Malaria risk on the Amazon frontier

Castro et al. 10.1073/pnas.0510576103.

Supporting Information

Files in this Data Supplement:

Supporting Text
Supporting Figure 5
Supporting Figure 6
Supporting Figure 7
Supporting Figure 8
Supporting Figure 9
Supporting Figure 10
Supporting Figure 11
Supporting Figure 12
Supporting Figure 13
Supporting Figure 14
Supporting Figure 15
Supporting Figure 16
Supporting Figure 17
Supporting Figure 18
Supporting Figure 19
Supporting Figure 20
Supporting Figure 21
Supporting Figure 22
Supporting Figure 23
Supporting Figure 24
Supporting Figure 25
Supporting Figure 26
Supporting Figure 27
Supporting Figure 28
Supporting Figure 29
Supporting Figure 30
Supporting Figure 31
Supporting Figure 32
Supporting Figure 33
Supporting Table 3
Supporting References

Supporting Figure 5

Fig. 5. Malaria transition phases in settlement areas in the Amazon. Adapted from Sawyer and Sawyer (3).

Supporting Figure 6

Fig. 6. Frontier malaria transition. Blue, yellow, and red lines show, respectively, the lowest, median, and highest malaria rates (EWR) observed in the subareas of risk over time. The black line represents the EWR observed in Machadinho in each year.

Supporting Figure 7

Fig. 7. Evolution of the forest cover and location of different types of colonization projects in Rondônia, 1975/1996. (A) 1975. (B) 1986. (C) 1992. (D) 1996. The color code for the forest cover maps is: green represents forest areas, yellow shows the extent of deforestation, shades of pink are areas covered by clouds and clouds shadow, and orange correspond to Cerrado, the second largest of Brazil’s major biomes, consisting of savanna, woodland/savanna and dry forest ecosystems. Different types of colonization projects are: (i) PIC, Integrated Colonization Project was adopted between 1970 and 1975. It received significant government support including selection of settlers, technical assistance, educational and health infrastructure, credit, storage facilities, and opening of roads. (ii) PAD, Directed Settlement Project was adopted in 1975, involving less government support (only the construction of a small network of roads would be offered), and the distribution of large portions of land to entrepreneurs willing to cultivate cocoa for export. (iii) AR, Fast Settlement Project was implemented between 1980 and 1982. It aimed at organizing illegal land invasions in the state. (iv) PA, Settlement Project started in 1982 and is the type currently in use. Designed to settle as many people as possible in a fast and non-expensive fashion. BR-364 is the main highway in the state, connecting Rondônia’s capital (Porto Velho, Brazil) to the Center-West region of Brazil. Source: Tropical Rain Forest Information Center, Basic Science and Remote Sensing Initiative, Michigan State University (http://www.bsrsi.msu.edu/trfic), and National Agency for Agrarian Reform (INCRA), Porto Velho, Brazil.

Supporting Figure 8

Fig. 8. Settlement projects, indigenous areas, and protected reserves in Rondônia. Data updated until 2001. Source: INCRA (National Agency for Agrarian Reform), Porto Velho, Brazil.

Supporting Figure 9

Fig. 9. Statistical significance of the G_i^*(d) statistic (d = 3,500 m), Machadinho, 1985/95. Plots colored in blue are those significant for a clustering of low malaria rates, whereas those colored in red are significant for a clustering of high rates. Plots colored in yellow did not reveal a clustering pattern, and those plots in white were not occupied at the time of the interview. Green areas are protected forest reserves.

Supporting Figure 10

Fig. 10. Correlation contours for an isotropic process.

Supporting Figure 11

Fig. 11. Correlation contours for an anisotropic process.

Supporting Figure 12

Fig. 12. Graphical representation of the semivariogram.

Supporting Figure 13

Fig. 13. Kriging estimates of malaria rates in Machadinho, 1985/95. Plots colored in dark red have high malaria rates, those plots colored in red have medium rates, and those area colored in light red have low malaria rates. Green areas are protected forest reserves.

Supporting Figure 14

Fig. 14. GoM Simplex with two, three and four profiles. The profiles are represented as I, II, III, and IV. (A) Simplex with two profiles. Plot A shares conditions with profiles I and II, whereas plot B has all conditions of profile B and none of profile A. (B) Simplex with three profiles. Plot A shares conditions with profiles I and II, whereas plot B shares conditions with profiles I, II, and III. (C) Simples with four profiles. Plot A shares conditions with profiles II and III, whereas plot B shares conditions with profiles I, III, and IV.

Supporting Figure 15

Fig. 15. Distribution of plots by grade of membership scores (Machadinho, 1985, subarea 1).

Supporting Figure 16

Fig. 16. Interpretation criterion of aerial photographs.

Supporting Figure 17

Fig. 17. View on access road MA-04 in tract 1 of Machadinho settlement project.

Supporting Figure 18

Fig. 18. Culvert along collector road MA-02 in tract 1 of Machadinho settlement project.

Supporting Figure 19

Fig. 19. House constructed with wood distributed by INCRA in 1984. Photographed in 2001.

Supporting Figure 20

Fig. 20. House built in 1985. The roof is made of plastic, and the sealing of the whole house is precarious.

Supporting Figure 21

Fig. 21. House built in 1985. There is no door closing the house.

Supporting Figure 22

Fig. 22. House built in 1985 completely made of palm thatch.

Supporting Figure 23

Fig. 23. Poor vs. good quality housing in Machadinho. (A) Poor quality house near the forest fringe. A stream (top right photo) is located within 30 m from the house. The coffee shown in front of the house is all that the settler was able to produce. (B) Good quality house, located in a plot with diverse agriculture production. Coffee is the main crop in the plot. Behind the house there is a storage (bottom right photo) where the coffee is safely stockpiled. The coffee shown in the photo is only part of the production of the plot.

Supporting Figure 24

Fig. 24. Diverse crop production in Machadinho.

Supporting Figure 25

Fig. 25. Abandoned area in Machadinho.

Supporting Figure 26

Fig. 26. Pasture area in Machadinho.

Supporting Figure 27

Fig. 27. Main urban area of Machadinho. (A) 1985. (B) 2001.

Supporting Figure 28

Fig. 28. Main street in urban Machadinho.

Supporting Figure 29

Fig. 29. City Hall in urban Machadinho.

Supporting Figure 30

Fig. 30. Settlers in Machadinho. All photos were taken in 1985.

Supporting Figure 31

Fig. 31. Protected forest reserves in Machadinho. The map is a composition of bands 5, 4 and 3 of a Landsat thematic mapper-5 image, acquired in August 7, 1985. Pink colored areas show the extension of deforestation. Black lines define the boundaries of forests; yellow line set the limits of tracts 1 and 2. Variations in the shades of green portray irregular elevation.

Supporting Figure 32

Fig. 32. Rubber tappers’ housing. Located in the border between forest reserves and plots, near streams. The canoe is used as means of transportation.

Supporting Figure 33

Fig. 33. Forest fringe in 1986. In short distance from the house lays the forest fringe, the limit between the forest and the cleared area.

Supporting References

1. Fearnside, P. M. (1986) Human Carrying Capacity of the Brazilian Rainforest (Columbia Univ. Press, New York).

2. Sawyer, D. R. (1988) Frontier Malaria in the Amazon Region of Brazil: Types of Malaria Situations and Some Implications for Control (Pan American Health Organization/WHO/The Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, Brasília).

3. Sawyer, D. R. & Sawyer, D. O. (1992) in Advancing the Health in Developing Countries: The Role of Social Research, ed. Chen, L. C. (Auburn House, Westport, CT), pp. 105-122.

4. Mahar, D. J. (1989) Government Policies and Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon Region (World Bank, Washington, D.C.).

5. Arcanjo, A. d. S., Lisboa, A. d. M., Silva, A. P. d., Longo, A. E., Matricardi, E. A. T., Fernandes, G., Silva, L. P., Fernandes, L. C., Guimarães, S. C. & Barros, W. d. S. (1997) (http://www.planafloro.ro.gov.br/MEM/2/3_ind.html#_Toc402952536, Porto Velho, Brazil).

6. Nepstad, D., Capobianco, J. P., Barros, A. C., Carvalho, G., Moutinho, P., Lopes, U. & Lefebvre, P. (2000) (Instituto Sócio Ambiental - ISA, Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia - IPAM, Belém, PA), p. 24.

7. Singer, B. H. & Castro, M. C. (2001) Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 954, 184-222.

8. Getis, A. & Ord, J. K. (1992) Geogr. Anal. 24, 189-206.

9. Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. (1995) J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289-300.

10. Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. (2000) J.Ed. Behav. Sci. 25, 60-83.

11. Castro, M. C. & Singer, B. H. (2006) Geogr. Anal., in press.

12. Storey, J. D. & Tibshirani, R. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9440-9445.

13. Getis, A. & Ord, K. J. (1996) in Spatial Analysis: Modelling in a GIS Environment, eds. Longley, P. & Batty, M. (Wiley, New York), pp. 261-277.

14. Deane, L. M. (1947) Revista do Servico Especial de Saúde Pública 1, 3-60.

15. Van Thiel, P. H. (1962) Trop. Geogr. Med. 14, 259-278.

16. Cova-Garcia, P. (1961) Notas sobre los anofelinos de Venezuela y su identificación (Editorial Grafos, Caracas).

17. Baumont, C., Ertur, C. & Le Gallo, J. (2004) Geogr. Anal. 36, 146-176.

18. Paez, A., Uchida, T. & Miyamoto, K. (2001) Urban Studies 38, 1493-1508.

19. Getis, A. (1995) in New directions in Spatial Econometrics, eds. Anselin, L. & Florax, R. J. G. M. (Springer, Berlin), pp. 191-203.

20. Cressie, N. (1993) Statistics for Spatial Data (Wiley, New York).

21. Diggle, P. J. (1983) Statistical Analysis of Spatial Point Patterns (Academic, New York).

22. Cressie, N. (1991) in Spatial Statistics and Digital Image Analysis, ed. National Research Council (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.), pp. 87-108.

23. Haining, R. P. (1990) Spatial Data Analysis in the Social and Environmental Sciences (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.).

24. Woodbury, M. A., Tolley, H. D. & Manton, K. (2000) in Technical Report (Center for Demographic Studies, Duke University, Durham, NC).

25. Berkman, L., Singer, B. H. & Manton, K. (1989) Demography 26, 661-678.

26. Manton, K. G., Woodbury, M. A. & Tolley, H. D. (1994) Statistical Applications Using Fuzzy Sets (Wiley, New York).

27. Erosheva, E. A. (2003) in Proceedings of the Seventh Valencia International Meeting on Bayesian Statistics, eds. Bernardo, J. M., Bayarri, M. J., Berger, J. O., Dawid, A. P., Hecherman, D., Smith, A. J. M. & West, M. (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford), pp. 501-510.

28. Sawyer, D. R. (1985) Research Design and Feasibility in the Machadinho Settlement Project (Centro de Desenvolvimento e Planejamento Regional, Belo Horizonte, Brazil).

29. Sawyer, D. R. & Sawyer, D. O. (1987) Malaria on the Amazon Frontier: Economic and Social Aspects of Transmission and Control (Centro de Desenvolvimento e Planejamento Regional, Belo Horizonte, Brazil).

30. Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (INCRA) (1991) Exposição de motivos (INCRA, Porto Velho, Brazil).

31. EMBRAPA/SNLCS (1982) Levantamento de reconhecimento de média intensidade dos solos e avalição da aotidão aprícola das terras em 100,000 hectares da gleba Machadinho, no município de Ariquemes, Rondônia (EMBRAPA/SNLCS, Rio de Janeiro).

32. INCRA (1982) Ante-projeto de assentamento Machadinho (Rondônia) (INCRA/DP/CEER, Brasília), p. 61.

33. Moran, E. F. (1993) Hum. Ecol. 22, 1-21.

34. Browder, J. O. (2004) Hum. Ecol. 32, 197-224.

35. Wood, C. H. & Porro, R. (2002) Deforestation and land Use in the Amazon, eds. Wood, C. H. & Porro, R. (Univ. of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL).

36. McCraken, S. D., Siqueira, A. D., Moran, E. F. & Brondízio, E. S. (2002) in Deforestation and Land Use in the Amazon, eds. Wood, C. H. & Porro, R. (Univ. of Florida Press, Gainesville), pp. 162-192.

37. Instituto de Pesquisa em Defesa da Identidade Amazônica (INDIA) (1994) Levantamento sócio-econômico e fundiário das áreas extrativistas do Estado de Rondônia—Reservas do Projeto Machadinho (INDIA, Porto Velho, Brazil), p. 124.