 
Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 329 
https://doi.org/10.69639/arandu.v11i2.269 
Evaluation of Physical Infrastructure and Seismic 
Vulnerability in the Community of Joa, Jipijapa Canton 
 
Evaluación de Infraestructura Física y Vulnerabilidad Sísmica en la Comunidad de 
Joa, Cantón Jipijapa 
 
Diego Sornoza-Parrales 
diego.sornoza@unesum.edu.ec 
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9319-9298  
Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí 
Ecuador - Jipijapa 
 
Glider Nunilo Parrales Cantos 
glider.parrales@unesum.edu.ec 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2233-8825  
Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí 
Ecuador - Jipijapa 
 
Denny Augusto Cobos Lucio 
denny.cobos@unesum.edu.ec 
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2094-9689  
Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí 
Ecuador - Jipijapa 
 
Erik Villavicencio Cedeño 
erik.villavicencio@unesum.edu.ec 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1887-5599  
Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí 
Ecuador - Jipijapa 
 
Artículo recibido: 20 julio 2024   -  Aceptado para publicación: 26 agosto 2024 
Conflictos de intereses: Ninguno que declarar 
 
ABSTRACT 
This research focuses on the evaluation of physical infrastructure and seismic vulnerability in the 
Joa commune of Canton Jipijapa (Ecuador). The lack of investment in adequate infrastructure can 
limit  the  community's  growth  and  increase  its  vulnerability  to  natural  disasters.  The  main 
objective  is  to  diagnose  the  infrastructure  and  evaluate  the  seismic  vulnerability  of  homes, 
identifying areas for improvement. The methodology combines surveys of residents and rapid 
visual assessments of buildings, utilizing the FEMA 154 methodology. The surveys collected 
information on housing characteristics and residents' perceptions of structural safety, while the 
rapid visual assessment classified homes according to their seismic vulnerability. The results 
showed that most homes are built with reinforced concrete or a combination of concrete and 
wood. Although most residents perceive little need for rehabilitation, the seismic assessment 
revealed that a significant percentage of homes have high vulnerability. The zoning map identified 
the areas of greatest risk. The main conclusion is that there is a worrying number of homes with 

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 330

high vulnerability that require urgent attention. It is recommended to implement reinforcement

and rehabilitation programs, as well as education and awareness campaigns about seismic risk.

Vulnerability zoning provides essential information for risk management and urban planning,

with the aim of reducing the community's vulnerability to future earthquakes

Keywords: seismic resilience, infrastructure assessment, community development, risk

mitigation, disaster preparedness

RESUMEN

Esta investigación se centra en la evaluación de la infraestructura física y la vulnerabilidad sísmica

en la comuna de Joa del Cantón Jipijapa (Ecuador). La falta de inversión en infraestructura

adecuada puede limitar el crecimiento de la comunidad y aumentar su vulnerabilidad a los

desastres naturales. El objetivo principal es diagnosticar la infraestructura y evaluar la

vulnerabilidad sísmica de las viviendas, identificando áreas de mejora. La metodología combina

encuestas de residentes y evaluaciones visuales rápidas de edificios, utilizando la metodología

FEMA 154. Las encuestas recopilaron información sobre las características de las viviendas y las

percepciones de los residentes sobre la seguridad estructural, mientras que la evaluación visual

rápida clasificó las viviendas según su vulnerabilidad sísmica. Los resultados mostraron que la

mayoría de las viviendas están construidas con hormigón armado o una combinación de hormigón

y madera. Aunque la mayoría de los residentes perciben poca necesidad de rehabilitación, la

evaluación sísmica reveló que un porcentaje importante de viviendas tienen una alta

vulnerabilidad. El mapa de zonificación identificó las áreas de mayor riesgo. La principal

conclusión es que existe un número preocupante de viviendas con alta vulnerabilidad que

requieren atención urgente. Se recomienda implementar programas de refuerzo y rehabilitación,

así como campañas de educación y concientización sobre el riesgo sísmico. La zonificación de

vulnerabilidad proporciona información esencial para la gestión de riesgos y la planificación

urbana, con el objetivo de reducir la vulnerabilidad de la comunidad ante futuros terremotos.

Palabras clave: resiliencia sísmica, evaluación de infraestructura, desarrollo

comunitario, mitigación de riesgos, preparación para desastres

Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo

licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 331

INTRODUCTION

Adequate physical infrastructure is a fundamental pillar for the productive development

and quality of life of communities, especially in vulnerable contexts such as Joa, Canton Jipijapa.

Infrastructure not only refers to the construction of buildings and roads, but encompasses a set of

elements that facilitate social interaction, access to basic services, and the promotion of economic

activities.

The quality of infrastructure directly influences the health, education, and general well-

being of the inhabitants, which in turn translates into a significant impact on their quality of life.

First, adequate physical infrastructure allows access to essential services such as drinking water,

electricity, and medical care. The lack of these services can lead to unhealthy living conditions,

which affects the health of the population and increases vulnerability to natural disasters, such as

earthquakes.

In communities where infrastructure is deficient, there has been an increase in diseases

related to water and the lack of adequate medical care, which negatively impacts the quality of

life of residents (Osorio Rodríguez, 2022). In addition, transportation infrastructure is essential to

facilitate access to markets and job opportunities, which fosters local economic development

(Sánchez De Madariaga, 2018).

Furthermore, physical infrastructure also plays a vital role in social cohesion and

community interaction. Well-designed public spaces, such as parks and squares, promote physical

activity and socialization, which contributes to better mental health and emotional well-being

(Rojas et al., 2022; Sánchez De Madariaga, 2018). Physical activity, in turn, is related to a better

quality of life, as it has been shown to reduce the risk of chronic diseases and improve mental

health (Jiménez-Gómez et al., 2021). In this sense, adequate infrastructure not only supports

physical health but also fosters a sense of community and belonging, which is essential for social

well-being.

Additionally, educational infrastructure is a critical component for the development of

communities. Well-equipped and accessible schools are essential to ensure that children and

young people receive a quality education, which in turn influences their future opportunities and

the economic development of the community (Osorio Rodríguez, 2022). Education is a

determining factor in the quality of life, as it is closely related to people's ability to access well-

paying jobs and improve their socioeconomic situation (Sánchez De Madariaga, 2018). Therefore,

investing in educational infrastructure is a key strategy to break the cycle of poverty and promote

sustainable development.

Seismic vulnerability is another aspect that highlights the importance of physical

infrastructure (Utama et al., 2023). In earthquake-prone regions, such as Jipijapa, it is necessary

to have buildings that meet safety standards to minimize the risk of collapses and loss of life. The

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 332

lack of resilient infrastructure can lead to disasters that not only affect people's lives but also

destroy the social and economic fabric of the community. Therefore, adequate infrastructure not

only improves the quality of life but also acts as a resilience mechanism against natural disasters.

Finally, adequate physical infrastructure also impacts sustainable development and social

equity. Communities with deficient infrastructure often face greater challenges in terms of access

to services and opportunities, which perpetuates inequality. Investing in infrastructure not only

improves the quality of life of residents but also promotes more equitable and sustainable

development. This is especially relevant in the context of Joa, where improving infrastructure can

be a catalyst for social and economic change (Pionce et al., 2024).

Potential Challenges of Lack of Investment in Infrastructure

The lack of investment in infrastructure in rural settlements like Joa, Canton Jipijapa, can

significantly limit its growth potential and expose its inhabitants to risks, especially in seismic

zones. Physical infrastructure, which includes roads, bridges, drinking water systems, and

buildings, is essential for the economic and social development of any community.

In the case of Joa, the lack of these structures not only hinders access to basic services

but also increases the population's vulnerability to natural disasters, such as earthquakes. First,

deficient infrastructure affects connectivity and access to markets, which limits economic

opportunities for residents. The lack of adequate roads can hinder the transportation of agricultural

products and other goods, which in turn affects the income of local farmers and merchants (Du,

2023). This is particularly critical in rural areas where the economy depends heavily on agriculture

and the sale of local products.

Without adequate infrastructure, transportation costs increase, which can make products

less competitive in the market (Fitriani & Ajayi, 2023; Saheed & Obianuju, 2021). In addition,

the lack of access to basic services such as electricity and drinking water can discourage

investment in local businesses, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and limiting economic

development. On the other hand, the seismic vulnerability of existing structures in Joa is a matter

of great concern. Most buildings in rural settlements are not designed to withstand earthquakes,

making them a significant risk to the safety of inhabitants (Agrawal & Jaiswal, 2022). The lack

of investment in earthquake-resistant infrastructure can result in devastating losses during a

seismic event, including the loss of life and the destruction of property. Studies (Deyuan et al.,

2022) have shown that communities lacking adequate infrastructure are more likely to suffer

severe damage during earthquakes, highlighting the need to implement mitigation measures and

improve structural resilience.

Furthermore, the lack of proper planning and design in infrastructure can exacerbate the

effects of natural disasters. For example, in areas where microzonation studies, which analyze the

seismic vulnerability of different zones, have not been conducted, constructions may be located

on unsuitable land that increases the risk of damage during an earthquake (Rahmania et al., 2023).

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 333

The implementation of a risk-based approach can help identify the most vulnerable areas and

prioritize infrastructure investments (Edward Tuah et al., 2022). However, the absence of these

studies in communities like Joa limits the ability of planners to make informed decisions about

development and infrastructure investment.

With this background, the present study focuses on the diagnosis of physical

infrastructure and the assessment of the seismic vulnerability of homes in Joa, with the aim of

identifying areas for improvement and proposing solutions that promote the productive

development and safety of the community.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To carry out the diagnosis of the physical infrastructure and the assessment of seismic

vulnerability in the community of Joa, a combined methodology was implemented that included

both the collection of primary data through direct surveys of residents and the application of rapid

visual assessments according to the FEMA 154 methodology. This approach allowed for a

detailed understanding of both the current conditions of the homes and their resistance to seismic

events.

The first phase of the methodology consisted of collecting primary data through

structured surveys, which were designed to capture relevant information about the characteristics

of the homes, the living conditions of the residents, and their perception of the structural safety

of their homes. The surveys were conducted directly, which facilitated interaction with the

inhabitants and allowed for clarification of any doubts about the items raised. This method is

widely recognized for its ability to provide quantitative data that reflect the reality of

communities, which is essential for an accurate diagnosis (Carvajal Rivadeneira et al., 2023; Isla-

Díaz et al., 2021). In addition, data collection through surveys allows for the identification of

patterns and trends that can be useful for future planning and decision-making (Jaramillo Sanabria

& Acevedo Osorio, 2019).

In parallel, a rapid visual assessment of the buildings was carried out using the FEMA

154 methodology, which is a standardized approach for assessing the seismic vulnerability of

buildings. This methodology involves a visual inspection of the structures, where aspects such as

the type of materials used, the quality of construction, and the presence of visible damage are

evaluated (Calixto et al., 2023; Raoufy et al., 2023). The application of this methodology allows

for the classification of buildings into different levels of vulnerability, which is key to prioritizing

interventions and resources in areas that require urgent attention (Tampubolon, 2023).

The combination of data obtained through surveys and visual assessments provides a

holistic view of the situation, allowing for the identification of not only the structural conditions

but also the perceptions and concerns of residents about their safety.

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 334

The methodology also included training the team of surveyors and assessors in the use of

the FEMA 154 tool, ensuring that the assessments were conducted consistently and accurately.

Staff training is a critical aspect in the implementation of assessment methodologies, as it ensures

that the collected data is reliable and representative (Ruiz Muñoz et al., 2024). In addition,

protocols were established for data verification, which contributed to the validity of the results

obtained.

The assessment with the FEMA 154 methodology considered aspects such as structural

typology, height, construction irregularities, building code, and soil type, assigning a score to each

parameter to determine the degree of vulnerability of each dwelling (Raoufy et al., 2023).

Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistical methods and spatial analysis

techniques (Carvajal Rivadeneira et al., 2023). The survey results were tabulated, and percentages

were calculated for each variable, while the seismic vulnerability assessment allowed for the

classification of homes into three categories: high, medium, and low vulnerability. The

combination of these results allowed for the identification of the main areas for improvement in

the physical infrastructure and seismic vulnerability of the Joa community.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the findings on the physical infrastructure and seismic vulnerability

of the Joa community. The data collected through surveys and visual assessments offer

information on the characteristics of the homes, the perceptions of the residents, and the structural

conditions of the buildings in the area. The analysis reveals that while most homes are built with

reinforced concrete or a combination of concrete and wood, a significant percentage exhibits high

seismic vulnerability. The discussion will delve into the implications of these findings,

emphasizing the urgent need for interventions to improve the community's resilience to seismic

events. In addition, the spatial distribution of vulnerability will be explored, highlighting the areas

that require priority attention in terms of risk mitigation and disaster preparedness.

Distribution of Homes by Area

Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of responses to the question

"What is the area of your home?". Different area ranges (in square meters) and how many people

selected each range are presented.

The most frequent category is "Up to 40 m²" with 27.71%, indicating that most of the

surveyed homes have a relatively small area. This is followed in frequency by the categories

"From 41 to 60 m²" (19.28%) and "From 61 to 75 m²" (24.10%), suggesting that a considerable

proportion of homes have a medium area. The larger home categories ("From 76 to 90 m²" and

"From 91 to 120 m²") have similar percentages (14.46% each), indicating that they are less

common in this sample. It is noteworthy that no surveyed home exceeds 120 m².

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 335

The data allows us to conclude that most of the surveyed homes have a small or medium

area, with large homes being relatively scarce and very large homes nonexistent in this sample.

Table 1

Distribution of Homes by Area

VALUES

FRECUENCY

PERCENTAGE

Up to 40 m²

27,71 %

From 41 to 60 m

19,28 %

From 61 to 75 m²

24,10 %

From 76 to 90 m²

14,46 %

From 91 to 120 m²

14,46 %

More than 120 m²

0,00 %

TOTAL

100%

Distribution of Homes by Year of Construction

Table 2 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of responses to the question

"What was the year of construction of your home?". Different ranges of home age and how many

people selected each range are shown.

The range with the highest frequency is "From 1971 to 1990, between 49 and 30 years"

with 36.14%, indicating that most of the surveyed homes are between 30 and 49 years old. This

is followed in frequency by the range "From 1991 to 2010, between 29 and 10 years" with 27.71%,

suggesting that a considerable proportion of homes are between 10 and 29 years old. Homes built

"Up to 1970, more than 50 years" (16.87%) and "From 2011 to 2020, less than 9 years" (19.28%)

are less common in this sample, although they still represent a significant portion.

The predominance of homes built between 1971 and 1990 could indicate a period of boom

in home construction at that time, possibly driven by favorable economic or demographic factors.

It may also reflect the durability of constructions from that period. The significant presence of

homes built between 1991 and 2010 suggests continued activity in the construction sector,

although perhaps at a slower pace than in the previous period. This could be related to changes in

housing needs or economic conditions. Finally, the relative scarcity of very old homes could

indicate a renewal of the housing stock, with demolitions or renovations of older homes. On the

other hand, the lower proportion of very new homes could be related to factors such as land

availability or the cost of construction.

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 336

Table 2

Distribution of Homes by Year of Construction

VALUES

FRECUENCY

PERCENTAGE

Up to 1970, more than 50 years

16,87 %

From 1971 to 1990, between 49 and 30 years

36,14 %

From 1991 to 2010, between 29 and 10 years

27,71 %

From 2011 to 2020, less than 9 years

19,28 %

TOTAL

100%

Distribution of Homes by Construction Material Type

Table 3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the types of materials used in

the construction of the surveyed homes. Different material categories and how many homes

correspond to each are presented.

The most frequent categories are "Reinforced concrete" (48.19%) and "Mixed

concrete/wood" (44.58%), indicating that the vast majority of the surveyed homes are built

primarily with reinforced concrete, either alone or in combination with wood. The categories

"Wood", "Cane", and "Mixed wood/cane" have very low percentages (2.41% each), suggesting

that these materials are used in a very small proportion of the surveyed homes.

The data shows that reinforced concrete is the predominant material in home construction

in the surveyed area, followed by the combination of concrete and wood. The use of wood or cane

as the main material or even in combination is very infrequent. The predominance of reinforced

concrete could be related to its greater availability, lower cost, or perception of greater durability

compared to other materials.

Local building regulations could favor the use of reinforced concrete for safety or seismic

resistance reasons. The use of certain materials could also be influenced by cultural or traditional

factors. It is important to note that this distribution may not be representative of the entire

population of homes in the area, as it is based on a sample. However, it provides valuable

information about the most common construction practices in the surveyed area.

Table 3.

Distribution of Homes by Construction Material Type

VALUES

FRECUENCY

PERCENTAGE

Reinforced concrete

48,19 %

Wood

2,41 %

Cane

2,41 %

Mixed concrete/wood

44,58 %

Mixed wood/ cane

2,41 %

TOTAL

100%

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 337

Perception of the Need for Housing Rehabilitation

Table 4 shows the distribution of frequencies and percentages of the responses to the

question "Rate your degree of need to rehabilitate the dwelling". Different levels of need for

rehabilitation are presented and how many people selected each level.

The most frequent category is "Little need" with 46.99%, which indicates that almost half of

the respondents consider that their home needs little or no rehabilitation. The category "Some need"

follows in frequency with 25.30%, which suggests that a quarter of the homes have a moderate degree

of need for rehabilitation. The options "Quite a lot of need" (16.87%) and "A lot of need" (10.84%)

have lower percentages, indicating that, although there is a group that perceives a significant need

for rehabilitation in their homes, this group is a minority compared to those who perceive little or

some need.

Although the majority of residents perceive little need for rehabilitation, it is important to

promote the importance of preventive maintenance to avoid future problems and ensure the safety

and habitability of homes in the long term.

Table 4

Perception of the Need for Housing Rehabilitation

VALUES

FRECUENCY

PERCENTAGE

A lot of need

10,84 %

Quite a lot of need

16,87 %

Some need

25,30 %

Little need

46,99 %

TOTAL

100%

Rapid Visual Assessment of Buildings Seismic Vulnerability using FEMA-154

Typology of the Structural System

Table 5 presents the distribution of frequencies and percentages of the different types of

structural systems observed in buildings, in the context of a seismic vulnerability assessment

using the FEMA-154 methodology. Several structural typologies are listed and it is indicated how

many buildings correspond to each type.

The most frequent category is "Reinforced concrete frame (C1)" with 50.60%, which

indicates that this is the most common structural system in the evaluated buildings. The category

"Mixed steel-concrete or mixed concrete-wood (MX)" follows in frequency with 30.12%, which

suggests that a considerable proportion of buildings combine different structural materials, mainly

concrete and steel or concrete and wood. The other categories, including wood, masonry (with or

without reinforcement), steel frames and prefabricated systems, have very low or zero

percentages, which indicates that they are uncommon in the evaluated buildings.

Unreinforced masonry (URM) and wood structures, although present in a small

percentage, are generally considered more vulnerable to earthquakes. Their presence, although a

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 338

minority, could indicate a potential seismic risk for those specific buildings. The seismic behavior

of reinforced concrete frames can vary significantly depending on their design and construction

details. It is important to evaluate these aspects in detail to determine their actual seismic

vulnerability. It is important to recognize that rapid visual assessment (FEMA 154) provides a

first approximation of seismic vulnerability. However, to obtain a more accurate and reliable

assessment, more detailed studies would be required that consider aspects such as the quality of

the materials, the structural design, the age of the building and the soil conditions.

Table 5

Typology of the Structural System

CATEGORIES

FRECUENCY

PERCENTAGE

Wood (W1)

4,82 %

Unreinforced masonry (URM)

4,82 %

Reinforced masonry (RM)

0,00 %

Mixed steel-concrete or mixed

concrete-wood (MX)

30,12 %

Reinforced concrete frame (C1)

50,60 %

Reinforced concrete H-shaped frame with

unreinforced confined masonry (C3)

9,64%

TOTAL

800

100%

Building height

Table 6 shows the distribution of frequencies and percentages of the heights of the

observed buildings. They are classified into three categories: Low (less than 4 floors), Medium

(4 to 7 floors) and Large (more than 7 floors). All the observed buildings (100%) are classified as

low, that is, they have less than 4 floors. No medium-height (4 to 7 floors) or large (more than 7

floors) buildings were recorded in the sample.

The results suggest a predominantly horizontal construction pattern in the studied area,

which may be related to factors such as population density, soil type, urban regulations or local

construction traditions.

In general, low-rise buildings tend to be less vulnerable to earthquakes than high-rise

buildings, due to their lower mass and height. However, this does not mean that they are

completely safe, since their vulnerability also depends on other factors such as the type of

structure, the construction materials and the quality of the construction.

This data may be relevant for urban planning and the future development of the area. For

example, if an increase in population or greater urban density is expected, it may be necessary to

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 339

consider the construction of taller buildings in the future, which would require proper planning

and the implementation of earthquake-resistant construction regulations.

Table 6

Building height distribution

VALUES

FRECUENCY

PERCENTAGE

Low (less than 4 floors)

100%

Medium (4 to 7 floors)

0,00 %

Large (more than 7 floors)

0,00 %

TOTAL

100%

Seismic Vulnerability Assesment

Table 7 presents the results of the seismic vulnerability assessment of 83 homes,

classifying them into three categories according to their degree of vulnerability: High: Requires

special evaluation (Seismic vulnerability index "S" less than 2); Medium: (2 ≤ S < 2.5); and Low:

(S ≥ 2.5). The frequency (number of dwellings) and the percentage corresponding to each

category are provided.

Most of the houses evaluated (53.01%) have a low degree of seismic vulnerability, which

indicates that they have a greater capacity to withstand earthquakes without suffering significant

damage. A considerable percentage of homes (34.94%) are classified as highly vulnerable,

suggesting that these buildings are at high risk of serious damage or collapse in the event of an

earthquake. This represents a major concern in terms of safety and requires priority attention. A

smaller percentage of homes (12.05%) have a medium degree of vulnerability, which indicates

an intermediate risk of damage in the event of an earthquake.

The results highlight the need to prioritize reinforcement or rehabilitation interventions

in homes with high vulnerability, with the aim of reducing the risk of damage and protecting the

lives of their occupants. Information on the distribution of seismic vulnerability can be used for

emergency planning and seismic risk management in the area, allowing the identification of the

most vulnerable areas and the preparation of appropriate response plans.

Table 7

Seismic Vulnerability Assesment

VULNERABILITY

FRECUENCY

PERCENTAGE

High: Requires special evaluation (S<2)

34,94 %

Medium (2<S<2.5)

12,05 %

Low (S>2.5)

53,01 %

TOTAL

100%

Seismic vulnerability zoning

Figure 1 shows a map of the Joa community in Jipijapa, Manabí, Ecuador, where the

homes have been zoned according to their seismic vulnerability. Homes are represented by

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 340

colored dots: Red: Homes with high seismic vulnerability; Yellow: Homes with medium

vulnerability; and Green: Homes with low seismic vulnerability.

Figure 1.

Seismic vulnerability zoning

A concentration of homes with high vulnerability (red dots) is observed in the central and

southern part of the community. Homes with low vulnerability (green dots) are found mainly on

the periphery and scattered in other areas. Homes with medium vulnerability (yellow dots) appear

to be more evenly distributed throughout the community, although in smaller numbers.

Considering the previous analyzes, it is likely that the concentration of homes with high

vulnerability in the center and south of Joa is due to the presence of older buildings, built with

techniques and materials that are less resistant to earthquakes. The houses on the periphery,

possibly of more recent construction and with better construction practices, could explain the

greater presence of green dots in that area. The dispersed distribution of homes with medium

vulnerability could indicate a combination of factors, such as the age of the buildings, the quality

of the materials and the type of structural system used.

The map allows clearly identifying the areas of Joa with the highest concentration of

vulnerable homes, which facilitates the prioritization of reinforcement or rehabilitation

interventions. Information on the distribution of seismic vulnerability is essential for urban

planning and the future development of the community, promoting the construction of new homes

in lower risk areas and establishing stricter construction regulations. The map is a key tool for

emergency planning and seismic risk management, allowing the identification of the areas where

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 341

the greatest impact is expected in the event of an earthquake and facilitating the organization of

evacuations and the distribution of aid resources.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the evaluation reveal a worrying situation regarding the seismic

vulnerability of homes in the study area. Although most of them present a low risk, a significant

percentage of homes require urgent attention to improve their seismic resistance and guarantee

the safety of their inhabitants. It is essential to take measures to address this problem and reduce

the risk of disasters in the event of an earthquake.

It is essential to promote awareness of seismic risk and the importance of building and

maintaining earthquake-resistant homes. This may include educational programs, dissemination

of information and promotion of good construction practices.

The zoning of seismic vulnerability in Joa provides a clear vision of the distribution of

seismic risk in the community. This information is essential for making informed decisions

regarding risk management, urban planning and the development of mitigation strategies that

allow reducing the vulnerability of the population and their homes to future earthquakes.

It is recommended to carry out more detailed seismic evaluations in the homes identified

with high and medium vulnerability to determine the specific reinforcement measures required

Financing

This work is a partial result from the research project entitled: “Diagnóstico de

infraestructura física para fomentar el desarrollo productivo del sitio Joa del cantón

Jipijapa”, financed by Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí.

 
Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 342 
REFERENCES 
Agrawal, P., & Jaiswal, S. K. (2022). Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings: A Review 
and Comparative Study. YMER Digital, 21(07), 1158–1170.  
https://doi.org/10.37896/YMER21.07/96  
Calixto,  V.,  Cruz,  C.,  &  Huaco,  G.  (2023).  Seismic  vulnerability  of  state  educational 
infrastructures in Cercado de Lima, using the FEMA 154 methodology. 1–7. 
Carvajal Rivadeneira, D. D., Ponce Reyes, F. S., Sornoza Parrales, D., Pincay Pilay, M., Antonio, 
Q. S., & Miller Zavala, J. H. (2023). Elementos básicos de la investigación científica: 
ISBN: 978-9942-846-51-8. EDITORIAL INTERNACIONAL RUNAIKI, 1–75. 
Deyuan, T., Rushan, L., Xuyi, X., & Zhenhui, W. (2022). Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of 
Thermal Power Plants Based on Beta Function. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 
2022, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5799241  
Edward Tuah, M. A., Tedong, P. A., & Md. Dali, M. (2022). THE CHALLENGES IN RURAL 
INFRASTRUCTURE  PLANNING  GOVERNANCE  IN  SARAWAK.  PLANNING 
MALAYSIA, 20. https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v20i24.1214  
Fitriani, H., & Ajayi, S. (2023). Barriers to sustainable practices in the Indonesian construction 
industry.  Journal  of  Environmental  Planning  and  Management,  66(10),  2028–2050. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2057281  
Isla-Díaz, R., Hess-Medler, S., & Marrero-Hernández, H. (2021). El papel del alumnado en el 
Docentia tras diez años de evaluación: ¿evaluar al docente o la asignatura? Esa es la 
cuestión. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 79(280). https://doi.org/10.22550/REP79-3-
2021-08  
Jaramillo  Sanabria,  L.  M.,  &  Acevedo  Osorio,  G.  O.  (2019).  Impacto  de  la  estrategia  de 
higienización de manos en comunidades escolares de Pereira, Risaralda. Documentos de 
trabajo Areandina, 2. https://doi.org/10.33132/26654644.1717  
Jiménez-Gómez, S., Sánchez Rojas, I. A., Castro-Jiménez, L., Rubiano-Espinosa, O., Carrillo-
Ramírez,  C.,  Garavito-Peña,  F.,  &  Barrera-Cobos,  N.  (2021).  Calidad  de  vida  en 
asistentes  a  un  programa  de  actividad  física  en  Bogotá,  Colombia.  Revista 
Iberoamericana  de  Ciencias  de  la  Actividad  Física  y  el  Deporte,  10(2),  95–111. 
https://doi.org/10.24310/riccafd.2021.v10i2.12210  
Osorio Rodríguez, M. N. (2022). Brechas e Inequidad en infraestructura educativa en el Perú. 
UCV-Scientia, 14(2), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.18050/RevUcv-Scientia.v14n2a5  
Pionce, J. A. M., Mendoza, I. C. O., Morales, J. M. E., & Sornoza-Parrales, D. (2024). El Enfoque 
Social  de  las  Ciencias  y  la  Tecnología:  Implicaciones  en  la  Educación  Superior. 
Technology Rain Journal, 3(1). 

Vol. 11/ Núm. 1 2024 pág. 343

Rahmania, Rasmid, Meidi Arisalwadi, & Febrian Dedi Sastrawan. (2023). Microzonation

Mapping in Supporting Construction Plan, New Capital City of Indonesia (Case Study:

Sepaku Sub-district, Panajam Paser Utara Regency). Proceedings of the 4th International

Seminar on Science and Technology (ISST 2022), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-

94-6463-228-6_10

Raoufy, A. A., Kheyroddin, A., & Naderpour, H. (2023). Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of

Reinforced Concrete Hospital Buildings Using Rapid Visual Screening Method

According to FEMA P-154 criteria and Iranian Code# 364. Civil Infrastructure

Researches, 9(2), 77–93.

Rojas, A., De León, E., & Juárez, A. (2022). Actividad Física y Calidad de Vida en el Adulto

Mayor. European Scientific Journal ESJ, 11.

https://doi.org/10.19044/esipreprint.11.2022.p365

Ruiz Muñoz, G. F., Paz Zamora, Y. E., & Grijalva Endara, A. D. L. M. (2024). Análisis de la

producción científica de docentes en la educación superior. Revista Social Fronteriza,

4(3), e43268. https://doi.org/10.59814/resofro.2024.4(3)268

Saheed, Z. S., & Obianuju, C. K. (2021). Assessment Of The Effect Of Socio-Economic

Infrasturcture On Rural Economy In Kaduna State, Nigeria. European Scientific Journal

ESJ, 17(15). https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2021.v17n15p157

Sánchez De Madariaga, I. (2018). Infraestructuras para la vida cotidiana y la calidad de vida.

Ciudades, 08, 101–133. https://doi.org/10.24197/ciudades.08.2004.101-133

Tampubolon, S. P. (2023). Comparison of High-Rise Building Structural Performance Using

Response Spectrum Method SNI 03-1726-2019 and FEMA-154 Rapid Visual Screening

(RVS). MIJR: Multidisciplinary International Journal of Research, 1(3), 89–100.

Utama, W., Indriani, R. F., & Garini, S. A. (2023). Analysis of the Effect of Local Magnitude on

Peak Ground Acceleration and Seismic Vulnerability Index for Geothermal Field

Monitoring Using Microearthquake. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(10), 7855–

7864. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i10.3743