.

Bolivian Catholic University San Pablo

Faculty of Engineering
Environmental Engineering Department
La Paz, Bolivia

DEGREE THESIS PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING TO OBTAIN THE ACADEMIC
DEGREE OF BACHELOR IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

ANALYSIS OF DETERMINING ZONES

WITH EROSIVE RISK IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF LA PAZ

Made by:

Yeison Alejandro Saavedra Reque Terán

___________________
Tutor: Ing. MSc. Afnan Agramont Akiyama

Co-tutor: Ing. Rafael Marco Ríos Ruiz

Rapporteur: Eng. Danny Olga Castro Sanchez

_____________________________________________________________________

2019

1
 THANKS.
The presentation of this thesis represents the culmination of one of the most important
stages of my life.
To all my family starting with my Mami Laura who never stopped having faith in me and
she supported me with that pure heart that characterizes her.
To my Mom Gral. Gina Reque Terán Gumucio and Dad Cnl. Samuel Saavedra Cespedes,
who despite my constant stumbles, supported me unconditionally, helping me to believe
more in myself and be a better person, to my aunt Yankie, who in her way encouraged me
to finish this stage and gave me her support as she knows it do for you aunt "I already
made it."
To my heart, my companion, confidant, the reason for my tireless determination, my wife,
Lic. Vanesa Santander, who got up every time I felt that I could not take it anymore and
made me improve more and more and who gave me the greatest gift and wonderful that a
man could wish for, my little monster, my reason for living, my dear little son Demian
Antonio, who gave me the strength I needed to finish this stage of my life.
To my aunt Lic. Jeanine Reque Terán who gave me the impulse blows I needed at times and
clearly to my cousin Luciano Antonio Reque Terán, who with his unique personality taught
me that nothing is lost if you fight.
Without extending so much to all my maternal and paternal families, there are so many that
I would write another 50 pages, to my grandfather Félix who gave me his greatest advice
and to my dear little sister Jasa that despite our fights I love her a lot.
To the Bolivian Catholic University "San Pablo" for allowing me to complete my
undergraduate studies in Environmental Engineering, to the teachers who had the most
patience with me, Ing. Vidfa Carolina Garvizu, Dr. Omar Salinas, and especially the Eng.
MSc. Afnan Agramont and Ing. Rafael Marco Rios Ruiz who were my undergraduate thesis
tutors and were the ones who gave me the great opportunity to do a research project and
for all their teachings.
To my thesis rapporteur Ing. Danny Castro for his great disposition and help in the
evaluation process of my thesis.
To the sincere friends that this stage of my life leaves me, Andrés Castillo, Stefany
Carrasco (stove), Vanessa Antezana, Salvador Lizeca, Belen Cabrera, Ingrid Gomes, Tefa
Mariscal whom I hope to always keep, a sincere thank you for your endurance and for their
friendship.
And finally to those I would have liked to have been on earth to be able to embrace them at
the culmination of this stage of my life, firstly to my grandmother María Cespedes (RIP),
who until the last moment gave me all that love and support, to My Daddy Lucho, General
Luis Antonio Reque Terán Castro (RIP), who could not see me enter this stage that ended,

2
even so I know that he would have a huge smile on his face and tell me "You did it, mijo",
but what do I know? that from heaven both are watching me.

To my Mommy Laura, my Mommy Gina, my beautiful wife Vanessa, my little son

Demian, the engine of my life.
In memory of my grandparents, Granny María, who gave me all her love and Papi Lucho,
who is my role model.

3
 CONTENT
Acronyms................................................................................................................................ 9
SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... 11
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 1 ......................................................................................................................... 14
1.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 15
1.2. JUSTIFICATION .................................................................................................. 15
1.3. PROBLEM ............................................................................................................. 16
1.4. OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 17
1.4.1. General purpose .............................................................................................. 17
1.4.2. Specific objectives .......................................................................................... 17
1.5. APPROACH TO THE HYPOTHESIS .................................................................. 17
1.6. LIMITS .................................................................................................................. 18
1.7. SCOPE ................................................................................................................... 18
EPISODE 2 ........................................................................................................................... 19
2.1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 20
2.1.1. Erosion ............................................................................................................ 20
2.1.2. Difference between Threat and risk................................................................ 21
2.1.3. Erosion Risk Determination Criteria .............................................................. 21
2.1.4. Soil Organic Carbon (COS) ............................................................................ 27
2.1.5. Protected areas ................................................................................................ 29
2.1.6. RAMSAR sites ............................................................................................... 30
2.1.7. Legal framework............................................................................................. 31
2.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE METHODOLOGY .......................... 34
2.2.1. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) ......................................................... 34
2.2.2. Multi-criteria method...................................................................................... 34
2.2.2.1. Hierarchical Analysis Process Method ....................................................... 35
2.2.3. Saaty Matrix ................................................................................................... 39
2.2.4. Arithmetic Method or Linear Growth. ........................................................... 40
CHAPTER 3 ......................................................................................................................... 42
3.1. EROSION IN LA PAZ .......................................................................................... 43

4
 3.2. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LA PAZ ....... 43
3.3. PREVIOUS STUDIES........................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 4 ......................................................................................................................... 48
4.1. TYPE OF INVESTIGATION................................................................................ 49
4.2. INTERVENIENT VARIABLE ............................................................................. 49
4.3. GRAMA FLOW FOR METHODOLOGY. .......................................................... 50
4.4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAATY MATRIX. ................................................... 51
4.5. PRE PROCESSING AND PROCESSING OF LAYERS. .................................... 52
4.6. DATA COLLECTION. ......................................................................................... 58
4.6.1. Precipitation .................................................................................................... 58
4.6.2. Pending ........................................................................................................... 61
4.6.3. Drainage Density ............................................................................................ 63
4.6.4. Land Use ......................................................................................................... 66
4.6.5. Soil Type......................................................................................................... 68
4.6.6. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) ......................................... 70
CHAPTER 5 ......................................................................................................................... 73
5.1. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 74
5.1.1. Erosion Risk Map ........................................................................................... 74
5.1.2. Analysis and Results of the Erosive Risk Map............................................... 76
5.1.3. Analysis of Administrative Distributions. ...................................................... 79
5.1.4. Analysis of ecoregions with erosive risks. ................................................... 102
CAPÍTULO 6 ..................................................................................................................... 107
6.1. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ............................................................ 108
6.1.1. Deforestation in Relation to Erosion Risk .................................................... 108
6.1.2. Erosion Risk in Relation to Disaster Risks ................................................... 111
6.1.3. Erosion Risk in Areas of Social, Productive and Natural Interest................ 115
6.1.3.2. Risk of erosion in relation to extreme poverty ............................................. 126
6.1.3.3. Erosion Risk Assessment in Protected Areas of the department of La Paz.
128
6.1.3.4. Erosion Risk Assessment in Ramsar Sites of the Department of La Paz. 130
6.1.4. Risk of erosion and the presence of organic carbon in soils ............................ 132
6.2. CONTRIBUTION OF THE ANALYSIS TO THE NATIONAL BASIN PLAN
(NBP) 136

5
 6.2.1. Component 1: Management of Strategic Basins and Basin Master Plans (GCE
/ PDC) 137
6.2.2. Component 2: Investments in Integrated Water Resources Management
(IWRM) / Integrated Watershed Management (MIC). ............................................... 137
6.2.3. Component 3: Management of Hydrological Risks and Climate Change
(GRH-CC) ................................................................................................................... 137
6.2.4. Component 4: Water Quality Management (GCH) ...................................... 138
6.2.5. Component 5: Intercultural Program of Pedagogical Basins (PICP) ........... 138
6.2.6. Component 6: Management of water-environmental information and
communication systems (GSIC).................................................................................. 138
6.2.7. Component 7: Institutional strengthening and capacity building for water-
environmental management (FI-DC) .......................................................................... 139
6.3. COMPARISON OF OTHER STUDIES CARRIED OUT WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT OF LA PAZ ......................................................................................... 139
6.4. EROSION RISK PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES ......................................... 140
CHAPTER 7 ....................................................................................................................... 143
7.1. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. 144
CHAPTER 8 ....................................................................................................................... 147
8.1. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 148
CHAPTER 9 ....................................................................................................................... 150
9.1. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 151
ANNEXED ......................................................................................................................... 161

INDEX OF IMAGES

Image 1. ............................................................................................................................... 26
Image 2. ............................................................................................................................... 26
Image 3. ............................................................................................................................. 140

INDEX OF MAPS

Map 1. ................................................................................................................................. 43
Map 2. . ................................................................................................................................ 46
Map 3. ................................................................................................................................. 60
Map 4. ................................................................................................................................. 62

6
Map 5. ................................................................................................................................. 65
Map 6. ................................................................................................................................. 67
Map 7. ................................................................................................................................. 69
Map 8. ................................................................................................................................. 72
Map 9. ................................................................................................................................. 75
Map 10. ............................................................................................................................... 78
Map 11. ............................................................................................................................... 80
Map 12. ............................................................................................................................... 82
Map 13. ............................................................................................................................... 84
Map 14. ............................................................................................................................... 98
Map 15. ............................................................................................................................. 104
Map 16. ............................................................................................................................. 110
Map 17. ............................................................................................................................. 112
Map 18. ............................................................................................................................. 113
Map 19. ............................................................................................................................. 114
Map 20. ............................................................................................................................. 117
Map 21. ............................................................................................................................. 127
Map 22. ............................................................................................................................. 129
Map 23. ............................................................................................................................. 131
Map 24. ............................................................................................................................. 133
Map 25. ............................................................................................................................. 135

TABLE INDEX
Table 1. ............................................................................................................................... 37
Table 2. ............................................................................................................................... 51
Table 3. ............................................................................................................................... 51
Table 4. ............................................................................................................................... 52
Table 5. ............................................................................................................................... 58
Table 6. ............................................................................................................................... 59
Table 7. ............................................................................................................................... 61
Table 8. ............................................................................................................................... 63
Table 9. ............................................................................................................................... 64
Table 10. ............................................................................................................................. 64
Table 11. ............................................................................................................................. 66
Table 12. ............................................................................................................................. 68
Table 13. ............................................................................................................................. 70
Table 14. ............................................................................................................................. 70
Table 15. ............................................................................................................................. 71
Table 16. ............................................................................................................................. 76
Table 17. ............................................................................................................................. 79
Table 18. ............................................................................................................................. 81
Table 19. ............................................................................................................................. 85

7
Table 20. ............................................................................................................................. 87
Table 21. ............................................................................................................................. 91
Table 22. ............................................................................................................................. 94
Table 23. ............................................................................................................................. 96
Table 24. ............................................................................................................................. 97
Table 25. ............................................................................................................................. 99
Table 26. ........................................................................................................................... 100
Table 27. ........................................................................................................................... 101
Table 28. ........................................................................................................................... 101
Table 29. ........................................................................................................................... 102
Table 30. ........................................................................................................................... 103
Table 31. ........................................................................................................................... 105
Table 32. ........................................................................................................................... 105
Table 33. ........................................................................................................................... 106
Table 34. ........................................................................................................................... 119
Table 35. ........................................................................................................................... 128
Table 36. ........................................................................................................................... 130
Table 38. ........................................................................................................................... 134
Table 39. . .......................................................................................................................... 136

GRAMA FLOW INDEX

Flow grass 1. ....................................................................................................................... 50

8
Acronyms

MCA: Multicriterial Analysis

MCDA: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
SOC: Soil Organic Carbon
DOC: Dissolved Organic Carbon
CO2: Carbon Dioxide
EPSAS: Public Social Water and Sanitation Company
EDAN: Damage Assessment and Needs Analysis
FI-DC: Institutional strengthening and capacity building for water-environmental
management
GHG: Greenhouse Gases
GCE: Management of Strategic Basins
GSIC: Management of water-environmental information and communication systems
GRH-CC: Management of Hydrological Risks and Climate Change
GCH: Water Quality Management
NDVI: Normalized Vegetation Index
NDSI: Normalized Snow Difference Index
INE: National Institute of Statistics
IF: Facilitating Institutions
IWRM: Investments in Management Integrated Water Resources
Km: Kilometers
Km2: Square kilometers
MIC: Comprehensive Watershed Management
TRM: Turf Reinforcement Mats Vegetation Reinforcement Blankets
SOM: Soil Organic Matter
CH4: Methane
MCE: Multiple Criteria Evaluation Methods
Stream-order: Order of Streams

9
OGC: Basin Organizations
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
N2O: Nitrous Oxide
PTDI: Territorial Plan for Comprehensive Development
PNC: NATIONAL BASIN PLAN
PDC: Cuenca Master Plans
GWP: Global Warming Potential
AHP Hierarchy Analysis Process
PIEB: Strategic Research Program in Bolivia
PICP: Intercultural Program of Pedagogical Basins
GIS: Geographic Information Systems
TIOC: Indigenous-Native Peasant Land

10
 SUMMARY

Soil erosion is defined as a process of disaggregation, transport and deposition of soil

materials by erosive agents (Ellison, 1947). According to the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 33% of the world's soil suffers erosion, the
resulting damage affects livelihoods, ecosystem services, food security and human well-
being. In Bolivia, 60% of the soils that make up the agricultural frontier suffer erosion; the
departments at risk are La Paz, Oruro and Potosí (La Razón, 2015). This problem is
manifested in the following question: Is it possible to determine and define erosion risk areas
through the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) under a multi-criteria analysis
approach in La Paz? This question was answered through the Hierarchical Analysis Process
(AHP), a method based on the evaluation of different criteria that allow solving problems in
which there is a need to prioritize different options and decide which is the most convenient
option (Saaty, 1980) . As a result, a map of erosive risks was obtained in the department of
La Paz, in which the highest percentages of erosion risks are: high risk, with 37.8%; moderate
risk, with 36.6%. This indicates that the department of La Paz has many areas highly prone
to erosion. In the analysis of the results of the map, the inclusion of the jurisdictional division
of the department has made it possible to define erosive areas at the municipal and provincial
level, in the same way the deforestation factor, evidence that in deforested areas, the
instrument shows risk polygons moderate to erosion. In the National Watershed Plan (PNC)
the instrument provides specific information on the erosive risks suffered by the strategic
basins determined by the PNC. In conclusion, research is an instrument for decision-making
related to erosive risks and their possible consequences, thus this instrument provides
information on erosive risk in the department of La Paz and aspires to be an initiator for
research related to erosion. Soils. The inclusion of the jurisdictional division of the
department has made it possible to define erosive areas at the municipal and provincial levels,
as well as the deforestation factor, which shows that in deforested areas, the instrument shows
polygons of moderate risk of erosion. In the National Watershed Plan (PNC) the instrument
provides specific information on the erosive risks suffered by the strategic basins determined
by the PNC. In conclusion, research is an instrument for decision-making related to erosive
risks and their possible consequences, thus this instrument provides information on erosive
risk in the department of La Paz and aspires to be an initiator for research related to erosion.
soils. The inclusion of the jurisdictional division of the department has made it possible to
define erosive areas at the municipal and provincial levels, as well as the deforestation factor,
which shows that in deforested areas, the instrument shows polygons of moderate risk of
erosion. In the National Watershed Plan (PNC) the instrument provides specific information
on the erosive risks suffered by the strategic basins determined by the PNC. In conclusion,
research is an instrument for decision-making related to erosive risks and their possible
consequences, thus this instrument provides information on erosive risk in the department of
La Paz and aspires to be an initiator for research related to erosion. Soils. It has made it
possible to define erosive zones at the municipal and provincial level, as well as the
deforestation factor, which shows that in deforested zones, the instrument shows polygons
of moderate risk of erosion. In the National Watershed Plan (PNC) the instrument provides

11
specific information on the erosive risks suffered by the strategic basins determined by the
PNC. In conclusion, research is an instrument for decision-making related to erosive risks
and their possible consequences, thus this instrument provides information on erosive risk in
the department of La Paz and aspires to be an initiator for research related to erosion. Soils.
It has made it possible to define erosive zones at the municipal and provincial level, as well
as the deforestation factor, which shows that in deforested zones, the instrument shows
polygons of moderate risk of erosion. In the National Watershed Plan (PNC) the instrument
provides specific information on the erosive risks suffered by the strategic basins determined
by the PNC. In conclusion, research is an instrument for decision-making related to erosive
risks and their possible consequences, thus this instrument provides information on erosive
risk in the department of La Paz and aspires to be an initiator for research related to erosion.
soils. The instrument shows polygons of moderate risk of erosion. In the National Watershed
Plan (PNC) the instrument provides specific information on the erosive risks suffered by the
strategic basins determined by the PNC. In conclusion, research is an instrument for decision-
making related to erosive risks and their possible consequences, thus this instrument provides
information on erosive risk in the department of La Paz and aspires to be an initiator for
research related to erosion. Soils. The instrument shows polygons of moderate risk of erosion.
In the National Watershed Plan (PNC) the instrument provides specific information on the
erosive risks suffered by the strategic basins determined by the PNC. In conclusion, research
is an instrument for decision-making related to erosive risks and their possible consequences,
thus this instrument provides information on erosive risk in the department of La Paz and
aspires to be an initiator for research related to erosion soils.

12
 ABSTRACT

Soil erosion is defined as a process of disaggregation, transport and deposition of soil

materials by erosive agents (Ellison, 1947). According to the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), 33% of the world's soil suffers erosion, the resulting
damage affects livelihoods, ecosystem services, food security and human well-being. In
Bolivia, 60% of the soils that make up the agricultural frontier suffer erosion; the departments
at risk are La Paz, Oruro and Potosí (La Razón, 2015). This problem is manifested in the
following question: Is it possible to determine and define areas of erosion risk through the
use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) under a multi-criteria analysis approach in La
Paz? This question was answered through the Hierarchical Analysis Process (AHP), a method
based on the evaluation of different criteria that allow solving problems in which there is a
need to prioritize different options and decide which is the most convenient option (Saaty,
1980). The result was a map of erosive risks in the department of La Paz in which the highest
percentages of risks to erosion are: high risk, with 37.8%; moderate risk, with 36.6%. This
indicates that the department of La Paz has many areas highly prone to erosion. In the analysis
of the results of the map, the inclusion of the jurisdictional division of the department, has
allowed to define erosive zones at municipal and provincial level, likewise the deforestation
factor, evidence that in deforested areas, the instrument shows risk polygons moderate to
erosion. In the National Watershed Plan (NWP), the instrument provides timely information
on the erosive risks suffered by the strategic basins determined by the NWP. In conclusion,
the research is an instrument for making decisions related to erosive risks and their possible
consequences, so this instrument provides information on erosion risk in the department of
La Paz and aspires to be an initiator for research related to the erosion of floors.

13
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND

14
1.1. INTRODUCTION

Soil erosion has become a global problem due to climate change and the progressive decline
in the relationship between natural resources and population, according to the Expert-Based
Global Assessment of Human-Induced Soil Degradation (EGEDSIH or CLASOD for its
acronym in English). In the national territory, in 2015, around 2.1 million hectares were in
the process of degradation due to the intensive use they receive, the amount represents 60%
of the soils that make up the agricultural frontier, according to the Deputy Minister of Lands,
Johnny Cordero also mentioned that the areas at risk are mainly in the Andean region made
up of the departments of La Paz, Oruro and Potosí for the cultivation of quinoa and sectors
of the eastern region for the crops of sorghum and soy.(La Razón, 2015).
Various methods have been produced to assess soil erosion at different scales (local, regional
and global). The models proposed in the literature are commonly subdivided into two main
categories (Terranova et al. 2009): qualitative and quantitative approaches. The first uses
expert knowledge to provide a relative indication of risk, the second offers quantitative
estimates of erosion, based on measured data and / or models; However, this separation is
not strict and the approaches are frequently integrated. Another often applied way is to group
soil erosion assessment methods into expert-based and model-based methods (Grimm et al.
2002; Gobin et al. 2004). The choice of a particular method largely depends on the purpose,
the available data,(Kachouri, Achour, Abida, & Bouaziz, 2015).
Given that soil erosion is a highly dynamic spatial-temporal phenomenon, information on the
area vulnerable to erosion and its severity are prerequisites for planning soil conservation and
watershed management at the local and regional scale. When the problem of soil erosion is
extensive, the conventional method of mapping and field study is expensive and time
consuming. Therefore, in practice, such areas should be prioritized based on the severity of
the risk (very severe erosion, mild erosion) before being made for conservation planning.
Consequently, erosion models can be used as predictive tools to assess soil loss and risk of
soil erosion for conservation planning (Popp et al. 2000).

1.2. JUSTIFICATION

This study will be an instrument for making decisions about the safety and protection of the
population against soil erosion in the department of La Paz, in addition to contributing to
Municipal management as a model for other programs that tend to the integral management
of soils.
Carrying out the study allows, in the future, to consolidate a risk analysis and evaluation
methodology that can be used in other scenarios for the modeling of natural disasters. The
study will allow the design of a protection plan that will help mitigate the collateral effects
of soil erosion, allowing to reduce physical damage to the environmental dimension.

15
1.3. PROBLEM

Soil erosion is defined as a process of disaggregation, transport and deposition of soil

materials by erosive agents (Ellison, 1947). Dynamic erosive agents, in the case of water
erosion, are rain and surface runoff or floods.
Rain has an effect through the impact of its drops on the surface of the soil, and by the wetting
of the soil itself, which cause disaggregation of the primary particles; also the transport of
particles by aspersion and provides energy to the water of the surface runoff (Ellison, 1947).

33% of the world's soil suffers from erosion, nutrient depletion or contamination from the
excessive use of agrochemicals. According a statement from the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) released at the IX National Soil Congress of Costa
Rica in 2017, this percentage "is moderately to highly degraded due to acidification,
salinization and compaction" and "the resulting damage affects livelihoods, ecosystem
services, food security and human well-being." The meeting was held under the slogan "The
future of agricultural soils in our hands" and brought together 300 specialists from Brazil,
Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela and Costa
Rica(FAO, 2017).

As a consequence of the disaggregation, a superficial seal is produced that substantially

reduces the infiltration capacity of the soil (Duley, 1987; Ellison, 1947). At the moment in
which the precipitation becomes greater than the infiltration rate of water in the soil, there is
the retention and superficial detention of the water and, later, the superficial runoff of the
water that does not infiltrate (Meyer, 1977). Considering surface runoff as the main transport
agent, Ellison (1947) classified runoff into two parts: the flow in the entrenchments and the
flow within the furrows. The flow of the inter-furrows is responsible for the transport of
sediments from the areas between the furrows into the furrows. Its transport capacity depends
directly on the characteristics of the raindrops that, producing turbulence in the water sheet,
they determine the amount of soil that will remain in suspension. The flux in the furrows,
channeled or concentrated, has the ability to transport the material received from the flux
from the entrenchments, as well as to cause the separation of material from the soil body
within the furrow.

According to Meyer (1977) these processes are selective with regard to sediment transport.
The eroded material within the furrows is generally larger and less affected by selective
action, as is the sediment of the furrows.

In an article on the Green Ecology page, the author (Cardona, 2018)mentions the following,
“It is not difficult to think about the consequences of soil erosion, when the soil deteriorates,
that particular ecosystem also deteriorates, losing the ecological balance. This causes a
reduction in both fauna and flora, causing, gradually, the fertility of these lands is lost ”.
Likewise, it indicates if it is cultivated in that place, it will be increasingly difficult and

16
expensive, but in the case that it is a grazing place, that task will be complicated. The
consequences of soil erosion are shown below:

 The ecosystem becomes unbalanced, losing many of its endemic species and favoring
the growth of opportunistic species.
 The land is becoming less and less fertile, increasing the use of fertilizers by farmers.
In the end, this ends up with a totally useless land for cultivation.
 Loss of flora and disappearance of species.
 Loss of moisture provided by flora.
 Creation of gravel pits and sandbanks in what were fertile lands.
 Increased risk of rockslides.
 Loss of land yield and increased cost of cultivating it.
 In livestock, the costs of maintaining and feeding the animals increase, as pastures
disappear.
 The impoverishment of rural populations causes the population to move to the cities.

1.4. OBJECTIVES
1.4.1. General purpose

 Determine areas at risk of erosion within the department of La Paz.

1.4.2. Specific objectives

 Analyze the relationship and behavior of the criteria that determine the risk of
erosion.
 Evaluate the spatial variability of erosion risk in the study area.
 For a better approach to erosion risk areas at the municipal and provincial levels, an
analysis of the jurisdictional division1 will be included. From the department of La
Paz.
1.5. APPROACH TO THE HYPOTHESIS

Under a methodological approach of multicriterial analysis and by studying the

interaction of the determining factors for the risk of erosion, with the Geographic
Information Systems (GIS), the most important can be found, in addition to showing the
spatial distribution of the levels risk intensity in the department of La Paz.

1
The word "jurisdiction" is used to designate the territory over which this power is exercised. Similarly, by
extension, it is used to designate the geographical area of exercise of the powers and powers of an authority or
the matters that are within its competence; and, in general, to designate the territory over which a State
exercises its sovereignty.

17
1.6.LIMITS

This study is limited to the cartographic presentation of the areas at risk of erosion in the
department of La Paz.
1.7. SCOPE

The study is a contribution of mitigation measures for the risk of erosion and will contribute
to:
 Identify and characterize the erosion hazard, as well as its conditioning and triggering
factors, that is, the correlation of the criteria chosen among them for the identification
of erosion risks.
 Analyze vulnerability from the perspective of exposure, fragility and resilience in the
environmental dimension, identify the relationship of possible erosive risks in the
natural and social environment.

18
EPISODE 2
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK

19
2.1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.1. Erosion

Soil erosion according to Thesaurus (2013), defines it as an erosion of the land surface by
action of water, wind, ice or other geological agents. Likewise, there are a series of factors
that determine that the erosion process is much faster, such as the relief of the area, if it has
a relatively steep slope that action will be facilitated. In the same way, the type of surface is
essential to achieve this acceleration of erosion. Based on the rock of the same and if it has
vegetation of different types, it will be allowed to favor to a greater or lesser extent the
process that now occupies the study. Thus, for example, it is perfectly clear that any surface
that has a kind of vegetation, It will be much easier for you to be able to avoid or stop erosion
to some extent. Among other things, it will serve to protect the surface not only from the
action of the wind but also from the flow of water.
The action of man takes on a relevant role which becomes a fundamental factor in the erosion
process. A clear example is the action of the farmer who destroys the vegetation of a field or
when he carries out various crops(Pérez Porto & Merino, 2009).
There are two main types of erosion according to their effects. Progressive erosion or
geological erosion develops naturally over the years due to the action of some of the factors
already mentioned (wind, rain, snow, heat, etc.). Accelerated erosion, on the other hand,
develops faster and its effects are noticeable in a short time. This type of erosion is usually
caused by human actions(Pérez Porto & Merino, 2009).
Regarding the causative agent, one can speak of water erosion, due to the displacement of
water, it includes marine erosion and river erosion; glacial erosion, common in the
mountains; Eolic erosion; karst erosion; biotic erosion or volcanic erosion. It is also important
to establish that when we use the term erosion we can refer in the same way to the superficial
type of injury that a person suffers in his epidermis as a consequence of an agent of different
types(Pérez Porto & Merino, 2009).
2.1.1.1. Factors That Cause Erosion (anthropic and natural)

According to the University of Murcia (nd), the factors that cause soil erosion can be of 2
types.
ANTHROPIC
 Deforestation
 Overgrazing
 Inappropriate agricultural practices
 Inadequate extension of irrigation
 Overexploitation of aquifers
 Open pit mining and quarries
 Marginal land clearing

20
  Farmland abandonment
NATURAL
 Climatic
 Edaphic characteristics and lithological substrate
 Topography
 Vegetable cover

2.1.2. Difference between Threat and risk.

Risk is the latent probability of an event occurring that produces certain effects, the
combination of the probability of the occurrence of an event and the magnitude of the impact
that it may cause, as well as the uncertainty regarding the occurrence of events and situations
that affect the benefits of an activity. Risk-generating factors are those situations that
contribute to creating, maintaining and increasing the environment of violence, and risk-
generating agents are those individuals, groups or organizations that materialize violence
with their actions(Ballesteros Sanabria, nd).

The threat is the potential occurrence of an event that can manifest itself in a specific place,
with a determined duration and intensity (Ballesteros Sanabria, nd).

When the risk agent selects a victim against whom he intends to commit a criminal act, he
automatically becomes a threat to her. It can be considered to be the materialization of
risk(Ballesteros Sanabria, nd).

2.1.3. Erosion Risk Determination Criteria

The criteria to be selected are those that have a direct influence on the contribution to soil
erosion in the reviewed investigations, these criteria are classified according to the order of
preference and the estimated significant influence on soil erosion.(Saini, Jangra, & Kaushik,
2015).

2.1.3.1. Precipitation

Since soil erosion generally occurs when the soil is displaced by rain, it is considered to be
the main driver of soil erosion. The high amount of rainfall is indicative of a significant loss
of soil, therefore, where precipitation is more than the annual average, the probability of
erosion will be higher.(Saini et al., 2015).
According to experts, rainfall is one of the most important factors that explain soil erosion.
Consequently, it is an important condition to forecast the erosion susceptibility of the study
area. The erosivity factor is based on the sum of the products of kinetic energy (ec, i) of the
maximum intensity of rainfall during a period of 30 minutes (r30, i) (Renard et al, 1997).

21
One of the forms of erosion produced by precipitation is splash erosion, this type of erosion
is defined in the publication of EcuRed Contributors, (2018) which indicates that it is caused
by the fall of raindrops on the ground; its impact is a function of the shape and size of the
drops and the resistance of the soil to its erosive power. The kinetic energy of the drops
depends on the properties mentioned for them; the effect of splashing is especially dramatic
in tropical climatic conditions where heavy rainfall and unfavorable soil protection are
combined.
Precipitation is considered the main source of water on the ground, its quantity, intensity and
frequency depends on the volume of flow that slides in soil layers. Regarding the first,
Morgan (1986) states that on a global scale erosion reaches its maximum values with rainfall
of 300 mm year-1; When total precipitation is less than this value, erosion increases as
precipitation increases, however, once this value is exceeded, the protection effect offered by
the vegetation cover that benefits from higher incident precipitation, translates to in lower
soil losses. Of the characteristics of rain, it seems that the one that has the least weight in
explaining soil losses is the amount,

2.1.3.2. Normalized Vegetation Index (NDVI)

In general, healthy vegetation will absorb most of the visible light that falls on it and will
reflect a large part of the near-infrared light. Unhealthy or sparse vegetation reflects more
visible light and less near infrared light. Bare soils, on the other hand, are moderately
reflected in both the red and infrared portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, therefore the
greater the difference between the near infrared and the red reflectance, the more vegetation
there must be, the values of NDVI is represented as a relationship that varies between -1 and
1, but in practice extreme negative values represent water, values around zero represent bare
soil and values above 6 represent dense green vegetation (Holme et al 1987) .
Soil loss is very sensitive to vegetation cover with slope and length factor (Renard and
Ferreira 1993; Benkobi et al., 1994; Biesemans et al., 2000). Vegetable cover protects the
soil by dissipating the energy of the raindrop before reaching the soil surface. The value of
C depends on the type of vegetation, the growth stage and the percentage of cover (Gitas et
al., 2009). The values of factor C vary between 0 and 1 according to the types of land cover.
Since the NDVI values have a correlation with factor C (De Jong, 1994; Tweddales et al.,
2000; De Jong et al., 1999; De Jong and Riezebos, 1997).

2.1.3.3. Soil Type

The soil type is classified according to the infiltration / retention characteristics of the soil
type(Saini et al., 2015). Soil composition, moisture and compaction are important factors in
determining rain erosion. Sediments that contain more clay tend to be more resistant to

22
erosion than those with sand or silt, because clay helps to bind soil particles together. Soil
that contains high levels of organic materials is often more resistant to erosion, because
organic materials coagulate soil colloids and create a stronger and more stable soil structure.
The amount of water present in the soil before precipitation also plays an important role,
since it establishes limits on the amount of water that can be absorbed by the soil, this
prevents it from flowing on the surface as erosive runoff. Wet and saturated soils will not be
able to absorb as much rainwater, which will generate higher levels of surface runoff and,
therefore, greater erosivity for a given volume of rainfall. Soil compaction also affects the
permeability of the soil to water and, consequently, the amount of water that flows as runoff.
The more compacted soils will have a greater amount of surface runoff than the less
compacted soils (Blanco & Rattan, 2010).
The texture of the soils influences the size of the pores that it has and these in turn determine
the permeability. In the clay texture the particles are so small that they do not leave gaps,
causing compaction of the ground and asphyxia of the roots, in addition to favoring
waterlogging, in the sandy texture the particles leave many gaps between them being a soil
so permeable that the water falls in depth where roots have no access(University of Murcia,
nd). The size of the soil pores is of great importance with respect to the filtration rate 2 and to
the percolation rate3. The size and number of pores are closely related to the texture and
structure of the soil and also influence its permeability(FAO, 2018).
In conclusion, the sub-criteria chosen according to research carried out at an international
level are:
 Eurtrochrepts / Udorthents. Shallow and loamy sands for fine sandy silts: This type of
soil is characterized by being an incoherent clastic sediment transported by rivers or by
the wind, this is deposited on the riverbed or on lands that have been flooded, these Soils
having no affinity are problematic lands to build on them, for architectural or engineering
works, it is necessary to adopt special systems for the construction of the
foundations(FAO, 2018).
 Udipsamments / Udorthents. Loamy to sandy loamy sand: It is often called loamy soil
to the surface sections of the terrain, these are determined as soils of high agricultural
productivity, thanks to its relatively loose texture, caused by sand, fertility provided by
silt and adequate moisture retention favored by clay(FAO, 2018).
 Udipsamments / Udorthents. Sandy loam to clayey loam: They are considered as rock
composed of 35 to 65% calcium carbonate and the rest of clay minerals, sometimes with
some gypsum and even salt. Its appearance and properties are similar to clay: unctuous
to the touch, it disintegrates when immersed in water, acquires great plasticity and
adherence, etc. Its color is very variable, such as white, grayish or yellowish tones, with
the exception of the Triassic marls, which have reddish and blue-green colors. Some
marls show very dark or almost black colorations due to the presence of organic matter
(bituminous marls). The proportions of clay and calcite that they can have are diverse,

2
Movement of water into the ground.
3
Movement of water through the ground.

23
 so they can become clays, or calcareous or loamy clays, if their calcium carbonate
content is less than one third of their mass, or they become loamy limestone if that
proportion is raised to more than three-quarters. Waterproof, like clay, marl is not very
resistant to erosion(del Ramo & Guillén, nd).

2.1.3.4. Pending

The slope plays an important role in erosion control. In general, where the slope is steeper,
the probability of soil erosion will be high(Saini et al., 2015).
Consequently, the slope of the land determines the rate at which surface runoff will flow,
which in turn determines runoff erosion. Longer and steeper slopes (especially those without
adequate vegetative cover) are more susceptible to high rates of erosion during heavy rains
than shorter, less steep slopes. Steeper terrain is also prone to mudslides, landslides, and other
forms of gravitational erosion processes (Blanco & Rattan, 2010).
Under normal conditions, it would be expected that erosion will increase with the degree and
length of the slope, as a result of the respective increases in velocity and volume of surface
runoff. In addition, while on a flat surface the patter of raindrops throws the soil particles
randomly in all directions. In steep slope conditions, more soil is splashed downward than
upward, the proportion increasing as the grade increases (Morgan, 1986). In theory, the law
of falling bodies, the speed of water varies with the square root of the vertical distance that it
travels; and its erosive capacity with the square of the velocity; that is, if the slope of the land
is increased four times, the speed of the water flowing over it doubles,(Juan Diego, 1995).
The degree of the slope regulates the speed of water circulation over the surface almost
exclusively, in the humid tropics the effect of the slope in combination with the copious
tropical storms is decisive in the generation of soil losses (Zingg, 1940). Thus, even for low
slope values, soil losses are significant, as illustrated by reports of soil erosion (Hudson and
Jackson, 1959, cited by Morgan, 1986). For example, in experimental plots cultivated with
maize in Rhodesia, Africa, losses of 10.05, 5.55 and 4.65 ton ha-1 were recorded at low slope
values of 6.11, 4.37 and 2.62% respectively.
Although it is true that slope and length largely control the speed of the runoff flow and thus
soil losses, it is important to indicate the role of grain size. According to (Morgan, 1986), the
critical velocity (that necessary for transport to occur) increases at particle diameters greater
than 0.5 mm, whereas, for particles with a diameter less than that value, the critical velocity
increases as grain size decreases. The finer particles are more difficult to erode due to the
cohesion of the mineral clays that retain them; once an individual grain is in motion, it is not
deposited until the velocity drops below the threshold velocity, thus less force is required to
keep a grain moving than to enter it. A 0.1 mm soil particle requires a flow of 60 cm / sec to
"lift off", but is only deposited once the flow velocity drops below 0.1 cm / sec. Another
aspect highlighted by Morgan, (1986) is that for mixed grain sizes, the finest particles are
protected by the coarser ones, so that those are only removed once the flow velocities have
24
been those necessary for the removal of the largest grains; however, counteracting this effect,
the tapping action could separate soil particles and throw them into the flow, being
transported until the flow velocity is less than the required "fall" speed. 1 mm requires a flow
of 60 cm / sec to "lift off", but is only deposited once the flow velocity drops below 0.1 cm /
sec. Another aspect highlighted by Morgan, (1986) is that for mixed grain sizes, the finest
particles are protected by the coarser ones, so that those are only removed once the flow
velocities have been those necessary for the removal of the largest grains; however,
counteracting this effect, the tapping action could separate soil particles and throw them into
the flow, being transported until the flow velocity is less than the required "fall" speed. 1 mm
requires a flow of 60 cm / sec to "lift off", but is only deposited once the flow velocity drops
below 0.1 cm / sec. Another aspect highlighted by Morgan, (1986) is that for mixed grain
sizes, the finest particles are protected by the coarser ones, so that those are only removed
once the flow velocities have been those necessary for the removal of the largest grains;
however, counteracting this effect, the tapping action could separate soil particles and throw
them into the flow, being transported until the flow velocity is less than the required "fall"
speed. The finest particles are protected by the coarser ones, so that they are only removed
once the flow velocities have been necessary to remove the larger grains; however,
counteracting this effect, the tapping action could separate soil particles and throw them into
the flow, being transported until the flow velocity is less than the required "fall" speed. the
finest particles are protected by the coarser ones, so that they are only removed once the flow
velocities have been necessary to remove the larger grains; however, counteracting this
effect, the tapping action could separate soil particles and throw them into the flow, being
transported until the flow velocity is less than the required "fall" speed.
2.1.3.5. Drainage Density

It can be summarized that the length of rivers and canals in an area can be considered as an
index to describe the erodibility of the soil. Although its precise relationship has not been
established, there is agreement that drainage in an area can be considered as an index of soil
erodibility (Zakrzewska, 1967). The critical value of drainage density per km2 that can cause
soil erosion by water is 0.90 km per km2 of area (Leopold et al 1969). Therefore, drainage
density above this critical value will automatically generate greater soil erosion.(Saini et al.,
2015).
2.1.3.5.1. Stream-order

Stream ranking is a method that assigns a numerical order to links in a stream network. This
order used to identify and classify the types of streams based on the amount of tributaries,
has the objective of inferring some important characteristics of these streams. For example,
first-order streams are dominated by overland water flow; they do not have a concentrated
upstream flow.

For this reason, they are more susceptible to non-point source pollution problems and may
derive more benefits from broad riparian buffers than from other areas of the watershed. The

25
Stream Classification tool has two methods for assigning orders. These are the methods
proposed by Strahler (1957) and Shreve (1966).

Strahler method

In Strahler's method, all links without tributaries are assigned an order of 1 and are referred
to as first-order. Stream ranking increases when streams of the same order intersect.
Therefore, the intersection of two first-order links will create a second-order link, the
intersection of two second-order links will create a third-order link, and so on. However, the
intersection of two links of different orders will not increase the order. For example, the
intersection of a first-order and second-order link will not create a third-order link, but will
keep the order of the link in the highest order. The Strahler method is the best known stream
classification method. However, because this method only increases the order at intersections
of the same order,

Image 1. Strahler Stream Classification Method

Source: Strahler (1957).

Image 2. Shreve Stream Classification Method

Source: Shreve (1966).

In both methods, a value of 1 is always assigned to upstream stream segments, or outer links.

26
2.1.3.6. Land Cover and Use

Different types of land use in terms of area size and pattern influence the risk of soil erosion.
The area with the lowest land cover obviously has a higher risk of soil erosion than the highest
land cover. Consequently, according to the type of land use and its vulnerability to ranges of
soil erosion(Saini et al., 2015).
Unsustainable agricultural practices are the biggest contributor to the global increase in
erosion rates. Tillage of agricultural land, which divides the soil into finer particles, is one of
the main factors. The problem has been exacerbated in modern times, due to mechanized
agricultural equipment that allows deep plowing, severely increasing the amount of soil
available for transportation due to water erosion. Others include monoculture, farming on
steep slopes, the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers (which kill soil binding organisms),
row crops, and the use of surface irrigation. A complex global situation regarding the
definition of nutrient losses from soils could arise as a result of the selective nature of the
size of soil erosion events. The loss of total phosphorus, for example, in the finest eroded
fraction is greater relative to the whole soil. Extrapolating this evidence to predict subsequent
behavior within recipient aquatic systems, the reason is that this more easily transported
material can support a lower Phosphorus concentration compared to the coarser size
fractions. Tillage also increases the rates of wind erosion, dehydrating the soil and breaking
it down into smaller particles that can be picked up by the wind. This is compounded by the
fact that most trees are generally removed from agricultural fields, allowing the winds to have
long, open runs to travel at higher speeds. Intense grazing reduces the vegetation cover and
causes strong soil compaction, which increases erosion rates (Blanco & Rattan, 2010).

2.1.4. Soil Organic Carbon (COS)

Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), is a small part of the global carbon cycle, which involves the cycle
of carbon through the soil, vegetation, the ocean and the atmosphere. It is estimated that the
SOC reserve stores 1,500 PgC in the first meter of soil, which is more carbon than the content
in the atmosphere (approximately 800 PgC) and terrestrial vegetation (500 PgC) combined
(FAO and GTIS, 2015) . This extraordinary SOC reservoir is not static, but is constantly
circulating between the different global carbon pools in diverse molecular forms (Kane,
2015).

Being CO2 (carbon dioxide) and CH4 (methane) the main carbon-based atmospheric gases,
autotrophic organisms (mainly plants), and photo- and chemoautotrophic microbes
synthesize atmospheric CO2 into organic material. Dead organic material (mainly in the form
of plant residues and exudates) is incorporated into the soil by its fauna, which leads to the
entry of carbon into the soil through the transformation of organic material by heterotrophic
microorganisms. This process of transformation of organic materials results in a complex
biogeochemical mixture of plant residues and microbial decomposition products in various

27
stages of decomposition (Von Lützow et al., 2006, Paul, 2014) that can associate with soil
minerals and become occluded within of aggregates, allowing the persistence of SOC in the
soil for decades, centuries or even millennia (Schmidt et al., 2011). CO2 is emitted back into
the atmosphere when Soil Organic Matter (SOM) is decomposed (or mineralized) by
microorganisms. Carbon loss can also be caused by root exudates such as oxalic acid, which
release organic compounds from protective mineral associations (Keiluweit et al., 2015).
Finally, carbon is also partially exported from soils to rivers and oceans as Dissolved Organic
Carbon (DOC) or as part of the erosion material. Carbon loss can also be caused by root
exudates such as oxalic acid, which release organic compounds from protective mineral
associations (Keiluweit et al., 2015). Finally, carbon is also partially exported from soils to
rivers and oceans as Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) or as part of the erosion material.
Carbon loss can also be caused by root exudates such as oxalic acid, which release organic
compounds from protective mineral associations (Keiluweit et al., 2015). Finally, carbon is
also partially exported from soils to rivers and oceans as Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
or as part of the erosion material.

In principle, the amount of SOC stored in a given soil depends on the balance between the
amount of C entering the soil and that leaving the soil as C-based breathing gases from
microbial mineralization and, to a lesser extent, from soil leaching as COD. Locally, C can
also be lost or gained through soil erosion or deposition, leading to redistribution of C from
soil to local, landscape and regional scales. Therefore, SOC storage levels are mainly
controlled by managing the amount and type of organic waste entering the soil (i.e. the
contribution of organic C to the soil system) and minimizing the losses of C from the soil (
FAO and GTIS, 2015).

Soil can be a double-edged sword when it comes to carbon fluxes. Anthropogenic impacts
on the soil can make it a sink or net source of Greenhouse Gases (GHG). As a source, the
soil emits GHGs into the atmosphere where they trap thermal radiation that increases the
greenhouse effect, thus contributing to global warming. The carbon-based greenhouse gases
emitted by the soil are CO2 and methane (CH4), which are two of the main anthropogenic
GHGs emitted (IPCC, 2014). Another form of GHG is nitrous oxide (N2O), the emission of
which has become increasingly anthropogenic, largely from agricultural soils and livestock
facilities. The inclusion of the three gases in soil CO2 balances is important due to the
interconnection of the processes involved in their emissions and the ecosystem cycle
(nitrogen-carbon, aerobic-anaerobic processes). The potential climatic influence of these
gases differs depending on their relative climatic efficiency, that is, their Global Warming
Potential (GWP). CO2 is considered to have a GWP of 1, followed by CH4 with a 100-year
GWP of 28 and N2O with the highest GWP of 265 to 100 years (IPCC, 2014).

This analysis will provide the research with the biophysical properties of the soil in the
department of La Paz, this layer has the function of acting as an indicator based on the
ecosystem functions in which the soil collaborates, in this case the retention of CO2.

28
2.1.5. Protected areas

Protected areas, within this framework, are special sectors that are established with the aim
of caring for their biodiversity and natural conditions. These areas are subject to a particular
legal regime to ensure their adequate conservation. By establishing a protected area, the
authorities try to minimize the impact of human action on the environment. It is possible that
in a protected area it is not allowed to build, drive a car or light a campfire, to name a few
actions that threaten nature(Pérez Porto & Gardey, 2015).

There are different classes of protected areas according to the legislation of each country. A
protected landscape, for example, is a natural territory that is preserved for its cultural and
aesthetic qualities. In this particular case, the human being may have even significantly
intervened in the environment; However, the resulting combination of its actions and the
response of nature has given a well-defined area, with an unequaled beauty and an
incalculable value from a cultural or ecological point of view.(Pérez Porto & Gardey, 2015).

It is worth mentioning that the protected landscape can be marine or terrestrial. Among the
significant examples are the Protected Landscape of Las Lagunetas, located on the island of
Tenerife (Spain) and the Santa Teresa National Park. The latter is called a "national park"
although it is not the category to which it belongs, which is defined below; the inconsistency
is due to the fact that it was baptized years before the classification system we use today was
implemented(Pérez Porto & Gardey, 2015).

When you want to contribute to the conservation of the fauna, flora or geology of a place,
you can create a protected area known as an ecological reserve or natural reserve, such as the
Ecological Reserve of Buenos Aires (Argentina), the Natural Reserve of the Sierra de la
Malcata (Portugal), etc.

The national park is another type of protected area that has an extraordinary legal status.
These are spaces in which there are one or more ecosystems that are not significantly
threatened by human action, since they are not exploited or occupied to the point of being
able to significantly alter them. Some of the most important examples within this category
are the Cabo Polonio National Park in Uruguay, the Table Mountain National Park in South
Africa, and the Lake Tai National Park in China.(Pérez Porto & Gardey, 2015).

In the national parks there are animal and plant species, habitats and geomorphological sites
of great interest to science, the field of education or even the recreation industry. Needless to
say, the beauty of these landscapes is almost unrivaled, and that is why they are often used
by filmmakers to impress audiences with scenarios that often seem like fantasy to those who
have never left the city.

Another space considered within the group of protected areas is the natural monument, where
it is common to find one or more well-defined natural elements that represent an incalculable
value at the national level, such as threatened habitats of both plant and animal species, a site
seen only there or very particular geological formations. In the same way as in most of the
previous cases, human intervention in a natural monument is not always allowed, or it must

29
be subjected to a very strict level of control and cannot be on a large scale(Pérez Porto &
Gardey, 2015).

2.1.6. RAMSAR sites

Ramsar sites are designated because they meet the Criteria for the identification of Wetlands
of International Importance. The first criterion refers to sites that contain representative, rare
or unique wetland types, and the other eight cover sites of international importance for the
conservation of biological diversity. These criteria emphasize the importance that the
Convention attaches to the maintenance of biodiversity.(The RAMSAR Convetion
Secretariat, 2014).
Contracting Parties confirmed in 2005 that their vision for the Ramsar List is to “create and
maintain an international network of wetlands that are important for the conservation of
global biological diversity and for the sustenance of human life through the maintenance of
the components , processes and benefits / services of their ecosystems " (The RAMSAR
Convetion Secretariat, 2014).
Today, the Ramsar List is the most extensive network of protected areas in the world. There
are more than 2,200 Ramsar Sites covering more than 2.1 million square kilometers in the
territories of the 169 Ramsar Contracting Parties worldwide.(The RAMSAR Convetion
Secretariat, 2014).
In the 1960s, some countries and non-governmental organizations, concerned about the
increasing deterioration and loss of various wetlands in Europe, began to promote the idea of
creating an international treaty on wetlands to protect these bodies of water that are vital for
the survival of the human and other species. Thus, in 1971 the Ramsar Convention was
organized (so called because it was signed in the Iranian city of the same name), an
intergovernmental treaty that serves as a framework for national actions and international
cooperation to conserve and make wise use of wetlands. and its resources. In this convention,
the frameworks in which diverse environments could be part of these Ramsar sites of
international importance were defined and these wetlands were defined as “extensions of
marshes,(Bevilacqua, 2017).
2.1.6.1. Importance of RAMSAR Sites

Among the multiple benefits that wetlands bring to humans, is the supply of water; the
extraction of fisheries and resources of wild flora and fauna; sediment and pollutant retention;
retention and removal of nutrients; improvement of water quality and hydraulic damping of
winter floods, tidal waves, among others. This is in addition to the fact that they are areas of
great importance for the conservation of global biological diversity, often serving as
migratory routes for aquatic birds.(Bevilacqua, 2017).

30
The problem is that these environments are highly threatened ecosystems worldwide, mainly
due to human actions related to the extraction of water, urban growth, the filling of these
spaces to transform them into residential land or in many cases their use as garbage sinks.
And, as there is a great lack of information and awareness about the importance of these
environments, protecting them becomes even more difficult.(Bevilacqua, 2017).
Until July 2015, there were a total of 298 Ramsar sites in Latin Americawhich are equivalent
to an area of 48,166,751 hectares and which together account for 23% of all Ramsar sites
globally. Among the Latin American countries that are part of the Convention, Bolivia is the
one with the largest area with this classification (11 Ramsar sites totaling 8,833,752
hectares)(Bevilacqua, 2017).

2.1.7. Legal framework

For the study, several regulations, norms and laws were consulted, referring to the subject of
soils, but finally it was concluded that the country does not have a normalization of erosion
itself, since this can be given by factors natural or anthropogenic, for that reason it was
determined to take into account the following regulations and supreme laws and decrees.

2.1.7.1. Law 1333, environmental law of 1992.

TITLE IV
OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN GENERAL

CHAPTER IV
SOIL RESOURCE

ARTICLE 43. - The use of soils for forestry agricultural activities must be carried out while
maintaining their productive capacity, applying management techniques that avoid their loss
or degradation, thus ensuring their conservation and recovery. People and public or private
companies that carry out land use activities that alter their productive capacity are obliged to
comply with the norms and practices of conservation and recovery.

CHAPTER VI
OF FLORA AND WILDLIFE

ARTICLE 52. - The State and society must ensure the protection, conservation and
restoration of wild fauna and flora, both aquatic and terrestrial, considered patrimony of the
State, in particular of endemic species, of restricted distribution, threatened and endangered
of extinction.

ARTICLE 53. - Universities, scientific entities and competent public and private
organizations must promote and carry out research and evaluation programs of wild fauna

31
and flora, in order to know their scientific, ecological, economic and strategic value for the
nation.

2.1.7.2. Law No. 2357, May 7, 2002.

Sole Article. - In accordance with the attribution conferred by Article 59, numeral 12, of the
Political Constitution of the State, the Convention Relating to Wetlands of International
Importance Especially as Habitat of Waterfowl, Ramsar 1971, signed by Bolivia, is
approved. On June 27, 1990.

2.1.7.3. Law 3525, REGULATION OF THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF CONTROL

OF ECOLOGICAL PRODUCTION IN BOLIVIA.

CHAPTER II.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

Article 5. Environmental Conditions.

All pertinent measures are required to be taken to minimize internal or external contamination
in organic production units.
a) The ecological production system must be developed in harmony with the environment,
conserving the greatest diversity of both flora and fauna, through the sustainable management
of natural resources and conservation of soil, water, air and vegetation, in accordance with
regulations of Protection of the Environment, especially protected species of flora and fauna
must be respected.
b) All possible measures must be in place and / or implemented to avoid accidental
contamination from outside the farm (irrigation water, wind-blown). In the case of a
neighboring crop in which agrochemicals are used, it must have live hedges in between,
drainage ditches or other measures, and a distance that guarantees the impossibility of direct
or indirect contamination.
c) The expansion of the agricultural frontier and the preparation of the land based on burning
or heavy machinery, must be limited to what is absolutely essential. In no way is the loss of
soil fertility allowed in exchange for intensive production. In the Amazon and Chaco regions,
curtains of forest should be left interspersed with cultivated land and maintain extensive areas
of exploitation and / or forest reserves.
d) It is a basic requirement to employ ecosystem diversification techniques or practices, to
maintain a minimum of 10% of native or cultivated plant coverage (ecological balance area
with trees, shrubs or other vegetation that guarantees diversity and natural ecological
functions) within the production unit. This can be distributed in anti-erosive strips,
windbreaks or sustainable forest use systems.
e) It is a basic requirement to use soil conservation techniques or practices, adapted to the
conditions of the site and the ecosystem.
f) Pollutant residue is not allowed in the organic production unit, with the exception of those
that come from external contamination of the environment and that do not compromise the
quality and safety of the product. In case of external contamination, the control body is

32
responsible for its qualification and demonstration of corrective actions taken by the
producer.
g) Irrigation with sewage or obviously contaminated sources is prohibited.
h) The storage of inputs prohibited by this Standard is not allowed in organic production
units. The operator must ensure that the permitted and / or restricted inputs are properly
isolated and protected.
i) Non-biodegradable materials used for ground cover purposes, insect netting or silage
wrapping, etc. They must be removed after use and it is forbidden to burn them inside organic
production units. The use of polycarbonate materials should be restricted to a minimum. The
use of heavy metals such as Potassium, Magnesium, Chromium, Cadmium, Copper,
Mercury, Nickel, Zinc; they are restricted to 1 gr./ha/year.
j) The ecological units of processing or elaboration must avoid internal contamination,
through an adequate handling of solid and / or liquid waste. Faced with possible risks of
external contamination to the Plant or Factory, systems of fences or protection walls must be
implemented.
k) In operations that are within protected areas or their buffer areas, the specific regulations
of the area must be strictly respected.

2.1.7.4. General Regulation of Protected Areas, Supreme Decree No. 24781, July 31,
1997.

Title I
Of the general provisions

Chapter I
Of the object, acronyms and definitions

Article 1 .- The purpose of this Regulation is to regulate the management of protected areas
and establish its institutional framework, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 1333
on the Environment of April 27, 1992 and the ratified Convention on Biological Diversity by
Law No. 1580 of June 15, 1994.

2.1.7.5. Supreme Decree No. 2366.

ARTICLE 1. - (OBJECT). The purpose of this Supreme Decree is to establish measures for
the use of hydrocarbon resources throughout the national territory, within the framework of
its constitutional, strategic nature and of public interest for the development of the country;
linked to the reduction of extreme poverty in communities that inhabit protected areas and
the integral management of life systems.

ARTICLE 2. - (AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES).

I. The development of hydrocarbon exploration activities in the different zones and

categories of protected areas is allowed, in compliance with the environmental
conditions established by the National Service of Protected Areas - SERNAP and the
National Competent Environmental Authority - AACN, within the framework of this

33
 Decree Supreme, having to provide adequate environmental measures, with greater
attention in areas of high ecological sensitivity, to safeguard the conservation of the
life systems of mother earth.
II. The development of exploratory wells will be subject to an independent procedure of
Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Quality Control, considering
the results of the evaluative, recognition and / or exploratory studies for the
identification, location and / or qualification of hydrocarbon resources. .
III. In the event that the exploration results conclude with a commercial discovery for the
exploitation phase, the Owner may request SERNAP to evaluate and review the
planning instruments or spatial ordering of the Protected Area, for its adaptation and
/ or updating when appropriate, limited only to the intervention area, within the
framework of Supreme Decree No. 24781, of July 31, 1997, having to comply with
the Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Quality Control and
environmental measures established by SERNAP and AACN, considering the
objectives of creating the Protected Area.
IV. It is not allowed to carry out hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation activities in
the categories of Sanctuary and Natural Monument provided for in the General
Regulation of Protected Areas, approved by Supreme Decree No. 24781, as well as
in RAMSAR Sites.

2.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE METHODOLOGY

2.2.1. Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

GIS is a software that allows users to create interactive queries, integrate, analyze and
represent in an efficient way any type of referenced geographic information associated with
a territory, connecting maps with databases. The use of this type of system facilitates the
visualization of the data obtained on a map, in order to reflect and relate geographical
phenomena of any type, from road maps to identification systems for agricultural parcels or
population density. In addition, they allow to carry out queries and represent the results in
web environments and mobile devices in an agile and intuitive way, solving planning
problems and geographic management(Mexican Geological Survey, 2017)
One of the most important applications of GIS according to (Malczewski, 2000), is the
visualization in 2 and 3 dimensions and the spatial analysis of geographic data to support the
environmental decision-making process. For greater confidence and precision, Linear
Combination Weighted (LCW) is adopted to derive the soil erosion hazard map. The LCW
technique is a decision rule that is considered to derive composite maps using GIS. It is one
of the most used decision models in GIS.

2.2.2. Multi-criteria method

Multicriterial methods are a tool that allow incorporating the conflicts that exist between
economic, environmental and social objectives, and between different decision levels (Corral
& Quintero, 2007). Thus, when establishing an ideal solution, reference points can be detailed
against which the impact of various potential alternatives can be measured (IAF, 2000 cited
34
by Uribe, 2001). In other words, it allows the implementation of solutions and commitments,
with a sense of equity.

The methodology decomposes a complex problem into simple parts allowing the 'decision
maker' agent to visually structure a problem with multiple criteria, by constructing a
hierarchical model that basically contains three levels: goal or objective, criteria and
alternatives, playing a vital role as a planning tool (Nijkamp et al., 1990 cited by Uribe, 2001;
Munda, 2004; Chen et al., 2012). The multicriterial evaluation (Munda, 1993), considers
qualitative and quantitative factors; and considers the perceptions of the actors involved in
the decision problem, which must be participatory to make decisions and draw alternatives
for conflict resolution (Romero, 1997 cited by Uribe, 2001; Chen et al., 2012).

In Multicriterial Analysis (AMC), the objective is to identify what needs to be studied,

debated and negotiated, the tool can help optimize strategic locations. There are a number of
statistical and other techniques that can be applied to aid in this 'study process' which are
presented below(Flood Hazard Research Center, 2014, pg 8-9):

 Definition and structuring of the problem: it is defined by the evaluation scenario, the
availability of information and the possible conflicts between various interests
(Contreras et al. 2008).
 Description of potential alternatives: it considers the possible situations or evaluation
scenarios, that is, they are the elements on which it is decided (Contreras et al. 2008).
 Choice of sets of evaluation criteria: there should be abundant sets of evaluation criteria,
so that the problem is better interpreted. A set of criteria must meet 2 qualities: be
readable (sufficient number of criteria to support an aggregation procedure) and be
operational (encompass the multiple interests of all key stakeholders) (Contreras et al.
2008).
 Identification of a preference system for decision-making and choice of an aggregation
procedure: weight assignment, highlighting the relative importance of the different
evaluation criteria (Contreras et al. 2008).

The basic approach of the AMC is to develop some criteria that serve as a basis for selecting
among the various options and subsequently scoring each of the options for each of the
criteria (Edwards & Newman, 2011).

A decision can be defined as a choice between alternatives, which can be different actions,
locations, objects, and the like. Since 80 percent of the data used by decision makers is based
on location, GIS can provide better information on decision-making situations. GIS enables
the decision maker to identify a list that meets a predefined set of criteria with the overlay
process (Heywood et al. 1995).
2.2.2.1. Hierarchical Analysis Process Method

The Hierarchical Analysis Process (AHP) is a method based on the evaluation of different
criteria that allow to prioritize a process and its final objective, which is to optimize
35
management decision-making. This methodology is used to solve problems in which there is
a need to prioritize different options and later decide which is the most convenient option.
The decisions to be made with the use of this technique can vary from simple personal and
qualitative decisions to complex and totally quantitative decision scenarios (Saaty, 1980).

The AHP methodology is a powerful and flexible multi-criteria decision-making tool, used
in problems in which both qualitative and quantitative aspects need to be evaluated. The AHP
technique helps analysts to organize the critical aspects of a problem in a hierarchical
structure similar to the structure of a family tree, reducing complex decisions to a series of
comparisons that allow the ranking of the different aspects (criteria) evaluated (Saaty,
1980,1990).

In his mathematical appendix, Saaty (1998), the AHP is presented in four axioms:

Axiom 1: referring to the condition of reciprocal judgments:

The intensity of preference of the differences between the Ai / Aj matrices is inverse to the
preference of the Aj / Ai matrices.

Axiom 2: referring to the condition of homogeneity of the elements:

The items being compared are of the same order of magnitude.

Axiom 3: referring to the condition of hierarchical structure or reuse-dependent structure.

Dependency on the elements of two consecutive levels in the hierarchy and within the same
level.

Axiom 4: referring to rank order expectations condition:

Expectations must be represented in the structure in terms of criteria and alternatives
(TAOUFIKALLAH, 1990).

The AHP process can be subdivided into three steps: (1) standardization, (2) weight
assignment, and (3) weighted linear combination. According to Uzoka (2008), of all the
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods (MCDA) the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)
is the best, for the following reasons:

 It is structured, and therefore can be documented and replicated.

 It is applicable to situations in which decisions involve judgments.
 Provides measures of consistency of comparisons.
 It is suitable for group decision making.

Additionally, the AHP complies with the properties required of the MCDAs such as
interaction, weighting, dominance and scaling (Wang & Elhag, 2006). Uzoka (2008) argues
that Salomon and Montevechi have already demonstrated the superiority of the AHP method
over other MCDA methods.
Saaty (1980) proposed a peer rating method; that is, to face all the criteria two by two, so that
all the values of a square matrix of nxn are obtained, in which n is the number of criteria.

36
In order for this pairwise rating to be valid, the homogeneity condition must be met, so all
elements must have the same order of magnitude. For the issuance of judgments that
determine the user's preference weight in an opposing pair, Saaty (1980) established the
discrete scale (Table 1). The even values of the scale (2, 4, 6 and 8) are intermediate between
the odd values. This scale has been analyzed in many works: Feinstein and Lumley (2001);
Laininen (2001); Leskinen and Kangas (1998); Raharjo et al. (2001); Wedley and Choo
(2001) and Choo and Wedley (2008).
Table 1. Pair Comparison Scale proposed by Saaty (1980)
Value Importance or preference
1 Same
3 Moderate
5 Strong
7 Very Strong (demonstrated importance over the
other)
9 Extremely strong (absolute importance)

There are other types such as binomial (yes or no) or others with parameters that facilitate
preference in a pair; however, they limit the information on the degree of that choice. The
scale parameters are related to the precision that you want to give to the process, but also to
its complication. In this case, the one proposed by Saaty (1980) is the most used, despite the
criticisms of some authors such as Carmone et al. (1997). The result of all possible
combinations of comparison between the criteria is the comparison matrix A:

1 𝑎 ⋯ 𝑎
⋯ 𝑎
𝐴 = [𝑎 1 ]
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
𝑎 𝑎 … 1

From the Saaty scale (1980), an axiom of this method is that of "reciprocal judgments",
defined as aij = 1 / aji in the comparison matrix, where aij is the value of the comparison of
criterion i with respect to j, and aji corresponding to the comparison of criterion j in relation
to i.
Once the comparison matrix is completed, it is normalized by columns and averaged by rows
to reach W, also called the principal auto vector (Saaty, 2003), which assumes the weight
obtained from each criterion in terms of 1. This normalization means a problem at the time
of reversibility, because normalizing the matrix prevents it (Ying-Ming and Taha, 2006).
However, by using a simple scheme of criteria in the decision, reversibility loses weight,
since the repetition time is much shorter; consequently, more value will be given to the
number of repetitions acquired of the same decision than studying one of them, since, in this
way, the factor of temporal variability is considered in the manager's opinion.
37
Next, degrees of consistency (CR or Consistency Ratio) are established, that is, values that
indicate whether the comparison matrix shows logical scores or not. Said consistency is
calculated by taking into account the assessment of the homogeneity of the normalized
matrices with the comparison matrices, through the procedure (Saaty, 1990):

𝐴×𝑊 =𝑛×𝑊
Where:
n= Number of items compared
TO= Comparison matrix

On the other hand, you have to:

𝑛 𝑛 𝑛

∑(∑ 𝑎𝑖𝑗 ∙ 𝜛𝑓 ) = 𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∙ ∑ 𝜛𝑓

𝑖=? 𝑖=? 𝑗=?

Where:
aij= Each of the values of the comparison matrix
nmax = It is extracted from matrix multiplication of the comparison matrix A with the auto
vector W, from which a new column matrix A · W is obtained.
In this case, nmax is the result of averaging the elements of the matrix A · W, once they have
been divided by their homonym in the matrix W. When we have n and nnmax, the consistency
index IC is calculated by means of the equation:
𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑛
𝐼𝐶 =
𝑛−1
On the other hand, the coefficient IA is calculated, which is a comparison index that depends
on the number of elements compared n, according to the following equation:
1.98 ∙ (𝑛 − 2)
𝐼𝐴 =
𝑛
Once IC and IA are known, CR or consistency of the matrix is obtained, as follows:
𝐼𝐶
𝐶𝑅 =
𝐼𝐴
If CR> 0.1 then the matrix is classified as inconsistent, while it will be consistent if CR <0.1
(Saaty, 1990; Zeshui and Cuiping, 1999; Raharjo et al., 2001). It should be noted that this
inconsistency is at the matrix level and not at the comparison pair level, hence exposing this
indicator during the comparison process may bias the technician to value a pair, by seeking

38
to minimize the inconsistency(Pérez Rodríguez, Vargas Larreta, Aguirre Calderón, Corral
Rivas, & Rojo Alboreca, 2012).
The AHP method has previously been applied for soil erosion hazard assessment, especially
to define the factors that govern soil erosion and to derive its weight (Alexakis et al. 2013).

2.2.3. Saaty Matrix

Satty's evaluation matrix according to (MÁRQUEZ ROSALES, 2011, p. 23), is carried out
in the following way, the alternatives or points of the territory (Ai) and the criteria or
variables of the middle (Ci) in rows and columns respectively, so that the elements to a within
the matrix indicate the resulting numerical value to evaluate alternative Ai with respect to
criterion Ci. In this matrix, each row expresses the values that a point takes with respect to
all the criteria considered; and each column expresses the values taken by all the points with
respect to a considered criterion. This matrix is denoted by row A or (aij). Such a matrix has
the following form:

𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑠 . 𝐶𝑖 … … 𝐶𝑗 … … 𝐶𝑚
𝐴𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑠 𝐴𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝑎𝑖𝑖 … … … … … 𝑎𝑖𝑚
⋯ ⋯ … … … … … …
⋯ (⋯ … … 𝑎𝑖𝑗 … … … )
𝐴𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑖 … … … … … 𝑎𝑛𝑚

The construction of a matrix of these characteristics, according to(MÁRQUEZ ROSALES,

2011), implies the ability to give a numerical value to each point of the territory in function;
or what is the same: the ability to construct a real mathematical function such that each pair
of elements (Ai, Ci) can be assigned a real number that is represented by the value of the
element aij of the evaluation matrix(MÁRQUEZ ROSALES, 2011, p. 23).

2.2.3.1. Value function

The evaluation consists of estimating the value of each alternative in relation to the criteria,
in order to introduce the values a "u" of each alternative within the matrix, first a real function
must be found, such that it allows to affirm that a point of the territory A1 presents a higher
risk than another point A2 (A1↔A2) if and only if the numerical value assigned to point A
1 is greater than the value assigned to point A2 (MÁRQUEZ ROSALES, 2011, p. 23).
Symbolically

𝑓: 𝐴 → ℜ|𝐴1 ≥ 𝐴2 ⇔ 𝑓(𝐴1 ) ≥ 𝑓(𝐴2 )

There are different procedures to construct a function such as the one described but, leaving
the practical procedures behind, the crucial idea that underlies a value function is to operate
directly with the values assigned to the alternatives, so that the algebraic operations
performed with the numbers have a clear meaning within the evaluation (MÁRQUEZ
ROSALES, 2011, p. 23).

39
2.2.3.2. Measurement Scale

To assign numbers to "u" to the elements of the evaluation matrix, according to (MÁRQUEZ
ROSALES, 2011, p. 24)There is a scale of measurement that has a double purpose: on the
one hand, it allows the comparison between each pair of alternatives or criteria; and on the
other, that it allows assigning numbers to each point of the territory according to the variables
of the environment selected, that our comparisons and operations can be reduced to the usual
ones with numbers.

2.2.3.3. The Assignment of Weights to Variables

The weights are indicators of the importance attributed to each of the criteria or alternatives.
One of the problems with the allocation of weights is its relationship with the scales that
determine the values assigned to each element of the evaluation matrix. Therefore, assigning
the weights taking into account the scales chosen for the evaluations to "u" of the matrix,
although there are different weighting methods, each with its specific problems, there are two
ways to evaluate: the first option is to start from the Evaluations made to the alternatives in
the evaluation matrix to later, by objective methods, deduce the weights of each criterion
and, the second option is to first assign the weights to the criteria and then deduce the values
of the alternatives.

2.2.4. Arithmetic Method or Linear Growth.

If the population increase is constant and independent of its size, the growth is linear. If P is
the population and t is time, then the variation of the population with time can be expressed
as(INAA, 2001):

dP
 ka. dp  kadt
dt
Integrating between the limits of the last census and the initial census, we have

Pf tf

 dP  ka dt
Pb tb
Pf  Pb  ka(tf  tb )

that is, the future population would be:

Pf  Pb  ka(tf  tb)
An average ka value between censuses or a ka value between census periods available can
be taken as follows:

Pf  Pb
ka 
tf  tb

40
Where: ka - Arithmetic population growth constant.
Pf - Projected population or the last census.
Pb - Base or initial population
tf and tb - Dates corresponding to the populations.

This type of population projection consists of finding out the growth that the population has
had and determining a constant figure for a fixed period, applying this rate to the population
of future years.

The use of this method is recommended in the case of stable populations in population growth
and that have areas of almost null future extensions and in small communities, especially in
rural areas with very stable growth.

It can be applied as an estimate, since given the current behaviors in which demographic
growth occurs, this procedure should no longer be used.

41
 CHAPTER 3
DIAGNOSIS OF THE CURRENT
SITUATION

42
3.1. EROSION IN LA PAZ

The percentage of land that suffers erosion in Bolivia is 60% of the soils that make up the
agricultural frontier, according to the Vice Ministry of Lands. The areas at risk are mainly
the Andean region made up of the departments of La Paz, Oruro and Potosí (La Razón, 2015).
3.2. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LA PAZ

Peace It is one of the nine departments that make up the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Its
capital is Our Lady of La Paz, seat of the Central Government and the Legislative Power,
which is located at an altitude of 3,640 m, and its most populated city, El Alto. It is located
in the west of the country, its limits are: to the north with Pando; to the south with Oruro; to
the east with Beni and Cochabamba and to the west with the Republics of Peru and Chile.
With 133 985 km² it is the third largest department after Santa Cruz and Beni, with 2 706 351
inhabitants. In 2012 (INE), the most populated and with 20.2 inhabitants / km², the second
most densely populated, behind Cochabamba. It is located between 16 ° 30'00 "south latitude
and 68 ° 08'00" west longitude of the Meridian of Greenwich. The department of La Paz is
divided into three geographical zones: The highland area formed by the Lake Titicaca region,
Isla del Sol, Isla de la Luna and Suriki, is the wettest region of the high Andean plan, with an
average of 650 cc annual rainfall (Arandia Ledezma, 2016).
Map 1. La Paz Department

Source: Government of La Paz

43
3.3. PREVIOUS STUDIES

Several methods have been applied for the assessment of environmental vulnerability, one of
the most important tools is the combination of an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
method (Saaty 1980) with the geographic information system (GIS) platform. This method
has received significant attention among decision makers, this was seen in several studies
related to the assessment of natural hazards, including the mapping of soil erosion risks
(eg,Wu & Wang, 2007; Alexakis et al. 2013) and landslide susceptibility mapping (eg,Akgun
& Bulut, 2007;Rozos, 2014).
GIS-based multi-criteria assessment (MCE) methods have been applied in several studies
such as, “The effect of land use on runoff and soil erosion rates under Mediterranean
conditions”, a main objective The purpose of this study is to classify the available agricultural
land area of the Kathmandu Valley into different classes suitable for growing vegetables
using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). From GIS data, the Kathmandu Valley still
shows the 23,519 ha area of potential land for agriculture, of which only 1.33 percent of the
land is unsuitable.(Baniya, 2008), "The effect of land use on runoff and soil erosion rates
under Mediterranean conditions", In this study it was concluded that the areas cultivated
with wheat are sensitive to erosion, especially during winter, generating intermediate
amounts of runoff and loss of sediments with the help of GIS tools, especially under rainfall
greater than 280 mm per year. (Kosmas et al., 1997).
According (Saini et al., 2015), in its publication in the International Journal of Advancement
in Remote Sensing, GIS and Geography, indicates that “the analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) is one of the most popular methods for calculating criteria weights in an evaluation of
multiple criteria through a matrix of comparison by pairs of experts using their weights.
Siddiqui et. Alabama. He presented an additive approach to a spatial problem based on AHP.
Rao et. Alabama. They have suggested that for the development of criteria weights, the paired
comparison procedure in AHP is a logical process”, this study performed multi-criteria
evaluation in GIS, using AHP integration and weighted linear combination approach to
identify sites / areas vulnerable to soil erosion using some effective factors causing soil
erosion, such as rain, soil, vegetation, slope, drainage network and land use.
Studies in Chile by Flores, Juan, "Determination of the Current and Potential Erosion of Soils
on Easter Island", indicates that on the island there are specific processes of severe and very
severe erosion in most of the cones of the hills and The potential erosion risk of the island is
relatively moderate to low (60.8%), even though there are areas with great problems of
erosion and soil loss, mainly due to thin soils on steep slopes. Within the 31.2% of severe
and very severe risk there are areas that should incorporate and / or improve the plans for the
conservation and protection of soils and waters relevant to the edaphoclimatic and
archaeological conditions of the island. It is advisable to remember that each sediment
recovery and retention work must be maintained over time,
In the study of "DETERMINATION OF SOIL EROSION INDICES APPLYING GIS
ANALYSIS FOR THE LOCALITY OF SAN ANDRÉS IN THE PROVINCE OF PINAR

44
DEL RÍO", carried out in Cuba by (Rivera, Costa, Álvarez, & González, 2008), potential
erosion risk indices were determined on data obtained in the field in 2005. Soil maps were
created based on these indices using GIS tools.
In a study carried out in Colombia called, “Multi-criteria evaluation and GIS as tools for
territorial management. Case study zipaquirá Cundinamarca ”, by(Lizasoain et al., 2015), in
this project was given to disseminate the basic concepts of Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) and Multicriterial Evaluation (EMC) and their applications in Territorial Management,
taking as reference projects worldwide and Colombia where it is concluded that GIS are
efficient instruments to capture, manage and analyze a large volume of territorial,
demographic, cultural and environmental data that contribute positively to territorial
management.
In a research project published by the Strategic Research Program in Bolivia (PIEB) in 2008,
called "Thuska Uma: treatment of acidic waters for irrigation purposes", they carried out an
erosion irrigation analysis in the San Juan de Sora Sora, since there are the highest
concentration of mining cooperatives, map 2 will show the result of the risk map.

45
 Map 2. Erosion and soil degradation risk map, San Juan de Sora Sora Oruro river basin,
Bolivia 2008.

Source: Geo Bolivia 2008, revised in December 2018

46
Similar studies were carried out in Bolivia, but at the municipal level in 2017 called "Study
of laminar water erosion of the TIOC of the Ayllu Sikuya of the municipality of Llallagua",
the Indigenous-Native Peasant Lands (TIOC) of the Ayllu Sikuya of the municipality of
Llallagua, of the department of Potosí, are located in the middle of a mountainous
physiographic configuration, as an effect of this situation they suffer a strong erosion. A study
was carried out on the determination of laminar water erosion, as a tool for obtaining the map
of soil loss due to laminar water erosion, GIS techniques were used. From the results
obtained, in terms of environmental degradation it is already worrying that 83.71 km2 (66%)
has a loss of soil greater than 7.41 tn / ha / year, from a moderate to very severe degree(Pillco
Zola & Flores Mamani, 2017).

Another research related to erosion is a master's thesis carried out in the municipality of
Achocalla, the author indicates in the abstract that in his research a synthesis of spatial
evaluation, using two existing methods for zoning and / or categorization of classes or
landslide risk levels. The procedure for the combined use of GIS and Multi-Criteria Spatial
Assessment techniques is detailed, which are very useful tools in territorial assessment
processes. Similarly, methodological aspects are described for the treatment of basic
information, its assessment, normalization and weighting through the evaluation of the
Analytical Hierarchy Matrix, proposed by Saaty. The process carried out in the ArcGis GIS
is described, in the ArcMap module,(Mamani Gutierrez, 2015).

47
 CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN

48
4.1. TYPE OF INVESTIGATION

Due to the final purpose of the research, the nature of the problems and objectives formulated
above, the study is an experimental quantitative correlate investigation, since the criteria are
independent variables manipulated to obtain the result of an independent variable that is the
design of the map of erosive risk(Hernández Sampieri, Fernández Collado, & del Pilar
Baptista Lucio, 2010, p. 129).

The present investigation is defined quantitative because calculated and exact data are
manipulated, defined in this way since areas are determined, which delimit geographical
areas by means of vector data and raster data, these data are not subject to the perception of
the researcher, that is, that these data cannot be changed at the investigator's criteria.

All the data obtained to determine the areas at risk of erosion were calculated using multi-
criteria, mathematical and geographic analysis models based on geographic data obtained
through the web and calculated using GIS tools.

4.2. INTERVENIENT VARIABLE

The only variable is the variability of the risk coverage areas within the department of La
Paz.

49
4.3. GRAMA FLOW FOR METHODOLOGY.

Grama Flow 1. Flow gram of the erosion risk study methodology.

 Very steep (> 40%)

 Steep (30.1-40%)
Determine Determine Pending  Moderate (20.1-30%)
GIS  Soft (10.1-20%)
the study criterial and
database  Very soft (<10%)
area sub criterial

 > 6 Km / Km2
 5.1 - 6.0 Km / Km2
Drainage
 4.1 - 5.0 Km / Km2
density
Generate  2.1 - 4.0 Km / Km2
classified and  <2 Km / Km2
standardized
 farming
layers
 Water bodies
 Forest
Land use
 Sparse vegetation
 Existing artificial surfaces
Perform the Weight the 
interposition criteria  Forest
Shallow and loamy
of layers of
sands.
the criteria.
 Loamy to sandy
Soil type loamy sand.
 Sandy loam to loamy
loam

 More than 1200

mm
Obtain the Precipitation  1101 mm – 1200
erosion risk map mm
 1000 mm - 1100
mm
 Very low vegetation cover
 Low vegetation cover
NDVI  Moderate vegetation cover
 High plant coverage
 Very high plant coverage

Source: self made

50
4.4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAATY MATRIX.

Table 8 shows a comparison matrix by pairs of order 6, in which 6 criteria (C1, C2, C3, C4,
C5 and C6) are compared with each other. The transpose automatically gets a value from the
reciprocal; is 1/4 which is equal to 0.25.
Table 2. Saaty matrix development
Criterion Precipitation NDVI Soil Pending Drainage Land
Type Density use

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Precipitation C1 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 4.00
NDVI C2 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.00
Soil Type C3 0.33 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 5.00
Pending C4 0.50 0.33 0.50 1.00 4.00 3.00
Drainage Density C5 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.25 1.00 3.00
Land use C6 0.25 0.50 0.20 0.33 0.33 1.00
Total 2.83 4.58 7.03 8.58 16.33 18.00
Source: (Saini et al., 2015, p. 15)

In the next step, the assigned preference values are synthesized to determine a numerical
value that is equivalent to the factor weights. Therefore, the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of
the square preference matrix are calculated that reveal important details about the patterns in
the data matrix. The above square matrix of order six provides six eigenvalues from which
six eigenvectors can be calculated, each with six vector components. It is considered
sufficient to calculate only the eigenvector that results from the highest eigenvalue, since this
eigenvector contains enough information to provide, by its components of the eigenvector,
the relative priorities of the factors considered (Saaty & Vargas, 1991).
Table 3. Normalized comparison matrix

Soil Drainage Land Priority Weigh

Criterion Precipitation NDVI Pending Total
type density use Vector t (%)

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
C1 0.35 0.44 0.43 0.23 0.24 0.22 1.91 0.32 31.83
Precipitation
C2 0.18 0.22 0.28 0.35 0.24 0.11 1.38 0.23 23.00
NDVI
C3 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.23 0.18 0.28 1.06 0.18 17.67
Type of soil
C4 0.17 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.24 0.16 0.83 0.14 13.83
Pending
C5 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.17 0.45 0.08 7.50
Drainage density

Land use C6 0.09 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.37 0.06 6.17
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 100.0
Total
0
Source: (Saini et al., 2015, p. 15)

51
4.5. PRE PROCESSING AND PROCESSING OF LAYERS.

Table 4 summarizes the steps carried out for the pre-processing and processing of the layers
used in the analysis, also indicating the source from which these layers were obtained.

Table 4. Pre-processing and processing of erosive analysis layers.

Cap Format Pre processing Prosecution Observation Source

Municipal Shapefile Coordinate System - Over layer None Ministry of
Limit Layer Projection: position for spatial Autonomy
WGS 84 to WGS84 analysis.
19 South
- The Layer was
used to differentiate
the municipalities
with higher risk of
erosion.
Provincial Shapefile Coordinate System - Over layer None Ministry of
limit Layer Projection: position for spatial Autonomy
WGS 84 to WGS84 analysis.
19 South
Eco-regions Shapefile Coordinate System - Over position of None Friends for
Layer Projection: the layer for Nature
WGS 84 to WGS84 analysis. Foundation in
19 South 2003.
Hydrography Shapefile Coordinate System - Over position of None Military
Layer Projection: the layer for Geographical
WGS 84 to WGS84 analysis. Institute
19 South National Naval
Hydrography
Service
Fundamental Shapefile Coordinate System - Over position of None Bolivian
Road Network Layer Projection: the layer for Highway
WGS 84 to WGS84 analysis. Administrator
19 South (ABC)
Population Shapefile Coordinate System - Through the The - National
centers Layer Projection: segregation of the Classificati Institute of
WGS 84 to WGS84 populated centers on of the Statistics (INE).
19 South by municipality, an level of
extrapolation of the influence -
data of the number by town Methodological
of inhabitants per center was Guidelines for
town center was carried out the Formulation
carried out applying taking into of
four methods of account the Comprehensive
interpolation of categories Development
census data, to later established Territorial Plans
carry out an in the to Live Well
analysis of the PTDI. (PTDI)
average of the
results of each
interpolation and
use them as data
updated to 2018.

52
 Cap Format Pre processing Prosecution Observation Source

The method used

for the weighting
was as follows:

Where: Pd =
current population
inhab.)
Pa = Initial
population (inhab.)
r = Growth rate
(inhab./year)
t = Study period
(years)
k = constant

Arithmetic:
Pd = Pa + r * t

- Based on the
results obtained, for
2018, the influence
of a populated
center was
considered in
relation to the
number of
inhabitants it had.

Precipitation Raster - Projection of the - An analysis of the None globalclimatem

coordinate system minimum and onitor.org
layer: WGS 84 to maximum quantity
WGS84 19 South. recorded in one
year was carried out
for the department
of La Paz, making a
cut of the world
precipitation raster,
for its subsequent
redistribution in the
categories indicated
in previous
investigations of
soil erosion.
Slopes Raster - Projection of the - A slope analysis None National
coordinate system was carried out Oceanic and
layer: WGS 84 to through a spatial Atmospheric
WGS84 19 South. analysis in which Administration
the slope of the land of the United
was calculated from States, within
its topography in the department
percentage. In this of the National

53
 Cap Format Pre processing Prosecution Observation Source
sense, the Environmental
respective Satellite Data
reclassification of and Information
securities was Service.
carried out based on
the weighting
handled by the
research carried out
in India.
Soil type Shapefile - Projection of the - In this criterion None - Soil and Terrain
coordinate system the analysis was Digital Database
layer: WGS 84 to carried out starting (SOTER) for
WGS84 19 South. from the Soil and Latin America
Terrain Digital and the
Database for Latin Caribbean
America and the (SOTERLAC).
Caribbean
(SOTERLAC), in
its translation
Digital Soil and
Terrain Database
for Latin America
and the Caribbean,
from the
SOTERLAC raster
the data was
extracted
lithographic by
means of the CLIP
extraction of the
Buffer of the
department of La
Paz, later,
according to their
table of attributes,
they were classified
in the sub-criteria
used in previous
investigations of
soil erosion.
Land Use Shapefile - Projection of the - The information None Universidad
Coverage coordinate system applied to the Mayor de San
layer: WGS 84 to analysis of land use Andrés - Career
WGS84 19 South coverage was Geographical
carried out through Engineering -
the information of UMSA
the LAI's Land Emeritus
Cover and Use map Professor. 2016
in order to create
and adapt a new
one in relation to
the symbols and
nomenclature
presented in
previous research

54
 Cap Format Pre processing Prosecution Observation Source
on the erosion of
the ground.
Drainage Raster - Projection of the - For this criterion, None National
density coordinate system the analysis was Oceanic and
layer: WGS 84 to started based on the Atmospheric
WGS84 19 South. DEM previously Administration
carried out for the of the United
other criteria, then, States, within
with the flow the department
accumulation tool of the National
we obtain the Environmental
drains, later the Satellite Data
calculation of the and Information
drainage density Service.
was carried out
with the kernel
method in which
we incorporated
The raster, as it
already has the
density raster, is
reclassified
according to
previous
investigations of
soil erosion.
NDVI Raster - Projection of the - For this criterion None Copernicus
TIFF coordinate system the most current Global Land
layer: WGS 84 to NDVIs to date were Service
WGS84 19 South. used, in this Supply of
criterion more than biogeophysical
1 NDVI were used products from
for climatological the global land
reasons since in surface.
some rasters there
were clouds that
interfered with the
data, these
overlapped to form
a uniform NDVI
layer and with the
absence of clouds.
- The data was
extracted using the
Buffer of the
department of La
Paz, in order to
reclassify in the sub
criteria used in
previous
investigations of
soil erosion.
National Shapefile - Projection of the - Once the analysis None National Area
Protected coordinate system of areas with higher Service
Areas erosive risk was

55
 Cap Format Pre processing Prosecution Observation Source
layer: WGS 84 to finished, a cut was Protected
WGS84 19 South made within the (SERNAP)
study area, of the
rasters
representative of
the erosivity
analysis with the
APN vector layer.
Departmental Shapefile - Projection of the - Once the analysis None National Area
Protected coordinate system of areas with higher Service
Areas layer: WGS 84 to erosive risk was Protected
WGS84 19 South finished, a cut was (SERNAP)
carried out within
the study area, of
the representative
rasters of the
potentiality analysis
with the APD
vector layer.
Municipal Shapefile - Projection of the - Once the analysis None National Area
Protected coordinate system of areas with Service
Areas layer: WGS 84 to greater erosive risk Protected
WGS84 19 South was finished, a cut (SERNAP)
was carried out
within the study
area, of the
representative
rasters of the
potentiality analysis
with the vector
layer of APM.
RAMSAR Shapefile - Projection of the - Once the analysis None Ministry of
sites coordinate system of areas with Environment
layer: WGS 84 to greater erosive risk and Water
WGS84 19 South was finished, a cut
was made within
the study area, of
the representative
rasters of the
potentiality analysis
with the vector
layer of RAMSAR
sites.
Water bodies Shapefile - Projection of the - This layer was None
coordinate system only used to
layer: WGS 84 to identify the spatial
WGS84 19 South position of bodies
of water.
Productive Shapefile - Projection of the - On the position of None Ministry of
potential coordinate system the representative Productive
layer: WGS 84 to layers of coverage Development
WGS84 19 South in the department of and Plural
La Paz, of the areas Economy
with the greatest
erosive risk (high

56
 Cap Format Pre processing Prosecution Observation Source
and very high) to
opt for prevention
actions.
Extreme Shapefile - Projection of the - On the position of None Center for
Poverty coordinate system the representative Development
Indicators layer: WGS 84 to layers of coverage and
WGS84 19 South in the department of Environment
La Paz, of the areas
with the greatest
erosive risk (high
and very high) to
opt for prevention
actions.
Deforestation Shapefile - Projection of the - On the position of None Vice Minister of
coordinate system the representative Environment,
layer: WGS 84 to layers of coverage Biodiversity,
WGS84 19 South in the department of Climate Change
La Paz, of the areas and
with the greatest Management
erosive risk (high and
and very high) to Development
opt for prevention Forestry 2016
actions.
Carbon Shapefile - Projection of the - On the position of None Ministry of
presence. coordinate system the representative Rural
layer: WGS 84 to layers of coverage Development
WGS84 19 South in the department of and Lands -
La Paz, of the areas Vice Ministry of
with the greatest Lands (General
erosive risk (high Directorate of
and very high) to Land
opt for prevention Distribution)
actions.
Risks Shapefile - Projection of the - On the position of None Ministry of
coordinate system the representative Defense - Vice
layer: WGS 84 to layers of coverage Ministry of
WGS84 19 South in the department of Civil Defense
La Paz, of the areas (Integrated
with the greatest Information and
erosive risk (high Alert System for
and very high) to Disaster Risk
opt for prevention Management
actions. (SINAGER -
SAT))
Agro- Shapefile - Projection of the - On the position of None Ministry of
productive coordinate system the representative Rural
areas layer: WGS 84 to layers of coverage Development
WGS84 19 South in the department of and Lands
La Paz, of the areas
with the greatest
erosive risk (high
and very high) to
opt for prevention
actions.
Source: self made.

57
4.6. DATA COLLECTION.

The criteria that were taken in the present analysis were selected from coincidences in several
international studies carried out to determine soil erosion, opting for criteria and sub-criteria
that in the subsequent points will be explained indicating their relationship with the incidence
of erosion risk on the floors.

In the following paragraphs, each of the factors implicit in the research was specified, all the
criteria and the analysis are in the minimum mappable area, the research is on a scale of 1:
100000, that is, in 1 cm of the map are 1000 m (1 Km) of the real area defined based on
authors such as Rossiter or Salitchev.

4.6.1. Precipitation

Since soil erosion generally occurs when the soil is displaced by rain, it is considered to be
the main driver of soil erosion. The high amount of rainfall is indicative of a significant loss
of soil, therefore, where precipitation is more than the annual average, the probability of
erosion will be higher (Saini et al., 2015).
According to experts, rainfall is one of the most important factors that explain soil erosion.
Consequently, it is an important condition for predicting the susceptibility to erosion of the
study area. The annual mean precipitation data were reclassified according to(Saini et al.,
2015) in the following sub criteria:

Table 5. Sub criteria and classification of precipitation

Erosion parameters Sub Criteria for Parameters Weighing

More than - 1200 mm 3
Precipitation 1101 mm - 1200 mm 2
1000 mm - 1100 mm 1
Source: (Saini et al., 2015, p. 14)

For the assessment or weighting of these sub criteria, the highest precipitation was taken as
the greatest contributor to soil erosion, this also rescued from (Saini et al., 2015), where Table
4 provides the weighted classifications of each sub criterion.
This is how the precipitation map that we observed previously was obtained, thus distributed
from the largest to the smallest amount of precipitation influencing soil erosion.

58
 Table 6. Municipalities with significant rainfall

Municipalities with Precipitation greater than

1000 mm
Ixiamas White sticks
Saint Bonaventure Coroico
Apollo Coripata
Pelechuco Chulumani
Curve The Asunta
Charazani Cajuata
Tacacoma Inquisivi
Ayata Irupana
Mapiri Chime
Sorata Villa Libertad Licoma
Tipuani Cairoma
Guanay Ichoca
Teoponte Yaco
Our Lady Peace Colquiri
Caranavi Mesh
Alto Beni
Source: self made

Table 6 shows the municipalities that are among the measurements greater than 1000
millimeters because from this measurement it is considered that precipitation has a significant
influence on soil erosion, this criterion has a weight of 31.83% , this weight was given both
by reason of the calculations of the Saaty matrix, the importance or preference of this
criterion against its influence on soil erosion, is due to the fact that according to their
frequency, quantity, diameter and weight of the drops they determine the contribution of this
to the erosion the action of the splash that removes the particles, this causing the dragging of
the detached sediments.

59
 Map 3. Criterion 1. Map of Average annual rainfall 2018

Source: globalclimatemonitor.org, Average annual rainfall

60
4.6.2. Pending

The degree of the slope regulates the speed of water circulation over the surface almost
exclusively, in the humid tropics the effect of the slope in combination with the copious
tropical storms is decisive in the generation of soil losses (Zingg, 1940). Even for low slope
values, soil losses are significant, as illustrated by reports of soil erosion (Hudson and
Jackson, 1959), cited by Morgan, (1986) in experimental plots cultivated with corn in
Rhodesia, Africa, according to which recorded losses of 10.05, 5.55 and 4.65 ton ha-1 at low
slope values of 6.11, 4.37 and 2.62% respectively.

Table 7. Sub criteria and slope classification

Erosion parameters Sub Criteria for Parameters Weighing

Pending Very steep (> 40%) 5
Steep (30.1 / 40%) 4
Moderate (20.1 / 30%) 3
Soft (10.1 / 20%) 2
Very soft (<10%) 1
Source: (Saini et al., 2015, p. 14)

These weights were given since the higher the slope, the greater the sediment drag. This is
due to different factors (Saini et al., 2015, p. 14), helping to weight all the sub criteria
according to the percentage of inclination of the slope, since depending on the degree of
inclination a terrain is more vulnerable to erosion, Thus, at a degree greater than 40% of
inclination, in several studies of soil erosion the greatest weighting of incidence to erosion is
considered and less than 10% with a value of 1, this does not influence to a significant degree
with the soil erosion.

Table 7 shows the municipalities that have a percentage greater than 30% of inclination, a
percentage from which the sediment carry-over increases seriously, as noted in map 4, the
steepest slopes will be marked with a red color and as the degree of inclination decreases, the
color will turn green.

61
 Map 4. Criterion 2. Map of slopes of La Paz

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States, within the department of
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service.

62
 Table 8. Municipalities with significant slopes.

Municipalities with a slope greater than 30%

Apollo Sapahaqui
Curve Cairoma
Charazani Luribay
Aucapata Mesh
Chuma Chime
Ayata Irupana
Sorata Chulumani
Combaya The Asunta
Guanay Inquisivi
Our Lady Peace Cajuata
Coroico Villa Libertad Licoma
Caranavi Ichoca
Coripata Colquiri
Yanacachi
Palca
Mecapaca
Source: self made

This criterion was valued with a weight of 13.83% over the other criteria, since its incidence
in soil erosion is due to the amount of sediment carried by factors other than this, depending
on the percentage of its inclination, the higher the percentage greater drag, this is why so
much for the Saaty matrix, which for all the investigations related to erosion give it a degree
of importance over the others.

Table 8 shows the municipalities in which the slope exceeds 30% of inclination, since, from
this percentage of inclination, erosion becomes greater due to the factors of gravity and type
of soil are the factors that more affect from this percentage onwards.

4.6.3. Drainage Density

The length of rivers and canals in an area can be considered as an index to describe the
erodibility of the soil. Although their precise relationship has not been established, there are
times when drainage in an area can be considered as an index of soil erodibility (Zakrzewska,
1967). The critical value of drainage density per km2 that can cause soil erosion by water is
0.90 km per km2 of area (Leopold et al 1969). Therefore, drainage density above this critical
value will automatically generate greater soil erosion (Saini et al., 2015). The distribution of
the sub criteria will be shown in Table 9 on the next page.

63
 Table 9. Sub criteria and classification of drainage density

Erosion parameters Sub Criteria for Parameters Weighing

> 6 Km / Km2 5
5.1-6.0 Km / Km2 4
Drainage Density 4.1-5.0 Km / Km2 3
2.1-4.0 Km / Km2 2
<2 Km / Km2 1
Source: (Saini et al., 2015, p. 14)

In the weight column, it shows that the highest weight is 5, this indicates that it is more prone
to erosion, where the critical value of the drainage density per km2 that can cause soil erosion
by water is 0.90 km per km2 of the total drainage area (Leopold et al, 1969) this given that
moving bodies of water (rivers) produce significant erosion according to their speed, amount
of water, width and length, in Map 5, in the next page shows the result of the sorting.

For the drainage density criterion, the Saaty matrix shows a result of 7.5% weight, since in
several investigations the dragging and erosion caused by rivers, streams, etc., are not direct
contributors of soil erosion, Table 10 shows the municipalities that have a density greater
than 6 km / km2 because this sub-criterion is considered the greatest contributor to erosion.

Table 10. Municipalities with a drainage density greater than 6 km / km2.

Municipalities with drainage greater than 6 km / km2

Ixiamas Tacacoma
Apollo Guanay
Saint Bonaventure Teoponte
The (Marka) San Andrés de
Mapiri
Machaca
Source: self made

64
 Map 5. Criterion 3. Drainage density map of La Paz

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States, within the department of
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service.

65
4.6.4. Land Use

Different types of land use in terms of area size and pattern influenced the risk of soil erosion.
The area with the lowest land cover perceptibly has a higher risk of soil erosion than the
highest land cover. Consequently, according to the type of land use and its vulnerability to
soil erosion ranges (Saini et al., 2015), to obtain the map to be used for the final analysis,
reclassifications were made in the sub criteria mentioned in ( Saini et al., 2015).

Table 11. Sub criteria and classification of land use

Erosion parameters Sub Criteria for Parameters Weighing

farming 6
Little or no vegetation 5
Shrublands and Grasslands 4
Land use Forest 3
Water bodies 2
Built land 1
Source: (Saini et al., 2015, p. 14)

The weighting column shows the greatest contributor to soil erosion in which agriculture is
located, since it is caused by man when using agricultural techniques that infuse serious and
even irreversible damage to soils. The following sub-criterion was weighted with a 5 since it
does not protect the soil at all, the following is considered a better coverage but still
insufficient to have an effective protection against erosion, the forests were weighted with a
3 since it does. They protect the soil from its natural erosion as they grow and there are also
different types of trees, these extract nutrients and water from the same soil that if it is very
soft or very dry, it could produce minimal erosion.(Saini et al., 2015, p. 14).

66
 Map 6. Criterion 4. Map of land use department of La Paz

Source: Universidad Mayor de San Andrés - Geographical Engineering Career - UMSA Professor Emeritus.
2016

67
4.6.5. Soil Type

As mentioned above, the texture of the soils influences the size of the pores that it has and
these in turn determine the permeability. In the clay texture, the particles are so small that
they do not leave gaps, causing compaction of the soil and suffocation of the roots. In addition
to favoring waterlogging, in the sandy texture the particles leave many gaps between them,
making the soil so permeable that the water goes deep where the roots do not have access.
The size of the soil pores is of great importance with regard to the filtration rate and the
percolation rate. The size and number of the pores are closely related to the texture and
structure of the soil and also influence its permeability (FAO, 2018), in Table 12 we will
observe the reclassification of sub-criteria proposed in (Saini et al., 2015, p. 14).

Table 12. Sub criteria and soil type classification

Erosion
Sub Criteria for Parameters Weighing
parameters
Eurtrochrepts / Udorthents. These are shallow, 3
loamy sands for fine sandy silts
Ground Udipsamments / Udorthents. Loamy sand to 2
sandy loam
Udipsamments / Udorthents. Sandy loam to 1
loamy loam
Source: (Saini et al., 2015, p. 14)

These 3 sub criteria were classified according to the type of soil of the SOTERLAC
classification and the most prone to erosion, this according to the geomorphology of the
department of La Paz. In the weighting column, it is observed that 3 is the most prone to
erosion since this type of soil is one of the softest recorded, that is, they have a separation
between the particles that compose it, being shallow they do not they retain water very well
but they are very fertile soils, 2 moderate this type of soil retains water better but their
separation between particles ranges from 0.05 to 2.0 millimeters, this has a direct influence
on erosion, as it is also sandy are soft enough and 1 very low in this type of loamy clay soils
are characterized by conserving moisture well,(Saini et al., 2015).

68
 Map 7. Criterion 5. Type of soil map of the department of La Paz

Source: Soil and Terrain Digital Database (SOTER) for Latin America and the Caribbean (SOTERLAC).

69
This criterion, which in the Saaty matrix, obtained a weight of 17.67% over the other criteria
of less weight, since the composition of the particles of the soils mentioned in table 10 have
a water retention capacity, distance between particles or porosity, hardness, etc., which
according to their characteristics this type of soil could be more or less prone to erosion,
Table 12 shows the municipalities that have the highest weighting of soil types present in the
department of La Paz.

Table 13. Type of soil greater than weighting 2.

Municipalities with shallow loamy soil type

for fine sandy silt
Catacora
Santiago de Machaca
Charaña
Calacoto
Caquiaviri
Source: self made

4.6.6. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)

In general, healthy vegetation will absorb most of the visible light that falls on it and will
reflect a large part of the near-infrared light. Unhealthy or sparse vegetation reflects more
visible light and less near infrared light. Bare soils, on the other hand, are moderately
reflected in both the red and infrared portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, therefore the
greater the difference between the near infrared and the red reflectance, the more vegetation
there must be, the values of NDVI is represented as a ratio that varies between -1 and 1, but
in practice extreme negative values represent water, values around zero represent bare soil
and positive values represent dense green vegetation (Holme et al 1987),

Table 14. Sub criteria and classification of NDVI

Erosion parameters Sub Criteria for Parameters Classification

-0.08 - 0.1 very low coverage 5
0.1 - 0.3 low coverage 4
Vegetation cover
0.3 - 0.5 moderate coverage 3
(NDVI)
0.5 - 0.7 high coverage 2
0.7 - 0.9 very high coverage 1
Source: (Saini et al., 2015, p. 14)

The criterion of Normalized Vegetation Index, by calculating the Saaty matrix has a weight
of 23%, in several erosion investigations, the healthy vegetation cover has a significant
influence on erosion, since organic matter improves aggregation soil and structural stability
which, together with porosity, are important for its aeration and water infiltration, while plant
growth and surface cover can help protect the soil surface, a stable and well-aggregated

70
edaphic structure that resists surface sealing and continues to infiltrate water during heavy
rainfall events will decrease the potential for downstream flooding(Lefèvre, Rekik,
Alcantara, & Wiese, 2017), Table 15 shows the municipalities with the high and very high
weights of NDVI, to further demonstrate the relevance of this criterion in the face of soil
erosion.

Table 15. Municipalities with high and very high coverage.

Municipalities with High and Very High coverage

Ixiamas Alto Beni
Saint Bonaventure White sticks
Apollo Coroico
Pelechuco Coripata
Curve Chulumani
Charazani The Asunta
Tacacoma Cajuata
Ayata Inquisivi
Mapiri Irupana
Sorata Chime
Tipuani Villa Libertad Licoma
Guanay Cairoma
Teoponte Yaco
Our Lady Peace Mesh
Caranavi
Source: self made

The missing data in the NDVI satellite image on Map 8 shown on the next page is considered snow,
since the NDVI wavelength does not consider snow levels that can easily be confused with clouds,
Salomonson and Appel (2003), mention that at visible wavelengths (0.66 microns), the snow cover
is as bright as the clouds, and therefore it is difficult to distinguish from the cloud cover. However, at
1.6 microns, the snow cover absorbs sunlight, making it appear much darker than clouds. This allows
effective discrimination between snow cover and clouds to have NDSI (Normalized Snow Difference
Index) values <0.4 indicating the presence of snow, as the NDVI is in a range of -1 to 1 ,

71
 Map 8. Criterion 6. Normalized Vegetation Index of La Paz.

Source: Copernicus Global Land Service Providing biogeophysical products from the global land surface.

72
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS OBTAINED

73
5.1. RESULTS

5.1.1. Erosion Risk Map

Map 9 on the next page shows the result of the interaction of the criteria studied, using the
multi-criteria method. You can see the areas with the highest risk of erosion in the department
of La Paz, pointing out that the weights of the criteria are as follows:
CRITERION WEIGHTING (%)
PRECIPITATION 31.83
NORMALIZED VEGETATION
2. 3
INDEX
SOIL TYPE 17.67
PENDING 13.83
DRAINAGE DENSITY 7.5
LAND USE 6.17

The representative weights of the level of importance in the risk of erosion were calculated
based on the research(Saini et al., 2015), which are presented in Table 1 on page 35.
Taking these weightings into account, it is observed that in the northern area of the
department, the precipitation criterion has an annual average greater than 1200 mm in the
annual average during 2018, this indicates that the drops could cause very high soil erosion.
significant but it is seen that in this area the vegetation is very healthy, this significantly
reduces the erosive risk due to the protection that this vegetation provides to the soil,
however, the registered slopes considerably increase the risk due to the dragging of sediments
released by precipitation, another of the criteria that contribute to the result is the type of soil
in this sector,As this soft soil is where infiltration occurs optimally, the water reaches depth
levels where the roots of the plants cannot reach, causing them to look for sectors where this
type of soil mixes with others, these rices cause a Soil erosion, added to the abundant
precipitation there is a sediment drag.

74
 Map 9. Erosion Risk Map

Source: self made.

75
5.1.2. Analysis and Results of the Erosive Risk Map

The erosion risk map shows that the northern and central areas of the department contain the
highest risk indices, due to the criteria of precipitation, slope, land use and normalized
vegetation index, they are the ones with the highest incidence level, Although there is a higher
concentration of healthy vegetation, precipitation plays a fundamental role due to its
splashing, this causes the soil to erode, not so much because of the weight and diameter of
the drops, but because of their frequency and abundance in this area.

In the center of the department, although in some areas there is not abundant precipitation as
in the north, the slopes are those that play an important role, since the combination of slopes,
rain and land use cause an accelerated sediment drag due to registered agriculture and
different earthworks that are carried out for constructions, the slopes allow these sediments
in combination with the precipitation to cause more erosion in their wake.

In the southern area of the department, moderate, low and very low risks predominate, this
because there is no abundant precipitation, leaving aside the splash that causes soil erosion,
the type of soil that is the majority in this area in suitable soil. For agriculture, this is due to
the fact that its capacity to retain water and separation between its particles is optimal to the
point of having a minimum production of sediments, although it does not have a healthy
vegetation cover, the little protection that these soils have could be enough for the instrument
to provide us with these risks.

Table 16 below presents the percentages of territorial extension of the erosion risk
classification in the total area of the department of La Paz.

Table 16. Percentage distribution of risk coverage.

Risk coverage percentage

Risk La Paz area (Km2) Area at risk (Km2)
(%)
Very low 128148.9 1879.2 1.6
Low 128148.9 23,077.2 18.1
Moderate 128148.9 46,876.4 36.6
High 128148.9 48,308.3 37.8
Very high 128148.9 7387.4 5.9
Source: self made.

Adding the risk coverage areas of those considered the most significant (moderate, high and
very high), an area of 102,572.1 km2 is at risk, with a total of 80.3% of the department that
is finds low erosive risk between moderate to very high.

For the validation of the risk map, Map 10 on page 77 presents a visual comparison of the
risk map with a satellite image, in which it is observed that in the high and very high risk
areas that are the high and very high respectively, there is a combination of criteria or in this
case factors that contribute to erosive risk.

76
Also, it shows that to the north of the department where the instrument, according to its NDVI
criteria, there are areas in which there is no healthy vegetation coverage, this could be due to
different factors that will be re-analyzed later, these areas without healthy coverage are found
in the classification of high and very high risks for the most part, as can be seen in the satellite
image, this comparison allows the instrument to validate the information provided by the
analysis.

77
 Map 10. Satellite image in relation to the erosive risk map

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CENES / A irbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
IGN, GIS User Community.

78
5.1.3. Analysis of Administrative Distributions.

In this analysis, we worked with the municipalities and provinces of the department of La
Paz and their risk coverage percentage to determine the degree of intervention of
departmental, municipal or even national authorities in sectors where significant erosive risks
are registered. Next, for the location of the municipalities and provinces, maps 11 and 12
show the codes, provided by the Vice Ministry of Civil Defense, on the Damage Assessment
and Needs Analysis (EDAN) page and locations of the municipalities and provinces of the
department of La Paz with their respective tables 17 and 18 in which they are with the names.

Table 17. Codes and names of municipalities.

Municipalit Municipalit Municipalit Municipalit

Municipality Municipality
y Code y Code y y Code
020201 Achacachi 020501 Chuma 021102 Irupana
020104 Achocalla 021307 Collana 021501 Ixiamas
Jesus of
022002 Alto Beni 021306 Colquencha 020806
Machaka
The (Marka) San
020701 Apollo 021004 Colquiri 020805 Andrés de
Machaca
020503 Aucapata 020304 Comanche 021105 The Asunta
020502 Ayata 020605 Combaya 021202 Laja
021303 Ayo Ayo 021701 Copacabana 020901 Luribay
021203 Battles 021402 Coripata 020904 Mesh
020905 Cairoma 020301 Corocoro 020607 Mapiri
021003 Cajuata 021401 Coroico 020103 Mecapaca
020303 Calacoto 021602 Curve 020402 Mucocus
Nazacara de
021304 Calamarca 020804 Drain 020307
Pacajes
020302 Caquiaviri 020105 The tall 020101 Our Lady Peace
022001 Caranavi 020405 Escoma 020102 Palca
021902 Catacora 020602 Guanay 021104 White sticks
021803 Chacarilla 020203 Huarina 021802 Pampa paper
020305 Charaña 020205 Huatajata 021305 Patacamaya
021601 Charazani 020404 Humanata 020702 Pelechuco
020206 Chua Cocani 021005 Ichoca 021201 Pucarani
021101 Chulumani 021001 Inquisivi 020401 Puerto Acosta
Continued Pg. 79
Source: Ministry of Autonomy.

79
 Map 11. Municipal distribution.

Source: Ministry of Autonomy.

80
Municipalit Municipalit Municipalit Municipalit
Municipality Municipality
y Code y Code y y Code
Carabuco Santiago de
020403 020204 020606 Tipuani
Main Port Huata
Puerto
Santiago de
020802 Mayor of 021901 021703 Tito Yupanqui
Machaca
Guaqui
021204 Puerto Pérez 020902 Sapahaqui 021302 Umala
020604 Quiabaya 021301 Sicasica 020801 Viacha
Villa
021002 Chime 020601 Sorata 020202
Ancoraimes
Saint Villa Libertad
021502 020603 Tacacoma 021006
Bonaventure Licoma
San Pedro de
021801 020807 Taraco 020306 Waldo ballivian
Curahuara
San Pedro de
021702 020608 Teoponte 020903 Yaco
Tiquina
Santiago de
020308 020803 Tiahuanacu 021103 Yanacachi
Callapa
Source: Ministry of Autonomy.

Table 18. Code of provinces and names.

Province
Province
Code
0215 Abel iturralde
0213 Smell
0216 Bautista Saavedra
0204 Camacho
0220 Caranavi
0207 Franz Tamayo
0219 General José Manuel Pando
0218 Gualberto Villarroel
0208 Ingavi
0210 Inquisivi
0206 Larecaja
0209 Loayza
0212 The Andes
0217 Manco Kapac
0205 dolls
0201 Murillo
0214 Nor Yungas
0202 Omasuyos
0203 Packages
0211 Sud Yungas
Source: Ministry of Autonomy.

81
 Map 12. Provincial limits.

Sources: Ministry of Autonomy.

82
5.1.3.1. Municipal Risk Analysis.

The tables below show each of the municipalities and their coverage percentages for erosive
risks. Map 13 shows the municipal distribution of the department of La Paz in relation to the
erosive risk map, this leads to a jurisdictional analysis of the erosive risks to which the
municipalities are exposed, which will provide the corresponding authorities with a starting
point for carry out more centralized analyzes in the municipalities of greatest interest to them.

83
 Map 13. Municipal distribution of erosive risk.

Source: Ministry of Autonomy

84
5.1.3.1.1. Very Low Risk Classification.

Table 19 shows each of the municipalities and their coverage percentages of very low erosive
risk.

Table 19. Municipalities with Very Low Risk of Erosion.

Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Province
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
020201 Achacachi Omasuyos 746,2 1,1 0,2
020503 Aucapata Muñecas 234,3 85,4 36,5
020502 Ayata Muñecas 748,1 293,4 39,2
Los
021203 Batallas 791,3 70,8 9,0
Andes
020303 Calacoto Pacajes 3901,7 1901,5 48,7
020302 Caquiaviri Pacajes 1547,6 29,0 1,9
022001 Caranavi Caranavi 1553,5 54,8 3,5
General
José
021902 Catacora 523,9 379,5 72,4
Manuel
Pando
Gualberto
021803 Chacarilla 363,1 0,8 0,2
Villarroel
020305 Charaña Pacajes 2924,3 2443,9 83,6
Bautista
021601 Charazani 2474,0 271,0 11,0
Saavedra
Sud
021101 Chulumani 301,8 2,4 0,8
Yungas
020501 Chuma Muñecas 617,7 182,9 29,6
021004 Colquiri Inquisivi 1011,8 2,2 0,2
Manco
021701 Copacabana 177,5 21,0 11,8
Kapac
Nor
021402 Coripata 692,5 323,8 46,8
Yungas
Nor
021401 Coroico 1091,4 1064,6 97,5
Yungas
020804 Desaguadero Ingavi 103,9 1,3 1,2
020105 El Alto Murillo 347,7 8,6 2,5
020602 Guanay Larecaja 3610,4 1112,6 30,8
Sud
021102 Irupana 1358,7 69,2 5,1
Yungas

85
 Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Province
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
La (Marka)
020805 San Andrés Ingavi 1534,0 1,3 0,1
de Machaca
020607 Mapiri Larecaja 1499,2 2,1 0,1
020402 Mocomoco Camacho 652,7 131,8 20,2
Nuestra
020101 Señora de La Murillo 2041,2 850,0 41,6
Paz
020102 Palca Murillo 735,9 9,4 1,3
Gualberto
021802 Papel Pampa 860,3 6,6 0,8
Villarroel
Franz
020702 Pelechuco 2447,4 15,8 0,6
Tamayo
Los
021201 Pucarani 1256,3 45,9 3,7
Andes
Puerto
020401 Camacho 352,0 4,0 1,1
Acosta
Puerto
020403 Mayor de Camacho 385,1 43,2 11,2
Carabuco
Puerto
020802 Mayor de Ingavi 190,9 0,2 0,1
Guaqui
020604 Quiabaya Larecaja 118,3 0,7 0,6
San Pedro de Gualberto
021801 790,1 13,5 1,7
Curahuara Villarroel
San Pedro de Manco
021702 62,2 0,1 0,2
Tiquina Kapac
General
Santiago de José
021901 1302,0 410,3 31,5
Machaca Manuel
Pando
021301 Sicasica Aroma 1737,9 7,1 0,4
020601 Sorata Larecaja 1900,7 693,7 36,5
020603 Tacacoma Larecaja 799,1 146,0 18,3
020807 Taraco Ingavi 114,6 0,1 0,1
020803 Tiahuanacu Ingavi 352,3 5,8 1,7
Tito Manco
021703 12,9 0,6 4,3
Yupanqui Kapac

86
 Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Province
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
Villa
020202 Omasuyos 334,3 10,5 3,1
Ancoraimes
020903 Yaco Loayza 595,5 0,9 0,1
Sud
021103 Yanacachi 580,1 151,3 26,1
Yungas
Fuente: Elaboración Propia.

Table 19 shows that certain municipalities of the department have a low percentage of very
low risk coverage, this means that the municipalities in this table are not completely protected
from erosive risk. For example, Coroico, although it has approximately 98% very low risk
coverage, is located in an area of average annual rainfall that is influential in soil erosion,
apart from the fact that in this area it has a vast vegetation coverage healthy that protects the
soil from natural erosion, the remaining 2% count on the fact that in this municipality there
are highly steep slopes in which some change in land use could cause catastrophic damage,
it does not mean that there is no risk of erosion in trunk axes , even in productive or tourist
towns.

5.1.3.1.2. Low Risk Classification.

Table 20 shows each of the municipalities and their coverage percentages of low erosive risk.

Table 20. Municipalities with low risk of erosion.

Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Province
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
021307 Collana Aroma 106,3 106,3 100,0
021306 Colquencha Aroma 341,1 341,1 100,0
020405 Escoma Camacho 121,1 121,1 100,0
020307 Nazacara de Pacajes 18,4 18,4 100,0
Pacajes
020306 Waldo Pacajes 108,6 108,6 100,0
Ballivian
020605 Combaya Larecaja 90,5 90,5 100,0
021305 Patacamaya Aroma 556,6 556,4 100,0
020404 Humanata Camacho 289,3 288,9 99,9
021803 Chacarilla Gualberto 363,1 362,3 99,8
Villarroel

87
 Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Province
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
020204 Santiago de Omasuyos 93,4 92,5 99,1
Huata
021301 Sicasica Aroma 1737,9 1716,8 98,8
021304 Calamarca Aroma 480,3 473,2 98,5
021303 Ayo Ayo Aroma 558,4 548,2 98,2
021302 Umala Aroma 870,3 854,1 98,1
021801 San Pedro de Gualberto 790,1 775,4 98,1
Curahuara Villarroel
020803 Tiahuanacu Ingavi 352,3 344,2 97,7
020401 Puerto Camacho 352,0 343,6 97,6
Acosta
020202 Villa Omasuyos 334,3 321,5 96,2
Ancoraimes
021703 Tito Manco 12,9 12,4 95,7
Yupanqui Kapac
021802 Papel Pampa Gualberto 860,3 818,3 95,1
Villarroel
020802 Puerto Ingavi 190,9 175,5 92,0
Mayor de
Guaqui
020903 Yaco Loayza 595,5 536,0 90,0
020403 Puerto Camacho 385,1 341,8 88,8
Mayor de
Carabuco
020302 Caquiaviri Pacajes 1547,6 1344,7 86,9
021701 Copacabana Manco 177,5 152,7 86,0
Kapac
021702 San Pedro de Manco 62,2 52,9 85,0
Tiquina Kapac
021202 Laja Los 690,1 523,4 75,8
Andes
020805 La (Marka) Ingavi 1534,0 1155,1 75,3
San Andrés
de Machaca
021004 Colquiri Inquisivi 1011,8 744,5 73,6
020807 Taraco Ingavi 114,6 83,7 73,0
020402 Mocomoco Camacho 652,7 467,9 71,7

88
 Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Province
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
021901 Santiago de General 1302,0 891,7 68,5
Machaca José
Manuel
Pando
021103 Yanacachi Sud 580,1 396,4 68,3
Yungas
020105 El Alto Murillo 347,7 228,6 65,7
021101 Chulumani Sud 301,8 193,3 64,1
Yungas
020801 Viacha Ingavi 848,4 543,0 64,0
020801 Viacha Ingavi 848,4 540,0 63,7
020603 Tacacoma Larecaja 799,1 488,4 61,1
020301 Corocoro Pacajes 1101,2 652,9 59,3
020308 Santiago de Pacajes 1191,3 704,8 59,2
Callapa
020503 Aucapata Muñecas 234,3 138,6 59,1
020604 Quiabaya Larecaja 118,3 64,6 54,6
020901 Luribay Loayza 450,8 243,8 54,1
021203 Batallas Los 791,3 422,4 53,4
Andes
021201 Pucarani Los 1256,3 656,3 52,2
Andes
020601 Sorata Larecaja 1900,7 934,7 49,2
020502 Ayata Muñecas 748,1 360,2 48,1
020902 Sapahaqui Loayza 815,4 381,4 46,8
020304 Comanche Pacajes 449,8 206,3 45,9
020303 Calacoto Pacajes 3901,7 1774,0 45,5
020501 Chuma Muñecas 617,7 278,2 45,0
020804 Desaguadero Ingavi 103,9 46,6 44,9
021601 Charazani Bautista 2474,0 1091,0 44,1
Saavedra
020101 Nuestra Murillo 2041,2 829,8 40,7
Señora de La
Paz
021204 Puerto Pérez Los 65,6 25,8 39,4
Andes
021402 Coripata Nor 692,5 253,3 36,6
Yungas
020201 Achacachi Omasuyos 746,2 244,1 32,7

89
 Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Province
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
021102 Irupana Sud 1358,7 417,4 30,7
Yungas
021005 Ichoca Inquisivi 840,0 245,9 29,3
021902 Catacora General 523,9 144,3 27,6
José
Manuel
Pando
020806 Jesús de Ingavi 991,7 256,5 25,9
Machaka
020904 Malla Loayza 350,5 83,6 23,8
020102 Palca Murillo 735,9 167,3 22,7
020203 Huarina Omasuyos 181,9 36,7 20,1
020602 Guanay Larecaja 3610,4 694,8 19,2
020607 Mapiri Larecaja 1499,2 265,3 17,7
020305 Charaña Pacajes 2924,3 480,4 16,4
021602 Curva Bautista 584,4 75,0 12,8
Saavedra
020905 Cairoma Loayza 685,4 80,2 11,7
022001 Caranavi Caranavi 1553,5 164,3 10,6
020206 Chua Cocani Omasuyos 81,1 7,7 9,4
020702 Pelechuco Franz 2447,4 187,5 7,7
Tamayo
021105 La Asunta Sud 2832,5 85,4 3,0
Yungas
020103 Mecapaca Murillo 523,4 13,4 2,6
021401 Coroico Nor 1091,4 26,8 2,5
Yungas
020205 Huatajata Omasuyos 19,5 0,3 1,4
021002 Quime Inquisivi 997,1 11,8 1,2
020701 Apolo Franz 14226,7 25,3 0,2
Tamayo
Source: self made

The municipalities with a coverage percentage of 65% onwards are found in the middle of
the department of La Paz downwards. The municipalities with coverage higher than 79%,
are normally found in the southern area of the department, the criteria that influence these
results are those of precipitation since for the south of the department there is the lowest
average annual precipitation, the soils are clayey in those in which precipitation does not
produce significant erosion and slopes have low percentages.

90
5.1.3.1.3. Moderate Risk Classification.

Table 21 shows each of the municipalities and their percentages of coverage of moderate
erosive risk.

Table 21. Municipalities with moderate risk of erosion.

Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Province
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
020205 Huatajata Omasuyos 19,5 19,3 98,6
020206 Chua Cocani Omasuyos 81,1 73,5 90,6
022002 Alto Beni Caranavi 1045,2 912,2 87,3
020103 Mecapaca Murillo 523,4 449,9 86,0
San Abel
021502 2966,3 2430,1 81,9
Buenaventura Iturralde
020203 Huarina Omasuyos 181,9 145,3 79,8
Jesús de
020806 Ingavi 991,7 735,2 74,1
Machaka
Palos Sud
021104 3735,3 2745,8 73,5
Blancos Yungas
020102 Palca Murillo 735,9 521,2 70,8
020104 Achocalla Murillo 178,1 124,7 70,0
020201 Achacachi Omasuyos 746,2 497,5 66,7
022001 Caranavi Caranavi 1553,5 1007,0 64,8
020608 Teoponte Larecaja 1378,4 876,6 63,6
Los
021204 Puerto Pérez 65,6 39,1 59,6
Andes
020304 Comanche Pacajes 449,8 243,6 54,1
020804 Desaguadero Ingavi 103,9 55,9 53,8
Sud
021105 La Asunta 2832,5 1493,4 52,7
Yungas
Abel
021501 Ixiamas 37098,6 19114,2 51,5
Iturralde
Franz
020701 Apolo 14226,7 7304,9 51,3
Tamayo
Bautista
021602 Curva 584,4 294,1 50,3
Saavedra
020902 Sapahaqui Loayza 815,4 378,7 46,4

91
 Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Province
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
020604 Quiabaya Larecaja 118,3 53,1 44,8
Los
021201 Pucarani 1256,3 554,0 44,1
Andes
020901 Luribay Loayza 450,8 195,7 43,4
Santiago de
020308 Pacajes 1191,3 486,6 40,8
Callapa
020301 Corocoro Pacajes 1101,2 448,2 40,7
020607 Mapiri Larecaja 1499,2 599,5 40,0
020905 Cairoma Loayza 685,4 254,2 37,1
020904 Malla Loayza 350,5 129,0 36,8
Bautista
021601 Charazani 2474,0 905,0 36,6
Saavedra
Los
021203 Batallas 791,3 288,2 36,4
Andes
020801 Viacha Ingavi 848,4 305,0 36,0
020105 El Alto Murillo 347,7 109,6 31,5
Sud
021101 Chulumani 301,8 94,9 31,4
Yungas
020602 Guanay Larecaja 3610,4 1034,3 28,6
020606 Tipuani Larecaja 248,2 67,5 27,2
020807 Taraco Ingavi 114,6 30,3 26,4
021004 Colquiri Inquisivi 1011,8 249,4 24,6
La (Marka)
020805 San Andrés Ingavi 1534,0 377,5 24,6
de Machaca
Los
021202 Laja 690,1 166,7 24,2
Andes
020501 Chuma Muñecas 617,7 132,9 21,5
Sud
021102 Irupana 1358,7 243,1 17,9
Yungas
Nuestra
020101 Señora de La Murillo 2041,2 359,9 17,6
Paz
021005 Ichoca Inquisivi 840,0 144,8 17,2
Franz
020702 Pelechuco 2447,4 413,5 16,9
Tamayo
020603 Tacacoma Larecaja 799,1 121,9 15,3
Nor
021402 Coripata 692,5 105,4 15,2
Yungas

92
 Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Province
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
San Pedro de Manco
021702 62,2 9,0 14,5
Tiquina Kapac
020502 Ayata Muñecas 748,1 92,7 12,4
020601 Sorata Larecaja 1900,7 228,5 12,0
020302 Caquiaviri Pacajes 1547,6 173,9 11,2
020903 Yaco Loayza 595,5 48,7 8,2
020402 Mocomoco Camacho 652,7 52,3 8,0
Puerto Mayor
020802 Ingavi 190,9 15,2 7,9
de Guaqui
021001 Inquisivi Inquisivi 3290,2 220,5 6,7
020303 Calacoto Pacajes 3901,7 225,7 5,8
Sud
021103 Yanacachi 580,1 32,0 5,5
Yungas
020503 Aucapata Muñecas 234,3 10,3 4,4
Gualberto
021802 Papel Pampa 860,3 32,2 3,7
Villarroel
021002 Quime Inquisivi 997,1 18,8 1,9
021302 Umala Aroma 870,3 16,0 1,8
021303 Ayo Ayo Aroma 558,4 10,2 1,8
Manco
021701 Copacabana 177,5 3,0 1,7
Kapac
021304 Calamarca Aroma 480,3 7,1 1,5
Puerto
020401 Camacho 352,0 3,7 1,0
Acosta
021301 Sicasica Aroma 1737,9 14,0 0,8
Villa
020202 Omasuyos 334,3 2,3 0,7
Ancoraimes
020803 Tiahuanacu Ingavi 352,3 2,3 0,7
Villa
021006 Libertad Inquisivi 197,0 0,7 0,3
Licoma
020404 Humanata Camacho 289,3 0,4 0,1
Source: self made.

The municipalities with the highest percentage of moderate risk coverage are subject to the
fact that their land uses include coverage of agriculture, scrublands and pastures. Although
these municipalities are in the zone of very low average annual rainfall, when this event
happens it could cause significant erosion due to the scarce vegetation cover that this zone

93
has, the predominant type of soil in these zones have their particles too close together, this
wants In other words, thanks to agriculture these particles are separated, but the earth that is
out of reach of the plowing instruments remains, so they do not allow the passage of water,
this could cause sediment dragging.

5.1.3.1.4. High Risk Classification.

Table 22 shows each of the municipalities and their percentages of coverage of high erosive
risk.

Table 22. Municipalities with high risk of erosion.

Percentage
Risk
Municipality Name of the Municipality of
Province coverage
Code Municipality Area (Km2) Coverage
area (Km2)
(%)
Villa
021006 Libertad Inquisivi 197,0 157,1 79,7
Licoma
020606 Tipuani Larecaja 248,2 179,6 72,4
Abel
021501 Ixiamas 37098,6 17528,9 47,2
Iturralde
Franz
020701 Apolo 14226,7 6501,7 45,7
Tamayo
Franz
020702 Pelechuco 2447,4 1070,1 43,7
Tamayo
020905 Cairoma Loayza 685,4 283,0 41,3
020607 Mapiri Larecaja 1499,2 601,9 40,2
020608 Teoponte Larecaja 1378,4 535,8 38,9
Sud
021105 La Asunta 2832,5 1004,4 35,5
Yungas
020904 Malla Loayza 350,5 121,4 34,6
021001 Inquisivi Inquisivi 3290,2 1084,4 33,0
Bautista
021602 Curva 584,4 191,4 32,7
Saavedra
021003 Cajuata Inquisivi 712,1 188,7 26,5
Palos Sud
021104 3735,3 965,5 25,8
Blancos Yungas
Sud
021102 Irupana 1358,7 322,1 23,7
Yungas
021002 Quime Inquisivi 997,1 226,7 22,7
022001 Caranavi Caranavi 1553,5 327,4 21,1
020602 Guanay Larecaja 3610,4 723,6 20,0

94
 Percentage
Risk
Municipality Name of the Municipality of
Province coverage
Code Municipality Area (Km2) Coverage
area (Km2)
(%)
San Abel
021502 2966,3 523,3 17,6
Buenaventura Iturralde
021005 Ichoca Inquisivi 840,0 127,3 15,2
022002 Alto Beni Caranavi 1045,2 129,7 12,4
020103 Mecapaca Murillo 523,4 60,1 11,5
Bautista
021601 Charazani 2474,0 203,5 8,2
Saavedra
020902 Sapahaqui Loayza 815,4 55,3 6,8
020102 Palca Murillo 735,9 38,1 5,2
020501 Chuma Muñecas 617,7 23,7 3,8
Sud
021101 Chulumani 301,8 11,2 3,7
Yungas
020901 Luribay Loayza 450,8 11,3 2,5
020903 Yaco Loayza 595,5 9,9 1,7
021004 Colquiri Inquisivi 1011,8 15,5 1,5
Nor
021402 Coripata 692,5 10,1 1,5
Yungas
020601 Sorata Larecaja 1900,7 7,1 0,4
020502 Ayata Muñecas 748,1 1,8 0,2
Source: self made

Most of the municipalities that have a percentage higher than 40% are in areas with high
average annual precipitation, this has a direct influence with soil erosion due to its
relationship with the steep slopes that together generate a sediment drag, the Sandy loam
soils in this area allow water to penetrate easily, in addition to the fact that the drops of
precipitation produce splashes, contributing to the production of sediments. On the other
hand, the coverage of healthy vegetation is not total in the area of the municipality, all these
factors are reflected in the data shown in Table 22, providing an indicator of possible human,
animal, vegetation and economic losses in the zone.

5.1.3.1.5. Very High Risk Classification.

Below, each of the municipalities and their coverage percentages of very high erosive risk
are observed.

95
 Table 23. Municipalities with a very high risk of erosion.

Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Province
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
021002 Quime Inquisivi 997,1 733,1 73,5
021003 Cajuata Inquisivi 712,1 523,3 73,5
021001 Inquisivi Inquisivi 3290,2 1985,2 60,3
021005 Ichoca Inquisivi 840,0 321,9 38,3
Franz
020702 Pelechuco 2447,4 754,5 30,8
Tamayo
Sud
021102 Irupana 1358,7 306,9 22,6
Yungas
Villa Libertad
021006 Inquisivi 197,0 39,2 19,9
Licoma
020905 Cairoma Loayza 685,4 68,0 9,9
Sud
021105 La Asunta 2832,5 249,2 8,8
Yungas
020904 Malla Loayza 350,5 16,6 4,7
Bautista
021602 Curva 584,4 24,0 4,1
Saavedra
Franz
020701 Apolo 14226,7 393,1 2,8
Tamayo
020607 Mapiri Larecaja 1499,2 22,3 1,5
Abel
021501 Ixiamas 37098,6 444,3 1,2
Iturralde
020602 Guanay Larecaja 3610,4 17,7 0,5
020608 Teoponte Larecaja 1378,4 5,7 0,4
020606 Tipuani Larecaja 248,2 1,0 0,4
020603 Tacacoma Larecaja 799,1 3,0 0,4
022002 Alto Beni Caranavi 1045,2 3,3 0,3
San Abel
021502 2966,3 8,0 0,3
Buenaventura Iturralde
Sud
021104 Palos Blancos 3735,3 5,9 0,2
Yungas
Bautista
021601 Charazani 2474,0 3,5 0,1
Saavedra
Source: self made.

Table 23 shows the municipalities with very high risk coverage, most of the municipalities
with coverage percentages higher than 60% have many criteria in common, the use of land
for example, these municipalities have a majority use of agriculture and they do not have a
healthy vegetation cover, these combined criteria have a very strong incidence in the risk of
erosion because, since there is no density of healthy vegetation in the area, the water
96
retention capacity in the soil decreases drastically and in combination With agricultural
practices such as land plowing, sediments are produced that can be washed away by
different climatic factors. Also, they are in a transition point of precipitation in which in
their greater extension they are in the high annual average, in addition, their soils are clayey
and as explained previously this type of soils is a bad combination with agriculture and
precipitation this last criterion increases in sediment transport to different bodies of water
that are counted for agricultural practices.
5.1.3.2. Risk Analysis by Province.
For this analysis, information on the provincial distribution of the department of La Paz was
used, which was compared with the erosion risk. Subsequently, the tables with percentages
and areas of risk coverage were obtained, performing a parallel analysis to that of
municipalities in the previous point, this because the analyzed municipalities are within these
provinces, below are the tables that reflect the results obtained as a sum according to the
belonging of the municipalities to their respective provinces.
5.1.3.2.1. Very Low Risk Rating.
Table 24 shows each of the provinces and their coverage percentages of very low erosive
risk.
Table 24. Provinces with very low risk of erosion.

Municipality Name of the Municipality Risk coverage Percentage of

Code Municipality Area (Km2) area (Km2) Coverage (%)
General José
0219 Manuel 1824,4 788,9 43,2
Pando
0203 Pacajes 11223,9 4356,3 38,8
0205 Muñecas 1600,0 561,7 35,1
0201 Murillo 3826,4 867,9 22,7
0206 Larecaja 9644,7 1955,1 20,3
0204 Camacho 1797,9 179,0 10,0
Bautista
0216 3058,5 271,0 8,9
Saavedra
Manco
0217 252,3 21,5 8,5
Kapac
0212 Los Andes 2803,2 116,7 4,2
0211 Sud Yungas 8765,5 223,0 2,5
0220 Caranavi 2598,8 54,8 2,1
0202 Omasuyos 1456,5 11,6 0,8
Gualberto
0218 1964,2 10,1 0,5
Villarroel
0208 Ingavi 4134,3 8,4 0,2
0213 Aroma 4646,8 5,0 0,1
Source: self made

97
 Map 14. Provincial risk distribution.

Source: Ministry of Autonomy.

98
5.1.3.2.2. Low Risk Classification.

Table 25 shows each of the provinces and their percentages of low erosive risk coverage.

Table 25. Provinces with low risk of erosion.

Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
0213 Aroma 4646,8 4594,1 98,9
Gualberto
0218 1964,2 1921,9 97,8
Villarroel
0204 Camacho 1797,9 1561,9 86,9
Manco
0217 252,3 217,8 86,3
Kapac

0208 Ingavi 4134,3 2604,2 63,0

0212 Los Andes 2803,2 1627,9 58,1

General
0219 José Manuel 1824,4 1035,4 56,8
Pando
0205 Muñecas 1600,0 777,0 48,6
0202 Omasuyos 1456,5 702,8 48,3
0203 Pacajes 11223,9 5289,3 47,1
0209 Loayza 2892,2 1320,3 45,7
Bautista
0216 3058,5 1166,1 38,1
Saavedra
0201 Murillo 3826,4 1292,6 33,8
0206 Larecaja 9644,7 2538,3 26,3
0214 Nor Yungas 1784,0 280,1 15,7
0210 Inquisivi 7031,7 989,0 14,1
0211 Sud Yungas 8765,5 1092,5 12,5
0220 Caranavi 2598,8 164,3 6,3
Franz
0207 16657,5 212,6 1,3
Tamayo
Source: self made

99
5.1.3.2.3. Moderate Risk Classification.

Table 26 shows each of the provinces and their coverage percentages for moderate erosive
risk.

Table 26. Provinces with moderate risk of erosion.

Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)

0220 Caranavi 2598,8 1919,3 73,9

Abel
0215 39898,4 21479,8 53,8
Iturralde
0211 Sud Yungas 8765,5 4589,6 52,4
0202 Omasuyos 1456,5 737,8 50,7
Franz
0207 16657,5 7716,2 46,3
Tamayo
0201 Murillo 3826,4 1565,3 40,9
Bautista
0216 3058,5 1199,0 39,2
Saavedra
0212 Los Andes 2803,2 1048,0 37,4
0208 Ingavi 4134,3 1521,2 36,8
0209 Loayza 2892,2 1006,4 34,8
0206 Larecaja 9644,7 2981,4 30,9
0205 Muñecas 1600,0 235,9 14,7
0203 Pacajes 11223,9 1577,9 14,1
0210 Inquisivi 7031,7 633,8 9,0
0214 Nor Yungas 1784,0 105,4 5,9
Manco
0217 252,3 12,0 4,8
Kapac
0204 Camacho 1797,9 56,3 3,1
Gualberto
0218 1964,2 32,1 1,6
Villarroel
0213 Aroma 4646,8 47,7 1,0
Source: self made

100
5.1.3.2.4. High Risk Classification.

Table 27 shows each of the provinces and their coverage percentages of high erosive risk.

Table 27. Provinces with high risk of erosion.

Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
Franz
0207 16657,5 7566,3 45,4
Tamayo
Abel
0215 39898,4 17972,5 45,0
Iturralde
0211 Sud Yungas 8765,5 2298,7 26,2
0210 Inquisivi 7031,7 1799,6 25,6
0206 Larecaja 9644,7 2048,1 21,2
0220 Caranavi 2598,8 457,2 17,6
0209 Loayza 2892,2 480,9 16,6
Bautista
0216 3058,5 394,9 12,9
Saavedra
0201 Murillo 3826,4 98,2 2,6
0205 Muñecas 1600,0 25,5 1,6
0214 Nor Yungas 1784,0 10,1 0,6
Source: self made

5.1.3.2.5. Very High Risk Classification.

Table 28 shows each of the provinces and their coverage percentages of very high erosive
risk.

Table 28. Provinces with a very high risk of erosion.

Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)
0210 Inquisivi 7031,7 3600,4 51,2
Franz
0207 16657,5 1142,2 6,9
Tamayo
0211 Sud Yungas 8765,5 561,6 6,4

101
 Risk Percentage
Municipality Name of the Municipality coverage of
Code Municipality Area (Km2) area Coverage
(Km2) (%)

0209 Loayza 2892,2 84,6 2,9

Abel
0215 39898,4 445,5 1,1
Iturralde
Bautista
0216 3058,5 27,5 0,9
Saavedra

0206 Larecaja 9644,7 49,7 0,5

0220 Caranavi 2598,8 3,3 0,1

Source: self made

5.1.4. Analysis of ecoregions with erosive risks.

For the analysis of the ecoregions, a comparison was made in relation to the risk of erosion
in the department of La Paz, carrying out an analysis of coverage by areas and the percentage
of each risk. Next, the paired map of this analysis and its tables are shown, explaining the
results, Map 15 on the continuous page, only the erosion risk map is observed together with
the distribution map of the ecoregions existing in the department.

5.1.4.1. Very Low Risk Rating.

Table 29 shows each of the ecoregions and their coverage percentages of very low erosive
risk.
Table 29. Eco regions with very low risk of erosion.

Eco-Region Area Risk coverage Percentage of

Eco region
(Km2) area (Km2) coverage (%)
Puna Sureña 20750,9 5194,3 25,0
Yungas 37635,4 4641,2 12,3
Puna Norteña 20678,9 834,1 4,0
Bosques Secos
5075,0 197,7 3,9
Interandinos
Source: self made

The ecoregion that has the highest coverage of very low risk is the inter-Andean dry forests,
this due to the type of soil that predominates in most of this ecoregion. The type of soil that
predominates in this, is clayey loam, this type of soil does not allow water infiltration and
does not allow the splash to produce some type of erosion, in addition to being a wooded
vegetation cover.

102
5.1.4.2. Low Risk Classification.

Table 30 shows each one of the ecoregions and their coverage percentages of low erosive
risk.

Table 30. Eco regions with low risk of erosion.

Eco-Region Area Risk coverage Percentage of

Eco region
(Km2) area (Km2) coverage (%)
Puna Sureña 20750,9 13591,4 65,5
Puna Norteña 20678,9 10962,2 53,0
Yungas 37635,4 4289,8 11,4
Bosques Secos
5075,0 576,5 11,4
Interandinos
Source: self made

The first 2 ecoregions with a low coverage percentage are located in the south of the
department, this means that rainfall is not constant and does not consider a significant
contribution to erosion, in another aspect the slopes do not have a significant percentage for
be considered a contributor to the erosion of these ecoregions, this analysis allows to identify
which ecoregion of the department of La Paz is at low risk of erosion, the criteria that
contribute to the result in these areas are grassland cover, soil type and very low precipitation.

103
 Map 15. Risks in ecoregions of the department of La Paz.

Source: Friends for Nature Foundation in 2003.

104
5.1.4.3. Moderate Risk Classification.

Table 31 shows each of the ecoregions and their coverage percentages for moderate erosive
risk.

Table 31. Eco regions with moderate risk of erosion.

Percentage
Eco-Region Area Risk coverage
Eco region of coverage
(Km2) area (Km2)
(%)
Sudoeste de la
34336,7 19677,0 57,3
Amazonía
Yungas 37635,4 15923,2 42,3
Bosques Secos
5075,0 2072,3 40,8
Interandinos
Puna Norteña 20678,9 6584,8 31,8
Cerrado 9720,0 2386,0 24,5
Puna Sureña 15995,7 1913,6 12,0
Source: self made

As observed in Table 31, the first 2 eco-regions have criteria that explain this result, the
healthy vegetation cover in these eco-regions is not in a healthy state that shows an efficient
photosynthetic action and also that the type of soil It is not suitable for agricultural practices,
because it is a clay soil where the plow must be deeper to soften the soil so that the crops can
have better water retention and the lack of precipitation is also a negative factor In these
ecoregions, helping the soils to become more arid and drier where different climatological
factors contribute to erosion, moving on to the following 2 ecoregions, it is observed that
they are the areas of the department where precipitation varies between medium and high ,
this allows the risk of erosion to increase.

5.1.4.4. High Risk Classification.

Table 32 shows each of the ecoregions and their coverage percentages of low erosive risk.

Table 32. Eco regions with high risk of erosion.

Eco-Region Area Risk coverage Percentage of

Eco region
(Km2) area (Km2) coverage (%)
Cerrado 9720,0 6959,2 71,6
Sudoeste de la
34336,7 14511,2 42,3
Amazonía
Yungas 37635,4 9485,6 25,2
Bosques Secos
5075,0 1113,8 21,9
Interandinos

105
 Eco-Region Area Risk coverage Percentage of
Eco region
(Km2) area (Km2) coverage (%)
Puna Norteña 20678,9 1147,9 5,6
Puna Sureña 15995,7 43,1 0,3
Source: self made

For the first ecoregions, precipitation is the greatest contributor since these are found in the
northern area of the department where the highest average annual rainfall was recorded, for
the Yungas and inter-Andean dry forests another of the greatest contributors are the registered
slopes and the little photosynthetic action, especially in the central part of the department,
the lack of protective coverage of the soils in combination with slopes greater than 40% and
abundant rainfall provide the results obtained in these ecoregions where high percentages of
risk were obtained. In the case of the enclosed area in this area, the vegetation cover is not
healthy and this contributes to the fact that precipitation plays a much more important role in
this area.

5.1.4.5. Very High Risk Classification.

Table 33 shows each of the ecoregions and their coverage percentages of low erosive risk.

Table 33. Eco regions with very high risk of erosion.

Percentage
Eco-Region Risk coverage
Eco region of coverage
Area (Km2) area (Km2)
(%)
Bosques Secos
5075,0 1114,7 22,0
Interandinos
Puna Norteña 11580,0 1056,0 9,1
Yungas 37635,4 3267,2 8,7
Cerrado 9720,0 374,7 3,9
Sudoeste de la Amazonía 34336,7 132,3 0,4
Source: self made

The inter-Andean dry forests, gave this result due to the importance of the slopes in this area,
as well as the precipitation and the type of soil in most of this ecoregion, the latter is because
the type of soil allows water to infiltrate through quite deep levels where the roots do not
reach and makes them look for sectors where they get water, thus contributing to a deeper
erosion of the soils. However, this 25% could also be due to unregistered deforestation.

106
CAPÍTULO 6
EVALUACIÓN

107
6.1. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

Soil erosion is one of the predominant environmental problems worldwide, since it is a

phenomenon that is responsible for the degradation of ecosystems, affecting the economy
through agriculture; since it reduces soil fertility, physically removing nutrients by dragging
particles from the upper horizons, through water and rain; And in tourism, at the time when
physical changes are made to tourist places due to the rains, since 1985 (Bertoni and
Lombardi Neto) there are studies that support that agricultural lands become less productive:
- Degradation of the soil structure
- Decrease in organic matter
- Loss of soil
- Loss of nutrients
- Deterioration of the water supply
When the soil suffers from a runoff, it becomes compacted, which reduces the development
of the roots, the capillary movement of water and the infiltration of water and air; As a
consequence, associated with this, the winds play another role, since by brushing against the
soil, it “cleanses” the earth of its nutrients (FAO, 2018).
Deterioration of the Water Supply.
The deterioration of the water supply refers to the decrease in the amount of ground and
surface water, as well as the loss of quality in the water, poor water quality, this may be the
result not only of improper use of the soil and poor management practices that lead to the
transport of materials by surface runoff, but also to urban and industrial pollution due to
inadequate control processes and poor sanitation systems.
Increased runoff is often the result of changes in land use that reduce protective cover and
surface porosity. These changes in land use often arise when an increase in population forces
it to cultivate or graze lands that are barely suitable for the new use, for this reason it is
evident that the soil loses its ability to sustain productive agriculture reaching thus affect the
economies of the countries, adding to it the climate change that is also caused by the same
human being (FAO, 2018).
With the previous introduction of the consequences of soil erosion on human activities, this
instrument is validated by evaluations with other layers in addition to the criteria, in which
the causes and consequences of erosive risk in the department of La Paz, this evaluation
focuses on the socio-environmental impact that the department could suffer and its
consequences on the economic activities of the population.
6.1.1. Deforestation in Relation to Erosion Risk

For this analysis of the risk of erosion in relation to deforestation, a layer was attached, in
which it provides the areas with the highest deforestation in the course of 2016.
Deforestation, as is well known, is one of the causes of erosion to Worldwide, this allows the

108
weather conditions in various areas to affect the soils in a greater way, this added to the slopes
indicates that these areas are prone to various risks that will be analyzed later.

For the evaluation of deforestation in its relation to soil erosion, in Map 16 on the next page,
it is observed that due to deforestation, the slopes registered and the abundant precipitation
registered in the area, there is a high tendency to erosion, as explained in the first chapter,
one of the consequences of erosion is landslides, this depends on the degree of inclination of
the slope, according to Rhett A. Butler in his 2009 deforestation report in Costa Rica on the
mongabay page, indicates that deforestation of wooded areas in rainy tropics accelerates soil
erosion, thus causing loss of cover and subsequent landslides.

Another factor is the deforestation caused to carry out agricultural practices, this means that
plots and even hectares will be cut down and / or burned to clear them and be treated even
for raising livestock. There is no deforestation map for the department, all this added to the
fact that erosion also causes the detachment of nutrients from the land, another layer that
could be implemented in a later analysis is deforestation in wooded areas.

109
 Map 16. Deforestation Map in relation to erosive risk.

Source: Vice Minister of Environment, Biodiversity, Climate Change and Forest Management and
Development 2016.

110
6.1.2. Erosion Risk in Relation to Disaster Risks

For the analysis of disaster risks in relation to erosive risks, 2 of the consequences of soil
erosion, floods and droughts were taken. In addition to the different alerts that were registered
at the beginning of the year in which there was a greater rainfall in the country.
It began with the risk of flooding, for this analysis there are 2 maps, one of flood alert and
the other of registered floods, in Map 17 on the next page, we observe that the highest
registered flood is in the community of Ixiamas, in The erosion risk map indicates a great
coverage of high risk, this as indicated in chapter 2, floods are one of the consequences of
soil erosion worldwide, this due to the increase of sediments in the bodies of water and in
diminishing land on the banks of rivers.

In Map 18 of flood alerts on page 112, as in Map 17 these flood alerts could be lower by
taking preventive measures in the areas that the map indicates risks of consideration, it is
perceived that in the area The central orange and yellow flood alerts are found in the
concentration of very high and high risks, that is, the municipalities affected by the flood are
a consequence of the erosion of their soils.

Continuing with the risk analysis, we have droughts, in the lack of vital resources for the
sustenance of humanity, water, in extreme circumstances and adverse to the natural cycle,
comes to have a noticeable absence in the daily life of the Human populations, to the point
of almost disappearing, Map 19 on page 113, shows that in the area of greatest erosion risk,
which in this case in the northern part of the department, there is a threat of drought 1 year
out of every 5 years Although abundant precipitation is recorded in this area, erosion is the
main cause of droughts, droughts are other consequences of soil erosion, this because the
sediments that are carried by rivers, also by Precipitation on steep slopes and other land
transfer factors affect the course and flow of rivers, diverting them from their natural path to
a reservoir or immobile body of water where some human community is located. close, this
causing the reservoir and the river to dry up, this consequence was explained in chapter 2 of
this analysis.

111
 Map 17. Map of registered floods and erosive risk of La Paz.

Source: Ministry of Defense - Vice Ministry of Civil Defense (Integrated Information and Alert System for
Disaster Risk Management (SINAGER - SAT))

112
 Map 18. Erosive risk and flood alerts of La Paz.

Fuente: Ministerio de Defensa - Viceministerio de Defensa Civil (Sistema Integrado de Información y Alerta
para la Gestión de Riesgo de Desastres (SINAGER - SAT))

113
 Map 19. Drought threat and erosive risk map of La Paz.

Source: Ministry of Defense - Vice Ministry of Civil Defense (Integrated Information and Alert System for
Disaster Risk Management (SINAGER - SAT))

114
6.1.3. Erosion Risk in Areas of Social, Productive and Natural Interest.

In the risk assessment within departmental interests, the possible consequences of erosion in
the different areas of human / nature relationship are evaluated, that is, all those activities
that humans carry out in conjunction with nature without modifying their ecological structure
such as tourism, water use, etc., also, the social relationship of erosion on the status and
economic need of these.

6.1.3.1. Erosive risk in relation to populated centers

In this evaluation, the populated centers with the highest population density, capitals and
centers located in areas with moderate, high and very high risks are observed, this indicates
that amount of the population of these populated centers and / or homes are at constant risk
of erosion and its possible consequences that would lead to economic and human losses.

Due to the concern to maintain economic development, it frequently left in the background
the importance that the environmental costs generated by economic activities would have in
the short, medium and long term. However, today the different sectors of society have
become more aware of the negative effects, both economic and social, of environmental
degradation and the intensive and unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. Because
economic growth is one of the components of sustainable development and environmental
degradation has a direct impact on the sustained growth of the economy of any
country(Población y medio ambiente Mexico, n.d.).

In Mexico, INEGI has calculated the Total Costs for Depletion and Environmental
Degradation (CTADA) for the country in recent years. CTADAs are calculated based on the
costs of depletion of forest resources, hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas), groundwater and
derivatives due to the depletion of natural resources caused by changes in land use; and for
the costs associated with degradation, which include those related to poor air quality and the
degradation and contamination of soils and water.(Población y medio ambiente Mexico,
n.d.).

Landslides, apart from causing breaks and soil degradation, are particularly damaging to vital
lines (roads, aqueducts, pipelines). Erosion, by removing fine particles and nutrients from the
soil, makes it lose its productivity and contributes sediments that will later be deposited in
reservoirs and / or river beds, damaging the navigability of rivers. Both erosion and
sedimentation are particularly harmful to civil works related to river channels: bridges, piers,
riverside cities, etc. (Organizacion de los Estados Americanos (OAS), 1987).

Regarding floods and floods, the impact they can cause is well known because year after year
they are repeated, being perhaps one of the most frequent and persistent destructive
phenomena that generate the greatest losses: destruction of crops and vital lines, isolation of
populations, erosion of alluvial banks and terraces, etc.(Organizacion de los Estados
Americanos (OAS), 1987).

115
According to the INE, according to its projections, in 2018 Bolivia would have a population
of 11,307,000 inhabitants, in the case of La Paz it would be around 2,883,000 inhabitants,
which would be a growth of 25.5% in the department.

For this analysis, we have the distribution indicated by the Comprehensive Territorial
Development Plan (PTDI) in which it shows the distribution of the categories of the
populated centers according to the number of inhabitants, then the explanation of the
distribution according to the Ministerio de Planificación del Desarrollo, (2016):

Categorization of populated centers

In this part, the categorization of populated centers was carried out based on the analysis of
the population of the territory and the definition of types, according to the number of
inhabitants of each populated center. This process allows to classify the populated centers
according to the amount of population in:

• The Metropolitan Regions, which are characterized by the high concentration of

population in urban agglomerations formed by the physical union of two or more
contiguous cities, consider those concentrations of more than 500,000 inhabitants
that include, in some cases, capital cities.

• Capital cities of the department, characterized by being the main urban

agglomeration of the department that concentrates the political / administrative
activity of the department.

• The main cities are characterized by being centers of articulation of territorial spaces
that are not part of the metropolitan regions, but that present a high concentration of
the population, with a population between 50,001 and 500,000 inhabitants.

• The largest cities, with a population between 15,001 and 50,000 inhabitants, are
those populated centers that have a smaller population size than the main cities.
However, they constitute potential strategic centers for the articulation of smaller
populated centers in economic, social and cultural terms, and from a spatial
perspective they are projected as potential main cities due to the high migration of
rural population towards them.

• Smaller cities are characterized by having a limited urban structure due to their
reduced number of inhabitants, based on the minimum needs required for basic
services and trade and service infrastructure, which vary between 5,001 and 15,000
inhabitants.

• The populated centers with basic services are made up of concentrated populations
between 2,001 and 5,000 inhabitants, where 60% or more of the dwellings
simultaneously have basic water services through the network pipe, electric power
available through the electricity company network or other source and gas (by pipe
or carafe) as fuel for cooking.
116
 • Populated centers without basic services are those with a small and concentrated
population of between 2,000 and 5,000 inhabitants, where less than 60% of the
dwellings do not have basic services simultaneously: water through the network
pipe, electricity and gas (through the pipe or carafe).

• Rural villages are made up of populations with less than 2000 inhabitants. In some
cases, these populated centers may be considered exceptionally urban according to
the criteria defined in the radio / urban area homologation process.

As can be seen in Map 20 of populated centers, certain populated centers with an extensive
population density are in high and very high erosion risk classifications, this determines how
many populated centers and how many inhabitants would be at various risks of possible
disasters , the effects that erosion has on the population are varied, from loss of crops,
landslides, floods, droughts and loss of connecting trails, erosion is a problem that affects
both economically and the quality of life of the population of the department, Table 34 shows
the populations found in this analysis.

117
 Map 20. Risk of erosion and populated centers.

Source: National Institute of Statistics (INE), Methodological Guidelines for the Formulation of Territorial
Plans for Comprehensive Development to Live Well (PTDI).

118
 Table 34. Population centers.

Population
Classification of
Populatio 2018 Category of
Name of the the populated
n 2012 Arithmetic the populated
town center per
(hab) method center
inhabitant
(hab)

30 de Agosto 17 20 Rural towns 0 - 2000

Rural towns
Achiquiri 1216 1414 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Agua Blanca
180 204 0 - 2000
AyB
Rural towns
Aten 351 416 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Bolzon 0 0 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Bravillo Alto 119 119 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Bravo Alto 29 32 0 - 2000

Bravo Rural towns

142 157 0 - 2000
Salviani
Rural towns
Campo Bravo 21 25 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Castilluma 79 81 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Cerro Verde 13 12 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Chaguaya 174 158 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Chajolpaya 295 323 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Chajraya 58 53 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Challaguaya 59 54 0 - 2000

Challana Rural towns

562 628 0 - 2000
Pampa

119
 Population
Classification of
Populatio 2018 Category of
Name of the the populated
n 2012 Arithmetic the populated
town center per
(hab) method center
inhabitant
(hab)
Rural towns
Charque 0 0 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Chiliza 218 253 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Chipa 0 0 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Chocaqui 0 0 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Coajoni 30 27 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Collana
68 0 0 - 2000
Añahuayani
Rural towns
Cotalpalca 0 0 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Cristo Rey 0 0 0 - 2000

Cuajoni Rural towns

0 0 0 - 2000
Antahua
Rural towns
Ejra 72 79 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Emanuel 100 112 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Fortaleza de
0 0 0 - 2000
Tuiri
Rural towns
Gran Poder I 0 0 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Huajchilla 1078 1149 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Huaraca 76 0 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Huata Huata 72 83 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Huichuraya 38 42 0 - 2000

120
 Population
Classification of
Populatio 2018 Category of
Name of the the populated
n 2012 Arithmetic the populated
town center per
(hab) method center
inhabitant
(hab)
Rural towns
Huisllani 41 46 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Huma Marca 19 18 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Humamarca
y Carmen 0 0 0 - 2000
Choro

Rural towns
Inca Roca 139 161 0 - 2000

Independenci Rural towns

30 34 0 - 2000
a
Rural towns
Ishuaya 123 138 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Isihuaya 75 84 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Jallallica 189 194 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Japo 44 41 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Kalabatea de
131 157 0 - 2000
Ayacucho

Rural towns
Keara 179 203 0 - 2000
Rural towns
La Palca 49 58 0 - 2000

Lanza Rural towns

392 407 0 - 2000
Mohoza
Rural towns
Las Pampitas 0 0 0 - 2000

Rural towns
Llica 23 26 0 - 2000

121
 Population
Classification of
Populatio 2018 Category of
Name of the the populated
n 2012 Arithmetic the populated
town center per
(hab) method center
inhabitant
(hab)
Rural towns
Llipi 120 131 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Llojllapampa 36 34 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Los Andes 0 0 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Marca 170 204 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Miguel
0 0 0 - 2000
Doolling
Rural towns
Miraflores 30 35 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Mojos 66 78 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Molinos 155 166 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Nueva
0 0 0 - 2000
Esperanza
Rural towns
Pachamaya 59 58 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Pajchiri 151 183 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Palillada 42 48 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Pata 258 306 0 - 2000

Pichincha Rural towns

0 0 0 - 2000
Chico
Rural towns
Pichincha
0 0 0 - 2000
Grande
Rural towns
Piquenchaca 45 55 0 - 2000

122
 Population
Classification of
Populatio 2018 Category of
Name of the the populated
n 2012 Arithmetic the populated
town center per
(hab) method center
inhabitant
(hab)
Rural towns
Pongo B-2 140 150 0 - 2000

Pongo B-2 Rural towns

382 409 0 - 2000
(Civil)
Rural towns
Pucara 200 225 0 - 2000
Rural towns

Pueblo Villa
Asunción de 0 0 0 - 2000
Machaca

Rural towns
Puina 284 321 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Querarani 200 218 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Quimsachata 44 53 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Rosario 488 548 0 - 2000
Rural towns
San Jose de
Uchupiamon 630 726 0 - 2000
as

Rural towns
Santa Ana 48 57 0 - 2000

Sapucuni Rural towns

137 153 0 - 2000
Tuljuni
Rural towns
Sivincani 170 170 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Sora
Ticapampa 0 0 0 - 2000
Zona B

Rural towns
Tacagua 46 49 0 - 2000

123
 Population
Classification of
Populatio 2018 Category of
Name of the the populated
n 2012 Arithmetic the populated
town center per
(hab) method center
inhabitant
(hab)
Rural towns
Taypi Centro 214 227 0 - 2000

Titicani Rural towns

94 100 0 - 2000
Tacaca
Rural towns
Torewa 41 49 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Totorani 258 258 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Tuiri 178 207 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Vacas 0 0 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Vilacota 77 80 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Villa Andina 0 0 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Villa Carmen 0 0 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Villa Khora 490 555 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Villa Marka 62 74 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Villa
0 0 0 - 2000
Pichincha
Rural towns
Witoponte 579 647 0 - 2000
Rural towns
Yolosani 105 117 0 - 2000
Populated
Centers with
and without
Guanay 4165 4657 2000 - 5000
basic services

124
 Population
Classification of
Populatio 2018 Category of
Name of the the populated
n 2012 Arithmetic the populated
town center per
(hab) method center
inhabitant
(hab)
Populated
Centers with
and without
Ixiamas 4030 4777 2000 - 5000
basic services

Minor Cities
Achacachi 9302 6662 5001 - 15000
Minor Cities
Apolo 6376 7554 5001 - 15000
Minor Cities
Campamento
5972 6198 5001 - 15000
Colquiri
Minor Cities
Caranavi 13299 14528 5001 - 15000
Minor Cities
Copacabana 5731 5803 5001 - 15000
Minor Cities
Lahuachaca 5874 6304 5001 - 15000

Palos Minor Cities

5478 6415 5001 - 15000
Blancos
Minor Cities
Patacamaya 11249 11985 5001 - 15000

Achocalla 18722 19834 Major Cities 15001 - 50000

Viacha 62979 77187 Main cities 51000 - 500000

Metropolitan
El Alto 846880 953587 Regions > 500000
Metropolitan
La Paz 758845 743365 Regions > 500000
Source: National Institute of Statistics (INE), Methodological Guidelines for the Formulation of Territorial
Plans for Comprehensive Development to Live Well (PTDI).

125
6.1.3.2. Risk of erosion in relation to extreme poverty

For this evaluation, the extreme poverty incidence layer shows the percentages of extreme
poverty incidence in the country at the municipal level, the most severe state of poverty is
based on the percentage of people who cannot satisfy several of the basic needs to live as
food, drinking water, shelter and health. Prepared by the Unit for the Analysis of Social and
Economic Policies in 2006, taking as a reference data from the Household Survey (National
Institute of Statistics) of 2001. The relationship between the risk of erosion and poverty is
analyzed on the map extreme recorded in the department, this due to the fact that erosion,
whether causing floods, floods or other types of disasters, could directly affect the economy
of certain populations in which there is not a good management of prevention of these.

Map 21 on the next page shows that the areas with the highest risk of erosion have an
incidence of poverty, due to factors in the area itself, not so much due to soil erosion, but it
is likely that this is one of the factors with greater weight on the economy of these
municipalities, it would be recommended to carry out an in-depth evaluation of the factors
that cause this extreme poverty and update the data.

This instrument provides one of the possible causes of extreme poverty in these areas, since
erosion causes loss of soil nutrients, diversion of river courses, low water quality, etc., all the
consequences that it brings. the erosion of soils already mentioned previously in other
chapters of this analysis. However, this instrument determines the areas in which there are
erosive risks in the department, clearly seeing that the areas with high and very high risk
show the highest percentage of extreme poverty incidence.

126
 Map 21. Extreme poverty assessment.

Source: Center for Development and Environment.

127
6.1.3.3. Erosion Risk Assessment in Protected Areas of the department of La Paz.

In the evaluation of protected areas, 3 layers are observed: national, departmental and
municipal protected areas. This analysis would determine which authority or authorities as a
whole should carry out preventions, since these areas are of international interest. In Map 22
on the next page, it is observed that risks are within protected areas, this followed by an
evaluation of the percentage of coverage of these risks, the evaluation was only made for
high and very high risks.

Table 35. High risk coverage in national and municipal protected areas.

Risk
Name of the Percentage
Protected Area coverage
Category Protected of coverage
Area ID (Km2) area
Area (%)
(Km2)
Natural Area of
51 Integrated Apolobamba 4734,5 320,6 6,8
Management
50 National Park Madidi 12691 608,2 4,8
Natural Area of
49 Integrated Madidi 6034,3 53,1 0,9
Management
Biosphere Reserve
47 and Indigenous Pilón Lajas 2151,5 7,2 0,3
Territory
Municipal Protected Areas
Watershed Protection
16 Tres arroyos 8,3 8,3 100,0
Area
Watershed Protection Serranía de
18 56,2 51,1 90,9
Area Paramarani
Serranía de
51 Wildlife Reserve 74,4 6,1 8,2
Ticoma
Serranía del
Municipal Protected
17 Tigre Alto 326,7 22,4 6,8
Area
Madidi
Source: self made

In this table, it is observed that the protected areas with the highest coverage of high risk of
erosion are the municipal ones, that is to say that the municipality in which this protected
area is located is obliged to carry out preventive measures in these areas to still have the areas
in glory that we are used to observing.

128
 Map 22. Risk assessment map in national and municipal protected areas.

Source: National Service of Protected Areas (SERNAP).

129
 Table 36. Evaluation of protected areas with very high erosive risk.

Risk
Name of the Percentage
Protected Area coverage
Category Protected of coverage
Area ID (Km2) area
Area (%)
(Km2)
Mountain
Watershed
18 range of 56,2 5,1 9,1
Protection Area
Paramarani
National protected areas
Biosphere
Reserve and
47 Pilón Lajas 2151,5 1534,8 71,3
Indigenous
Territory
Natural Area of
49 Integrated Madidi 6034,3 3053,7 50,6
Management
50 National Park Madidi 12690,8 4837,2 38,1
Natural Area of
51 Integrated Apolobamba 4734,5 1126,1 23,8
Management
Source: self made

In this case, the areas that require an exhaustive review are: the national protected areas, since
as we see in Table 36 they are in an area of very high erosive risk and this for the environment
as well as for the tourist economy is a problem of great magnitude.

For this analysis of protected areas, the degree of risk of loss of biodiversity that characterizes
our country is shown. Erosion causes abrupt changes in ecological environments, biasing
various species endemic to the areas, both fauna and flora are at high risk of damage from
erosion.

6.1.3.4. Erosion Risk Assessment in Ramsar Sites of the Department of La Paz.

The RAMSAR sites in the department of La Paz do not have a high or very high risk of
erosion, but if there is in certain areas where there is moderate risk and if this is not prevented,
this could increase in category. These RAMSAR sites are very important for the health and
economy of certain municipalities of the department, it is for this reason that even though
they are not in a high-risk area, it is recommended that they control the moderate risk they
have.

Map 23 on the next page shows the distribution of the RAMSAR sites, the only one of
importance is Lake Titicaca, the second RAMSAR site does not have significant coverage
but falls into a moderate risk zone, this is the Matos River. However, the RAMSAR site of
Lake Titicaca, as it has a vast extension, runs a great risk as it is in a moderate risk zone.

130
 Map 23. RAMSAR site evaluation map.

Source: Ministry of Environment and Water.

131
6.1.4. Risk of erosion and the presence of organic carbon in soils

In soils, the release of CO2 into the atmosphere occurs when organic waste or organic matter
in the soil (SOM) is oxidized. The flux of CO2 released by soil fauna and underground soil
roots into the atmosphere is called soil respiration and represents the second largest flux of
terrestrial carbon (Raich and Potter, 1995).

Soil respiration is seasonally variable, as it is controlled by environmental factors such as

temperature, humidity, soil nutrient content, and oxygen concentration. The effect of climate
change, especially rising temperatures and changing precipitation regimes, is soil respiration
(Lefèvre et al., 2017).

Temperature and precipitation are the most important factors in controlling the dynamics of
Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) (Deb et al., 2015). Increasing temperatures can accelerate plant
production, increasing carbon inputs to the soil, at the same time as the microbial
decomposition of COS will increase. (Keestrea et al., 2016).

This increased frequency of extreme events can exacerbate the rate and susceptibility to
erosion, salinization, and other accelerated degradation processes, leading to further carbon
losses. Finally, climate change can affect several soil-forming factors, including rainfall,
temperature, microorganisms / biota, and vegetation, negatively affecting the rate of SOC
accumulation. (FAO y GTIS, 2015).

In the analysis of the relationship of erosive risks with the presence of carbon in soils, since
soil erosion could consider the loss of carbon in soils leading to arid areas, in which no type
of maintenance can be carried out economic activity and in the worst case causing an
emission of CO2 into the atmosphere increasing greenhouse gases. As can be seen in Map
24, the areas with the highest erosive risk are in the areas with the highest concentration of
SOC.

132
 Map 24. Erosive risk and presence of COS in the department of La Paz.

Source: Ministry of Rural Development and Lands - Vice Ministry of Lands (General Directorate of Land
Distribution).

133
6.1.4.1. Productive potential in relation to erosive risk.

In the evaluation of productive potential, the erosion risk analysis map was superimposed on
this to observe which areas with greater erosive risk fall into productive potentials of
economic interest to the department. Table 38 on page 135 shows the percentage of coverage
of the high erosive risk classification within the areas of productive potential, this is ordered
from the highest percentage of coverage to the lowest.

Table 37. High Erosive Risk for productive potential

Percentage
Productive
Productive potential Risk Area Coverage
potential area
(%)
Limited agricultural 1608 181 11
Climbing 293 36 12
Agricultural crops 3488 1238 35
Farm crops local market 288 19 7
Vegetable and fruit crops 1639 359 22
Industrial and consumer crops 682 337 49
Exploitation of mining deposits 2568 381 15
Limited forestry 37729 12254 32
Timber and non-timber forest 16684 7815 47
Limited timber and non-timber forest 8627 2611 30
Cattle raising 0,0002 0,0002 100
Bovine livestock 1102 828 75
Bovine livestock limited use 7518 5650 75
Extensive grazing 2324 293 13
Limited grazing 5285 833 16
Fish farming and water catchment 356 196 55
Protection and wildlife 8 3 41
Scenic tourist 166 87 52
Urban zone 6 4 71
Source: self made.

134
 Map 25. Productive potential and risk of erosion.

Source: Ministry of Productive Development and Plural Economy.

135
 Table 38. Very high risk of productive potential.

Percentage
Productive
Productive potential Risk Area Coverage
potential area
(%)
Agricultural 0,00044 0,00044 100
Limited agricultural 318 284 89
Climbing 131 47 36
Agricultural crops 3351 1615 48
Farm crops local market 281 1 0,5
Vegetable and fruit crops 1488 580 39
Industrial and consumer crops 433 60 14
Exploitation of mining deposits 1641 668 41
Limited forestry 30577 1467 5
Timber and non-timber forest 16684 42 0,3
Limited timber and non-timber forest 8627 13 0,2
Bovine livestock 1102 14 1
Bovine livestock limited use 7518 383 5
Extensive grazing 817 57 7
Limited grazing 3367 641 19
Fish farming and water catchment 340 21 6
Protection and wildlife 7 0,35 5
Scenic tourist 151 12 8
Urban zone 2,48 1,86 75
Source: self made.

6.2. CONTRIBUTION OF THE ANALYSIS TO THE NATIONAL BASIN PLAN

(NBP)

The Multi-year Program of the National Watershed Plan 2013-2020 is formulated based on
the Political Constitution of the Plurinational State and current laws, and is part of the
Patriotic Agenda 2025 of the Government of Bolivia. The problem of the Integral
Management of Water Resources and the Integral Management of Watersheds, manifests
itself in the different regions of the Country, according to the different characteristics of each
region. Among the problems encountered, to which the PNC responds with intervention
policies, institutional strengthening and capacity development, are the contamination of
water sources, floods and floods caused by extreme weather events, droughts that put food
security at risk and the supply of populated centers with basic drinking water services, and
deforestation, soil degradation and desertification. (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua
Viceministerio de Recursos Hídricos y Riego, 2017).

This analysis has an important contribution to the PNC, more specific in the application of
its components, which are explained below and the contribution of the analysis to each of the

136
7 components, being an instrument for decision-making determining the coverage of erosive
risks within the department to identify watersheds that should be analyzed in more detail.

6.2.1. Component 1: Management of Strategic Basins and Basin Master Plans (GCE /
PDC)

Through this component, the PNC develops the orientation, facilitation and implementation
of Basin Master Plans (PDC) in CE, through the establishment of institutional alliances and
agreements for the promotion, facilitation, technical assistance and financing management
for their implementation. (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua Viceministerio de Recursos
Hídricos y Riego, 2017).

In this component, the instrument would determine a contribution of measures or actions in

possible problems or obstacles in erosion management by different human activities in the
department of La Paz, so that certain basins near these risk areas are considered a priority
due to potential risks that could be presented.

6.2.2. Component 2: Investments in Integrated Water Resources Management

(IWRM) / Integrated Watershed Management (MIC).

Through component 2, the PNC promotes the implementation of IWRM and MIC projects at
the micro-basin level, in response to the growing demand that exists for this type of project
by local organizations, municipalities, mancomunidades, governorates and other entities.
(Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua Viceministerio de Recursos Hídricos y Riego, 2017).

For this component, the instrument would contribute to the prioritization of immediate
intervention areas in the case of prevention of potential disasters, with reforestation projects
or different alternatives for the prevention and mitigation of erosion..

6.2.3. Component 3: Management of Hydrological Risks and Climate Change (GRH-

CC)

In the management of hydrological risks and climate change of the PNC, the emphasis is on
prevention aspects, through the promotion of proper watershed management, the introduction
of climate-resilient techniques and infrastructures, hydrological early warning, respect for
the safety strips on the riverbanks, the development of capacities and attitudes of prevention
in the population and the authorities and the implementation of protection projects against
droughts and floods (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua Viceministerio de Recursos
Hídricos y Riego, 2017).

In this component, the instrument provides information determining areas with risks related
to erosion in the basins such as floods, droughts, etc., this instrument will allow the authorities
the areas with high erosive risks and vulnerability to climate change, thus prioritizing
intervention.

137
6.2.4. Component 4: Water Quality Management (GCH)

Through component 4, the PNC seeks to promote water quality management spaces at the
level of basin organizations (platforms, OGC) among environmental authorities
(Municipalities, Governments), productive sectors (mining, industry, agriculture, EPSAS)
and social organizations. to promote the changes required in the management of water quality
to live well (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua Viceministerio de Recursos Hídricos y
Riego, 2017).

For this component, the dragging of sediments that could occur in the areas with the highest
erosive risk, would lead to a load of sediments in the strategic basins, which would be the
cause of losses of cause, reduction of the flow of the basins, scarcity of water in the
municipalities that use these basins and reduction in water quality depending on the human
activities found in the areas, clearly all this based on the erosive risk map to determine the
areas that should be made a more detailed analysis with specific data of the areas in which
intervention is necessary to avoid disasters in the future.

6.2.5. Component 5: Intercultural Program of Pedagogical Basins (PICP)

The modality of implementation of the Intercultural Program of Pedagogical Watersheds

(PICP) of the PNC, is developed through the establishment of alliances with facilitating
institutions (FI) with the capacity to develop research-action processes in watersheds, in
addition to facilitating learning and inter-learning processes based on the concept of
"dialogue of knowledge"(Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua Viceministerio de Recursos
Hídricos y Riego, 2017).

For this component, although the instrument does not have a direct contribution, it would
provide new knowledge for watershed management and the consequences of poor
management of these with the human activities that take place around the watersheds,
including determining sectors in which should apply certain ancestral or modern practices to
mitigate the erosive risk shown in the instrument.

6.2.6. Component 6: Management of water-environmental information and

communication systems (GSIC)

In component 6 in the PNC because of the importance of the generation, access, exchange
and use of knowledge and information in watershed management. While the different
components consider specific activities related to information and knowledge, it is through
component 6 that all these activities are coordinated and centralized in order to optimize the
quality, availability and exchange of the information services and communication products
generated. (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua Viceministerio de Recursos Hídricos y
Riego, 2017).

In this component, the instrument serves as decision-making support for municipal

technicians, since it brings together all the information necessary to determine the areas with
erosive risk that the municipality may need.

138
6.2.7. Component 7: Institutional strengthening and capacity building for water-
environmental management (FI-DC)

In the last component, the instrument provides what kind of capacities the municipal
technicians should develop, determining a strengthening between municipal institutions and
members of risk prevention or mitigation projects to establish types of early warning of risks
that could affect the municipalities under analysis. . The instrument in conjunction with the
pertinent authorities helps to determine the conditions of improvement of the basins,
determining an instrument for decision-making and capacity building, this instrument would
not have any problem in establishing the erosive risks and the problems that erosion entails.
of soils, its consequences at an environmental level, as well as at an economic level in the
municipalities. For overflows and floods, prevention measures are also necessary, but by
mitigating landslides and landslides, sediments would not reach the main rivers and thus river
flooding would be avoided, on the other hand increasing the depth of truncal rivers or with
overflow history and maintenance education of our major watersheds.

6.3.COMPARISON OF OTHER STUDIES CARRIED OUT WITHIN THE

DEPARTMENT OF LA PAZ

Within this chapter, the evaluation of the erosive risk map was carried out in relation to
different sectors, threats and various factors that lead to erosion risks, consequences and
sectors of public and environmental interest within the department, on the other hand to
indicate the practicality of the map of erosive risk as a decision-making tool, is that at this
point the comparison of the present analysis with a landslide risk analysis in the municipality
of Achocalla is made, this comparison will only be made visually if it coincides with the
majority of the risks that the landslide risk analysis carried out in said municipality compared
to the erosive risk, this to indicate that effectively the map presented fulfills its role of
determining the areas with erosive risks, thus acting as a tool in the taking of decisions for
risk management.

The study entitled "MAPPING OF RISK ZONES TO SLIDES OF THE MUNICIPALITY

OF ACHOCALLA OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LA PAZ, THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF TWO EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES (Application of the
Multicriteria Spatial Evaluation Model in a GIS environment)", presented by Lic. Huber
Augusto Mamani Gutierrez in 2016, shows in the image the areas with the highest risk of
landslides, performing a multi-criteria analysis in conjunction with the GIS, showing on the
left side the coverage of landslide risk determined by the coverage or standardized criteria
and on the right the coverage of risk through direct assignment of classes, carrying out the
visual assessment of the risks provided in the Achocalla study and the erosion risk map,
mentioning that landslides are one of the consequences of the erosive risk of soils, it is
observed that effectively the distribution of The risks are quite similar, they are not identical
due to the difference in criteria that were taken for each analysis and the punctuality of the
study area, also that for the analysis of Achocalla samples were taken in the field, this
increases the detail of the information to determine risks in specific areas.

139
 Image 3. Landslide risk maps of the municipality of Achocalla.

Source: LIC. HUBER AUGUSTO MAMANI GUTIERREZ, 2016.

6.4.EROSION RISK PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES

An adequate diagnosis to control soil erosion, transport and sedimentation is to start by

analyzing the phenomenon of erosion risk, in order to determine the best solution, both for
the results and for the best cost-benefit ratio.

140
The diagnosis must consider the analysis of three factors that describe the erosive
phenomenon: frequency, permanence and intensity. The interaction of these three variables
determines the type of solution and degree of protection necessary, related to the level of risk
and consequences that erosion can cause. The analysis is completed with data from the
environment (type of soil, topography, climate, etc.), use and the degree of security required
of the area to be protected, and even landscape impact of the site and the intervention to be
carried out. (Revista Vial, 2016).

• By having these prevention alternatives, it is necessary to think about applying them

in the areas with the greatest erosive risk, to avoid disasters such as those we
witnessed at the beginning of this year, that is why the following erosive risk
prevention alternatives are presented.
• • Hydrocoverage: It is based on the hydraulic application of a fiber mulch and other
special components. It is a product specially designed for the control of erosion and
vegetation. It is projected on slopes generating a constant and homogeneous mantle
that protects the soil. In the same mixture, seeds, fertilizers and organic activators are
added, being an excellent means of sowing and biological reactivator of inorganic
soils. It offers a primary protection of sloping surfaces and maximizes the vegetation
process. It is also used in combination with geomatting (Revista Vial, 2016).
• Geomantas: These are blankets provided in rolls that are deployed on the surface to
be protected. They generate physical protection of the soil, increase roughness,
improving infiltration and reducing the speed of the water. Not only do they protect
the soil, but they also interact with the vegetation that grows through its matrix. They
can be made up of organic or synthetic fibers, with various matrices and connections.
Organic fiber geomantas (also called biomats) are temporary due to their
biodegradable nature. The most used are made of coconut fiber, due to the length and
durability of its fiber. They are used on medium slopes and without the permanence
of water. On the other hand, synthetic geomants are considered permanent, so their
resistance to UV rays is important. The most used are the so-called TRM geomantas
(vegetation reinforcement mats, for its acronym in English: Turf Reinforcement
Mats), due to their high tensile strength. As vegetation grows through its matrix, it is
reinforced and avoids being uprooted by the dragging effect of the water. Within this
group, there are TRM non-woven and woven geomats. The latter are the ones with
the highest resistance and ground coverage, being able to withstand speeds of up to
7.6 m / s and traction of 43.8 kN / m(Revista Vial, 2016).
• Geocells: It is a cellular confinement system, in the form of a honeycomb, made up
of high-density polyethylene sheets, with a wide range of applications. Among them,
it is used for the protection of slopes (filled with soil), pipelines, bridge abutments,
coastal defense (filled with concrete), or coastal edges (filled with stone). It is a very
versatile system, easily adaptable to different geometries, which develops effective
protections against a wide range of requirements. (Revista Vial, 2016).
• Concrete coatings: Concrete coatings are used when the intensity of erosive actions
(current, waves), the site (surfaces under water or with a steep slope), or
environmental conditions (inorganic soils, extreme climates) make it unwise to

141
 implant a plant cover. These coatings come in various forms, from simple covers
(cement-based blankets) to more complex systems that act due to the weight and
interaction of their components (articulated blocks, block blankets and injected
mattresses). They tend to be easy-to-install alternatives that represent lower cost and
environmental impact solutions than the traditional castings that in many cases
replace (Revista Vial, 2016).

• Containment structures: There are different products and technologies that, in

addition to controlling soil erosion, partially or totally, contain it. From the
bioretainers (tubular organic fiber girdles) used to form borders, generally vegetable;
going through geocontainers (also called "geotubes", sleeves or pockets made with
geotextiles, which allow refilling or dry filling) used in correction works and
hydraulic channeling, as well as containment and protection of margins; to the sheet
piling (of different materials) used in containment and defense of the coast (Revista
Vial, 2016).

142
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS

143
7.1. CONCLUSIONS

 The research carried out determines that the criteria have an adequate interaction in
determining the areas with erosive risk. Precipitation, slope, Normalized Vegetation
Index (NDVI), soil type, drainage density and land use, provide a logical spatial
variability compared to the intensity of risk within the department of La Paz,
distributing intensity levels, which are: very low erosive risk, comprising 1.6%
(1879.2 km2), low erosive risk, comprising 18.1% (23,077.2 Km2), moderate risk,
comprising 36.6% (46,876.4 Km2), high erosive risk, comprising 37.8% (48308.3
Km2), and very high erosive risk, comprising 5.9% (7387.4 Km2), fulfilling that the
relationship between The criteria selected in the analysis and in conjunction with the
multi-criteria method determined the levels of intensity of erosion risk posed in the
hypothesis.
 The analysis of the jurisdictional distribution of the department within the erosive risk
map has made it possible to define areas of importance for the application of
preventive measures in relation to the erosive risks of the different provinces and their
municipalities. The analysis carried out through risk coverage calculations in the
areas of the municipalities and provinces, providing the percentage of the same that
would be at considerable risk, providing information on which provinces and
municipalities are under high and very high erosive risks, concluding that
municipalities and provinces should consider conducting specific studies for erosion
prevention.
 In the validation of the erosive risk map, evaluations were carried out with different
factors showing its veracity, the degradation of soils by erosion as one of the main
causes of climate change:

Through the ecoregional analysis, the distribution of risk levels within each one was
determined; the ecoregion of the Southwest of the Amazon is the northern area of the
department, the influencing criteria on the ecoregion are: precipitation and soil type,
as explained in previous analysis and conclusions, as a result of the relationship
between this and the resulting risk It was moderate, covering 57.3% of this ecoregion,
the Cerrado ecoregion, like the previous one, is located in the northern part of the
department, the result that was observed in the map of this analysis was a coverage
of 71 , 6% high risk, this is due to the fact that in this area the healthy vegetation
cover is at a very low level, added to the abundant precipitation that is recorded
increasing soil erosion, finally the ecoregion of dry forests inter Andes, are located
throughout the central area of the department, the result obtained for this area was
22% coverage of very high risk, abundant rainfall and steep slopes that were recorded
in this area contributed to obtain this result, this analysis provides information that
would help the authorities in the application of different types of prevention.

The analysis of deforested areas in the dry period between 2015 and 2016, showed
that these are in high and moderate risk areas, as mentioned deforestation is a key

144
factor to accelerate soil erosion, this due to the sector where Deforested areas are
found to have abundant rainfall, if the soil does not have a forest cover it is more
prone to damage by drops of water. Furthermore, since there is no information on
whether these deforested areas are being used for other human activities,
deforestation is responsible for around 10% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

The analysis of populated centers of the department of La Paz, provided information

on the population density and the proximity that they have with all the possible
consequences, such as loss of nutrients, organic matter, moisture retention, soil depth,
the decrease in productivity, which leads to poverty, violence and uprooting of the
land, this could cause economic, material and environmental losses. For example, in
a population with a high population density, erosion could cause its water supply to
be affected by a drought, it could also suffer landslides, floods and overflows of rivers
near it, causing loss of crops, poor food health , foci of infection by contaminant
carry-over. Working on this analysis provides the authorities with information on the
risks that the population could suffer.

The analysis of protected areas provided information on the percentage of these areas
that are in high erosive risks, having 100% risk coverage in the protected area of Tres
Arroyos that is within the classification of municipal protected areas, followed by the
Serranía de Paramarani with 90.9% and very high, with coverage of greater areas the
APN (National Protected Areas), Pilón lajas with 71.3% coverage in the area,
followed by Madidi as a natural area of integrated management with a 50.6%
coverage, the same Madidi in this case as a national park with 38.1% and finally
Apolobamba with 23.8%, since protected areas are considered worldwide as
mitigators of various risks against the environment and humanity, would put their
risk-mitigating capacity at risk, such as drought control that protects watersheds,
water sources and wetlands, maintains habitats and stabilizes s sand dunes to slow the
advance of deserts, restore habitats, including reforestation and grassland recovery,
maintain healthy ecosystems, and direct management practices that control and limit
invasive species, protect high-carbon ecosystems, and great biodiversity, also
protecting the soil so that it can fulfill its functions and eco-systemic services.

Within the scope of the National Watershed Plan (PNC), the instrument provided
specific information on the erosive risks suffered by the strategic basins determined
by the PNC. It provides information to different actors within the plan to determine
and establish erosive risk prevention measures within its parameters. The instrument
provides a strategic vision in the integral management of basins, for example,
sediments from erosion generate adverse secondary impacts downstream due to
clogging of reservoirs, channels of water bodies such as rivers, swamps, instability of
ports and bridges, loss of navigability in rivers, reduction of the fishing supply;
Furthermore, sediments can transport some pollutants derived from agrochemicals

145
 applied to the soil, such as phosphorus, nitrogen and pesticide residues, thus
establishing an instrument for decision-making.

The analysis of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) has its relationship with erosion due to
the problem that the soil had when losing the organic carbon that it possesses and the
capacity to retain Carbon Dioxide, the analysis provided information on the retention
areas of CO2 from the soil that are in erosive risks, it was possible to determine the
amount of SOC that would be at risk due to the process of soil erosion, providing
information on the areas that are in danger of a release of pollutants to be able to
incorporate measures to prevent loss of organic carbon (a vital nutrient for flora) and
avoid the emission of CO2 by reducing the contribution to air pollution.

These results are important to redesign soil management plans, aimed at avoiding soil
degradation and increasing their sustainable use in order to meet the need for
increased food production and at the same time establish agronomic measures for soil
conservation. protection of ecosystems and biodiversity.

The conservation and sustainable management of the soil are essential to achieve the well-
being of the population and is interrelated with the success or failure of numerous public
policies related to the agricultural, mining, housing, urban development and drinking water,
industry and sectors. commerce, transport, health, among others. Additionally, sustainable
soil management is essential to consolidate peace processes in the country.
The present work is an instrument for making decisions related to the prevention of risks to
soil erosion in the department of La Paz, collaborating in the determination of future studies
in the sectors of significant risks.

146
 CHAPTER 8
RECOMMENDATIONS

147
8.1. RECOMMENDATIONS

 In areas with high and very high erosive risk, it is recommended to carry out field
studies, with drone images, soil and coverage analysis, to obtain more specific data
on the areas and adopt the most appropriate erosive risk prevention alternatives,
taking Take into account the recommendations for alternatives indicated in point 6.4
on page 140.

 It would be convenient for the research if the criteria for soil type and precipitation
were determined and carried out in the field by national experts, to obtain national
data subject to the data and measurements used by the different national technicians,
in order to have information that is easily understood by the different municipal
technicians.

 It is feasible to have geo-referenced spatial information, as an instrument that allows

municipalities to generate the necessary data for the environmental management of
erosive risks and territorial planning.

 In the case of environmental assessments, it is important to have current geo-

referenced information, so that the instrument is very useful when analyzing risk
coverage.

 For the optimization in the National Watershed Plan (PNC) it is advisable to carry
out a specific analysis at the basin level in relation to erosive risk, in order to provide
municipal field technicians with instruments for erosive analysis of these basins.

 Apply a Comprehensive Environmental Soil Management Policy, to highlight the

role that soils play, fulfilling functions and providing vital eco-systemic services for
society and the planet. It promotes and strengthens actions for the conservation and
sustainable management of soils so that they can fulfill their functions and eco-
systemic services.

 Finally, as this is an instrument that provides municipalities with an analysis of

erosive risks close to populated centers, it is recommended that they take into account
the following aspects:

- Carry out this type of risk work not only of erosion, but of other risks that
impact the population in certain seasons of the year, obtaining alternatives
for prevention and not for mitigation.
- In tentative construction areas, the application of the instrument with
specific analyzes is recommended, establishing areas in which construction
or earthworks cannot be carried out, since these could cause greater risks
and thus avoid the events that were registered in the department. peace.

148
 - Implement and adopt soil conservation practices (barriers, live plants,
contour cultivation, reforestation, etc.), on slopes where agriculture and
construction are practiced, avoiding depriving the soil of plant cover.
Both governmental and non-governmental organizations, such as Governments, mayors,
FONABOSQUE, SERNAP, Vice Ministry of Lands, Ministry of Environment and Water,
Vice Ministry of Rural and Agricultural Development, United Nations (UN), should consider
this analysis for the implementation of their plans, as it contains information of interest .

149
CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES

150
9.1. BIBLIOGRAPHY

About, D. A. (n.d.). NDVI que es y como calcularlo con saga desde qgis. Retrieved from
https://mappinggis.com/2015/06/ndvi-que-es-y-como-calcularlo-con-saga-desde-qgis/
Akgun, A., & Bulut, F. (2007). GIS-based landslide susceptibility for Arsin-Yomra
(Trabzon, North Turkey) region. Environmental Geology (Vol. 51).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-006-0435-6
ALATORRE, L. & BEGUERÍA, S. 2003. Los modelos de erosión: una revisión. Rev. C. &
G 23 (1-2):29-48. España.
Alexakis DD, Hadjimitsis DG, Agapiou A (2013) Integrated use of remote sensing, GIS
and precipitation data for the assessment of soil erosion rate in the catchment area of
“Yialias” in Cyprus. Atmos Res 131:108–124
Allen, S. R, Evaluation and Standardization of Rolled Erosion Control Products,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes., Volume 14, Issues 3-4, March-April 1996, pp. 207-
221.
Arandia Ledezma, I. C. (2016). Descentralización y Relaciones Intergubernamentales.
Ballesteros Sanabria, A. (n.d.). SEGURIDAD DE INSTALACIONES. Retrieved from
http://epn.gov.co/elearning/distinguidos/SEGURIDAD/13_riesgo_amenaza_y_vulnera
bilidad.html
Baniya, N. (2008). Land Suitability Evaluation Using Gis for Vegetable Crops in
Kathmandu Valley / Nepal. Thesis, 1–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2009.02.017
Benkobi, L., Trlica, M. J., and Smith, J. L. (1994). ―Evaluation of a re. ned surface cover
subfactor for use in RUSLE.‖ Journal of Range Management, 47, 74–78
Bevilacqua, R. (2017). ¿Qué son los sitios Ramsar y por qué son tan importantes?
Retrieved from https://laderasur.com/articulo/que-son-los-sitios-ramsar-y-por-que-
son-tan-importantes/
Biesemans J., Meirvenne, M. V., and Gabriels, D. (2000). ―Extending the RUSLE with
the Monte Carlo error propagation technique to predict long-term average oV-site
sediment accumulation.‖ Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55, 35–42.
Blanco, Humberto; Lal, Rattan (2010). «Soil and water conservation». Principles of Soil
Conservation and Management. Springer. p. 2. ISBN 978-90-481-8529-35(-50
Bhattacharyya, R., Fullen, M.A., Davies, K., Booth, C.A., Use of palm-mat geotextiles for
rainsplash erosion control, Geomorphology., 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.02.
018
Burrough, P. A., & McDonell, R. A. (1998). Cómo funciona Pendiente. Retrieved from
http://desktop.arcgis.com/es/arcmap/10.3/tools/spatial-analyst-toolbox/how-slope-
works.htm
Casanova, M.; Messing, I. and Joel, A. 2000. Influence of aspect and slope gradient on

151
 hydraulic conductivity measured by tension infiltrometer. Hydrological Processes, 14:
155-164.
Cardona, A. (2018). Qué es la erosión del suelo: causas y consecuencias. Retrieved from
https://www.ecologiaverde.com/que-es-la-erosion-del-suelo-causas-y-consecuencias-
1500.html
Carmone F. J., A. Kara and S. Zanakis. 1997. A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete
pairwise comparison matrices in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 102:
538-553
Chen, S., Jiang, Y., Lui, Y. & Diao, C. (2012). Cost constrained mediation model for
analytic hierarchy process negotiated decision making. Journal of Multi- Criteria
Decision Analysis, 19, 3-13.
Choo, E. U. and W. C. Wedley. 2008. Comparing Fundamentals of Additive and
Multiplicative Aggregation in Ratio Scale Multi-Criteria Decision Making. The Open
Operational Research Journal 2:1-7.
Contreras, V.M., El Control de la Erosión de Cárcavas en Olivar Mediante Mantas
Orgánicas., Foro Olivar y Medio Ambiente Expoliva, 2001, 5p.
Contreras, M. V., De Sousa Borges, S.P., Nuevos materiales para el control de la erosión
tras los incendios forestales., Jornadas de Incendios forestales de Serra D’ossa,
Estremoz (Portugal), Enero 2007.
Corral Q., S. y Quintero, M. E. (2007). La metodología multicriterial y los métodos de
valoración de impactos ambientales. Extraído el 28 de agosto de 2012 de
http://www.saber.ula.ve/bitstream/123456789/17402/1/articulo4.pdf
Crowther, T. W., Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Rowe, C. W., Wieder, W. R., Carey, J.C.,
Machmuller, M. B., Snoek, B. L., Fang, S., Zhou, G., Allison, S. D., Blair, J.M.,
Bridgham, S. D., Burton, A. J., Carrillo, Y., Reich, P. B., Clark, J. S., Classen, A. T.,
Dijkstra, F. A., Elberling, B., Emmett, B. A., Estiarte, M., Frey, S. D., Guo, J., Harte,
J., Jiang, L., Johnson, B. R., Kröel-Dulay, G., Larsen, K. S., Laudon, H., Lavallee, J.
M., Luo, Y., Lupascu, M., Ma, L. N., Marhan, S., Michelsen, A., Mohan, J., Niu, S.,
Pendall, E., Peñuelas, J., Pfeifer- Meister, L., Poll, C., Reinsch, S., Reynolds, L. L.,
Schmidt, I. K., Sistla, S., Sokol, N. W., Templer, P. H., Treseder, K. K., Welker J. M.
& Bradford, M. A. 2016. Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to
warming. Nature, 540: 104-110.
DALMASSO, A. et al. 2002. Revegetación de áreas degradadas. Boletín de Extensión
Científica, IADIZA (Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas).
Argentina
De Blécourt, M., Brumme, R., Xu, J., Corre, M., & Veldkamp, E. (2013). Soil carbon
stocks decrease following conversion of secondary forests to rubber (Hevea
brasiliensis) plantations. PloS ONE, 8(7), e69357. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069357
De Graaffa J, Aklilu A, OuessarM, Asins-Velis S, Kesslera A (2013) The development of
soil and water conservation policies and practices in five selected countries from1960

152
 to 2010. Land Use Policy 32:165–174
De Jong, S. M. (1994). ―Application of Reflective Remote Sensing for Land Degradation
Studies in a Mediterranean Environment‖ (Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies,
University of Utrecht)
De Jong, S.M., Paracchini, M.L., Bertolo, F., Folving, S., Megier, J., De Roo, A.P.J.
(1999). ―Regional assessment of soil erosion using the distributed model SEMMED
and remotely sensed data.‖ Catena 37 (3–4), 291–308.
De Jong, S.M., Riezebos, H.T.(1997). ―SEMMED: a distributed approach to soil erosion
modelling. In: Spiteri, A. (Ed.), RemoteSensing '96: Integrated Applications for Risk
Assessment and Disaster Prevention for the Mediterranean. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.
199–204.
DE VENTE, J. et al. 2013. Predicting soil erosion and sediment yield at regional scales:
Where do we stand?. Earth Science Reviews. Vol. 127, pp. 16-29.
Deb, S., Bhadoria, P. B. S., Mandal, B., Rakshit, A. & Singh, H. B. 2015. Soil organic
carbon: Towards better soil health, productivity and climate change mitigation.
Climate change and Environmental Sustainability, 3(1): 26-34.
del Ramo, A., & Guillén, F. (n.d.). Las Rocas Marga. Retrieved from
https://www.regmurcia.com/servlet/s.Sl?sit=c,365,m,108&r=ReP-8167-
DETALLE_REPORTAJESABUELO
Duley, F.L. 1987. Surface factors affecting the rafe of intake af water by soils. Soil Sci.
Soc.Am. Proc., Madison, 12: 179-84.
DUMAS SALAZAR, A. 2012. Riesgo de erosión hídrica en la cuenca hidrográfica del río
Mundo. Trabajo de fin de Máster. Máster en Tecnologías de la Información
Geográfica. España.
ECHEVERRÍA, N. et al. 2006. Erodabilidad de suelos del sur de la Región Semiárida
Argentina. Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional del Sur. Ciencia del
Suelo 24.
EcuRed Contributors. (2018). Erosión del suelo. Retrieved from
https://www.ecured.cu/Erosión_del_suelo#Erosi.C3.B3n_por_acci.C3.B3n_antr.C3.B
3pica
Edwards, W. and Newman, J.R (1982). Multivariate Evaluation. Quantitative Applications.
In, J.L. Sullivan and R.G. Niemi (Eds.) The Social Sciences 26, 96.
Ellison, W.D. 1947. Soil Erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., Madison, 12: 479-84.
FAO & GTIS. 2015. Status of the World’s Soil Resources, Roma: s.n.
FAO. (2017). Un 33% del suelo del mundo sufre erosión, p. 1. Retrieved from
http://www.lostiempos.com/tendencias/medio-ambiente/20171027/fao-dice-que-33-
suelo-del-mundo-sufre-erosion
FAO. (2018). PERMEABILIDAD DEL SUELO. Retrieved from

153
 http://www.fao.org/tempref/FI/CDrom/FAO_Training/FAO_Training/General/x6706s
/x6706s09.htm
Feinstein, J. L. and R. Lumley. 2001. Theoretical and practical aspects of AHP using a
scale derived from the time it takes to decide between two choices instead of one
derived from “1-9” estimates. 6th ISAHP. August 2-4, 200.1 Berne, Switzerland. pp.
93-100.
Flood Hazard Research Centre. (2014). Directrices para el Análisis Multicriterio en la
Gestión del Riesgo de Inundación, 104. Retrieved from
http://www.floodcba.eu/main/wp-content/uploads/Guia-FLOOD-CBA_2_Analisis-
Multicriterio.pdf
Franzpc. (n.d.). Crear un mapa de pendientes en ArcGIS 10. Retrieved from
https://acolita.com/como-crear-mapa-de-pendientes-en-arcgis-10/
GARCÍA, C. M. et al. 2011. Evaluación del potencial Erosivo de lluvia en la región
limítrofe entre las Provincias de Córdoba y Santa Fe, Argentina. En: III Taller sobre
Regionalización de precipitaciones máximas Rosario- Argentina. UCC –EHCPA.
GARCÍA-FAYOS, P. 2004. Interacciones entre la vegetación y la erosión hídrica. Ecología
del mundo mediterránea en un mundo cambiante. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente,
EGRAF, S.A., Madrid. Capítulo 11, pp. 309-334.
Gitas, I.Z., Douros, K., Minakou1, C., Silleos, G.N., and Karydas, C.G. (2009). ―Multi-
Temporal Soil Erosion Risk Assessment In N. Chalkidiki Using A Modified Usle
Raster Model.‖ Earsel Eproceedings 8, 1/2009 Pp.40-52
Gobin A, Jones R, Kirkby M, Campling P, Govers G, Kosmas C, Gentile AR (2004)
Indicators for pan-European assessment and monitoring of soil erosion by water.
Environ Sci Pol 7:25–38
González, J., Guerra, F., & Gómez, H. (2007). Redalyc.CONCEPTOS BÁSICOS DE
GEOESTADÍSTICA EN GEOGRAFÍA Y CIENCIAS DE LA TIERRA: MANEJO Y
APLICACIÓN, 12, 11. Retrieved from
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=36014577008
Grimm M, Jones R, Montanarella L (2002) Soil erosion risk in Europe. EUR 19939 EN.
European Commission & Joint Research Centre, Italy
Hagerty J. (1998) “Erosion mechanisms on Midwest alluvial streams”. IECA soil
stabilization series: vol. 1 Methods and techniques for stabilizing channels and
streambanks.
Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & del Pilar Baptista Lucio, M. (2010).
METODOLOGÍA DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN. (M. Chacón Jesús, Ed.) (Quinta).
Mexico: Mc Graw Hill.
Heywood, I., Oliver, J. and Tomlinson, S., 1995, Building an exploratory multi-criteria
modeling environment for spatial decision support, In Innovations in GIS, vol.2, page
no. 127–136.

154
Holme, A.McR., Burnside, D.G. and Mitchell, A.A. (1987). The development of a system
for monitoring trend in range condition in the arid shrublands of Western Australia.
Australian Rangeland Journal 9:14-20.
HONORATO, R. et al. 2001. Evaluación del modelo USLE en la estimación de la erosión
en seis localidades entre la IV y IX región de Chile. Ciencia e Investigación Agraria
28:7-14. Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal. Santiago, Chile.
INAA. (2001). Normas Técnicas para el diseño de abastecimiento y potabilización del
Agua.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis, Report Contribution of Working Groups I, II
and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Geneva: IPCC.
IRURTIA, C.B. & MON, R. 1993. Medición de infiltración, escurrimiento y pérdida de
suelo con microsimulador de lluvia. XIV Congreso Argentino de la Ciencia del Suelo.
pp 37-38. Mendoza.
Jen-Chen Fan and Min-Fon Wu, 2001.Effects of soil strength, texture, slope steepness and
rainfall intensity on interrill erodibility of some soils in Taiwan. pp: 588-593. In:
Proceeding 10th International Soil Conservation Organization Conference, Purdue
University.
Juan Diego. (1995). Planificación de cuencas, 1–39.
Kachouri, S., Achour, H., Abida, H., & Bouaziz, S. (2015). Soil erosion hazard mapping
using Analytic Hierarchy Process and logistic regression: a case study of Haffouz
watershed, central Tunisia. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8(6), 4257–4268.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1464-1
Kane, D. 2015. Carbon Sequestration Potential on Agricultural Lands: A Review of Current
Science and Available Practices, s.l.: s.n.
Keestra, S. D., Bouma, J., Wallinga, J., Tittonell, P., Smith, P., Cerdà, A., Montanarella, L.,
Quinton, J. N., Pachepsky, Y., van der Putten, W. H., Bardgett, R.D., Moolenaar, S.,
Mol, G., Jansen, B. & Fresco, L. O. 2016. The significance of soils and soil science
towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. SOIL, 2:
111-128.
Keiluweit, M., Bougoure, J. J., Nico, P. S., Pett-Ridge, J., Weber, P. K. & Kleber, M. 2015.
Mineral protection of soil carbon counteracted by root exudates. Nature Climate
Change, 5: 588–595.
Kosmas, C., Danalatos, N., Cammeraat, L. H., Chabart, M., Gutierrez, L., Jacob, A., …
Vacca, A. (1997). The effect of land use on runoff and soil erosion rates under
Mediterranean conditions, 29, 45–59.
La Razón. (2015). Erosión ataca 60% de suelos fértiles. Retrieved from
http://www.eldiario.net/noticias/2015/2015_08/nt150828/economia.php?n=14&-
erosion-ataca-60-de-suelos-fertiles

155
Laininen, P. 2001. On the covariance structure and simultaneous comparisons of the
estimates of AHP-Weights. In: Proceedings of the 6th ISAHP. Berne, Switzerland.
August 2-4, 2001. pp. 253-254
Lefèvre, C., Rekik, F., Alcantara, V., & Wiese, L. (2017). Carbono Orgánico del Suelo el
potencial oculto. (W. Liesl, A. Viridiana, B. Rainer, & R. Vargas, Eds.). Roma.
Retrieved from www.fao.org/publications
Leopold, L.B., Clarke, F.E. Hanshaw, B.B., y Balsley, J.R. 1971. A procedure for
evaluating environmental impact. Geological Survey Circular 645. U.S.D.I.
Washington, D.C.
Leskinen, P. and J. Kangas. 1998. Analysing uncertainties of interval judgment data in
multiple-criteria evaluation of forest plans. Silva Fennica 32(4):363–372
Lizasoain, A., Tort, L. F., Garc\’\ia, M., Gomez, M. M., Leite, J. P., Miagostovich, M. P.,
… Victoria, M. (2015). EVALUACIÓN MULTICRITERIO Y SIG. COMO
HERRAMIENTAS PARA LA GESTIÓN TERRITORIAL. CASO DE ESTUDIO
ZIPAQUIRÁ CUNDINAMARCA. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 119(3),
859{\textendash}867.
López Bermúdez, F., Romero Díaz, A., Erosión y desertificación: implicaciones
ambientales y estrategias de investigación. Papeles de geografía, No. 28, 1998, pp. 77-
89.
LOPEZ BERMUDEZ,F.; ROMERO DIAZ,A.; MARTINEZ FERNANDEZ,J. (1991): Soil
erosion in semi-arid mediterranean environment. The Ardal experimental field
(Murcia, Spain). In Soi' Erosion Studies in Spain, J.M. GARCIA RUIZ, M.SALA &
J.L. RUBIO (Eds). Ediciones Geoforma. Logroño, pp. 137-152.
Malczewski, J. (2000). On the Use of Weighted Linear Combination Method in GIS:
Common and Best Practice Approaches. T. GIS (Vol. 4).
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9671.00035
Mamani Gutierrez, H. A. (2015). CARTOGRAFIA DE ZONAS DE RIESGO A
DESLIZAMIENTOS DEL MUNICIPIO DE ACHOCALLA DEL
DEPARTAMENTO DE LA PAZ, MEDIANTE LA APLICACION DE DOS
METODOLOGÍAS DE EVALUACIÓN (Aplicación del Modelo de Evaluación
Espacial Multicriterio en entorno SIG). Universidad Mayor de San Andrés. Retrieved
from https://repositorio.umsa.bo/handle/123456789/12297
MÁRQUEZ ROSALES, H. (2011). MÉTODOS MATEMÁTICOS DE EVALUACIÓN
DE FACTORES DE RIESGO PARA EL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO: UNA
APLICACIÓN GIS DEL MÉTODO DE JERARQUÍAS ANALÍTICAS DE T.L.
SAATY. Intellectual Property, 8(12), 2–3.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/spal.1999.i8.02
MARTINEZ FERNANDEZ,J; LOPEZ BERMUDEZ,F.; MARTINEZ FERNANDEZ,J. &
ROMERO DIAZ,A. (1995). Land use and soil-vegetation relationships in a
Mediterranean ecosystem: El Ardal, Murcia, Spain. Catena, vol 25 (1-4) 153-167
Special Issue Experimental Geomorphology and Landscape Ecosystem Changes.

156
 J.Poesen, G. Govers & D. Goossens (Eds).
Maza J.A. (1967) “Erosión del cauce de un río en el cruce de un puente”. Revista Ingeniería
Hidráulica en México. vol. 21 - No. 1-2..
Meyer L.D., Foster, G. R., & C.A. Onstad. 1977. A runoff erosivity factor and variable
slope length exponents for soil loss estimates. Trans. ASAE. 20 (4): 683-687.
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua Viceministerio de Recursos Hídricos y Riego.
(2017). Programa Plurianual de Gestión Integrada de Recursos Hídricos y Manejo
Integral de Cuencas 2017-2020, 208. Retrieved from www.mmaya.gob.bo
Ministerio de Planificación del Desarrollo. (2016). Lineamientos Metodológicos
Planificación Territorial de Desarrollo Integral, 118.
Munda, G. (1993). Información difusa en los modelos de evaluación multicriterio
Ambiental. (Tesis de Doctorado). Ámsterdam: Universidad Libre de Amsterdam.
Narvaez, N. A. P. (2015). Clasificacion de la Cobertura de la Tierra en el Suelo Rural del
municipio de Pupiales-Nariño mediante aplicacion de herramientas SIG. Journal of
Chemical Information and Modeling, 89.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Nijkamp, P., Munda, G. & Rietveld, P. (1995). Qualitative multicriteria methods for fuzzy
evaluation problems: An illustration of economic-ecological evaluation. Extraído el 31
de octubre de 2012 de http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037
7221793E02502
Onori, F., De Bonis, P., Grauso, S., 2006, Soil erosion prediction at the basin scale using
the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) in a catchment of Sicily (southern
Italy): Environmental Geology, 50, 1129-1140.
Organizacion de los Estados Americanos (OAS). (1987). Comisión Mixta de Cooperación
Amazónica - Ecuatoriano - Colombiana - Plan de Ordenamiento y Manejo de las
Cuencas de los Ríos San Miguel y Putumayo. Washington, D.C.: SECRETARIA
EJECUTIVA PARA ASUNTOS ECONOMICOS Y SOCIALES. Retrieved from
https://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/Unit/oea32s/begin.htm#Contents
Paul, E. 2014. Soil microbiology, ecology and biochemistry. Academic Press. pp. 598.
Pérez Porto, J., & Gardey, A. (2015). Definición de áreas protegidas. Retrieved from
https://definicion.de/areas-protegidas/
Pérez Porto, J., & Merino, M. (2009). DEFINICIÓN DE EROSIÓN. Retrieved from
https://definicion.de/erosion/
Pérez Rodríguez, F., Vargas Larreta, B., Aguirre Calderón, O. A., Corral Rivas, J. J., &
Rojo Alboreca, A. (2012). Proceso analítico jerárquico para seleccionar métodos de
manejo forestal en durango.
Pillco Zola, F., & Flores Mamani, J. (2017). Estudio de la erosión hídrica laminar de la
TIOC del Ayllu Sikuya del municipio de Llallagua, 3(2), 524–528.

157
Población y medio ambiente Mexico. (n.d.). Población y medio ambiente, 37. Posada, P. B.
O., Henao Pineda, W., Diagnóstico de la Erosión en la zona costera del Caribe
Colombiano., Serie de publicaciones especiales, No.13, Santa Marta, INVEMAR,
2008, p. 200.
Popp, J. H., Hyatt, D. E. and Hoag, D., 2000, Modeling Environmental Condition with
Indices: A Case Study of Sustainability and Soil Resources; Ecol. Model. 130(1–3),
page. no. 131–143.
Raharjo, J., S. Halim and S. Wanto. 2001. Evaluating comparison between consistency
improving method and resurvey in AHP. 6th ISAHP 2001. Berne, Switzerland. August
2-4 2001. pp.198-205
Renard K.G., Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC (1997) Predicting soil
erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil
Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agriculture Handbook, No.703, US Department of
Agriculture, Washington DC
Renard K.G and Ferreira V.A. (1993). ―RUSLE model description and database
sensitivity.‖ Journal of Environmental Quality 22(3), 458–466.
Revista Vial. (2016). Erosión de suelos: productos y tecnologías para su control. Retrieved
from http://revistavial.com/erosion-de-suelos-productos-y-tecnologias-para-su-control/
Rivera, J. R. D., Costa, D. P., Álvarez, Y. R., & González, J. M. F. (2008). Determinación
De Índices De Erosión De Suelos Aplicando Análisis Sig Para La Localidad De San
Andrés En La Provincia De Pinar Del Río. Revista Chapingo, 14(1), 15–19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1730-9
Rivera, P. J. H., Sinisterra, R. J., Calle, D. Z., Restauración Ecológica de suelos degradados
por Erosión en Cárcavas en el enclave xerofítico de Dagua, Valle del Cauca,
Colombia., Área de restauración ecológica de CIPAV. Centro para la investigación en
sistemas sostenibles para la producción agropecuaria (s/f). Disponible en
http://www.cipav.org.co/ noticias/noticias-n01.html.
Roderick, M., R. C. G. Smith, and G. Ludwick. (1996). Calibrating long term
AVHRRderived NDVI imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 58: 1-12.
Rouse, J. W., R. H. Haas, J. A. Schell, and D. W. Deering (1973). Monitoring vegetation
systems in the Great Plains with ERTS, Third ERTS Symposium, NASA SP-351 I,
309- 317.
Rozos, D. (2014, January 29). PRODUCING LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY MAPS BY
APPLYING.
Salomonson, V. V. Y Appel, I. 2003 Estimating fractional snow cover from modis using
the normalized difference snow index. RemoteSensinsg of Environment. usa. 10 p.
Saini, S. S., Jangra, R., & Kaushik, S. P. (2015). Vulnerability assessment of soil erosion
using geospatial techniques- a pilot study of upper catchment of markanda river.
International Journal of Advancement in Remote Sensing, Gis and Geography, 3(1),
9–21.

158
SCHÖNBRODT, S.; SAUMER, P.; BEHRENS, T.; SEEBER, C.; SCHOLTEN, T.
Assessing the USLE crop and management factor C for soil erosion modeling in a
large, mountainous watershed in Central China. Journal of Earth Science, v.21,
p.835‑845, 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s12583‑010‑0135‑8.
Servicio Geológico Mexicano. (2017). Sistemas de información geográfica.
Schmidt, M. W. I., Torn, M. S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I. A.,
Kleber, M., Kögel-Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D. A. C., Nannipieri, P., Rasse,
D. P., Weiner, S. & E. Trumbore, S. E. 2011. Persistence of soil organic matter as an
ecosystem property. Nature, 478: 49–56.
TAOUFIKALLAH, A. (1990). El método AHP, 46–49.
TELLES, T.S.; GUIMARÃES, M. de F.; DECHEN, S.C.F. The costs of soil erosion.
Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, v.35, p.287‑298, 2011. DOI:
10.1590/S0100‑06832011000200001.
Terranova O, Antronico L, Coscarelli R, Iaquinta P (2009) Soil erosion risk scenarios in the
Mediterranean environment using RUSLE and GIS: an application model for Calabria
(southern Italy). Geomorphology 112:228–245
The RAMSAR Convetion Secretariat. (2014). LOS SITIOS RAMSAR. Retrieved from
https://www.ramsar.org/es/sitios-paises/los-sitios-ramsar
Tweddales, S.C., Eschlaeger, C.R., Seybold, W.F. (2000). ―An Improved Method for
Spatial Extrapolation of Vegetative Cover Estimates (USLE/RUSLE C factor) using
LCTA and Remotely
universidad de murcia. (n.d.). Tema 6: la edafosfera., 2, 1–19. Retrieved from
https://www.um.es/sabio/docs-cmsweb/materias-may25-45/tema_6.pdf
Uribe T., D. A. (2001). La evaluación multicriterio y su aporte en la construcción de una
función de valor económico total para los bosques en piedras blancas. (Tesis de
Maestría en Bosques y Conservación Ambiental). Medellín: Universidad Nacional de
Colombia sede Medellín, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias.
Uzoka, E. N. and Adetoro, J. A. (2008). Capacity building through higher education: A
panacea for youth unemployment in Nigeria. Paper presented at the 3rd regional
conference on higher education for youth empowerment opportunities, capabilities and
second chance at international institute of tropical agriculture, Ibadan Nigeria 18-21st
August.
Vega-Carreño, M. B., Febles-González, J.M., La investigación de suelos erosionados:
métodos e índices de diagnóstico., Minería y Geología, Vol. 21, Issue 2, 2005, p. 1,
18p. Disponible en www.Ideam.gov.co. Consulta realizada el 8/03/2010.
Von Lützow, M., Kögel-Knabner, L., Ekschmitt, K., Matzner, E., Guggenberger, G.,
Marschner, B. & Flessa, H. 2006. Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils:
Mechanisms and their relevance under different soil conditions – a review. European
Journal of Soil Science, 57: 426-445.

159
Wasson, R.J., Olive, L.J., Rosewell, C.J., 1996, Rates of erosion and sediment transport in
Australia: IAHS, 236, 139-148.
Wang, Y. M. and Elhag, T. M. S., 2006. An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP.
Decision Support Systems 42(3), 1474-1480.
Wedley, W .C. and E. U. Choo. 2001. A unit interpretation of multi-criteria ratios. 6th
ISAHP 2001. Berne, Swizerland. August 2-4 2001. pp. 561-569
Wu, M.-L., & Wang, Y.-S. (2007). Using Chemometrics to Evaluate Anthropogenic Effects
in Daya Bay, China. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science (Vol. 72).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.11.032
Ying-Ming, W. and M. S. Taha. 2006. An approach to avoid rank reversal in AHP.
Decision Support Systems. 42:1474-1480
YUE‑QING, X.; JIAN, P.; XIAO‑MEI S. Assessment of soil erosion using RUSLE and
GIS: a case study of the Maotiao River watershed, Guizhou Province, China.
Environmental Geology, v.56, p.1643‑1652, 2009. DOI:
10.1007/s00254‑008‑1261‑9.
ZAKRZEWSKA, B. (1967), TRENDS AND METHODS IN LAND FORM
GEOGRAPHY. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 57: 128-165.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1967.tb00595.
Zeshui, X. M. and W. Cuiping. 1999. A consistency improving method in the analytic
hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research. 116:443-449
Zingg, A. W. (1940). Degree and length of land slope as it affects soil loss in runoff. Agric.
Eng. 21: 59-64.

160
ANNEXED

161
162