| Literature DB >> 29914119 |
Amy R Riley-Powell1, Gwenyth O Lee2,3, Nehal S Naik4, Kelly E Jensen5,6, Christina O'Neal7,8, Gabriela Salmón-Mulanovich9,10,11, Stella M Hartinger12,13,14, Daniel G Bausch15,16, Valerie A Paz-Soldan17,18.
Abstract
The interoceanic highway (IOH) in Madre de Dios, Peru has driven dramatic change in the Peruvian Amazon basin. We conducted a mixed methods study to examine the impact of these changes on the subjective well-being (SWB) of four communities on the IOH. Themes that emerged qualitatively included changing health threats, environmental degradation, and the impact of increased migration. To achieve a higher level of SWB, respondents emphasized the need for higher incomes, opportunities to learn new skills, and a better education for their children. Potential threats to SWB included marital problems and poorer health. Quantitative analyses suggested that social support and a sense of security impacted reported SWB scores based on life satisfaction, and the impact of income on life satisfaction was mediated by food security. Although long-term residents felt that specific determinants of SWB had both increased (food variety, transport and access to work) and decreased (access to natural resources and hunting), the majority reported that their lives had improved overall. Health had been affected by the IOH in both negative ways (increased dengue and road accidents) and positive ways (improved access to health services). Our results suggest that the rapidly-changing communities near the IOH link well-being to health, income, community, and the environment.Entities:
Keywords: Latin America; Peru; environment; mixed methodology; well-being
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29914119 PMCID: PMC6024980 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15061271
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Qualitative data collection summary.
| Community | Total Focus Group Discussion Participants | # of Females in FGDs | Key Informant Interviewees | # of Female KIs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| La Novia a | 12 | 6 | 7 | 4 |
| Alegria a | 12 | 8 | 6 | 1 |
| Florida Baja a | 15 | 7 | 4 | 2 |
| Santa Rosa a | 10 | 6 | 5 | 1 |
| Planchon | 20 | 13 | 4 | 0 |
| Mavila | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| Santa Rita Baja | 7 | 7 | 2 | 2 |
| Union Progreso | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Total | 73 | 50 | 34 | 14 |
a These were the four communities selected for the larger trial and where we continued to collect qualitative and quantitative data after 2014. La Novia and Alegría are north-east of Puerto Maldonado, en route to Bolivia; Florida Baja and Santa Rosa are south-west, en route to Cusco.
Socio-demographic characteristics of survey respondents.
| La Novia | Alegria | Florida Baja | Santa Rosa | Overall | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total HHs | 64 | 263 | 25 | 170 | 522 |
| Total Individuals | 264 | 1040 | 104 | 687 | 2077 |
| Respondent sex (percent male) | 32.8% | 28.9% | 28.0% | 27.7% | 71.1% |
| Respondent age (mean SD) | 38.1 (11.9) | 36.6 (13.3) | 34.1 (12.1) | 35.5 (12.6) | 36.0 (12.9) |
| Head of household migration history (% migrant) | 57.8% | 53.2% | 76.0% | 72.9% | 61.3% |
| Happy Ladder (SWB) (median, IQR) | 4 (2, 5) | 4 (3, 6) | 5 (3, 5) | 4 (3, 5) | 4 (3, 5) |
| Expected Happy Ladder (SWB) in four years (median, IQR) | 6 (4, 7) | 6 (4, 8) | 6 (4, 8) | 6 (4, 8) | 6 (4, 8) |
Figure 1Spider plots of key variables by community. (a) key factors by community; (b) key factors by migration status (years in community); (c) key factors by age of head of household; (d) key factors by sex of head of household.
Multivariate Regression Results: Specific Factors as per survey (derived from initial FGD & theory-driven).
| Form of Capital | Factors | Variable | Prevalence | Bivariate Linear Regression Coefficient | Multiple Linear Regression Coefficient |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social | Participation in community groups | Any individual in household participates in a community group | 18.4% | 0.66 (0.20, 1.12)( | 0.51 (0.06, 0.97)( |
| Perception of corruption | Perceives local government to be less corrupt | 38.7% | 0.38 (0.01, 0.75)( | 0.30 (−0.06, 0.66)( | |
| Perceives regional government to be less corrupt | 18.6% | 0.08 (−0.39, 0.54)( | - | ||
| Perceives national government to be less corrupt | 14.6% | 0.05 (−0.47, 0.56)( | - | ||
| Migration status | Community member who self-identified as living in the community after the construction of the IOH (equivalent to having moved to the community within the past 10 years) | 61.3% | −0.18 (−0.55, 0.19)( | - | |
| Decision-making power | Thinks that their opinion is valued in the community | 55.2% | 0.45 (0.09, 0.81)( | - | |
| Feels that community has influence in decisions about land use | 24.0% | 0.30 (−0.15, 0.70)( | - | ||
| Human | Age | Average of head of household | 39.4 (12.7) | −0.01 (−0.02, 0.01)( | - |
| Gender | Male head of household | 88.7% | −0.28 (−0.56, 0.01)( | 0.26 (−0.01, 0.53)( | |
| Marital Status | Head of household is married | 79.1% | 0.59 (0.15, 1.03)( | - | |
| Education | Head of household has some secondary education or more | 63.4% | 0.27 (-0.11, 0.64)( | - | |
| Household size | Number of individuals in household | 4.0 (3, 5) | 0.18 (0.07, 0.28)( | 0.16 (0.06, 0.26)( | |
| Healthy in past year | No health issues reported | 66.5% | −0.29 (−0.68, 0.09)( | - | |
| Health insurance | Household is enrolled in ‘SIS’ | 68.8% | −0.14 (−0.53, 0.25)( | - | |
| Time get to get to health care | Able to reach first point of care in <=1 h (only among those HHs that faced a health problem) | 55.9% | Na | - | |
| Financial | Wealth | Wealth Index | 0.4 (0.15) | 1.87 (0.64, 3.10)( | 1.02 (−0.30, 2.34)( |
| Home ownership | Owns home | 68.0% | −0.03 (−0.42, 0.36)( | - | |
| Access to land | Owns/rents >1 hectare of land | 31.2% | 0.32 (−0.06, 0.71)( | - | |
| Physical | Natural resources | Enters woods regularly | 54.8% | 0.37 (0.01, 0.73)( | - |
| Air and water quality | Considers water to be clean | 28.5% | 0.24 (−0.16, 0.64)( | - | |
| Considered air to be clean | 19.4% | 0.35 (−0.11, 0.80)( | - | ||
| Food security | Fully food secure | 29.3% | 0.78 (0.39, 1.17)( | 0.72 (0.33, 1.10)( | |
| Water security | Has access to improved drinking water | 84.5% | 0.67 (0.18, 1.16)( | - | |
| Personal | Security | Feels secure in community | 63.0% | 0.49 (0.11, 0.86)( | 0.42 (0.06, 0.78)( |
Figure 2Perception of changes in each of the five capitals (is X is better/worse/the same since the IOH), were asked of long-term residents. Examples of questions relating to capitals include, Physical = access to hunting, fishing and forest products; Social = your community; Financial = possibilities for work; Human = your health; Personal = your family.