Parts I and II of this paper have tried to find a clear pattern of behavior of the population in the Amazon. From a population growth of a mere administrative and political divisions have not been shown any general pattern.
This time show then how to move the population taking into account a very important geographic variable: altitude. This is defined as the vertical distance from a given point to a zero point in this case is the sea level.
According to Pulgar Vidal are 8 geographical regions in the country, which have many differences between the altitude. We found that 57.9% of the territory of Amazonas is Omagua Rupa Rupa is 11.1%, 20.8% and 10.2% Yunga is Quechua. The question is, is there a shift from one region to another one that behaves as a trend?
To answer this assertion would require many tests, but experience. The population growth in the period 1993 - 2007 and the weight of the total.
In two regions increased participation in the total population. 16.3% of the population in 1993 was in the region Omagua, 2007 is 18.8%. In a similar way the Yungas region concentrated to 26.6% in 1993, the year 2007 to 27.7%. In contrast, Rupa rupa and Quechua regions have reduced their participation. The region Rupa Rupa decreased from 37.4% to 35.9%, while the Quechua low of 18.7% to 17.6%.
As shown in the table, the reduction in participation in its population of a region seems to be compensated almost exactly with another region. The participation of the region Omagua increased 2.5% which is almost the same magnitude of reduction in the region Rupa Rupa. The same fact occurs in the other two, grows by 1.1% Yunga participation and Quechua is reduced by 1.1%. "Simple coincidence?
would not be surprising if there were not two facts. The first is that the regions have gained more involvement have the lowest population altitude above which has apparently given population. Second, regions that appear to exchange and participation are close geographically close to possible population relocation, that is, is like saying you have fallen flat at the same time at the expense of upper floors.
In conclusion we are talking about a hypothesis: the strong geographic influence population behavior. Unlike the influence of people on the environment, this is reversed. Geography, for his many factors such as climate, soil quality, etc., Is prompting people to have social mobility to areas of lower altitude small time slots.
This is true but under very slow process, but that happens quickly "depends on a geographical change such as global warming? Or is it just a coincidence. It appears as an interesting topic to expand at a macro level. See more
0 comments:
Post a Comment