Characteristics and Challenges of Informal Settlements in Ecological Conservation Areas: A Study in Quebrada El Choclino, San Martín
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/la202374Keywords:
Informal settlements, Ecological conservation, Basic services, Socioeconomic vulnerability, Environmental regulationsAbstract
Introducción: Irregular human settlements represent a direct threat to the conservation of protected natural areas, affecting biodiversity and ecological processes. In the ecological conservation area of Quebrada El Choclino, San Martín, a significant growth of this phenomenon has been observed.
Objective: To describe the characteristics of informal settlements in the ecological conservation area of Quebrada El Choclino, San Martín.
Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted with a random sample of 300 inhabitants and a total of 781 dwellings. Validated surveys and observation sheets were applied to obtain sociodemographic data, housing conditions, and perceptions regarding ecological regulations. The data were analyzed using relative and absolute frequency tables.
Results: 62.3% of respondents received promises of legal tenure from the government. The male population predominated (62.3%), and 42% were over 41 years old. Legal tenure was present in 90.9% of the homes, but only 25.7% had potable water and 10% electricity in certain sectors. More than 60% considered ecological regulations important for environmental conservation.
Conclusions: The community is predominantly composed of middle-aged males. The dwellings show variable conservation status with a predominance of poor structural conditions. The community faces significant limitations in access to basic services such as potable water, electricity, and sanitation, associated with socioeconomic vulnerability. Despite these conditions, the population attributes importance to regulations for the protection of ecological areas and shows some knowledge about the conservation zone.
References
1. Reyes Olivares A, Miranda Rosales V, Juárez Toledo R. Vulnerabilidad y resiliencia de áreas naturales protegidas ante asentamientos humanos irregulares 2021.
2. Caisatoa Pachacama AE. Impacto de los instrumentos de política pública en la regularización de asentamientos informales en áreas de protección ecológica en el Distrito Metropolitano de Quito, período 2010-2022 2025.
3. González González K, Hernández Álvarez A, Clavero Rodríguez D, Camejo Pérez Y. Educational architecture and social transformation: Learning spaces in vulnerable urban contexts. Land and Architecture 2026;5:290. https://doi.org/10.56294/la2026290.
4. Arteaga Quistial JE, Velásquez Bravo MÁ, Revelo Zambrano OA. Application of predictive models for territorial planning in Pasto, Colombia. Land and Architecture 2024;3:110. https://doi.org/10.56294/la2024110.
5. Cisneros Mosquera GA. Vulnerabilidad climática en asentamientos informales: análisis ante los riesgos climáticos asociados a movimiento en masa del barrio Los Pinos (Quito-Ecuador) s/f.
6. Therán-Nieto K, Pérez-Arévalo R, García-Estrada D. Asentamientos informales en la periferia urbana de áreas metropolitanas. El caso de Soledad, Colombia. urbe Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana 2022;14.
7. Jiménez Sánchez PL, González Vera MA, Rosas Ferrusca FJ, Calderón Maya JR. Impactos socioambientales de los asentamientos humanos irregulares en zonas y áreas naturales protegidas: Chetumal, Quintana Roo, México. Revista Ciudades, Estados y Política 2021;8:87–99.
8. Mora MGC, Macas DJG. Regularización de los asentamientos informales a partir de niveles de sostenibilidad. AXIOMA 2022:47–57.
9. Guerrero MGNU, García JAS. Estrategias de mitigación de asentamientos informales en zonas de riesgo: Fuerza comunitaria y colaboración interinstitucional en América Latina. Arkitekturax Visión FUA 2025;8:1–25.
10. Pereira PD. Áreas protegidas urbanas: tensiones y desafíos de la conservación en la Cuenca Matanza-Riachuelo (Argentina). Medio Ambiente y Urbanización 2021;94:165–206.
11. Cortés Cortés ME, Mur Villar N, Iglesias León M, Cortés Iglesias M. Algunas consideraciones para el cálculo del tamaño muestral en investigaciones de las Ciencias Médicas. MediSur 2020;18:937–42.
12. GUERRERO MGNU. IV. Retos ambientales y urbanísticos: ubicación de asentamientos irregulares sin datos cuantificables, el caso de Xalapa, Veracruz. Una mirada académica a la Zona Metropolitana de Xalapa s/f:103.
13. Valencia KR. Expansión urbana informal y sostenibilidad en América Latina: una revisión de literatura reciente. URBE Arquitectura, Ciudad y Territorio 2025:47–66.
14. Ossul Vermehren I. Prácticas de hacer hogar en asentamiento informales de Viña del Mar, Chile. Bitácora Urbano Territorial 2021;31:201–15. https://doi.org/10.15446/bitacora.v31n3.86886.
15. Castaño Grjajales JS, Zawadzky Guzman AN. Estrategias de consolidación para el mejoramiento integral de los asentamientos informales en las zonas de ronda: caso de estudio asentamiento 15 de Mayo 2023.
16. Almirón Cuentas JA, Bernedo-Moreira DH. Ephemeral Architecture as a Solution in the Evolution of Public Spaces. Land and Architecture 2023;2:51. https://doi.org/10.56294/la202351.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Gian Cristian Benites Vela, Katty Marilyn Alegría Lazo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
