Social Use through Tourism of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the Amazonian Kichwa Nationality

Abstract

The traditional trend in heritage management focuses on a conservationist strategy, i.e., keeping heritage in a good condition while avoiding its interaction with other elements. This condition results in the link between heritage and tourism to be established as juxtaposed process, which gives rise to the need to broaden the concept of heritage and how it can be used through tourism to contribute to the local development of communities. The objective of this study is to show the different mechanisms of social use that the intangible cultural heritage of the different peoples and nationalities of Ecuador can have. For this purpose, the San Antonio de Killu Yaku community, parish of Puerto Napo, canton Tena, Napo province, is taken as a case study, based on an analysis of the current situation of tourism in the community. The cultural resources of the territory are taken as a starting point to transform them into tourist attractions for the construction of a thematic heritage space, in order to minimize the concern about the erosion and lack of appreciation of the ancestral manifestations and knowledge that the nationality possesses, due to the accelerated globalization of society. The analysis corresponds to a descriptive process of all the information collected with the proposed exploitation mechanisms through tourism activities. During the process, an increase in the exchange of knowledge was shown, as well as a constant cultural insurgency in which people maintain themselves to safeguard their cultures.

1. Introduction

Throughout the initial process of the incursion of the communities of indigenous, Montubio and Afro-Ecuadorian peoples and nationalities into tourism, this activity was referred to as “community ecotourism”. However, the final term of “community tourism” emerged and was consolidated with the organization of the communities at the national level by creating the Plurinational Federation of Community Tourism of Ecuador (FEPTCE).

From the point of view of communities, community-based tourism is defined as a way of life and its corresponding forms of organization:

“The Subject is collective, governed by its own values, practices and institutions (economic, social, cultural and political) with particular rights and obligations. It is organized in consensual and supportive structures and practices, where subjects and actions are governed by the principles of reciprocity, relationships of trust, solidarity and cooperation. It has a socio-cultural purpose, focused on the common welfare, the affirmation of cultural identity and the improvement of the living and working conditions of its members. Production is based on collective ownership and management of productive resources, as well as on the equitable distribution of the wealth generated (self-management). It is also based on direct control of the community in the orientation and decisions of the enterprise, and the participation of its members in the collective effort to value and improve its internal resources (human, cultural, natural and physical), in accordance with community’s internal rules of organization” [1].

This definition identifies three important components of community-based tourism: local benefits, community participation and community responsibility. In general terms, it can be observed that “local benefits” (self-esteem, increased income and employment, environmental and cultural enhancement, organizational strengthening, etc.) are products of tourism (and other activities), but not necessarily “community” ones. Therefore, the most important component of the “community-based” tourism activity is the participation of the community in the management and administration of these initiatives, and “community responsibility”, i.e., involvement of the entire community in decision-making, benefit-sharing and interactions with tourists (interculturality).

Therefore, Community Tourism has as its principle “the relationship of the community with visitors from an intercultural perspective, with the consensual participation of its members, the valuation of its heritage, the defense of the cultural and territorial rights of the Nationalities and Peoples of the country, and tourism management based on the principles of solidarity and reciprocity of the Andean community” [1]. It is an approach based on a new political ethic [2], which seeks to affirm the life of all in equality through agreements made by subjects as a result of a symmetrical discussion, to do what is possible within the limits of respect for all forms of life (biological, material, spiritual).

Community-based tourism takes tourism out of the economic sphere, reconstructs it as a business, to assume it as an experiential, intercultural, inter-epistemic encounter, based on otherness, which allows for entanglement, for the good living of humanity. Based on this theoretical approach, community tourism outlines and prioritizes its work axes: (a) Organizational strengthening, which seeks to “weave our local, regional and national organizational structure as a fundamental part for the vindication of our rights”; (b) Cultural revitalization, whose purpose is to “de-colonize our way of thinking, doing and being”, through the revaluation of the ancestral principles and values that sustain the relations of coexistence in the community and with Pachamama, retaking our symbols, spirituality, wisdom and ancestral techniques, “i.e., we assume our authentic cosmoview”; (c) Territorial management, recovering sacred places, to “defend it from extractivist activities and guarantee the sovereignty and food safety of communities” and (d) Strengthening of the solidarity economy in terms of collective work and redistribution of benefits” [3].

The third axis identifies the possibility of linking the cultural heritage wealth of communities with the tourism activity by creating a thematic heritage space or theme park, which would allow for the safeguarding of the ethnic heritage. Thematization is defined by Lukas [4] (p.2) as “a motivated form of geographical representation in which meaningful connections are established between unifying ideas, symbols or discourses”. There are several researchers conducting studies in this area, thematic spaces, trying to understand issues such as the determinants of their popularity, their role and impact on the society in which they are immersed, their role in safeguarding and preserving the tangible and intangible heritage of areas, etc. [5,6,7,8,9,10,11].

According to Serra Cabado and Marco [12], the fundamental principles of thematic heritage spaces are the integration of cultural and heritage resources with elements designed in the territory, which facilitate the interpretation process. They are based on sustainability processes that contribute to improving the quality of life, in addition to integrating heritage conservation concepts. They are larger spaces than a theme park and require less investment. According to Alvarado et al. [13], theme parks are spaces of large proportions that allow the generation of recreational experiences, based on the scale simulation of other spaces. Therefore, large investments are required, in addition to the representative commercial vocation of the area selected for implementation, because they are proposed as areas of mass entertainment [14]. Furthermore, they are characterized as an educational means that promotes cultural tourism. As Ortíz [15] points out, it is a space that encourages experiential activities and promotes the development of good living.

In this context, the objective of this study is to show the different mechanisms of social use that the intangible cultural heritage of the different peoples and nationalities of Ecuador can have; in this specific case, the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the Amazonian Kichwa Nationality. Based on the characteristics identified, a design process for a thematic heritage space is applied as a mechanism for tourism development, based on Community Tourism as a product management model.

2. Methodology

The study is based on a process of revitalization of ancestral knowledge and cultural manifestations that are linked to the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the Amazonian Kichwa Nationality settled in the heart of the Kichwa community of San Antonio de Killu Yaku in Napo.

The information gathering process was based on applying the Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology, in which those individuals who have an interest in the research results assume active roles as co-researchers [16]. This methodology makes it possible to discuss or analyze various topics by involving all the members of a group, and thus achieving a reflection on these topics [17] by means of a dialogue of knowledge. According to Streubert and Carpenter [18], its aim is to describe and understand, so it focuses on the human experience, resulting in a broader understanding and deeper insight into complex human behaviors [19]. Its main characteristic for Lee [20] is that it is a structured means of learning while doing.

In this regard, Gillis and Jackson [21] (p.264) define this technique as “the systematic collection and analysis of data for the purpose of taking action and making change through the generation of practical knowledge”. This approach is considered “an alternative approach to traditional social or scientific research, as it moves social inquiry from a linear cause and effect perspective, to a participatory framework that considers the contexts of people’s lives” [22,23,24] and covers a “cyclical process of fact finding, action, reflection, leading to further inquiry and action for change” [25] (p.191).

For the PAR process, Selenger [26] identified seven components; “(1) The problem originates in the community itself and is defined, analyzed, and solved by the community. (2) The ultimate goal of PAR is the radical transformation of social reality and improvement in the lives of the individuals involved; thus, community members are the primary beneficiaries of the research. (3) PAR involves the full and active participation of the community at all levels of the entire research process. (4) It encompasses a range of powerless groups of individuals: the exploited, the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized. (5) The ability to create a greater awareness in individuals’ own resources that can mobilize them for self-reliant development. PAR is more than a scientific method, in that community participation in the research process facilitates a more accurate and authentic analysis of social reality. (6) PAR allows the researcher to be a committed participant, facilitator and learner in the research process, which fosters militancy, rather than detachment.” (Cited in MacDonald [27]).

It is also very important to mention the benefits of using this research tool for both government and stakeholders [28,29]. Mackenzie et al. [16] (p.14) states the following; “Wider access to information, networking opportunities and resources including access to local knowledge about what is likely to work and what is not, (2) improved decision-making and outcomes by enabling input by a wider range of stakeholders, (3) better understanding by governments of the complex issues in communities and similarly, better understanding by stakeholders of the government processes, (4) opportunities for co-learning and reflection to build capacity in order to support current and future initiatives; and (5) increased participants’ ability to take part in productive dialogue on key issues”.

For this process it is essential to implement culturally appropriate methods, which is why the research team has been trained in participatory processes to develop an environment of trust [30]. The usual three phases were followed: inquiry, action, and reflection [31]. The information gathering process begins with obtaining free, prior and informed consent, a document in which respect for collective rights is formalized, as well as protecting “confidentiality in relation to information, materials, experiences, methods, instruments and other tangible or intangible elements related to traditional knowledge” [32]; i.e., the intellectual property of the knowledge holders in the community is protected. The consolidation of this document allowed for the compliance with the international framework of the ILO Convention No. 169 (1989) and the Nagoya Protocol [33], as well as the provisions of Article 530 of the Ingenios Code [34].

Once the information gathering process was legalized, approximately four community participatory workshops were organized, in which different community stakeholders (children, young people, women, adults, the elderly and community leaders) interacted, which became the main research technique. In these spaces it was possible to generate an ethnographic record of the largest number of cultural manifestations of the Kichwa people of Napo, which constitute a source of wealth for the scientific community.

The ethnographic register was completed through a documentary review process to verify or complement missing information about the recorded manifestations, resulting in the definitive list of cultural manifestations. The list includes manifestations related to space—time organization, oral expressions (stories, legends and myths), easy symbols, community practices, ethnobotany, gastronomy, textiles and handicrafts [35].

A dialogue was then held to establish mechanisms for the social use of the community’s ICH, identifying tourism as a sector of great potential for the community due to its strategic location between the city of Tena (tourist distribution center of the province of Napo) and Puerto Misahuallí (rural parish belonging to the canton of Tena that stands out as one of the main tourist attractions in the canton). The strategic location halfway between these two points allows the community to capture part of the demand that moves between them, in addition to being part of the Plurinational Federation of Community Tourism of Ecuador (FEPTCE).

In this context, we started with a tourism situational diagnosis under the approach of the tourism system (attractions, activities, tourism plant, basic infrastructure and superstructure) of the community, making it possible to determine the current supply, substitutes and tourism demand of the area.

Subsequently, a tourism product was designed according to the community’s potential and based on national product lines, taking the previously recorded cultural knowledge as a differentiating factor. The design included tourism activities and services. It is necessary to point out that in order to respect the working principles of community tourism in Ecuador, a socio-environmental study was applied to the tourism product in order to determine the environmental viability, which was done through the Lazaro Lagos matrix. This matrix is established as a cause—effect matrix identifying the possible positive and negative impacts that will be produced by implementing the tourism product. Finally, the economic and financial viability of the product was determined.

3. Results

The study was carried out in the San Antonio de Killu Yaku community, Puerto Napo parish, Tena canton, Napo province, which is located at the geographic coordinates of latitude: −1.035485, and longitude: −77.752622, at an altitude of 443 m above sea level (Figure 1).

As background to the process, it is necessary to point out that the community of San Antonio de Killu Yaku was established on 15 April 1980, under the name of Killu Yaku, which is derived from Kichwa; Killu: yellow and Yaku: water, which means yellow water. This is the original name of the area that is crossed by an estuary whose water is pale yellow and is covered by moss in summer. The legal constitution of the Killu Yaku community has gone through two stages: the first legal stage responds to an association, and the second stage is the constitution and legal recognition as the Kichwa community “San Antonio” Killu Yaku. It has an area of 200 hectares and a population of 331 inhabitants, of which 173 are women and 158 men, according to the population census of August 2019, conducted by the research process.

In the community, the family is composed of the head of the household, generally a man, his wife and two to four children. In many cases, 2 to 3 families live in the same house; sometimes it is the grandparents’ house, where their children and grandchildren live. The houses mostly keep a vernacular architecture whose main material is the pambil or cane, characterized by open spaces with few divisions, which causes the activities of rest and coexistence to be mixed. They are raised from the ground at least 1.50 m, so the entrance is done through a ladder. There are also slightly more modern block houses with a contemporary style. Of the 70 families in the community, 17.14% identified themselves as mestizo and 82.86% as indigenous. According to the population pyramid, the age range in which there is a greater concentration is from 5 to 30 years, evidencing that the space concentrates a young population and those of employability age.

Considering the climate, the abundance of land and the fact that most of the inhabitants have land for their own use, 69.84% of the population is dedicated to agriculture as their main source of income, including bananas and cassava, in addition to lemon and cocoa production, while a small percentage of the residents are government employees, day laborers, bricklayers, among others. The high tendency to be involved in agriculture is due to the presence of soils with low to moderate natural fertility, although the soil is also unstable and prone to flooding. The town’s main water source is the Shinkipino estuary, which supplies water to all the families through a tank connected to the houses by PVC pipes, in addition to the Killu Yaku and Napo rivers as water courses, although the latter has lost importance due to the strong presence of illegal mining, which has affected the water quality. In addition, the air in the village has a low level of pollution due to the numerous green areas and primeval forests.

3.1. Diagnosis of the Tourism Situation

The community currently offers 23 tourist attractions, distributed in 19 cultural manifestations and 4 natural sites. The cultural manifestations are predominantly of a cultural and popular heritage type, while the natural sites include lake environments and speleological phenomena. It should be noted that 48% of the attractions are preserved, the remaining percentage shows a certain level deterioration, being the ICH manifestations the most affected, as they correspond to traditions and oral expressions (beliefs, myths and legends) of which only older adults have knowledge, due to generational knowledge transmission problems.

The attractions are not well publicized at the national level, and there is limited accessibility and a lack of tourist facilities that would allow for the arrival of visitors in larger tourist flows. In terms of tourism activities, within the natural attractions, activities related to avitourism, ecotourism, nature tourism, adventure tourism, medicinal tourism, as well as activities that allow for community coexistence and environmental and cultural interpretation (Table 1).

Taking into consideration the wide variety of product lines that can be implemented within the community, the thematic heritage space is seen as a unifying line, which allows to take full advantage of all the attractions that the community of San Antonio de Killu Yaku has.

In relation to the basic infrastructure, the community has strong limitations with respect to the absence of a sewage system, in addition to a low-quality service in relation to connectivity, sanitation and other basic services. Tourism infrastructure is basic, so quality improvement processes should be established for food, as well as the implementation of lodging and recreational services.

The superstructure is based on a wide variety of collaborative relationships (Figure 2) between organizations that are categorized as images of power, which revolve around the parish Autonomous Decentralized Governments (ADG) and are responsible for promoting community tourism. Another organization with strong participation is the Plurinational Federation of Community Tourism of Ecuador (FEPTCE), which through its efforts manages to obtain tourism development agreements for the community.

The Canton of Tena has 13 lodging establishments, including lodges, tourist camps, hostels, inns and hotels, with a capacity of 551 people. In food and beverages, there are 43 establishments (restaurants, bars, cafeterias and discotheques) with an installed capacity of 1845 people. There is only one intermediary establishment, while in tourism operations there are 3 travel agencies and 20 tour operators that sell tour packages in and out of the city.

There are 5 community organizations or companies in the parishes of Arquidona, Cotundo and Tena, which register a demand of 5450, with a price range of $5.00 to $15.00, for cultural activities such as tasting local cuisine (chicha drink and chontacuros), enjoying native Kichwa dance and music, cleansing and coexistence with the community. Outdoor activities include hiking two ecological trails, as well as enjoying one spa and one cave.

With respect to demand, there is a potential demand of 115,017 tourists for the year 2019, as a full year prior to the modifications due to the COVID-19 pandemic; 72% of tourists are national and 28% are international. Taking into consideration the satisfied demand, which stands at 5450, the target demand is set at 3% (846 tourists), due to the changes shown in tourist travel, which is a percentage that is also in line with the start-up conditions for tourism projects. The demand data establishes a seasonality in the months of February and November for the province according to the history of the Ministry of Tourism of Ecuador [36], in addition it has been registered on the last national holiday from 2–6 November 2022 in the province of Napo, were established at 7230 tourists along with the entry of 11,807 vehicles [37], these figures determine that the percentage of uptake adjusts to the current tourist reality

The design of the theme park as a unifying space integrates the information collected from the participatory workshops in the three areas dealing with cultural heritage, which correspond to elements of respect (plants, animals, streams and rivers), daily popular knowledge (traditional handicraft techniques, gastronomy, dance and celebrations) and symbols and values (legends and myths) based on the guidelines of Torres [38].

From there, we proceed with the characterization of the activities, which bring together the cultural resources and knowledge of the community to create specific tourist activities for the theme park, which are intended to be used mainly during the 10 permanent national holidays that exist in Ecuador.

3.2. Design of Tourist Activities—

The first activity is established as the Mirador del Ceibo “The three worlds” (Figure 3). It is established as a space in which the three worlds that make up the space—time organization are recreated. It includes the Awa Pacha or upper/astronomical world, the Kay Pacha world in which humans interact with the diversity of Pachamama, and the Uku Pacha, which is the fantasy world, where protective spirits and ancestors dwell [35].

The second activity is the adaptation of the natural attraction of the caves, to which we propose the incorporation of LED lights inside, in addition to improving access for tourists. A capacity of 10 people is determined, within which ritual processes are prepared. It begins with a thanksgiving to the Pachamama and purification with fire, to begin the activities that will take place inside the cave. Then, there will be cleansing with plants from the area (green nettle, tobacco, ginger, etc.) to eliminate bad energies and achieve mental, corporal and spiritual balance. To close, legends and myths of the community that were recovered in the process of the ethnographic registry will be told.

The following activity proposes the search for the Mayanshi supay allpamanka or magic pots, which are associated with the nationality, as those that provide people with knowledge of the Mayanshi spirit to cure diseases (Figure 4). They appear in the jungle and are presented as ceramics in the form of a ball, although the elders in ancient times did not take them for fear of being possessed by some spirit of the environment [39]. This concept is transferred to a search for pots in a space of 100 m², for which a map will be provided to identify the key points where pots are found with representative figures of the area, which will be interpreted as a skill or knowledge that is given to the person.

Finally, an interpretive cultural center is designed that integrates five spaces corresponding to A: Shopping store, B: Interpretive anteroom, C: Entertainment center, D: Play area and E: Virtual zoo (Figure 5).

In area A there is a workshop area where local craftswomen’s products will be exhibited, to which innovative finishing techniques such as natural resin will be included to generate differentiated products in the area. In area B there will be a series of interactive media that will help in the understanding of the medicinal and economic properties and use of animals, plants and the Amazonian Kichwa cosmovision, whose objective is to learn about the natural and cultural wealth of the community. Area C corresponds to an open space for performing arts presentations such as dance and music, as well as rituals such as the Guayusaupina, which allows for social cohesion and cultural encounters between tourists and the local population.

In area D, a space is created consisting of a maze of questions that is a prefabricated structure in the shape of an anaconda (one of the most powerful in Amazonian mythology), in which doors are incorporated with questions that when answered correctly will open. In addition, a space in which stories of the community will be shared, as well as clothing created with elements of the area so that the stories can be recreated.

Finally, in area E, a technological space will be created in which 360° videos can be shared, in which animals of the area can be seen in their natural habitats.

3.3. Design of Tourism Service

Guidance, food and lodging services are incorporated, applying minimum quality criteria established by FEPTCE [40] in its Quality Manual for the Management of Community Tourism in Ecuador. Furthermore, within food and products, we recommend the use of local products that are produced in the chakras of the community, based on organic agriculture principles, thus promoting the agricultural diversity of the area, the nutritional value and food safety, avoiding offering protected plants or animals, or those legally prohibited in the preparation of food. In addition, the purchase of food containing preservatives will be avoided.

In relation to suppliers, preference will be given to local suppliers, with the purpose of encouraging the elaboration of most of the products within the community, from agricultural production for food to the process of transformation of the raw material into jams, yogurt or other products that can contribute to cost reduction, but at the same time to the diversification of production and income for the community.

3.4. Legal and Administrative Structure of Operation of the Theme Park

The operating figure is a Community Tourism Center that will meet all the requirements of the Ministry of Tourism of Ecuador, which will be administered by the legal status of the San Antonio de Killu Yaku Community, also covered by the Law of Popular and Solidarity Economy as an organization of the associative fabric.

3.5. Socio-Environmental Study

To avoid generating irreversible impacts in the area, the Lázaro Lagos matrix (environmental impact assessment matrix) was applied (Table 2).

The study determined that the implementation of tourism development can generate both negative and positive impacts. A total of 441 points were identified from the impacts, 224 of which are positive and 217 were negative. Component E has the highest score of 113, due to economic growth through economic diversification and job creation in the area as a result of the implementation of land use, as well as supporting the process of environmental awareness and conservation. Meanwhile, component F stands out with the highest negative score, due to the fact that there is a great process of intervention and modification of the cultural landscape, that is to say, a slight modification of the generated manifestations of the human being—nature relationship is evident, but it is only applicable to the photography of space; in addition to the generation of waste from the consolidation of the infrastructure planned for use (Table 3).

Based on what was identified, mitigation measures were designed, such as the installation of purification systems and preventive maintenance of equipment to reduce gas emissions, adoption good practices and self-control of odorous emissions, generation of organic fertilizers and compost, recovery of the topsoil and disposal in revegetation areas, raising awareness among the community’s inhabitants and tourists to care for the river, and the development of a plan to safeguard the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICP).

3.6. Economic and Financial Analysis

The financial study shows that the designed product is economically and financially profitable with an IRR (Internal Rate of Return) of 21% and an NPV (Net Present Value) of $154,850.58 (Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, Table 14, Table 15, Table 16 and Table 17).

4. Conclusions

Tourism development stands out for its strategic location, which makes it easier to promote the 23 attractions, of which the cultural component is the strongest and is intertwined in a crosscutting manner with all the activities and structures of development. The theme park focuses on the potential of the area’s attractions, as well as combining local and new offers to address critical community needs such as the economic development in the area.

The community is integrated as a Community Tourism Center (CTC) linked to FEPTCE as an umbrella organization that will support its positioning. Community-based tourism is a model of tourism management within the community, which seeks to break capitalization schemes to base its work on the four pillars proposed by the FEPTCE, with which tourism activity is proposed as a cultural encounter and does not become an object of folklore attraction.

With the purpose of keeping this proposal firm, new processes for the development of tourism production within the community are being developed, and thereby, this community will be able to spread its vision to more territories around the world.

The socio-environmental study found that the impact on the community was positive due to the growth of tourism, the creation of new jobs and the economic growth of the community’s inhabitants, although it also seen that the adverse impacts will affect the air, water, soil, landscape and native species directly, but there are mitigation measures to prevent these impacts.

One of the most representative elements is the substantial integration of the cultural heritage of the communities and of the Amazonian Kichwa nationality, which strengthens the spaces for cultural encounters and above all the revitalization processes, with the purpose of keeping alive the heritage of this human group by supporting the intergenerational transmission processes. In addition, the environmental sustainability processes stand out, linking the ancestral knowledge of the Amazonian Kichwas, raising the interpretative processes of the heritage to a macro scale, where man—nature relationships are recognized, as well as motivating the articulation of creative processes within these spaces.

One of the main contributions is the social use that the population decides to give to their culture and intangible cultural heritage (ICH), emphasizing that the process of use contributes to the revitalization of their culture and strengthening of their identity. It is necessary to specify that, within the Ecuadorian territory, the institutions linked to heritage management maintain a vision of conservation and preservation of culture, terms that are not applicable to the intangible area. This proposal recognizes the undeniable relationship between culture and the economy, that being the link with tourism, a strategic element that allows achieving the systemic vision of building culture, by integrating the production, distribution and consumption of cultural meanings, thereby generating a double benefit. On the one hand, to generate a constant process of creation and recreation of culture, and on the other hand, the generation of economic income that allows them to maintain their cultural practices and not succumb to their modification or usurpation.

In order to keep this proposal firm, new processes are being generated for the development of tourism production within the community, and with this, the community will be able to extend its vision to more territories.

The socio-environmental study found that the socioeconomic impact in the community is positive due to the growth of tourism, the creation of new jobs and the economic growth of the inhabitants of the community. Although it also identified that the adverse impacts will directly affect the air, water, soil, landscape and native species, but there are mitigation measures to avoid these impacts.

Among the management implications, it can be added that the generation of this space causes an increase in the socioeconomic income received by families in the community. The products that are marketed are characterized by the cultural identity they possess; likewise everything produced is reinvested in the community to improve living conditions, allowing access to better education, housing, health services, etc.

One of the most representative elements is the substantial integration of the cultural heritage of the Amazonian Kichwa communities and nationality, which strengthens the cultural meeting spaces and, above all, the revitalization processes, in order to keep the heritage of this human group alive, supporting the processes of intergenerational transmission. In addition, environmental sustainability practices are highlighted, which have been developed through ancestral knowledge of the Amazonian Kichwa nationality, which highlight the human—nature relationship. It is transmitted to the tourist through the interpretation of heritage, a fact that allows a greater appreciation and awareness of environmental conservation, since it is conceived as an intergenerational heritage of life.

In this way, a self-recognition of what their cultural heritage is and is worth has been generated, from which they decide what and how tourism can be coupled to the space, respecting the values, meanings and significances. Preventing the tourism cosifies their way of life, coexistence and understanding of the world. This process respects the value of their self-identification and organization for the provision of tourist services that is not only anchored to the economic as foreign currency income but is understood as a process that supports other elements such as their social, political organization, a system of representation, coexistence and interculturality as a generation exchange and not as a sales structure.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.P.M.-E., M.d.l.C.d.R.-R. and J.Á.-G.; formal analysis, C.P.M.-E., M.d.l.C.d.R.-R., E.E.A.-P. and J.Á.-G.; investigation, C.P.M.-E., M.d.l.C.d.R.-R., E.E.A.-P. and J.Á.-G.; methodology, C.P.M.-E., M.d.l.C.d.R.-R., E.E.A.-P. and J.Á.-G.; writing—original draft, C.P.M.-E., M.d.l.C.d.R.-R., E.E.A.-P. and J.Á.-G.; writing—review and editing, C.P.M.-E., M.d.l.C.d.R.-R., E.E.A.-P. and J.Á.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Map of the location of the San Antonio de Killu Yaku community.

Figure 2. Mapping of the social actors in the territory.

Figure 3. Mirador del Ceibo “The three worlds”.

Figure 4. “Mayanshi supay allpamanka” game.

Figure 5. Aerial view of the layout of the Cultural Interpretive Center.

Table 1

Tourism product lines by community attractions.

Product Line	Variety of Specific Products	Location/Attractiveness
Sports and adventure tourism	Land sports (hiking, trekking, rappelling)River sports (tubing, canyoning, kayaking, rafting)	CavesNapo RiverShinkipino RiverKillu Yaku River
Ecotourism and nature tourism	Flora and fauna observation Scientific, academic, volunteer and educational (CAVE)	CavesNapo RiverShinkipino RiverKillu Yaku River
Cultural tourism	Craft centersCultural centersGastronomyPopular festivalsShamanismMyths and legendsTraditional architectureLocal lifestyle	GuayusaipinaCavesLegend of Kulliur and LuceroLegend of the Yaku WarmiLegend of the tongueless lizardLegend of the Sacha runaMyth of the blind snakeMyth of the guadua waterMyth of the Illa yuraTapunaPacta china
Community-based tourism	Community-based tourism	San Antonio de Killu Yaku Community
Theme parks	Theme parks	San Antonio de Killu Yaku Community
Health tourism	Ancestral medicineSPAs	GuayusaupinaKillu Yaku RiverShinkipino River

Table 2

Lázaro Lagos Matrix.

Activities																Evaluation Criteria
Environmental Components	1. Land Preparation	2. Infrastructure Construction	3. Implementation of Tourism Services	4. Construction with LocalMaterials	5. Environmental Education	6. Waste Disposal	7. Implementation of Signage	8. Transit on the Trail	9. Cultural Demonstrations	10. Participation of theInhabitants	11. Employment Generation	12. Control and Monitoringof Tourist Attractions	13. Standards of Behavior	14. Flora and Fauna Observation	15. Interaction of Touristswith the Community	Impacts	1. Nature	2. Magnitude	3. Importance	4. Certainty	5. Type	6. Reversibility	7. Duration	8. Time to Appear	9.Considered in the Project	10. Weighting
A. Air			X			X										Increase in pollutant gases due to the presence of vehicles	(-)	2	2	C	Sc	2	3	C	S	9
						X										Odors	(-)	2	1	D	Sc	2	1	C	S	5
B. Floor		X				X		X								Presence of garbage	(-)	1	2	D	Pr	2	2	C	S	6
		X														Compaction and settlement	(-)	2	2	D	Pr	2	3	C	N	9
			X			X										Contamination by inorganic organic waste	(-)	1	1	D	Pr	1	1	C	S	3
C. Water	X	X	X													Increase in water consumption	(-)	1	2	D	Pr	2	3	C	N	7
			X													Generation of wastewater	(-)	2	3	D	Pr	1	3	M	S	10
		X	X			X										Conservation of water sources	+	1	3	D	Pr	1	3	M	S	7
			X			X		X								River pollution	(-)	1	3	I	Pr	2	2	M	N	7
D. Floraand fauna		X	X					X							X	Disturbance of fauna habitat	(-)	1	2	I	Sc	2	2	M	N	6
				X	X								X			conservation of fauna and flora species	+	2	2	D	Sc	2	3	L	S	9
E. Socio-Economic		X	X				X	X	X	X	X					Growth of tourism in the area	+	2	3	I	Pr	2	2	L	S	10
					X								X			Tourist and community awareness	+	2	2	D	Pr	2	2	M	S	8
										X	X					Revitalization of the local economy	+	3	2	D	Pr	2	2	M	S	10
												X				Conservation of attractions	+	2	2	C	Pr	1	2	M	S	7
F. Landscape		X	X													Change in the landscape	(-)	2	1	C	Pr	2	3	C		7
		X	X	X		X		X								Garbage generation and disposal	(-)	2	2	I	Ac	1	2	C	N	7
	X	X		X				X	X							Noise disturbance	(-)	1	1	D	Ac	1	1	C	N	3
G. Culture									X	X		X				Cultural exchange	+	2	2	C	Pr	2	3	M	S	9
									X	X		X	X			Preservation of culture	+	2	2	C	Pr	2	3	M	S	9
										X					X	Erosion of local culture	(-)	2	2	C	Pr	2	3	M	S	9

Table 3

Quantification matrix.

ComponentsEnvironmental	Activities															Total (+)	Total (−)	Total
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
A			−9			−9−5										--	23	23
B		−6−9	−3			−6−6		−6								--	36	36
C	−7	−7+7	−7−10+7−7			−7+7		−7								21	52	73
D		−6	−6	+9	+9			−6					+9	−6		27	24	51
E		+10	+10		+8		+10	+10	+10	+10+10	+10+10	+7	+8			113	--	113
F	−3	−7−7−3	−7−7	−7−3		−7		−7−3	−3							--	64	64
G									+9+9	+9+9-9		+9+9	+9		−9	63	18	99
Total (+)	--	17	17	9	17	7	10	10	28	38	20	25	26	--		224
Total (−)	10	45	56	10	--	40	--	29	3	9	--	--	--	6	9		217
Total	10	66	77	19	17	47	10	39	31	38	20	25	26	6	--		--	441

Note: A.= Air, B.= Floor, C.= Water, D.= Flora and fauna, E.= Socio-Economic, F.= Landscape, G.= Culture.

Table 4

Investments.

Denomination	Investment	Commercial	Productive	Administrative
Fixed assets
Constructions and buildings	$200,068.10		$197,068.10	$3000.00
Machines and equipment	$5321.79	$115.00	$5054.69	$152.10
Computer equipment	$4200.00	$1200.00	$1800.00	$1200.00
Furniture and fixtures	$10,388.00	$230.00	$9793.00	$365,00
Supplies	$4706.38		$4526.38	$180,00
Toiletries	$2.892,40		$2.892,40
Deferred assets
Training	$2050.00		$1250.00	$800.00
Promotion and publicity	$2310.00	$2310.00
Patents and publicity	$483.00			$483.00
Environmental mitigation measures	$4.070,00
Working capital
Wages and salaries	$19,199.99	$0.00	$14,400.00	$4799.99
Raw materials	$0.00
Basic services	$3960.00		$3960.00
Total	$259,649.66	$3855.00	$240,744.57	$10,980.09

Table 5

Sources of financing.

Denomination	Required	Sources
		Own Resources	Loan
Fixed assets
Constructions and buildings	$200,068.10	$200,068.10
Machines and equipment	$5321.79	$5321.79
Computer equipment	$4200.00	$4200.00
Furniture and fixtures	$10,388.00	$10,388.00
Supplies	$4706.38	$4706.38
Toiletries	$2892.40	$2892.40
Total Fixed Assets	$227,576.67	$227,576.67
Deferred assets
Training	$2050.00	$2050.00
Promotion and publicity	$2310.00	$2310.00
Patents and publicity	$483.00	$483.00
Environmental mitigation measures	$4070.00	$4070.00
Total Deferred Assets	$8913.00	$8913.00
Working capital
Wages and salaries	$19,199.99	$19,199.99
Raw materials	$3960.00	$3960.00
Total Working Capital	$23,159.99	$23,159.99
Total	$259,649.66	$259,649.66

Table 6

Depreciation of fixed assets.

Depreciation of Fixed Assets
Denomination	Asset Value	Depreciation by Law	Annual Depreciation	Depreciation in the Project	Salvage Value
Constructions and buildings	$200,068.10	20	$10,003.41	$50,017.03	$150.051.08
Machines and equipment	$5321.79	10	$532.18	$2660.89	$2.660.89
Computer equipment	$4200.00	3	$1400.00	$7000.00	$0.00
Furniture and fixtures	$10,388.00	10	$1038.80	$5194.00	$5.194,00
Supplies	$4706.38	1	$4706.38	$23,531.92	$0.00
Total	$224,684.27		$17,680.77	$88,403.83	$157,905,97
Accumulated depreciation		$17,680.77	$35,361.53	$53,042.30	$70,723.07

Table 7

Amortization of deferred assets.

Amortization of Deferred Assets
2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026
$8913.00	$1782.60	$1782.60	$1782.60	$1782.60	$1782.60
$8913.00	$7130.40	$5347.80	$3565.20	$1782.60	$0.00

Table 8

Costs and expenses.

Denomination	Years
	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026
Production cost
Direct labor	$9600.00	$9792.00	$10,187.60	$10,811.16	$11,702.35	$12,920.34
Raw materials/materials and inputs	$4706.38	$4800.51	$4994.45	$5300.15	$5737.05	$6334.17
Subtotal	$14,306.38	$14,592.51	$15,182.05	$16,111.31	$17,439.40	$19,254.51
Administrative expenses
Wages and salaries	$19,199.99	$19,583.99	$20,375.19	$21,622.31	$23,404.68	$25,840.66
Basic services	$3960.00	$4039.20	$4202.38	$4459.60	$4827.22	$5329.64
Patents and permits	$483.00	$492.66	$512.56	$543.94	$588.77	$650.05
Depreciations	$17,680.77	$17,680.77	$17,680.77	$17,680.77	$17,680.77	$17,680.77
Subtotal	$41,323.76	$41,796.62	$42,770.90	$44,306.62	$46,501.44	$49,501.12
Sales expenses
Promotion and publicity	$2310.00	$2356.20	$2451.39	$2601.44	$2815.88	$3108.96
Subtotal	$2310.00	$2356.20	$2451.39	$2601.44	$2815.88	$3108.96
Total	$57,940.14	$58,745.33	$60,404.34	$63,019.36	$66,756.72	$71,864.59

Table 9

Package revenue.

Name	Price	Target Demand	Target Demand X % Availability	Total Income
Package 1	$176	952	641	$112,834
Package 2	$61	952	296	$18,053
Packagee 3	$60	952	15	$886
		total	952	$131,773.21

Table 10

Income from short stay packages.

Income Short Stay Package
Denomination	Year
	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026
Paquete 4
Demand	114	115	118	121	126
Price	$26.00	$26.26	$26.79	$27.60	$28.72
Total	$2969.70	$3029.39	$3152.39	$3346.33	$3623.59
Paquete 5
Demand	143	144	147	152	158
Price	$20.00	$20.20	$20.61	$21.23	$22.09
Total	$2855.48	$2912.87	$3031.15	$3217.62	$3484.22
Paquete 6
Demand	114	115	118	121	126
Price	$16.00	$16.16	$16.48	$16.98	$17.67
Total	$1827.50	$1864.24	$1939.93	$2059.28	$2229.90
Paquete 7
Demand	133	135	137	141	147
Price	$8.00	$8.08	$8.24	$8.49	$8.84
Total	$1066.04	$1087.47	$1131.63	$1201.25	$1300.78

Table 11

Income statement.

Denomination	Year
	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Sales	$131,773.21	$133,090.94	$135,766.07	$139,879.91	$145,559.60
Production costs	$14,306.38	$14,592.51	$15,182.05	$16,111.31	$17,439.40
Gross profit	$117,466.82	$118,498.43	$120,584.02	$123,768.60	$128,120.20
Administrative expenses	$41,323.76	$41,796.62	$42,770.90	$44,306.62	$46,501.44
Sales expenses	$2310,00	$2.356,20	$2.451,39	$2.601,44	$2815.88
Operating profit	$73,833.06	$74,345.61	$75,361.73	$76,860.55	$78,802.88
Earnings before taxes and profit sharing	$73,833.06	$74,345.61	$75,361.73	$76,860.55	$78,802.88
Taxes 25%	$18,458.27	$18,586.40	$18,840.43	$19,215.14	$19,700.72
Profit before profit sharing	$55,374.80	$55,759.20	$56,521.29	$57,645.41	$59,102.16
Profit sharing 15%	$8306.22	$8363.88	$8478.19	$8646.81	$8865.32
Net profit	$47,068.58	$47,395.32	$48,043.10	$48,998.60	$50,236.83

Table 12

Installed capacity.

Installed Capacity
	Installed Capacity by Activity	Annual Installed Capacity
Tents (infrastructure)	20	7200
Guidance (caverns)	10	3600
Total	30	10,800

Table 13

Breakeven point in packages.

Variable costs	$100,157.15
Total Fixed Costs (TFC)	$278,573.34	Breakeven point = TFC/SWCM
Sum of Weighted Contribution Margin (SWCM)	129	2157

Table 14

Breakeven point.

Packages	Packages 1	Packages 2	Packages 3	Total
Sale price	$176	$61	$60.00
Unit variable cost	$9.27	$9.27	$9.27
Contribution margin	$166.73	$51.73	$50.73
Annual installed capacity (people)	10,800	10,800	10,800
% participation	0.67	0.31	0.02	1.00
Weight margin	112	16	1	129
Units (PAX)	1453	671	33	2157

Table 15

Cash flow.

Denomination	Year
	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026
Investments	$259,649.66
Salvage value						$157,905.97
Working capital						$23.159,99
Net profit		$47,068.58	$47,395.32	$48,043.10	$48,998.60	$50,236.83
Depreciations		$17,680.77	$17,680.77	$17,680.77	$17,680.77	$17,680.77
Cash flow	−$259,649.66	$64,749.34	$65,076.09	$65,723.87	$66,679.37	$248,983.56
Upgrade factor	1.00	0.95	0.91	0.86	0.82	0.78
Updated cash flow	−$259,649.66	$61,666.04	$59,025.93	$56,774.75	$54,857.28	$195,085.14
		Sums	$120,691.97	$177,466.72	$232,324.00	$427,409.14

Table 16

Balance Sheet.

Denomination	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026
Current assets (working capital)	$23,159.99	$162,032.87	$146,461.45	$131,211.06	$116,268.39	$101,608.46
Fixed asset	$227,576.67	$227,576.67	$227,576.67	$227,576.67	$227,576.67	$227,576.67
Accumulated depreciation		$17,680.77	$35,361.53	$53,042.30	$70,723.07	$88,403.83
Deferred assets (annual depreciation value)	$8913.00	$7130.40	$5347.80	$3565.20	$1782.60	$0.00
Total assets	$259,649.66	$414,420.70	$414,747.45	$415,395.23	$416,350.73	$417,588.96
Equity (share capital)	$259,649.66	$367,352.13	$367,352.13	$367,352.13	$367,352.13	$367,352.3
Utility. Exercise (net profit)		$47,068.58	$47,395.32	$48,043.10	$48,998.60	$50,236.83
Total liabilities + equity	$259,649.66	$414,420.70	$414,747.45	$415,239.23	$416,350.73	$417,588.96

Table 17

Financial analysis.

CRP (Capital recovery period)	Year 5
BCR (Benefit—Cost Ratio)	1.65
NPV (Net Present Value)	$154,850.58
IRR (Internal Rate of Return)	21%

References

1. FEPTCE. Code of Operations of the Plurinational Federation of Community Tourism of Ecuador FEPTCE (2011). Available online: http://www.feptce.org/images/stories/contenido/mar-co_legal/06-codigo-de-operaciones-feptce-2011-2013 (accessed on 18 October 2022).

2. Dussel, E. 20 Tesis de Política; Sigloveintiuno Editores: Madrid, Spain, 2006.

3. FEPTCE. Memoria e Historia del Turismo Comunitario en el Ecuador; Mimeo: Quito, Ecuador, 2006.

4. Lukas, S.A. The Themed Space: Locating Culture, Nation, and Self; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2007.

5. Gottdiener, M. The Theming of America: American Dreams, Media Fantasies and Themed Environments; 2nd ed. Cambridge MA: Westview, UK, 2001.

6. Jackson, K.M.; West, M.I. Disneyland and Culture: Essays on the Parks and Their Influence; McFarland: Jefferson, NC, USA, 2011.

7. Yang, L. Minorities, Tourism and Ethnic Theme Parks: Employees’ Perspectives from Yunnan, China. J. Cult. Geogr.; 2011; 28, pp. 311-338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2011.583444]

8. Fu, Y.; Kim, S.; Zhou, T. Staging the ‘authenticity’of intangible heritage from the production perspective: The case of craftsmanship museum cluster in Hangzhou, China. J. Tour. Cult. Change; 2015; 13, pp. 285-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2014.983439]

9. Massing, K. Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in an ethnic theme park setting–the case of Binglanggu in Hainan Province, China. Int. J. Herit. Stud.; 2018; 24, pp. 66-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362571]

10. Stanley, N. Chinese Theme Parks and National Identity. Theme Park Landscapes: Antecedents and Variations; Young, T.; Riley, R. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; pp. 269-289.

11. Zhou, L.; Ouyang, F.; Li, Y.; Zhan, J.; Akhtar, N.; Ittefaq, M. Examining the Factors Influencing Tourists’ Destination: A Case of Nanhai Movie Theme Park in China. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 11419. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su141811419]

12. Serra Cabado, J.; Marco, L.P. Los espacios temáticos patrimoniales: Una metodología para el diseño de productos turísticos culturales. Estud. Turísticos; 2001; 150, pp. 57-81.

13. Alvarado, L.; Doñan, J.; Flores, P. Modelo Sostenible de Parques Temáticos de Aventura Para el Istu [Universidad de El Salvador]. 2019; Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/237136307.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2022).

14. Arévalo, M.A.; Díaz, J.N.; Gil, S.F.; Hincapié, M.P.; Romero, J.A. Propuesta de implementación de un parque Eco-turístico en las Salinas de Zipaquirá como eje articulador de estrategias de Producción Más Limpia. Rev. De Tecnol.; 2016; 15, pp. 115-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18270/rt.v15i2.2180]

15. Ortíz, D. Parques temáticos una opción para el turismo cultural. Estudio de caso complejo arqueológico del Monte Puñay, Cantón Chunchi, provincia de Chimborazo, Ecuador. Eur. Sci. J.; 2015; XI, pp. 103-104.

16. Mackenzie, J.; Tan, P.L.; Hoverman, S.; Baldwin, C. The value and limitations of participatory action research methodology. J. Hydrol.; 2012; 474, pp. 11-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.09.008]

17. Lewin, K. Action research and minority problems. Resolving Social Coflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics; Lewin, G. Souvenir Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1973.

18. Streubert, H.; Carpenter, D. Ethnographic research approach. Qual. Res. Nurs.; 1995; pp. 89-111.

19. Mason, J. Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qual. Res.; 2006; 6, pp. 9-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058866]

20. Lee, T.W. Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 1999.

21. Gillis, A.; Jackson, W. Research for Nurses: Methods and Interpretation; FA Davis Company: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2002.

22. Chandler, D.; Torbert, B. Transforming inquiry and action interweaving 27 flavors of action research. Action Res.; 2003; 1, pp. 133-152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14767503030012002]

23. Kelly, P.J. Practical suggestions for community interventions using participatory action research. Public Health Nurs.; 2005; 22, pp. 65-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-1209.2005.22110.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15670327]

24. Young, L. Participatory action research (PAR): A research strategy for nursing?. West. J. Nurs. Res.; 2006; 28, pp. 499-504. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193945906288597] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16829634]

25. Minker, M. Using participatory action research to build health communities. Public Health Rep.; 2000; 115, pp. 191-197. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/phr/115.2.191] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10968753]

26. Selenger, D. Participatory Action Research and Social Change; Cornell University: New York, NY, USA, 1997.

27. MacDonald, C. Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology option. Can. J. Action Res.; 2012; 13, pp. 34-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v13i2.37]

28. Ison, R.L. Systems thinking and practice for action research. Sage Handb. Action Res. Particip. Inq. Pract.; 2008; 2, pp. 139-158.

29. Rowe, G.; Frewer, L.J. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values; 2005; 30, pp. 251-290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724]

30. Zapata, F. Nuestros saberes, nuestro patrimonio, nuestra memoria. In El registro de Valores Culturales Inmateriales a Través de Procesos de Memoria Social. SGCAN, Instituto de Montaña y UICN-Sur: Lima, Peru, 2012.

31. Kemmis, S.; McTaggart, R. Communicative action and the public sphere. Sage Handb. Qual. Res.; 2007; 3, pp. 559-603.

32. Ingenious Code 2016. Available online: https://www.asle.ec/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ingenios-09-12-2016.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2022).

33. Nagoya Protocol 2011. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-es.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2022).

34. Convenio No. 169 de la OIT. 1989; Available online: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---americas/---ro-lima/documents/publication/wcms_445528.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2022).

35. Maldonado-Erazo, C.P.; Tierra-Tierra, N.P.; Del Río-Rama, M.C.; Álvarez-García, J. Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Amazonian Kichwa People. Land; 2021; 10, 1395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land10121395]

36. Ministry of Tourism of Ecuador. Movimientos Internos: GEOVIT, Portal Servicios MINTUR: Quito, Ecuador 2022. Available online: https://servicios.turismo.gob.ec/index.php/turismo-cifras/2018-09-19-17-01-51/movimientos-internos-geovit (accessed on 18 October 2022).

37. Governorate of Napo. Más de 45 Mil Personas Visitaron Napo. 2022; Available online: https://www.gobernacionnapo.gob.ec/new/mas-de-45-mil-personas-visitaron-napo/ (accessed on 18 October 2022).

38. Torres, V.H. Manual de Revitalización Cultural Comunitario/ Reviving Community culture: A Manual; Sistema de Investigación y Desarrollo Comunitario: Quito, Ecuador, 1994.

39. Universidad de CuencaUNICEFDINEIB. Sabiduría de la Cultura Kichwa de la Amazonía Ecuatoriana. Tomo II. MEGASOFT. 2012; Available online: https://www.educacionbilingue.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/1-Sabiduria-de-la-Cultura-Kichwa-T2_compressed.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2022).

40. FEPTCE. Manual de Calidad Para la Gestión del Turismo Comunitario del Ecuador; FEPTCE: Quito, Ecuador, 2007.