Servicios personalizados
texto en 
Inglés (pdf)
Articulo en XML
Referencias del artículo
Enviar articulo por email
Citado por SciELO 
Similares en
SciELO 
Permalink
The territories that occupy the earth's surface have been shaped by an interaction between nature and human beings. This leads to many settlements being more exposed to the presence of natural risks (Quesada 2017). Some studies report that these risks are increasingly complex and have multiple causes, mainly linked to extreme natural disasters, which can cause serious damage to exposed populations (Cardoso 2017). Of the annual deaths caused by natural disasters, 95 % are generated in Asia and Latin America, where natural conditions, to which conditions of vulnerability are added, generate the risks (Quesada 2017).
In this context, vulnerabilities are not static qualities, but conditions that vary over time, and differentially affect the population (Muñoz 2015). Vulnerability, according to Marín et al. (2017) is associated with the degree of susceptibility or inability of a system to face the adverse effects of climate change and, in particular, climate variability and extreme events. Vulnerability is an important factor in risk management, since it considers the level of exposure, resistance, and recovery capacity, given by social and political conditions (Quesada 2017). The main factors that contribute to its generation come from the interrelation between physical threats and the vulnerabilities of the communities (Marín et al. 2017).
During recent years, in Ecuador, the action of the Tungurahua, Pichincha, Reventador, Chiles, Sangay and Cotopaxi volcanoes has shown that the country experiences multiple geodynamic, volcanic, meteorological and climatic events, which can affect from high mountain areas to the Amazonian fluvial ecosystems, due to the dynamic connection with the eastern foothills of the central Andes. These events can cause significant economic, social and environmental damage.
At a regional level, the Amazon is experiencing great pressure from soil use change, due to agribusiness, which also influences on climate change (Marengo et al. 2018). The Ecuadorian Amazon is a territory of conflict, as it is one of the most biodiverse areas on the planet. Also, in the last decades, it has problems of deforestation. It is known that this is one of the human activities that most affects the environment, whose cause is agricultural expansion, in which are settler populations (mestizo), Kichwa and Shuar, as the largest population groups (Vasco et al. 2020).
Based on the above, the objective of this study was to identify the main socio-environmental risks to which rural communities are exposed: Chontapunta, Ahuano, Ila, Chucapi and El Capricho, in Napo province, in the Ecuadorian Amazon.
Materials and Methods
This study was carried out in the upper basin of Napo River, in Chontapunta and Ahuano communities (Tena Canton), El Capricho, Ila and Chucapi (Carlos Julio Arosemena Tola Canton), Napo province, Ecuador (figure 1). These communities are characterized by the fact that the population has their homes in a populated center and their farms in remote areas. The extensions of its populated centers are Chontapunta (45 ha), Ahuano (80 ha), El Capricho (22 ha), Ila (4 ha), Chucapi (3 ha).
The type of climate is varied, the area is between 500 and 600 m a. s. l, with characteristics of a tropical humid forest, and temperatures between 23.4 and 25.4 ºC. It has an average rainfall of 3481.7 mm (Bravo et al. 2017).
The Chontapunta community is located between 300 and 518 m a.s.l, and Ahuano between 320 and 1,680 m a.s.l, with a temperature of 19 °C to 28 °C and a monthly average of 23 °C, and a rainfall of 4,600 mm. The El Capricho, Ila and Chukapi communities have, on average, heights of 500 to 1000 m a.s.l. and temperature from 23 to 25 °C. They have rainfalls of 4400 to 4700 mm (National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology 2015). All communities respond to a Perhumid Megathermal climate.
Survey application. A survey per family was applied, structured in 10 blocks: general data, socioeconomic aspects, structural data of houses, basic services, community infrastructure, field of community organization, memory of disasters or adverse events, and of both, responsibility in vulnerability construction, risk perception and preparation for potential adverse events.
The number of families in each community was determined, based on what was reported in the territorial planning plans of Gobierno Autónomo Descentralizado Municipal of Carlos Julio Arosemena Tola (GADMCJAT 2014) and the Gobiernos Autónomos Descentralizados Parroquiales (GADPCP 2015) and Ahuano (GADPA 2015).
The sample size was obtained using the formula for finite populations (equation 1) (Aguilar 2005), considering a confidence level of 90 %, for the populations of Ila and Chucapi, which had less than 50 families, and taking into account the criterion of Castro (2003), who states that if there are less than 50 sample units, the population corresponds to the sample. The survey was applied to all houses that were inhabited at the time of sampling. The number of surveys carried out in the field is shown in table 1.
Equation 1:
n |
= sample size (for finite populations) |
N |
= population size |
Z |
= critical Z value, calculated in the tables from the normal curve area, also called the confidence level. |
p |
= approximate proportion of the phenomenon under study in the reference population (for the case under study 0.93) |
q |
= proportion of the reference population that does not have the phenomenon under study (for the case under study 0.07) (1 -p). |
d |
= absolute precision level (+/- 0.1). |
Table 1 Population and sample size
| Communities | Total, houses | Sample size, calculated with the finite population formula | Number of surveys executed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ila | 22 | 22 | 20 |
| Chucapi | 35 | 35 | 20 |
| El Capricho | 74 | 14 | 14 |
| Ahuano | 1054 | 19 | 20 |
| Chontapunta | 1057 | 19 | 20 |
The total number of houses is considered for the development of surveys
The surveys were applied to one person per family, in Chontapunta, Ahuano, Ila and Chucapi (20 surveys in each community), while in El Capricho 14 were applied, with a duration of 15 to 20 min. During the visit of the communities, the risks were visually identified, which were recorded in the identification sheets of the place.
Statistical analysis. The data was tabulated in an Excel matrix, in which the information derived from the application of surveys was entered by each of the surveyed in the studied areas. The data was loaded and processed with the SPSS program (International Business Machine 2013). First, the response frequencies for each established question were determined by means of a multivariate analysis of multiple correspondences with two-dimensional analysis (Abril et al. 2016).
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was applied, when considering values higher than 0.80, to the block disaster memory, emergency equipment and training, to establish the adequacy of sampling. Subsequently, through a factorial analysis (Abril et al. 2016), applied to the distances from the houses to the community infrastructure, the Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) coefficient was obtained, with a value higher than 0.50, to determine if the sample size was adequate. A bivariate analysis of variance was performed to identify if the variables age, sex, ethnic self-identification, residence time and level of education had influences on disaster memory responses and emergency preparedness. For this, previous to the analysis, a categorization of data by age and residence time was performed (table 2).
Results
In the characterization of the surveyed (figure 2), the majority has Kichwa ethnic self-identification in all the communities, with the exception of El Capricho, where mestizo self-identification predominated, including one surveyed who self-identified as Shuar. Abril et al. (2016) also allude to these majority groups, Kichwa and mestizo, Salinas et al. (2020) state the presence of Kichwa and Shuar ethnic groups, and also state that the Kichwa correspond to the ethnic group with the largest population in the Ecuadorian Amazon.
In the surveyed, the predominant age was between 31 and 50 years, with percentages from 40 to 60 %, with the exception of Chontapunta community, whose ages were between 51 and 70 years, in 45 %, and only Ahuano and Chucapi showed surveyed aged over 70 years. The residence time of the surveyed revealed higher variability in Ila, where periods of less than five years predominated. In Ahuano, El Capricho and Chucapi, was where there was a greater number of surveyed (30, 30 and 35 %, respectively), with ages from 11 to 20 years (20 %), from 21 to 30 years (36 %), and with more than 30 years (29 %), respectively.
The predominant level of education in Ahuano, Chontapunta, Ila and Chucapi is primary. While, in El Capricho, it is secondary. Ila and El Capricho report surveyed with university education and El Capricho also refers to some without education. In terms of occupation, the majority corresponds to others, who in the area are dedicated to agriculture. In El Capricho they are housewives. Salinas et al. (2020) show that the Kichwa peoples, who settle mainly in the provinces of Napo, Orellana and Sucumbíos, are the ones with the highest labor integration in the Ecuadorian Amazon. They contract with other ethnic groups to work as teachers, health promoters, and trainers, among other jobs.
Distribution of population by house and type of house. The results show that in the five communities (table 3), the majority of the houses are inhabited by six or seven people, with 25 % of those surveyed for Ahuano, Chontapunta and Chucapi; 42.9 % for El Capricho and 35 % for Ila. Similarly, the presence of two adults behaved in a higher proportion in Ahuano (35 %), Chontapunta and Chucapi (75 %) and in El Capricho (57.1 %), while in Ila there was one (91 %). The absence of adolescents and elderly people is the common denominator in most houses in the five communities. Between 30 and 40 % of those interviewed reported the absence of children, in the communities of Ahuano, Chucapi, El Capricho and Chontapunta, with the exception of Chucapi, where the majority of houses refer from two to six children. In the rest of the communities, at least 50 % of houses have between one and three children.
Table 3 Distribution of the population by house
| Number of people | Houses that report value, % | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 o mas | ||
| Ahuano | Total | 5.0 | 10.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 15.0 | 25.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | |||
| Children | 30.0 | 25.0 | 20.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | |||||
| Adults | 10.0 | 15.0 | 35.0 | 15.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | ||||
| Teenager | 75.0 | 20.0 | 5.0 | |||||||||
| Third age | 85 | 5.0 | 10.0 | |||||||||
| Men | 0.0 | 20.0 | 35.0 | 25.0 | 10.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | |||||
| Women | 10.0 | 05.0 | 30.0 | 35.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | ||||||
| Disable | 95.0 | 5.0 | ||||||||||
| Chontapunta | Total | 20.0 | 20.0 | 05.0 | 20.0 | 25.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | ||||
| Children | 40.0 | 20.0 | 05.0 | 25.0 | 05.0 | 5.0 | ||||||
| Adults | 0.0 | 05.0 | 75.0 | 05.0 | 10.0 | 05.0 | ||||||
| Teenager | 75.0 | 15.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | ||||||||
| Third age | 90.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | |||||||||
| Men | 5 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | |||||
| Women | 0.0 | 35.0 | 25.0 | 20.0 | 15.0 | 5.0 | ||||||
| Chucapi | Total | 10.0 | 15.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 25.0 | 20.0 | 5.0 | |||
| Children | 30.0 | 5.0 | 15.0 | 20.0 | 25.0 | 5.0 | ||||||
| Adults | 10.0 | 10.0 | 75.0 | 5.0 | ||||||||
| Teenager | 75.0 | 15.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | ||||||||
| Third age | 65 | 35.0 | ||||||||||
| Men | 0.0 | 25.0 | 15.0 | 30.0 | 25.0 | 5.0 | ||||||
| Women | 0.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | ||||||
| El Capricho | Total | 7.1 | 21.4 | 42.9 | 21.4 | 7.1 | ||||||
| Children | 35.7 | 7.1 | 28.6 | 21.4 | 7.1 | |||||||
| Adults | 0.0 | 14.3 | 57.1 | 7.1 | 21.4 | |||||||
| Teenager | 50.0 | 21.4 | 28.6 | |||||||||
| Third age | 85.8 | 7.1 | 7.1 | |||||||||
| Men | 14.3 | 14.3 | 35.7 | 14.3 | 21.4 | |||||||
| Women | 0.0 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 7.1 | 7.1 | ||||||
| Total | 92.9 | 7.1 | ||||||||||
| Ila | Children | 15.0 | 25.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 25.0 | 5.0 | |||||
| Adults | 0.0 | 90.0 | 10.0 | |||||||||
| Teenager | 60.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Third age edad | 95 | 5.0 | ||||||||||
| Men | 0.0 | 10.0 | 20.0 | 30.0 | 10.0 | 30.0 | ||||||
| Women | 0.0 | 10.0 | 65.0 | 25.0 | ||||||||
| Total | 15.0 | 10.0 | 30.0 | 5.0 | 35.0 | 5.0 | ||||||
Regarding the number of men per house, in the five communities, the highest proportion was from two to three, while this relation was also reported for women. This was not the case in the Chontapunta community, where the highest proportion reveals only one woman. Chontapunta, Chucapi and Ila did not report people with disabilities, and in the rest it did not exceed 7.1 %.
In this study, with the exception of El Capricho, in the communities, at least 25 % of houses with a number of at least six inhabitants are reported, and in all the communities more than 50 % show the presence of children and, in smaller numbers, teenagers. Salinas and Rodríguez (2019) mention an average rate of three children per woman in Kichwa communities, and 1.1 in Shuar communities. In this research, a mean of 2.1 children per house and 0.6 teenagers is recorded. Salinas et al. (2020) stated that Kichwa and Shuar populations in 2012 showed 50 and 45.4 % of the population <15 years of age, respectively. They also showed that in these ethnic groups 75 % of the population finished primary education; 14 % Kichwa and 9 % Shuar completed high school. When considering this study, the largest number of surveyed corresponds to the Kichwa ethnic group, which has an average of at least 40 % of the population with primary education and, to a lesser extent, with secondary education.
Regarding the characteristics of the house, the house tenure (figure 3) shows that in the five communities the highest percentage corresponds to their own house, considered as a house and with a zinc roof. In the type of material used in the wall, brick is predominant, in Ahuano and El Capricho communities, and in the rest it is wood. Salinas et al. (2020) recorded houses with an improved roof for the Kichwa (79 %) and Shuar (94 %) ethnic groups and with an improved floor for the Kichwa (7 %) and Shuar (4 %).
Regarding the availability of basic services (figure 4), in El Capricho and Ahuano, most houses are supplied with piped water. In Ila and Chucapi it is extracted from the river or estuary, and in Chontapunta, in equal proportion, rainwater and pipes are provided. The Chucapi community does not have telephone service. Ahuano has greater access through asphalt roads, and in the rest of the communities the accesses are preferably gravel. The Ila community does not have a garbage collection service. El Capricho has a daily collection service and the rest weekly. Composting waste is a common practice in the communities, and burning is also common in Chucapi. With regard to wastewater, in El Capricho and Ahuano, the houses have a hygienic service, in Chontapunta the septic tank predominates, and in Ila and Chucapi it is carried out in the open field. In El Capricho and Ahuano, wastewater is disposed of in the sewer system, in Ila and Chucapi it is deposited, preferably, on the ground, and in Chontapunta on the ground and in estuaries. Salinas et al. (2020), with regard to basic services, state that in the provision of electricity, coverage in houses is 77 % in the Kichwa ethnic group, and 63 % in the Shuar. While, in the provision of latrines, there are Kichwa, with 12 % and Shuar with 14 %.
Community infrastructure. The communities report having educational centers and in operation (figure 5). The Chucapi community does not have a health center, and in the rest the surveyed report having a functioning health center. Ahuano, Chontapunta and El Capricho have public and functioning spaces, and Ahuano community have a functioning police station. El Capricho and Ahuano have a church and a cemetery and they function. Less than 50 % of those surveyed in Chontapunta mention having a cemetery and church, and only this community has a market. The results that have to do with basic services and community infrastructure showed that the El Capricho and Ahuano communities are better equipped, while Ila is the one with the least availability of services.
Memory and responsibility against disasters. In the memory of disasters (figure 6), in physical risks, El Capricho community, with more than 25 %, reports earthquakes, fires, floods and destruction of bridges and roads. Floods also show higher percentages in Ahuano and Chontapunta communities. In biological risks, among the most frequent, are diseases in crops, human epidemics and snake bites, which occur in all communities. Human epidemics are also more representative in Ahuano, Chontapunta and El Capricho, while social problems are less frequent in the communities. Pidal (2018) indicates that floods which reach 2000 m3/s can occur in the area with flood heights in the flood zone of 1.23 m above the soil surface, when extreme floods were reported in September 2017. This author showed that these events have occurred in previous years. Flores et al. (2017) state that one seventh of the Amazon is considered a floodplain, with annual frequency, where the highlands of the Amazon, with higher forest cover, report higher annual precipitation, while Parsons (2020) refers that in the Central Amazon there is another type of environmental risk, which is drought. This affects the eastern Amazon, where rainfalls do not exceed 1,000 mm per year.
Arosemena Tola has, as main crops, bananas, cassava, cocoa, corn and guayusa, which represent 1939 ha of the territory. Grasses correspond to 2,688 ha, and the rest to forests (GADMCJAT 2014). In Chontapunta parish, the main crops are cocoa, hard corn, banana, cassava and coffee (6470 ha); grasses for cattle occupy 1,200 ha (GADPCP 2015). In Ahuano, the plantations are coffee, cocoa, cassava, corn and banana, with 119,726 ha (GADCPA 2015). Carrera (2016) mentions moniliasis (Moniliophthora roreri) (Evans et al.), black pod (Phytophthora palmivora) (EJ Butler) and witches broom (Moniliophthora perniciosa) (Aime and Phillis- Blackberry) as the mean diseases of cocoa. Pico et al. (2018) mention Amazonian coffee, twig borer (Xylosandrus morigerus), coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) and lint disease (Pellicularia koleroga).
Throughout the Amazon basin, snake bite is a common event. Mainly, there are reports of the species from Bothrops genus (viperidae family) (Resiere et al. 2020). In Latin America and the Caribbean, there are between 137,000 and 150,000 poisonings and 3,400 to 5,000 deaths. Ecuador reports about 1,500 cases per year: 90 % are attributed to Bothrops genus (Ochoa et al. 2020). The most sensitive populations are those located in rural areas, where 11 % of bite cases correspond to the Amazon region, mainly to Morona, Santiago, Napo and Pastaza provinces (Riofrio et al. 2018). In a study performed by Vargas et al. (2021), between March and August 2020, in Tena, Napo, there is an incidence of 55.6 % of ophidic accidents in the male gender, and 4.4 % in the female. They are described, in greater proportion, in patients from indigenous ethnicity 77.8 %, and with occupation of farmer 48.1 %, with age over 30 years (59.3 %).
Regarding the distance of the events in time (figure 7), in terms of physical risks, floods show latent memories for periods of one to four years, in Ahuano, Chontapunta and Chucapi. In Ahuano these events are also showed for periods of five to ten years, and from eleven to twenty. In Ila there are fewer reports, and in Chucapi there are no records of physical events. Social risks are understood as short-term, but less frequently in the surveyed. Ila and Chucapi show this type of event, and in the other three communities, it is about land conflicts and political disorders, in periods of up to four years of return. Biological risks are more prevalent. This is the case of crop pests, which are reported in stages of less than one year, with the exception of Chucapi, where are described from one to four years. Human epidemics are another important element, in terms of their frequency. To a lesser extent are snake bites.
In the responsibility for disasters (figure 8), the communities mention nature as the main cause. It is followed by the lack of preparation, deforestation and the construction of houses in dangerous areas.
In emergency preparedness (figure 9), the El Capricho community is the one that refers to training in the greatest number of areas, but with reports from less than 50 % of those surveyed. Chontapunta has 50 % of the population trained in first aid. The emergency equipment with the highest number of reports is the flashlight. In Ila, Chucapi and Ahuano, at least 50 % of those surveyed know the evacuation ways. In El Capricho, 29 % have knowledge, and in Chontapunta only 5 %. Ahuano and Chontapunta have early warning systems, but only in the first 50 % of those surveyed are aware of it.
As showed in table 4, in all the communities, at least 40 % of those surveyed know the meaning of risk and, with the exception of Chucapi, the majority consider that their house is in a safe place. Among the risks that are closest to the house, the presence of a river in Ahuano, Chontapunta, is most widely reported. El Capricho and Ila, and the ravine in Chucapi and Ila. In the identification of the safe place, the surveyed from Ila and Chucapi show , in a higher percentage, and as a priority, the house; in Chontapunta it is the public square, as well as in Ahuano it is the mountain and in El Capricho, the streets. These answers are mainly based on the intuition of the surveyed.
Table 4 Risks and safe place
| Ahuano | Chontapunta | Chucapi | El Capricho | Ila | Mean | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Do you know the meaning of risk? | 65.0 | 75.0 | 40.0 | 85.7 | 40.0 | 61.1 | ||
| Do you consider that your house is in a safe place? | 65.0 | 60.0 | 30.0 | 71.4 | 65.0 | 58.3 | ||
| Safe place | Nearby risks | River | 30.0 | 40.0 | 35.7 | 25.0 | 32.7 | |
| Ravine | 0.0 | 5.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 18.0 | ||
| Tree | 10.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 21.4 | 45.0 | 19.3 | ||
| Collapse | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | ||
| Other | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 | ||
| House | Priority | 10.0 | 5.0 | 100.0 | 7.143 | 80 | 40.4 | |
| Experience | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 7.143 | 0 | 2.4 | ||
| They have told | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.000 | 0 | 1.0 | ||
| Senses it | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 7.143 | 0 | 2.4 | ||
| Public square | Priority | 5.0 | 35.0 | 0.0 | 7.143 | 0 | 9.4 | |
| Experience | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 3.0 | ||
| They have told | 0.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | ||
| Senses it | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 21.4 | 25.0 | 10.3 | ||
| Streets | Priority | 20.0 | 10.0 | 25.0 | 14.3 | 45 | 22.9 | |
| Experience | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 2.4 | ||
| They have told | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 7.1 | 25 | 11.4 | ||
| Senses it | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 5.7 | ||
| Mountain | Priority | 25.0 | 15.0 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 9.4 | |
| Experience | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Senses it | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 80 | 18.9 | ||
| Refuge | Priority | 5.0 | 15.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.0 | |
| Experience | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.14 | 0.0 | 1.4 | ||
| They have told | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.4 | 0.0 | 4.3 | ||
| Senses it | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 1.4 | ||
| School | Priority | 35.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.0 | |
| They have told | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 75.0 | 17.9 | ||
| Senses it | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.0 | 92.9 | 0.0 | 27.6 | ||
The multivariate analysis showed a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0.88, which suggests a good survey structure (Oviedo and Campo 2005 and González and Pazmiño 2015) and a Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) coefficient of sampling adequacy of 0.720, which indicate an adequate sample size (Cuadras 2014).
The analysis of variance (table 5) showed that the level of education is the one with the greatest weight in the variance of the responses. In 15 questions, ethnic self-identification and residence time influence, and in four of the questions, their variability in responses. Age and sex showed little influence on the responses.
Table 5 Analysis of variance
| ANOVA | Age categ. | Sex | Ethnic self- identif | Time residense | Education level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disaster memory | Earthquakes | 0.773 | 0.192 | 0.096 | 0.965 | 0.212 |
| Fire | 0.228 | 0.166 | 0.909 | 0.032* | 0.003** | |
| Floods | 0.293 | 0.730 | 0.658 | 0.628 | 0.121 | |
| Snake bite, scorpion others | 0.293 | 0.537 | 0.654 | 0.607 | 0.509 | |
| Crops diseases | 0.039* | 0.336 | 0.645 | 0.877 | 0.235 | |
| Animal diseases | 0.706 | 0.994 | 0.517 | 0.707 | 0.858 | |
| Human epidemics | 0.306 | 0.711 | 0.495 | 0.116 | 0.000** | |
| Civil political unrest | 0.928 | 0.484 | 0.878 | 0.491 | 0.055 | |
| Migrant refugee presence | 0.181 | 0.880 | 0.656 | 0.712 | 0.008** | |
| Forest use conflict | 0.181 | 0.880 | 0.656 | 0.712 | 0.008** | |
| Land conflicts within the community | 0.431 | 0.157 | 0.493 | 0.246 | 0.058 | |
| Land conflicts between communities | 0.878 | 0.880 | 0.656 | 0.629 | 0.075 | |
| Do you know the meaning of risk ? | 0.07 | 0.39 | 0.08 | 0.20 | 0.28 | |
| Risk | Do you consider your house is located in a safe place | 0.03* | 0.25 | 0.34 | 0.01** | 0.29 |
| River | 0.54 | 0.42 | 0.73 | 0.26 | 0.94 | |
| Stream | 0.29 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.01** | 0.04* | |
| Tree | 0.01** | 0.86 | 0.40 | 0.17 | 0.60 | |
| Mine | 0.06 | |||||
| Other | 0.78 | 0.01** | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.85 | |
| Training | First aid | 0.56 | 0.14 | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.04* |
| Self-protection techniques | 0.91 | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.48 | 0.00** | |
| Evacuation techniques | 0.89 | 0.99 | 0.91 | 0.12 | ||
| Rescue and salvage | 0.23 | |||||
| Community organization | 0.75 | 0.22 | 0.93 | 0.26 | 0.11 | |
| Have not received | 0.54 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.35 | 0.01** | |
| Emergency equipment | Flashlight | 0.82 | 0.36 | 0.04* | 0.59 | 0.21 |
| First aid kit | 0.28 | 0.35 | 0.49 | 0.58 | 0.60 | |
| Emergency backpack | 0.42 | 0.29 | 0.57 | 0.15 | 0.17 | |
| First aid kit | 0.64 | 0.36 | 0.11 | 0.21 | 0.01** | |
| Large tent | 0.70 | 0.36 | 0.16 | 0.70 | 0.01** | |
| None of the above | 0.98 | 0.83 | 0.96 | 0.25 | 0.87 | |
| Does the community have an early warning system? | 0.50 | 0.17 | 0.33 | 0.24 | 0.00** | |
| Do you know the community evacuation ways? | 0.43 | 0.13 | 0.38 | 0.42 | 0.02* | |
| Safe place | House, priority | 0.64 | 0.44 | 0.02* | 0.69 | 0.00** |
| House, experience | 0.75 | 0.76 | 0.98 | 0.05* | 0.21 | |
| House,they have told him | 0.55 | 0.27 | 0.29 | 0.96 | ||
| Public square, priority | 0.52 | 0.42 | 0.57 | 0.81 | ||
| Public square, experience | 0.81 | 0.86 | 0.03* | 0.36 | 0.47 | |
| Public square they have told him | 0.90 | 0.53 | 0.44 | 0.29 | 0.97 | |
| Street, priority | 0.44 | 0.88 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.20 | |
| Street, experience | 0.23 | 0.55 | 0.98 | 0.20 | 0.11 | |
| Street they told him | 0.79 | 0.00** | 0.19 | 0.23 | 0.07 | |
| Street senses it | 0.12 | 0.22 | 0.00** | 0.25 | 0.20 | |
| Hill or mountain priority | 0.16 | 0.75 | 0.36 | 0.58 | 0.01** | |
| Hill or mountain have been told | 0.67 | 0.07 | 0.42 | 0.75 | 0.00** | |
| Hill or mountain senses it | 0.61 | 0.88 | 0.80 | 0.04* | 0.13 | |
| Schools priority | 1.00 | 0.13 | 0.54 | 0.27 | 0.80 | |
| Schools have told | 0.09 | 0.05* | 0.84 | 0.07 | 0.15 | |
| What place would you choose as firstoption in an emergency? | 0.52 | 0.44 | 0.84 | 0.22 | 0.01** | |
Significant differences for* P < 0.05 > 0.01
In figure 10, the bispatial scatter diagram shows that the subjects surveyed have a single grouping. It is the snake bite that shows less variability and the conflict of the forest use, as the one that is farthest from the centroid.
Conclusions
The main risks identified in the study were biological, with the presence of plagues, human epidemics and snake bites. As for those of a physical nature, floods appear. Although the social ones were the least relevant, it was found that there is a deficit in health services.
The most abundant groups in the communities were the mestizo and Kichwa ethnics, with low levels of education. The communities with less access to basic services and community infrastructure were Ila, followed by Chucapi. The communities reported a low level of emergency preparedness and did not have basic equipment.
The presence of mestizo and Kichwa ethnic groups was verified as the most abundant groups that, for the most part, report levels of primary and secondary education. In basic services, the communities have electricity, but there is a deficit in sanitary services. Ila was the one with the least access and availability of basic services and community infrastructure, followed by Chucapi.
Among biological risks, the most cited risks were the presence of pests, human epidemics and, to a lesser extent, snake bites. In those of a physical nature, floods are mainly referred to. Social risks were least relevant.
The communities revealed a low level of emergency preparedness and, likewise, they do not have basic emergency equipment, but more than 50 % of those surveyed consider that their home is in a safe place.
