This volume provides detailed demographic and socioeconomic data for the province of Cebu and for all barangays (1202) and cities (53) in Cebu based on the 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Data are also tabulated for Metro Cebu and the eight Congressional districts. Selected tables appear in the appendix for other provinces and the nation. Descriptions are provided of the history of population movements and growth in the province and the current demographic and socioeconomic conditions. The location and number of physical, social, and commercial infrastructures is given for the 53 municipal and city data sets. Specific attention in tables and graphs is given to the identification of high fertility areas of cities and of the young or middle-aged labor force surplus or deficit. Cebu province is located in the central archipelago and continues to be the demographic, social, and economic center of the southern Philippines. Population growth was slow until the 1970s. Out-migration has been heavy since World War II, but Cebu province is still the most populous and most densely populated province in the Philippines. 25% of the barangays are classified as urban and contain 50% of the provincial population. Rural or urban designation of barangays is dependent on the specific charters. 82.5% of urban population lives in 10 of the province's 53 cities and municipalities. Fertility is higher in rural areas. Future trends point to decreased proportions of infants and children, increased working age population, and increased elderly population. The total fertility rate for Cebu province is 4.17 children per woman (ranging from 2.62 in the Capital Region to 6.27 in Masbate). The provincial rate is slightly higher than provinces surrounding Metro Manila. 63% of all barangays and only 2 out of 53 cities have electricity. 43% of rural households have unsafe drinking water, which is three times the equivalent percentage for urban households. 17 of the 53 cities have over 50% of households without safe drinking water. 33% of all households did not have either a private or public toilet facility. Over 50% of rural households are without toilet facilities. The electrical, sanitary, and toilet conditions are inferior to the national conditions. - See more at: http://www.popline.org/node/292211#sthash.pL5Lhoeo.dpuf