ALTO AMAZONAS | 9 |
0.4%
|
|
| AMBO | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| ANDAHUAYLAS | 8 |
0.4%
|
|
| ANGARAES | 3 |
0.1%
|
|
| ANTA | 4 |
0.2%
|
|
| AREQUIPA | 92 |
4.2%
|
|
| ASCOPE | 7 |
0.3%
|
|
| ATALAYA | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| AZANGARO | 1 |
0%
|
|
| BAGUA | 5 |
0.2%
|
|
| BARRANCA | 23 |
1%
|
|
| BELLAVISTA | 4 |
0.2%
|
|
| BONGARA | 1 |
0%
|
|
| CAJABAMBA | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| CAJAMARCA | 45 |
2%
|
|
| CALCA | 3 |
0.1%
|
|
| CALLAO | 143 |
6.5%
|
|
| CAMANA | 3 |
0.1%
|
|
| CANCHIS | 18 |
0.8%
|
|
| CARABAYA | 1 |
0%
|
|
| CARHUAZ | 1 |
0%
|
|
| CASMA | 1 |
0%
|
|
| CAYLLOMA | 4 |
0.2%
|
|
| CAÑETE | 12 |
0.5%
|
|
| CHACHAPOYAS | 7 |
0.3%
|
|
| CHANCHAMAYO | 3 |
0.1%
|
|
| CHEPEN | 7 |
0.3%
|
|
| CHICLAYO | 36 |
1.6%
|
|
| CHINCHA | 5 |
0.2%
|
|
| CHOTA | 1 |
0%
|
|
| CHURCAMPA | 5 |
0.2%
|
|
| CONCEPCION | 1 |
0%
|
|
| CONTRALMIRANTE VILLAR | 1 |
0%
|
|
| CONTUMAZA | 1 |
0%
|
|
| CORONEL PORTILLO | 35 |
1.6%
|
|
| COTABAMBAS | 1 |
0%
|
|
| CUSCO | 138 |
6.3%
|
|
| CUTERVO | 6 |
0.3%
|
|
| DANIEL ALCIDES CARRION | 7 |
0.3%
|
|
| EL COLLAO | 1 |
0%
|
|
| EL DORADO | 1 |
0%
|
|
| ESPINAR | 3 |
0.1%
|
|
| FERREÑAFE | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| HUALGAYOC | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| HUALLAGA | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| HUAMALIES | 1 |
0%
|
|
| HUAMANGA | 16 |
0.7%
|
|
| HUANCAVELICA | 35 |
1.6%
|
|
| HUANCAYO | 52 |
2.4%
|
|
| HUANTA | 1 |
0%
|
|
| HUANUCO | 27 |
1.2%
|
|
| HUARAL | 11 |
0.5%
|
|
| HUARAZ | 34 |
1.5%
|
|
| HUARMEY | 10 |
0.5%
|
|
| HUAROCHIRI | 3 |
0.1%
|
|
| HUAURA | 24 |
1.1%
|
|
| HUAYLAS | 4 |
0.2%
|
|
| ICA | 17 |
0.8%
|
|
| ILO | 15 |
0.7%
|
|
| ISLAY | 4 |
0.2%
|
|
| JAEN | 8 |
0.4%
|
|
| JAUJA | 4 |
0.2%
|
|
| JORGE BASADRE | 11 |
0.5%
|
|
| LA CONVENCION | 6 |
0.3%
|
|
| LAMAS | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| LAMBAYEQUE | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| LAMPA | 1 |
0%
|
|
| LEONCIO PRADO | 3 |
0.1%
|
|
| LIMA | 382 |
17.3%
|
|
| LUCANAS | 1 |
0%
|
|
| MANU | 1 |
0%
|
|
| MARISCAL CACERES | 1 |
0%
|
|
| MARISCAL NIETO | 50 |
2.3%
|
|
| MAYNAS | 85 |
3.9%
|
|
| MELGAR | 3 |
0.1%
|
|
| MORROPON | 6 |
0.3%
|
|
| MOYOBAMBA | 60 |
2.7%
|
|
| NAZCA | 8 |
0.4%
|
|
| OTUZCO | 1 |
0%
|
|
| OXAPAMPA | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| OYON | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| PACASMAYO | 5 |
0.2%
|
|
| PADRE ABAD | 4 |
0.2%
|
|
| PAITA | 3 |
0.1%
|
|
| PALLASCA | 1 |
0%
|
|
| PALPA | 1 |
0%
|
|
| PASCO | 34 |
1.5%
|
|
| PISCO | 10 |
0.5%
|
|
| PIURA | 53 |
2.4%
|
|
| PUNO | 17 |
0.8%
|
|
| QUISPICANCHI | 3 |
0.1%
|
|
| REQUENA | 4 |
0.2%
|
|
| RIOJA | 13 |
0.6%
|
|
| RODRIGUEZ DE MENDOZA | 1 |
0%
|
|
| SAN ANTONIO DE PUTINA | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| SAN MARTIN | 85 |
3.9%
|
|
| SAN ROMAN | 21 |
1%
|
|
| SANCHEZ CARRION | 3 |
0.1%
|
|
| SANTA | 89 |
4%
|
|
| SATIPO | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| SECHURA | 4 |
0.2%
|
|
| SULLANA | 10 |
0.5%
|
|
| TACNA | 98 |
4.5%
|
|
| TAHUAMANU | 1 |
0%
|
|
| TALARA | 7 |
0.3%
|
|
| TAMBOPATA | 20 |
0.9%
|
|
| TARATA | 6 |
0.3%
|
|
| TARMA | 6 |
0.3%
|
|
| TAYACAJA | 9 |
0.4%
|
|
| TOCACHE | 7 |
0.3%
|
|
| TRUJILLO | 71 |
3.2%
|
|
| TUMBES | 19 |
0.9%
|
|
| UCAYALI | 2 |
0.1%
|
|
| URUBAMBA | 9 |
0.4%
|
|
| UTCUBAMBA | 4 |
0.2%
|
|
| VIRU | 1 |
0%
|
|
| YAULI | 4 |
0.2%
|
|
| YUNGAY | 1 |
0%
|
|
| ZARUMILLA | 9 |
0.4%
|
Warning: these figures indicate the number of cases found in the data file. They cannot be interpreted as summary statistics of the population of interest.
Description
Definition
Esta variable no está considerado en el cuestionario de la Encuesta Nacional de Programas Presupuestales 2016.