Open Access

Urban and architectural risk factors for malaria in indigenous Amazonian settlements in Brazil: a typological analysis

  • Patricia Leandro-Reguillo1,
  • Richard Thomson-Luque2,
  • Wuelton M Monteiro3, 4 and
  • Marcus V G de Lacerda3, 4, 5Email author
Malaria Journal201514:284

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-015-0806-0

Received: 30 March 2015

Accepted: 10 July 2015

Published: 22 July 2015

Abstract

In the Amazon, m alaria is highly endemic in indigenous populations, which are often considered one of the last barriers to malaria elimination due to geographic isolation. Although the improvement of housing conditions is a good strategy towards the control and prevention of vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, this preventive practice has been barely undertaken in Latin America. An analysis of the architectural and urban features of indigenous Amazonian populations is essential to define and adapt these vector control measures. A total of 32 villages of 29 different ethnicities were studied and mapped by reviewing literature and visual information, and using a geographic information system. The most important architectural and urban characteristics influencing malaria were analysed according to the following categories: number of households and dimensions, supporting area, openings, materials, lifespan and location. Housing typologies found were classified within each of these variables. The results of this typological analysis included an easy-to-handle working template and revealing of features that benefit or hamper the presence of malaria vectors in Amerindians communities. Among risk factors, presence of open eaves, permeable walls, open-side constructions, large number of sleepers indoors, temporary-ephemeral houses, linear villages along stream banks, houseboats villages, poor urban drainage and villages surrounded by anthropogenic environments were highlighted. Indigenous settlements very permissive for anophelines were identified in ethnic groups, such as the Yanomami, Palikur, Paumari, Waimiri-Atroari and Wajãpi. Positive features were also recognized, including opaque and closed houses, large radial villages on bare soil, highly elevated stilted houses and the fire indoors, found among the Yawalapiti, Ashaninka, and Gavião-Parkatejê tribes. However, as Amazonian indigenous settlement typologies vary greatly even among villages of the same ethnic group, it is imperative to undertake an individual study for each community. Using the working template in Amazonian settlements it is possible to obtain data that will help researchers not only understand how architectural and urban features affect transmission, but also define vector control measures easily applicable by health authorities and acceptable by these communities.

Keywords

Malaria Indigenous populations Vector control Architecture Amazon

Background

Approximately 40% of the South American continent consists of the Amazon rainforest, of which 60% is located in northern Brazil [1]. In the Brazilian Legal Amazon, a socio-economical division composed by nine Amazon states, the population of Amerindians is approximately 433,363 people distributed into 226 ethnic groups [2]. Indigenous populations register disproportionately high indicators of poor health with high levels of maternal and infant mortality, malnutrition, cardiovascular illnesses, and infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis [3] and HIV/AIDS. Among them, vector-borne diseases are known to cause a significant burden in Amerindian communities of the Amazon basin, particularly malaria [4, 5]. The most favourable climate patterns for its propagation are mostly connected with high temperatures and humidity, which favour the survival of malaria vectors [6].

Anopheles darlingi, the main human malaria vector in Brazil, is present in about 80% of the country, however 99.8% of malaria cases are located in the Amazon Region [7]. This vector feeds all night with one, two, or three peaks of biting periods, being unimodal around midnight or bimodal with crepuscular rhythm. Although A. darlingi is more endophilic, endophagic and anthropophilic than any other Anopheles in the Americas, variations in activity, resting and biting patterns have been found thorough its distribution, with exophagic, exophilic and zoophilic behaviours reported, possibly caused by the use of insecticides [8, 9]. Anopheles darlingi usually bites inside dwellings and rests on interior walls no farther than one metre from the floor and on the ceiling, except in homes that have been treated with DDT, in which case it rests outside on vegetation [10]. Although it breeds in shaded margins of forested fluvial areas (rivers, streams, lakes, lagoons, ground pools), human landscape modifications result in an increasing number of breeding sites which are closer to homes. New ideal scenarios for larvae are pastures, flooded fields, irrigation canals, fish farms, wells and margins of roads [11, 12]. Adult A. darlingi often cluster in relatively small areas close to humans, mostly at ground level, not far from breeding sites and with a peak number occurring at the end of the rainy season, however, its flight range is greater than other sylvatic Anophelines, increasing its transmission potential [13].

Plasmodium falciparum was introduced into South America by the transatlantic slave trade from Africa, after European colonization [14], and scientists have dated the introduction of Plasmodium vivax as coming via Melanesia and the Pacific several 1,000 years ago [15]. However, once Europeans arrived, Amerindians are presumed to have suddenly been exposed to a huge influx of new strains [16]. Development programmes in Brazil starting from the latter half of the 19th century prompted migration flows of white populations to the Amazon basin, triggering malaria epidemics. Since the 1970s, health authorities became concerned about the alarming decline in indigenous populations and scientific research confirmed that one of the predominant causes of mortality was P. falciparum malaria [17]. The renewed malaria control efforts have been successful, resulting in a 50% decrease of malaria cases in Brazil from 2000 to 2012 [18], particularly P. falciparum malaria, however this is not the case for indigenous populations. In 2001, 13,313 malaria cases were recorded in a population of 358,493 indigenous inhabitants representing an Annual Parasitic Incidence (API) of 37.1 malaria cases per thousand population, well above the average Amazon region (18.8) [19]. The number of Amerindians affected increased more than 300% from 2003 to 2009, especially for cases of P. vivax malaria (Figure 1). Therefore, Amazon indigenous communities can be considered as residual reservoirs for malaria infection in the majority of the areas where this disease is being highly controlled in Brazil. In Mesoamerican indigenous population the situation is not different, and it poses a great challenge for malaria elimination in that area [20].
Figure 1

Malaria cases reported in the indigenous population of the Legal Amazon Region, 2003–2009. Source: Malaria-SIVEP (Information System of Epidemiological Surveillance). Updated 6.12.2010. FUNASA Management Report 2010. Health National Foundation, Health Ministry, Brasilia, Brazil, March 2011. p 129.

Dwelling modifications are a good ally in vector borne disease control and elimination [2123], and house improvements such as screened windows, screened ceilings [24], closed eaves [25] or raised floors [26] are commonly suggested in the literature. The enormous potential of architecture should be considered as a helpful tool in the great challenge of malaria elimination. Nevertheless architectural preventive practices have been barely undertaken in Latin America, consisting mainly of local screened solutions in emergency situations, such as the Oswaldo Cruz’s screened windows for malaria elimination in the Madeira Mamoré Railway construction in 1910 in Brazil [27], or the yellow fever-malaria portable Quarantine Station created by William Gorgas in 1905 in the Panama Canal [28].

The urban spaces generated between constructions and the characteristics of the settlement’s surrounding perimeter are also critical for malaria control. In 1940, the newly formed Sanitation Commission of the Amazon in Brazil conducted one of the first studies on the incidence of malaria in cities situated on the Amazon banks and their major tributaries. Those surveys were based on the conditions of occurrence of the disease, including characteristics of households, environmental characteristics of the peri-domestic area, outbreaks, and finally mapping of endemic areas [29]. However, this plan did not cover indigenous villages.

Indigenous Amazonian settlements today

Indigenous Amazonian settlements’ features have suffered constant transformations and some traditional households typologies have disappeared [30]. Yet they can be considered the result of centuries of progressive environmental adaptation, and represent the physical entity where culture and its expressions are practiced.

One of the first main physical modifications made by whites was through Salesians missions in the early 20th century, adding new constructions for Catholic rituals and boarding schools, and destroying collective “malocas”, which were replaced with single family homes under the pretext of promiscuity and lack of hygiene [31]. Recently, Evangelical missions have caused an increase in the population concentration and sedentarization among indigenous settlements [32]. These changes occurred due to a higher number of households and the use of new materials and construction techniques that prolong lifespan which have favoured desertion of small and remote villages. In many of these villages, the use of the traditional “maloca” has changed from housing-collective to ritual-religious use.

Since the late 20th century, various government agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been implementing improvements in sanitation, drinking water infrastructure, projects for dwelling renovations and new housing typologies in settled indigenous villages [33]. Furthermore, many Amerindian communities, especially those localized in the vicinity of large non-indigenous populations, have been progressively adopting the urban and housing typology of regional villages.

Today, an enhancement of cultural, territorial and architectural heritage of indigenous Amazonian ethnicities is witnessed. Any intervention in these settings requires prior ethnographic and anthropological assessments. In addition to such appraisals, an analysis and classification of architectural and urban features of these settlements is also needed if we want to define and adapt malaria vector control measures in Amerindian populations in a context where environment, culture and architecture go hand in hand.

Methods

Literature and visual information (still photography and video recording) was reviewed on indigenous settlements in the Amazon rainforest mostly from the Brazilian Amazon basin, a vast territory that comprises a high number of Amerindian settlements and a great diversity of cultures and tribes (estimated 226 of the 240 indigenous ethnicities located in Brazil) [2]. Search tools such as PubMed, SciELO Brazil and Google for the following terms were used: “Brazil”, “indigenous”, “malaria”, “architecture”, “urban”, “anthropology”, “ethnography”, “households” and “villages”. The retrieved information allowed gathering a large number of publications and studies on the tribes that inhabit the Brazilian Amazon basin [3047].

Books and articles written by professionals in architecture and urbanism provided a general basis for a first classification of settlements. However, an elevated proportion of dwellings described were already extinct and authors focused on the most representative and solid constructions, ignoring mixed-influenced and ephemeral households. Ethnographic and anthropological works carried out on ethnic groups and indigenous territories provided a wide range of alternative indigenous settlements that increased the list of ethnicities and villages studied. The use of a Geographic Information System (ArcGIS online) helped to map and locate many of these settlements in their Indigenous Territories, legally protected areas inhabited and owned by indigenous people (Figure 2).
Figure 2

Location map of the Amazonian indigenous settlements and ethnicities studied.

Although the number of tribes studied was not very high compared with the existing ones in the Legal Amazon they represent the wide variety of indigenous Amazonian settlements. Many indigenous ethnicities share the same constructive and urban typology—particularly if located in similar climate and environmental conditions—as in the Upper and Middle Rio Negro or in the Xingu River, and numerous communities have been gradually adopting regional typologies.

The most important architectural and urban factors influencing malaria in indigenous Amazonian settlements were standardized into different categories, which were also used to shape a working template for on-site study (Figure 3): (1) number of households and dimensions, (2) supporting area, (3) openings, (4) materials, (5) lifespan and (6) location. For each of these variables the diverse features found were sub-classified, and distinguished those that benefit from those hampering the presence of malaria vectors in Amerindian communities.
Figure 3

Working template for on-site study of Amazon indigenous population’s dwellings.

This approach may differ from other studies that mainly focus on the description of the housing model as a whole [48, 49]. The purpose of this was to simplify the identification of malaria risk factors in statistical analysis in indigenous communities.

Results

Number of households and dimensions

Certain malaria epidemiological studies noticed how factors related to household architecture, such as number of sleepers or room/house dimensions, were introduced as possibly influential on malaria incidence [5052]. However, other urban design features have not been taken into consideration such as houses’ proximity, disposition and orientation, which are paramount factors affecting public health issues such as ventilation, lighting and thermal comfort [53].

Settlements were classified as villages or collective households. Villages are composed of different homes that vary in number according to the existing families. House plans can be circular, elliptical, rectangular or polygonal. Coverage ranges from domed to pitched roofs, and the latter may present one, two or up to four slopes. Covers can even reach the ground, removing eaves. In the case of “ocas” and “malocas”, these traditional households can accommodate several families linked by kinship relations. According to their layout, villages can be radial, linear, dispersed or nucleated (Figure 4), mainly oriented following geographical features, such as rivers or mounds, but also cardinal directions.
Figure 4

Indigenous Amazonian settlements, location and disposition. a Radial disposition, Esperança village, Trumai tribe. b Radial disposition, Kaikotore village, Gavião Parkatejê tribe. c Lineal disposition, Karajás tribe village. d Lineal disposition, Tocana village, Ticuna tribe. e Dispersed disposition, Tapirabé tribe village. f Dispersed disposition, Piranha village, Ticuna tribe. g Nucleated disposition, Aiporé village, Kawaiweté tribe. h Nucleated disposition, Suiá Novo village, Kawaiweté tribe. Source: ArcGIS Online.

Collective households are the simplest form of organization. The whole tribe lives under the same roof. The “maloca”, used in these cases as a collective household, is divided into several open-side compartments, each inhabited by a nuclear family. During the celebrations and especially in the more formal ceremonies, the space is rearranged and the center of the residence becomes the most important area, where the dance takes place. Floor plans are generally rectangular with a short sidewall or both semicircular (Figure 5a, b). The Yanomami’s collective household, the “shabono”, is circular or polygonal with a square in the center, each side of the polygon corresponding to a family residence. Its size is proportional the number of people it houses, some being able to accommodate up to 400 inhabitants. The lightweight covers of housing units are usually hinged to form a single surface that offers complete shelter, forming a truncated cone with the top open for sunlight and smoke outlet (Figure 5c, d).
Figure 5

Indigenous Amazonian settlements, typologies and features. a Traditional maloca of upper and lower Negro river. b Maloca, use and distribution, floor plan. c Collective households: Yanomami’s shabono. d Yanomami’s shabono, use and distribution, floor plan. e Stilted households: Ashaninka tribe’s housing in high Juruá River. f Houseboats: Estirão village houseboat in Marahã lake, Paumari tribe. g Cover with small openings: Vaupes’ maloca. h Closed cover: Yawalapiti village, Xinguana tribe. i Without walls: Jamamadi tribe’s housing in Pauzinho village. j New materials and constructive techniques: Gavião Parkatejê tribe, Kaikotore village housing. k Temporary dwelling: the tapiri, Yanomami tribe. l Temporary dwelling for dry season, Mashco-piro Tribe.

Large number of confined sleepers facilitates transmission since several people can be infected by the same mosquito. Linear villages along stream banks or nucleated villages located near breeding sites are also risk features as their urban layouts in relation to aquatic environments favor the presence of malaria vectors throughout the settlement. Features such as the absence of corners, large interior dimensions (including height), low urban density and dominant wind orientation, have not yet been thoroughly studied in malaria epidemiological studies. These features may result in a reduction in the number of mosquitoes both inside and outside households. Finally, radial settlements, common among Xingu River’s ethnicities, are raised upon bare soil with a large diameter, favoring airflow and evaporation, beneficial for vector prevention in peri-domestic areas.

Supporting area

The benefits to humans that elevated constructions generate in relation to vector behavior have been reported [26, 54]. On the other hand, the close relationship between malaria and proximity of homes to water-bodies is critical in these settings [55], especially for communities that live on the water surface.

Amerindian houses are commonly built on the ground where a good drainage is essential as floors are typically packed dirt. Other typologies adapted to watercourses and their floods were found. Stilted households are separated from the ground and supported by simple wooden stakes that can last for nearly 100 years. They are made of boards, slightly apart to allow air circulation, and can either have light walls forming one or two differentiated areas, or no walls. The distance between the ground and the elevated floor can range from 60 cm to 2 m (Figure 5e). Houseboats, which often have the same characteristics as indigenous stilted dwellings, have thick logs that float on the water for more than 50 years (Figure 5f). They are considered the Paumari tribe’s typical house, however today they represent a minority, as they are difficult to remove and remain tied for long periods at the edge of lakes or rivers, following only the changes in water levels. This type of dwelling does not prevent its residents from exercising their activities on land. Thus, houseboat typology and poor urban drainage are recognized as features that stimulate the increase of malaria vectors in indigenous communities, while highly elevated stilted houses typology lessen the number of mosquitoes indoors.

Openings

Openings in dwellings have been a recurrent risk factor in malaria vector-control studies related to typologies, mainly there are three house-entry areas: eaves, walls openings and roofs openings [50, 52, 56, 57].

Coverage is an essential building element and even more in tropical or equatorial climates, where it provides protection from the sun and the rain. Among the indigenous constructions studied, most featured small openings in roofs that generally operate as smoke outlets, allowing lighting and ventilation (Figure 5g). Other dwellings presented closed covers, continuous on all sides and without perforations, or covers with large openings, as the aforementioned Yanomami’s “shabono”, where the opening coincides with the central area (Figure 5d). In certain indigenous households the roof reaches the ground for rain and wind protection, eliminating eaves (Figure 5h).

A high diversity of materials and designs for indigenous houses’ walls were observed, resulting in a wide permeability range as defined by interstitial spaces that allow natural ventilation and certain grade of lighting inside houses (Figure 6a). Some other walls were opaque, made without perforations except those required for access, lighting and ventilation (windows and doors) (Figure 6b), and thus, it is necessary pay special attention to wall-to-wall and wall-to-roof connections as gaps for mosquito entry. Some communities located in a hot and humid equatorial climate raised open side structures, without any closure, ensuring air circulation and moisture removal (Figure 5i). In warmer climates further South there was a progressive closing of constructions. Floors in stilted households and houseboats typologies, separated from ground or water surfaces, could also be permeable or opaque.
Figure 6

Walls openings. a Permeable walls examples: sticks and palm leaves walls. b Opaque walls examples: wooden or bark boards and thatched walls. c Wattle and daub constructive technique.

Covers with large openings, open eaves, permeable walls and floors and open side households are constructive characteristics that favour entry of malaria vectors. Thus, the more opaque and closed a house is, the more likely the presence of mosquitoes inside is reduced.

Materials

Housing materials have been considered when evaluating malaria incidence inside households, and natural materials have been usually connected to an elevated number of Anopheles mosquitoes indoors [58]. The presence of palm fronds or mud walls in construction attracts pest infestation, as is the case for the vector of Chagas disease [59]. However, in some epidemiological studies the use of natural materials in housing is usually wrongly linked with poor construction, meanwhile the utilization of new materials is commonly associated with a good and healthy house [51]. Many Amerindians’ traditional constructions are complex and strong structures, environmentally adapted and with high thermal comfort.

Generally, the construction techniques and materials used were similar among tribes. Natural materials extracted from nearby surroundings such as wood, bamboo, palm leaf, vines, and thatch, are traditionally used. However, in some cases they have been gradually replaced by newer building materials, such as brick, fiber-cement sheet, steel, and cement. For example, the Kaikotore village, erected in 1984 for the Gavião Parkatejê tribe and designed in a radial disposition, is composed of 33 brick and tiled roof houses equipped with water, electricity and drainage systems (Figures 4b, 5j) [33]. The wattle-and-daub construction technique has also been adopted, consisting of interweaving vertical timbers set in the ground with horizontal beams, rising into a large perforated panel that after having filled the gaps with clay was transformed into a wall (Figure 6c).

Natural materials possess low heat capacity, favouring thermal comfort inside households. The utilization of new materials, mostly with high heat capacity, could deteriorate this comfort if the house is not well designed and ventilation is not guaranteed.

Lifespan

Very few studies have introduced the age of houses as a parameter that may influence malaria transmission, yielding inconclusive results [60]. Lifespan in indigenous structures has not traditionally been very long as a result of several factors including depletion of hunting and other resources nearby, quick deterioration due to the nature of materials and its location within the Tropical and Equatorial forest, invasive pests, such as cockroaches or spiders, internal conflicts, disease outbreaks, and deaths. The useful life of constructions ranges from two to 30 years, the village or house is then burned or abandoned to build another on the same site or in a different area. Besides these primary constructions, temporary-ephemeral dwellings are also commonly erected to live in meanwhile a new village is built or to purchase food and materials far away from the original settlement (Figure 5k, l). Seasonal houses are also commonly used during rainy or dry seasons, and are occupied depending on river floods. However due to the previously described phenomena of concentration and sedentarization of this population, lifespan of households has increased significantly. In some cases they become nearly permanent as a consequence of the use of new building materials, new urbanization and sanitation projects and installation of evangelical missions [32]. Therefore, temporary-ephemeral households, with light weight structures and incomplete, are identified as a housing typology conducive to malaria vector entry.

Location

Geographic location and landscape characterizations of a settlement are important factors affecting malaria incidence [61]. Although the Amazon region is considered a whole year transmission area, malaria transmission increases significantly during the rainy season and is strongly associated with watercourses proximity [62, 63]. As Amerindians usually need rivers or streams for subsistence, houses are commonly raised in their vicinity, on riverbanks, or on watercourse surfaces. Other geographic locations are on top of a hill, on hillsides or in flat ground, both in rainforest and deforested areas (Figure 4).

Putative risk factors for higher malaria incidence would be villages set on stream banks, houseboat villages and villages surrounded by anthropogenic environments (land transformed by human action).

Other factors

Not as strongly linked to the indigenous settlements’ architecture but decisive for malaria control in these populations is the effect of fire inside the houses, which reduces the presence of mosquitoes indoors although it is a health hazard [64]. Existence of water storage, vegetable gardens and trash accumulation areas located near dwellings increase the risk of malaria in the population [50, 53, 65]. As indigenous households have adapted progressively to Amazonian regional constructions, the presence of latrines, septic tanks and others sanitation facilities has increased, therefore an analysis of their features and sanitation conditions to evaluate hazards is recommended. Table 1 summarizes the assessment of urban and architectural features in indigenous Amazonian settlements likely favouring malaria transmission.
Table 1

Urban and architectural features in indigenous Amazonian settlements likely favouring malaria transmission

Urban and architectural risk factors for malaria in indigenous Amazonian settlements

Category

Risk factors

Description

Number of households and dimensions

Collective household

Nucleated village

Confined dwellers favor the spreading of infective mosquitoes and increase the chances of uninfected mosquitoes to acquire the human infective sexual stages

Supporting area

Houseboat

Poor urban drainage

Establishment of breeding sites for Anopheles mosquitoes close to houses, increasing man-vector contact

Openings

Cover with large openings

Open eaves

Permeable walls and floors open-side household

Houses become permissive for Anopheles mosquitoes entry, increasing man-vector contact, and ineffectiveness of vector control measures

Materials

Natural materials

These materials promotes high number of indoor resting malaria vectors, increasing man-vector contact

Lifespan

Temporary-ephemeral household

Light-weight and incomplete houses conducive to stimulate malaria vector entry

Location

Village on stream bank Water village

Village in anthropogenic area

Landscapes modified by man action and water courses are propitious environments for Anopheles breeding sites, nearby villages are conducive for man-vector contact

Other

Water storage/vegetable gardens/trash areas near household

Poor state of sanitation facilities

High attractiveness of Anopheles mosquitoes to settlements and establishment of resting sites close to houses, increasing man-vector contact

Discussion

In several of the early writings from the 16th century conquerors describe Amerindians populations as “very healthy”. Some Jesuits missions reported that they did “not have knowledge of people dying of fever but only of old age”, and they used to “live up to their 90s” [66]. Recent Amazon archaeology findings revealed the existence of pre-Colombian indigenous societies who lived in large villages, or village networks connected with roads, that could host thousands of inhabitants. They possessed large crop fields, orchards and fish farms that became obsolete after overseas epidemics decimated their population [6769].

Structural characteristics of settlements are historical legacies that allow to understand the needs of comfort and use of their inhabitants. Despite the great diversity in typologies and characteristics among indigenous Amazonian settlements, some of their common features such as large coverage and permeable structures, show that environment protection and climate adaptation are the most important challenges. However, these constructions have historically suffered alterations due to new needs and external influences.

It was not observed a close relationship between the proximity of indigenous Amazonian households to watercourses and the opacity of their enclosure. However, literature described extinct types of houses directly related to the Amazonian watercourses as designed to prevent the access of insects. In the former Paumari’s houseboats anchored in the Purus River, where fire was located on the banks and houseboats were mainly used for sleeping, constructions had a single entrance covered by a mat that protected from heat and insects [32]. Another example are the extinct Ticunas’ “malocas” near the border with Peru. Two types of “malocas” were described: open-sided, located far from the watercourse, and closed, settled near the river for protection from mosquitoes [70]. Current “malocas” are of the closed type, ensuring protection from attacks, as an adaptation due mostly to periods of conflict experienced by its inhabitants.

Malaria studies carried out in different indigenous villages such as Xavánte’s [71] and Waimirí-Atroari’s [72] also suggest that indigenous households’ architecture could act as protection against vector entry, pointing to factors such as opacity of their enclosures, minimum openings, darkness and especially the smoke effect from fires. Fire may be the most common preventive measure used by indigenous people for vector control. In most villages, it remains lit overnight, and is located in sleeping areas. It produces a protective tar layer on walls and roof that may reduce insect’s presence indoors. The traditional and almost abandoned technique of using smoke for housing materials preservation makes households more durable and protects them from plagues and fungus [73]. Revised smoke preservation techniques could be a valuable tool in fighting malaria among Amerindians.

However, the fire indoors, along with thermal discomfort, are factors that inhibit the acceptability and compliance with the use of impregnated bed nets among Amerindians, which are among the best practices for malaria control. This is critical in communities in which many families sleep under the same shelter, enabling possible malaria-infected mosquitoes to feed from multiple sources and spread disease. This would favour the spread of infective mosquitoes and increase the chances of uninfected mosquitoes to acquire the Plasmodium parasite from humans.

Anopheles darlingi behaviour may also differ between typologically different Amerindian settlements. Research on malaria vectors conducted in two indigenous villages located in the northern Brazilian state of Pará showed how the number of A. darlingi collected in a Zo’é community was more than 10 times greater than in a Wai–Wai village. The mosquitoes from the Zo’é community showed a considerably more active pattern, a behaviour attributed to different characteristics of the constructions and the way of life of ethnic groups. The first settlement had semi-nomadic habits, was smaller and located in the forest, with households consisting of straw-roofed without walls. The second village was close to the river and dwellings were made of natural materials, with walls without windows and a single entrance; the number of mosquitoes collected indoors was less than 10% of the total [74]. Nevertheless, it will be necessary to conduct more research on these aspects in order to clarify connections between indigenous households and vectors.

Amazon native populations used to live in symbiosis with nature. Non-native people’s influence, water pollution, and the forced displacement of populations other than those traditionally inhabited areas, have brought major changes in these communities and severely affected their traditionally sustainable lifestyle. A striking feature of most indigenous areas was the precarious sanitation conditions. Villages often lack waste collection and drinking water infrastructure, and although some improvements have been implemented in certain settled Amerindian communities since the late 20th century, they did not guarantee public health amelioration due to bad designs and absence of maintenance, promoting breeding sites for A. darlingi. Moreover, certain studies undertaken in settlements with vegetable farms nearby have demonstrated that these communities are permanently exposed to malaria throughout the year [75]. As indigenous people farm much of their food base in orchards, the proximity of these to settlements is also relevant.

As previously highlighted, urban and house improvement implementations are helpful tools for malaria prevention. To ensure effectiveness of these improvements among Amerindian communities is essential to be respectful of these populations’ way of life and easy to implement, without interfering, damaging or modifying their culture, environment or thermal comfort inside constructions. However, there are many challenges to be faced such as open-side constructions, short lifespan, and ephemerality. In these cases, the versatility and adaptability of protective measures proposed are of paramount importance.

Malaria is, and has been for several centuries, an important health problem in Amazon Amerindians. The implementation of an information system on indigenous health is of vital importance, and control programmes should be adapted to particular characteristics of indigenous areas. The use of the easy-to-handle template proposed here could provide useful information about protective and risk factors in each indigenous Amazonian settlement and would help to identify suitable urban and architectural improvements to reduce malaria cases among inhabitants.

Cultural and social characteristics of tribes must be taken into account and each community should actively participate in the whole process, from data collection to final implementation, including helping in the design. When possible, measures should be environmentally friendly and make use of local and natural materials. Information, training and awareness initiatives will also be necessary to ensure proper use and maintenance of measures proposed.

Among household improvement actions we suggest to encourage the use of stilted constructions and opaque walls as well as high-rise and ventilated covers, screens on windows and ventilations gaps, and the removal of open-eaves. Urban improvement actions would include drainage amelioration, better orientation and disposition of houses to facilitate ventilation and evaporation, improvement or implementation of water supply and sanitation systems, waste management and village cleaning actions, relocation of orchards, and stagnant water elimination.

Conclusions

Typologies of indigenous Amazon settlements vary greatly depending on numerous factors, such as way of life, tribal culture, climate, type of environment, materials available for each community and non-native influence. It is noteworthy that even among villages of the same ethnic group the characteristics of their communities may differ significantly. Efforts in controlling and eliminating malaria among these populations face several challenges that are difficult to resolve. In this context, urban and house improvement implementations, as a measure for vector control, may be useful. Unfortunately, due to great architectural and urban differences among settlements, this cannot be accomplished under a unified approach, and studies must be tailored to specific villages. The use of the proposed working template would be useful for understanding how architectural and urban features affect malaria transmission in each settlement, and in helping to design malaria prevention measures, including house and urban improvement actions.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

PL-R designed the study, sought, reviewed and analysed the material collected and wrote the manuscript. RT-L participated in the design and writing of the manuscript. WMM and MVGL participated in the design of the study and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

To the projects that the architect Severiano Porto performed in Manaus and nearby, designs of high poetry, respect for the environment and indigenous influence. To Amazonian tribes that, despite many hurdles, keep on preserving their culture and architecture as a whole. For their respect to and balance with the environment they inhabit, from which we have so much to learn. And finally to the amazing voluptuousness of the Amazon rainforest and rivers, which never cease to amaze us.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Architect and Urban Planner
(2)
Department of Global Health and Infectious Diseases, College of Public Health, University of South Florida
(3)
Fundação de Medicina Tropical Dr. Heitor Vieira Dourado
(4)
Universidade do Estado do Amazonas
(5)
Instituto de Pesquisas Leônidas and Maria Deane, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz

References

  1. World Wildlife Fund Amazon Initiative (2014) Facts and figures. https://assets.wwf.ch/downloads/fact_figures_feb09.pdf. Accessed Oct 2014
  2. Instituto Socioambiental, Brazil. Indigenous peoples in Brazil. 2014. http://pib.socioambiental.org/es/c/0/1/2/populacao-indigena-no-brasil. Accessed Oct 2014
  3. United Nations. Department of economic and social affairs: state of the world’s indigenous peoples. 2009. http://www.galdu.org/govat/doc/sowip.pdf. Accessed Oct 2014
  4. Pérez-Mato S (1998) Anemia and malaria in a Yanomami Amerindian population from the Southern Venezuelan Amazon. Am J Trop Med Hyg 59:998–1001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Rodrigues EC, Lopes-Neto D (2011) Control de la malaria en un municipio amazónico. Rev Lat Am Enferm 19:1297–1305View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Craig MH, Snow RW, Sueur D (1999) A climate-based distribution model of malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. Parasitol Today 15:105–111PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Oliveira-Ferreira J, Lacerda MV, Brasil P, Ladislau JL, Tauil PL, Daniel-Ribeiro CT (2010) Malaria in Brazil: an overview. Malar J 9:115PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Oliveira CD, Tadei WP, Abdalla FC, Pimenta PF, Marinotti O (2012) Multiple blood meals in Anopheles darlingi (Diptera: Culicidae). J Vector Ecol 37:351–358PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Zimmerman RH (1992) Ecology of malaria vectors in the Americas and future direction. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 87:371–383PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Roberts DR, Alecrim WD (1991) Behavioral response of Anopheles darlingi to DDT-sprayed house walls in Amazonia. Bull Pan Am Health Organ 25:210–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Horsfall WR (1955) Mosquitoes: their bionomics and relation to disease. The Ronal Press Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Vittor AY, Pan W, Gilman RH, Tielsch J, Glass G, Shields T et al (2009) Linking deforestation to malaria in the Amazon: characterization of the breeding habitat of the principal malaria vector, Anopheles darlingi. Am J Trop Med Hyg 81:5–12PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Charlwood JD (1996) Biological variation in Anopheles darlingi root. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 91:391–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Yalcindag E, Elguero E, Arnathau C, Durand P, Akiana J, Anderson TJ et al (2012) Multiple independent introductions of Plasmodium falciparum in South America. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 109:511–516PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornejo OE, Escalante AA (2006) The origin and age of Plasmodium vivax. Trends Parasitol 22:558–563PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Carter R (2003) Speculations on the origins of Plasmodium vivax malaria. Trends Parasitol 19:214–219PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Mello DA (1985) Malária entre populações indígenas do Brasil. Cad Saúde Públ 1:25–34View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. World Health Organization (2013) World malaria report 2013. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. Brazilian Ministry of Health (2003) National program for malaria prevention and control. Brazilian Ministry of Health, BrasiliaGoogle Scholar
  20. Hotez PJ, Bottazzi ME, Franco-Paredes C, Ault SK, Periago MR (2008) The neglected tropical diseases of Latin America and the Caribbean: a review of disease burden and distribution and a roadmap for control and elimination. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2:e300PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Tusting LS, Ippolito MM, Willey BA, Kleinschmidt I, Dorsey G, Gosling RD et al (2015) The evidence for improving housing to reduce malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Malar J 9:209View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Anderson L, Simpson D, Stephens M (2014) Durable housing improvements to fight malaria transmission: Can we learn new strategies from past experience?. Habitat for Humanity International, Global Programs Department, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindsay SW, Emerson PM, Charlwood JD (2002) Reducing malaria by mosquito-proofing houses. Trends Parasitol 18:510–514PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindsay SW, Jawara M, Paine K, Pinder M, Walraven GE, Emerson PM (2003) Changes in house design reduce exposure to malaria mosquitoes. Trop Med Int Health 8:512–517PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Ogoma SB, Kannady K, Sikulu M, Chaki PP, Govella NJ, Mukabana WR et al (2009) Window screening, ceilings and closed eaves as sustainable ways to control malaria in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Malar J 29(8):221View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Charlwood JD, Pinto J, Ferrara PR, Sousa CA, Ferreira C, Gil V et al (2003) Raised houses reduce mosquito bites. Malar J 2:45PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Martins R (2007) Bandeirante da saúde: Oswaldo Cruz vai à Ferrovia do Diabo pesquisar as condições sanitárias. http://www.agencia.fiocruz.br/bandeirante-da-saúde-oswaldo-cruz-vai-à-ferrovia-do-diabo-pesquisar-as-condições-sanitárias. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
  28. Panama Canal History Museum: 1905. Yellow Fever Quarantine Station. 2014. http://www.canalmuseum.com/photos/panamacanalphoto008.htm. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
  29. Andrade RP, Hochman G (2007) O Plano de Saneamento da Amazônia (1940–1942). Hist Ciênc Saúde Manguinhos 14:257–277Google Scholar
  30. Claro A (2008) Arquitetura indígena. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, FlorianópolisGoogle Scholar
  31. Christante L (2010) As missões salesianas no Rio Negro. http://www2.unesp.br/revista/?p=1118. Accessed 12 Oct 2014
  32. Bonilla O (2005) Cosmologia e organização social dos Paumari do médio Purus (Amazonas). Rev Est Pesq FUNAI 2:7–60Google Scholar
  33. Santos VF (2012) Reserva Mãe Maria: a construção do espaço físico e simbólico na aldeia dos Gaviões Parkatêjê (1966–2010). Universidade Severino Sombra, VassourasGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Lengen J (2013) Arquitetura dos Índios da Amazônia. B4 Editores, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  35. Gasparini G, Margolies L (2004) La Vivienda Colectiva de los Yanomami, Tipití. J Soc Anthropol Lowland South Am 2:ss2Google Scholar
  36. Gallois CJS (2009) Wajãpi rena: roças, pátios e casas. Museu do Índio, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  37. Novaes SC (1983) Habitações indígenas. Nobel, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  38. Coelho VP (1993) Karl von den Steinen: um século de antropologia no Xingu. Edusp, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  39. Melatti JC (2007) Índios do Brasil. Edusp, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  40. Boelitz VL (2007) Povos Indígenas do Baixo Oiapoque. Museu do Índio, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  41. Gallois DT, Grupioni DF (2007) Povos Indígenas no Amapá e Norte do Pará. Instituto de Pesquisa e Formação Indígena, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  42. Fundação de Cultura Elias Mansour (2002) Povos do Acre: História Indígena da Amazônia Ocidental. Fundação de Cultura Elias Mansour, Rio BrancoGoogle Scholar
  43. Silva MF (1997) Ritual e sociabilidade Enawene-Nawe. http://portal.anpocs.org/portal/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=5261&Itemid=360. Accessed Sep 2014
  44. Montagner D, Melatti JC (1986) A maloca Marúbo: organização do espaço. Rev Antropol 29:41–56Google Scholar
  45. Socioambiental Instituto (2011) Almanaque Socioambiental Parque Indígena do Xingu: 50 anos. Instituto Socioambiental, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  46. Rodrigues AF, Hurtado-Guerrero AF, Escobar AL, Cardoso AM, Coimbra CEA Jr, Alves CLM et al (2005) Epidemiologia e saúde dos povos indígenas no Brasil. Editora FIOCRUZ, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  47. Santos E, Barclay F (1994) Guía etnográfica de la Alta Amazonia. Flacso-Ecuador, QuitoGoogle Scholar
  48. Denyer S (1978) African traditional architecture. An historical and geographical perspective. Africana Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Knudsen J, Von Seidlein L (2014) Healthy homes in tropical zones: improving rural housing in Asia and Africa. Edition Axel Menges, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  50. Kirby MJ, Green C, Milligan PM, Sismanidis C, Jasseh M, Conway DJ et al (2008) Risk factors for house-entry by malaria vectors in a rural town and satellite villages in The Gambia. Malar J 7:2PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Konradsen F, Amerasinghe P, van der Hoek W, Amerasinghe F, Perera D, Piyaratne M (2003) Strong association between house characteristics and malaria vectors in Sri Lanka. Am J Trop Med Hyg 68:177–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Lwetoijera DW, Kiware SS, Mageni ZD, Dongus S, Harris C, Devine GJ et al (2013) A need for better housing to further reduce indoor malaria transmission in areas with high bed net coverage. Parasit Vectors 6:57PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Howard G, Bogh C, Prüss A, Goldstein G, Shaw R, Morgan J et al (2002) Healthy villages: a guide for communities and community health workers. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  54. Gillies MT, Wilkes TJ (1976) The vertical distribution of some West African mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae) over open farmland in a freshwater area of the Gambia. Bull Entomol Res 66:5–15View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhou SS, Zhang SS, Wang JJ, Zheng X, Huang F, Li WD et al (2012) Spatial correlation between malaria cases and water-bodies in Anopheles sinensis dominated areas of Huang-Huai plain, China. Parasit Vectors 31(5):106View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Snow WF (1987) Studies of house-entering habits of mosquitoes in The Gambia, West Africa: experiments with prefabricated huts with varied wall apertures. Med Vet Entomol 1:9–21PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Lindsay SW, Snow RW (1988) The trouble with eaves; house entry by vectors of malaria. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 82:645–646PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Gamage-Mendis AC, Carter R, Mendis C, De Zoysa AP, Herath PR, Mendis KN (1991) Clustering of malaria infections within an endemic population: risk of malaria associated with the type of housing construction. Am J Trop Med Hyg 45:77–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Schofield CJ, Marsden PD (1982) The effect of wall plaster on a domestic population of Triatoma infestans. Bull Pan Am Health Organ 16:356–360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhou G, Munga S, Minakawa N, Githeko AK, Yan G (2007) Spatial relationship between adult malaria vector abundance and environmental factors in western Kenya highlands. Am J Trop Med Hyg 77:29–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Stefani A, Roux E, Fotsing JM, Carme B (2011) Studying relationships between environment and malaria incidence in Camopi (French Guiana) through the objective selection of buffer-based landscape characterisations. Int J Health Geogr 10:65PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Hakre S, Masuoka P, Vanzie E, Roberts DR (2004) Spatial correlations of mapped malaria rates with environmental factors in Belize, Central America. Int J Health Geogr 3:6PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Der Hoek W, Konradsen F, Amerasinghe PH, Perera D, Piyaratne MK, Amerasinghe FP (2003) Towards a risk map of malaria for Sri Lanka: the importance of house location relative to vector breeding sites. Int J Epidemiol 32:280–285View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Biran A, Smith L, Lines J, Ensink J, Cameron M (2007) Smoke and malaria: are interventions to reduce exposure to indoor air pollution likely to increase exposure to mosquitoes? Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 101:1065–1071PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Hiscox A, Khammanithong P, Kaul S, Sananikhom P, Luthi R, Hill N et al (2013) Risk factors for mosquito house entry in the Lao PDR. PLoS One 8:e62769PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Castro MC, Singer BH (2005) Was malaria present in the Amazon before the European conquest? Available evidence and future research agenda. J Archaeol Sci 32:337–340View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Neves EG (1999) O Velho e o Novo na Arqueologia Amazônica. Rev USP 44:87–113Google Scholar
  68. Heckenberger MJ (2009) Lost Cities of the Amazon. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lost-cities-of-the-amazon/. Accessed 2 Mar 2014
  69. Heckenberger MJ, Russell JC, Toney JR, Schmidt MJ (2007) The legacy of cultural landscapes in the Brazilian Amazon: implications for biodiversity. Phil Trans R Soc B 362:197–208PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Goulard JP (1994) Los Ticuna. Guía etnográfica de la alta amazonia. Flacso-Ecuador, QuitoGoogle Scholar
  71. Ianelli RV, Honório NA, Lima DC, Lourenço-De-Oliveira R, Santos RV, Coimbra Júnior CE (1998) Faunal composition and behavior of anopheline mosquitoes in the Xavánte Indian reservation of Pimentel Barbosa, central Brazil. Parasite 5:197–202PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Moura RC, Fé NF, Soares AR (1994) Há transmissão intradomiciliar da malária nas habitações indígenas tradicionais na Amazônia? Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 27:5View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Moran JA (2002) Traditional bamboo preservation methods in latin America. INBAR, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  74. Santos RL, Padilha A, Costa MD, Costa EM, Dantas-Filho Hde C, Povoa MM (2009) Malaria vectors in two indigenous reserves of the Brazilian Amazon. Rev Saúde Públ 43:859–868View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Yadouléton A, N’guessan R, Allagbé H, Asidi A, Boko M, Osse R et al (2010) The impact of the expansion of urban vegetable farming on malaria transmission in major cities of Benin. Parasit Vectors 3:118PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Leandro-Reguillo et al. 2015

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement