Institutional capacity as a determinant of sustainability in community-managed drinking water systems beyond infrastructure

1 Introduction

Access to safe drinking water is one of the main challenges for public health, human well-being, and sustainable development. Although significant progress has been made in recent decades in expanding the coverage of water supply services, the gaps between urban and rural areas remain significant (Okafor et al., 2024). According to the Joint Monitoring Program of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), approximately 2.2 billion people still lack safely managed drinking water services, a situation that primarily affects rural communities and vulnerable populations. This situation highlights that achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6), which aims to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water for all, continues to pose a challenge for many countries (WHO, 2026).

In Latin America, particularly in the Andean regions, a significant portion of rural water supply systems is managed by community organizations such as the Drinking Water Management Boards (JAAP), the Sanitation Services Management Boards (JASS), and other forms of community-based management (Machado et al., 2019). These organizations serve as a fundamental mechanism for ensuring access to water in areas where institutional presence is limited; however, they face challenges related to financial constraints, limited technical assistance, insufficient training for operational staff, inadequate monitoring programs, and weak coordination with the entities responsible for regulation and technical support (Alvarez et al., 2024).

Recent scientific literature shows that water quality in these systems results from a complex interaction between technical, operational, and institutional factors (Domínguez Rivera et al., 2016; Alvarez et al., 2024). Studies conducted in Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, and Argentina show that infrastructure deficiencies, the absence or inadequate operation of treatment systems, limited monitoring frequency, and organizational weaknesses within water boards account for a large portion of the microbiological noncompliance observed in rural Andean systems (Rocha-Melogno et al., 2019; Barranquero et al., 2023; García-Ávila et al., 2023; Hernández et al., 2025; Ramos - Parra et al., 2025; Cañari-Casaño et al., 2026). Furthermore, the review identifies that operator training, community participation, organizational leadership, and ongoing institutional support are key factors in improving the sustainability of drinking water services (Aashiq et al., 2020; Cobos et al., 2025).

Although the evaluation of community water supply systems has traditionally focused on physicochemical and microbiological parameters, infrastructure conditions, and the efficiency of treatment technologies, there is a growing consensus that these indicators, on their own, do not fully explain the sustainability of these services (Lockwood and Smits, 2011). In the Andean region, the available evidence remains limited, as most research prioritizes technical assessment or water quality, while few studies integrate technical, operational, and organizational dimensions to analyze how institutional capacity influences the performance of community systems. In this regard, it is necessary to incorporate an assessment of the governance and capacities of the organizations responsible for the planning, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and continuous improvement of the service. From this perspective, water quality ceases to be merely an environmental indicator and can also be interpreted as an expression of institutional performance, as it reflects the effectiveness with which community organizations manage and sustain water supply systems (Kayser et al., 2013). This knowledge gap limits the generation of evidence useful for guiding public policies and institutional strengthening strategies aimed at improving the sustainability of rural drinking water services.

To support the analysis of the institutional sustainability of community drinking water supply systems, the study combines two complementary methodological approaches: the PROPILAS methodology and the Institutional Capacity Assessment Framework (ICAF). PROPILAS was designed to evaluate rural water and sanitation services from a comprehensive and participatory perspective, incorporating indicators related to the condition of the infrastructure, service administration, operation and maintenance, community participation, and user perceptions. Its relevance lies in the fact that the sustainability of community systems cannot be determined solely by inspecting their physical components; rather, it requires consideration of the capacity of local organizations to manage resources, maintain facilities, respond to failures, and sustain the service over time. This approach aligns with the views of Lockwood and Smits (2011), who argue that the evaluation of rural services must move beyond an infrastructure-centered approach and focus instead on the continuity, quality, reliability, and sustainability of the service.

However, although PROPILAS provides a relevant diagnostic basis for assessing the technical, administrative, and social conditions of rural systems, its indicators require an interpretive framework that explains how an organization’s various capacities interact and shape its performance. To address this need, this study incorporates the ICAF as an analytical framework for institutional capacity. This framework is based on the contributions of Kayser et al. (2013), who define institutional capacity as the ability of organizations to mobilize resources, develop competencies, and fulfill their functions effectively, and on the approaches of Ivey et al. (2006), according to which the sustainability of collectively managed resources depends on the existence of rules, coordination mechanisms, participation, oversight, and conflict resolution. In the field of water governance, these elements have also been recognized by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2015) as indispensable conditions for achieving effective, efficient, inclusive, and sustainable management.

The combination of PROPILAS and ICAF follows a complementary and sequential methodological approach. In the first stage, the adapted PROPILAS indicators make it possible to collect and organize empirical evidence on infrastructure conditions, operation and maintenance practices, administrative mechanisms, community participation, and the perceived sustainability of the service. In a second stage, this evidence is reclassified and interpreted using the ICAF across three interdependent dimensions: technical capacity, operational capacity, and organizational capacity. Technical capacity encompasses the infrastructure, physical resources, and technological conditions necessary to collect, treat, store, and distribute water; operational capacity refers to the procedures through which these resources are transformed into a continuous service, including operation, maintenance, monitoring, and control; and organizational capacity incorporates planning, leadership, financial management, community participation, institutional coordination, and accountability mechanisms. This complementarity allows us to move from a description of the system’s conditions to an explanation of the factors that determine its performance and sustainability. This approach aligns with Kayser et al. (2013) and Machado et al. (2019), who argue that the evaluation of water services must integrate indicators of quality, reliability, management, governance, and institutional responsiveness. The integration of both approaches is further justified by the socio-technical nature of drinking water systems, whose operation depends on the interaction between infrastructure, operators, users, financial resources, regulations, and public entities. In this context, the existence of adequate infrastructure alone does not guarantee a sustainable service if it is not accompanied by procedures for operation, maintenance, monitoring, planning, and institutional coordination.

In this context, the present study evaluates the institutional sustainability of two Drinking Water Management Boards in southern Ecuador by combining the PROPILAS and ICAF methodologies. Based on a comparative case study, indicators related to infrastructure, operation, maintenance, monitoring, administrative organization, and community participation were integrated and subsequently reorganized into three dimensions of institutional capacity: technical, operational, and organizational. This approach made it possible to identify the main strengths and gaps that influence the systems’ performance, as well as to analyze the relationship between the boards’ management capacities, service continuity, and the water-quality assurance practices. Going beyond a conventional technical assessment, the research interprets the capacity to support water-quality assurance and the sustainability of the water supply as outcomes of the institutional performance of community organizations and seeks to provide useful evidence to guide organizational strengthening processes and water governance policies in rural contexts.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Research design

This research was conducted using a mixed-methods approach with a descriptive and comparative scope, employing the case study as a methodological strategy to evaluate the institutional capacity of community drinking water supply systems. A cross-sectional design was adopted, as data were collected during the same evaluation period from two Drinking Water Management Boards in the province of Azuay, Ecuador. This area was selected due to its relevance to regional water management and the existence of previous studies that have characterized water availability, the hydroclimatic conditions of Andean watersheds, and various components of water quality intended for human consumption. This background includes studies on the water balance of tropical Andean micro-watersheds in Azuay, the assessment of critical parameters in water sources and treatment systems in the city of Cuenca, the presence of disinfection byproducts, and the occurrence of emerging contaminants in rural community water systems in the province (Duque-Sarango et al., 2019a, 2019b; Cobos et al., 2025; Hernández et al., 2025; Carrión-Aguilar et al., 2026).

The mixed-methods approach allowed for the integration of qualitative and quantitative information obtained through technical inspections, document reviews, interviews, and the evaluation of institutional indicators. The combination of these sources facilitated the triangulation of information and allowed for the comparison of the state of the infrastructure and operational procedures with administrative practices, community participation mechanisms, and the documentary evidence available in each organization. This strategy proved relevant for analyzing community systems as socio-technical structures, in which service performance depends on the interaction between physical components, operational practices, and organizational capacities.

2.2 Case studies

The research was conducted at the JAAPs in Baños and Proyecto Nero, located in the canton of Cuenca, Azuay Province, Ecuador (Figure 1). Both organizations are responsible for the administration, operation, and maintenance of community water supply systems for human consumption and represent models of community management that are widely implemented in the Ecuadorian Andean region.

Cases were selected using purposive sampling based on specific criteria (Greenhalgh, 2025), taking into account three inclusion criteria: (i) the existence of a formally established community organization responsible for managing the drinking water service; (ii) having sufficient technical, operational, and administrative information for the evaluation; and (iii) allowing access to the infrastructure and documentation necessary to conduct the research.

2.3 Institutional capacity assessment framework (ICAF)

To assess the sustainability of community drinking water supply systems, this study employed the ICAF. This framework integrates the concept of institutional capacity—which has been extensively developed in the literature (UNDP, 2008; Carneiro et al., 2024; Raja Ariffin et al., 2024)—with indicators adapted from the PROPILAS methodology, reorganized into an analytical structure comprising three dimensions: technical capacity, operational capacity, and organizational capacity.

Conceptually, institutional capacity is understood as the set of resources, competencies, and organizational mechanisms that enable an institution to plan, operate, control, and continuously improve a public service (UNDP, 2008; Carneiro et al., 2024; Raja Ariffin et al., 2024). Based on this approach, the ICAF was structured into three complementary dimensions that represent the main components of institutional capacity and guide the comprehensive assessment of community drinking water supply systems (Figure 2).

The dimensions that make up the ICAF are described below:

2.3.1 Technical capacity

Assesses the physical and functional conditions of the water supply system, including the infrastructure for abstraction, conveyance, treatment, storage, distribution, and source protection, as well as the state of maintenance of its components.

2.3.2 Operational capacity

Analyzes the processes associated with the day-to-day operation of the system, considering preventive and corrective maintenance activities, water quality monitoring, operational control, and the availability of technical procedures to ensure service continuity and reliability.

2.3.3 Organizational capacity

This encompasses the administrative and community governance processes that underpin the management of the system, including organizational structure, institutional planning, community participation, staff training, document management, financial sustainability, and coordination with public institutions.

These three dimensions formed the analytical framework of the ICAF and served as the basis for defining the variables and indicators used to assess the institutional capacity of the management boards. This framework made it possible to systematically organize the collected information and compare institutional performance across the case studies.

2.4 Evaluation variables and indicators

The evaluation variables were operationalized using indicators derived from the PROPILAS methodology. Subsequently, these indicators were reorganized according to the ICAF analytical framework, grouping them into the technical, operational, and organizational dimensions (Table 1). This reorganization preserved the technical content of the original indicators but allowed them to be interpreted from the perspective of institutional capacity.

Table 1. Operationalization of the ICAF dimensions using indicators adapted from the PROPILAS methodology.

The operationalization of the ICAF dimensions made it possible to integrate technical, operational, and organizational information under a common analytical framework, facilitating the comparative assessment of the institutional capacity of the administrative boards and the interpretation of their performance from a water governance perspective.

2.5 Data collection

Information was collected through a combination of direct observation, semi-structured interviews, and a document review, in accordance with the dimensions and indicators defined by the ICAF.

First, technical inspections were conducted of the components of the water supply systems—including intake, conveyance, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities—to assess the physical and functional condition of the infrastructure using checklists.

For each management board, the documentary review considered the availability, completeness, updating status, and practical use of the institutional records relevant to each indicator. These included technical plans and cadastral records, operational and maintenance records, technical reports, bylaws and regulations, management documents, financial records, and meeting minutes. The documentary evidence was not evaluated solely on the basis of its existence; the assessment also considered whether the records were current, systematically maintained, and available for supporting routine management and decision-making.

Subsequently, evaluation forms and semi-structured interviews were administered to representatives of the administrative boards to obtain information on system operations, maintenance programs, water quality monitoring, administrative organization, financial management, and community participation mechanisms.

In addition, institutional documentation was reviewed, including operational records, technical reports, bylaws, regulations, management plans, maintenance plans, financial statements, meeting minutes, and other administrative documents related to the management of each system.

Finally, documentary evidence related to water-quality monitoring practices was reviewed for each system. This study did not include direct water sampling or laboratory analysis. Instead, the assessment focused on verifying the existence of monitoring procedures, technical reports, and institutional records demonstrating whether water-quality control activities were systematically implemented by each management board.

2.6 Analysis of the information

The information collected was organized using a structured evaluation matrix based on the Institutional Capacity Index (ICAF), classifying the selected indicators into three dimensions: technical capacity, operational capacity, and organizational capacity.

Subsequently, scores were assigned to each indicator using the rating scale adapted from the PROPILAS methodology, and averages were calculated for each dimension, along with the overall Institutional Capacity Index (ICAF) for each administrative board evaluated.

Finally, a comparative analysis was conducted among the JAAPs, taking into account the results obtained in each dimension, which made it possible to identify differences in their institutional performance and interpret their management capacity from the perspective of governance and sustainability of community drinking water systems.

2.7 Indicator assessment and calculation of the ICAF

The indicators were assessed using an ordinal scale from 1 to 5, adapted from the PROPILAS methodology and applied through structured evaluation criteria defined for each indicator. Scores were assigned according to the degree of functionality, implementation, systematization, documentary support, and institutionalization evidenced through technical inspections, checklists, documentary review, and semi-structured interviews, depending on the nature of each indicator. A score of 1 represented the absence or critical deficiency of the assessed condition; a score of 2 indicated a low level of development with major deficiencies; a score of 3 represented an intermediate or partially implemented condition; a score of 4 indicated an adequate and functional condition with minor gaps; and a score of 5 represented a fully implemented, systematically maintained, and institutionalized condition. Higher scores therefore represented stronger conditions of institutional management. Based on these assessments, the averages corresponding to each ICAF dimension: technical, operational, and organizational capacity, were calculated. To interpret the overall index, a five-level classification scale for institutional sustainability—proposed in this study—was established, taking into account the range of indicator scores (1.00 to 5.00). This classification made it possible to categorize the performance of drinking water management boards from an unsustainable condition to a highly sustainable condition (Table 2).

Table 2. Levels of institutional sustainability.

For indicators based on documentary evidence, higher scores represented progressively stronger levels of documentation and institutionalization. A score of 5 was assigned when the required documentation was available, updated, systematically maintained, and actively used in management processes. A score of 4 represented a generally adequate level of documentation, but with minor gaps in completeness, updating, systematization, or availability. Lower scores reflected progressively greater deficiencies in the existence, completeness, or institutional use of the required records.

The ICAF was obtained using the arithmetic mean of the three dimensions:where CT corresponds to the average technical capacity, CO to the average operational capacity, and CG to the average organizational capacity. The final value of the index allowed for the establishment of the overall institutional sustainability rating for each JAAP (see Figure 3).

ICAF = CT + CO + CG 3

3 Results

3.1 Technical capacity

Table 3 presents the scores obtained for the technical capacity indicators. The Baños JAAP achieved an average of 5.00, while the Proyecto Nero JAAP scored 4.43, with lower scores in water abstraction, conveyance, and distribution infrastructure; technical records; and the ability to troubleshoot failures.

Table 3. Technical capacity indicators for the evaluated JAAPs.

At the indicator level, JAAP Baños obtained the maximum score (5) across all seven technical-capacity indicators, reflecting favorable conditions in intake infrastructure (CT1), conveyance and distribution systems (CT2), availability of technical records (CT3), water-quality control (CT4), technical staff capacity (CT5), preventive-maintenance planning (CT6), and the ability to respond to technical failures (CT7). Proyecto Nero also showed strong technical performance, obtaining the maximum score for water-quality control, staff technical capacity, and preventive-maintenance planning. However, scores of 4 were recorded for the condition of intake infrastructure, conveyance and distribution systems, availability of technical records, and technical-failure response capacity. These differences indicate that the lower technical-capacity score of Proyecto Nero was not associated with the absence of essential technical functions, but rather with comparatively less consolidated infrastructure conditions, technical documentation, and response mechanisms.

As shown in Table 4, the JAAP Baños was classified as “Highly Sustainable,” while the JAAP Proyecto Nero was classified as “Sustainable,” according to the ICAF classification scale.

Table 4. Classification of technical capacity according to the PROPILAS scale.

3.2 Operational capacity

Table 5 shows the results for operational capacity. The Baños JAAP scored an average of 4.83, and the Nero Project JAAP scored 4.67. The main difference between the two organizations was observed in the indicator for fault response capacity.

Table 5. Operational capacity indicators for the evaluated JAAPs.

The indicator-level assessment showed that both management boards achieved the maximum score for operational continuity (CO1), preventive-maintenance scheduling (CO2), water-quality monitoring (CO4), and operational control (CO5). This indicates that both systems maintain regular service provision, implement scheduled maintenance activities, conduct routine water-quality monitoring, and maintain operational oversight of system components. The main difference was observed in fault-response capacity (CO3), where JAAP Baños scored 5 and Proyecto Nero scored 4, indicating a comparatively stronger capacity in Baños to address and resolve operational failures. Both organizations scored 4 for risk management and contingency measures (CO6), identifying emergency preparedness as a shared area for institutional strengthening. Consequently, the difference between the operational-capacity averages of 4.83 for Baños and 4.67 for Proyecto Nero was relatively small and was primarily explained by fault-response capacity.

The classification presented in Table 6 places both management boards in the “Highly Sustainable” category for the operational dimension.

Table 6. Classification of operational capacity according to the PROPILAS scale.

3.3 Organizational capacity

Unlike the technical and operational dimensions, the organizational-capacity profile was identical for both management boards. Administrative organization (CG1), training of managers and operators (CG3), and financial management (CG4) each obtained a score of 4, indicating the existence of functional organizational structures, capacity-building mechanisms, and basic financial-management practices. In contrast, community participation (CG2) and institutional coordination (CG5) received scores of 3 in both organizations. These results identify participation and external institutional coordination as the least consolidated components of institutional capacity and explain why the organizational dimension, with an average score of 3.60 in both cases, remained below the technical and operational dimensions. Therefore, the principal institutional gaps identified in both systems are associated less with their internal technical functioning and more with participatory governance and coordination with supporting organizations and public institutions.

Table 7 presents the results for organizational capacity. Both JAAPs achieved an average score of 3.60, with higher scores in administrative organization, training, and financial management.

Table 7. Indicators of organizational capacity for the evaluated JAAPs.

According to Table 8, both governing boards were classified as “Sustainable” in the organizational dimension.

Table 8. Classification of organizational capacity according to the PROPILAS scale.

Table 9 presents the ICAF score obtained for each JAAP. The Baños JAAP recorded a score of 4.48, while the Nero Project JAAP achieved 4.23. Both results fall into the “Sustainable” category, with the Baños JAAP demonstrating the highest overall institutional performance.

Table 9. Integrated assessment of the overall institutional capacity index (ICAF) for the evaluated JAAPs.

4 Discussion

The comprehensive assessment using the ICAF revealed that both management boards have favorable conditions for providing drinking water services, achieving the “Sustainable” category. However, the JAAP Baños achieved a higher institutional performance than the JAAP Proyecto Nero, primarily due to its higher scores in the technical and operational dimensions. These results are consistent with the findings of Raja Ariffin et al. (2024) and Luvinga et al. (2026), who indicate that the sustainability of community water systems depends not only on the available infrastructure but also on the institutional capacity to efficiently manage technical, operational, and organizational resources.

In the technical dimension, the difference observed between the two organizations was primarily associated with the better condition of the water collection and distribution infrastructure, the availability of technical records, and the capacity to resolve malfunctions (Duque-Sarango and Hernández, 2020). Although both boards have functional infrastructure, conventional treatment systems, and documented water-quality monitoring practices, the JAAP Baños demonstrated greater efforts in source protection, environmental conservation, and technical monitoring. In this context, Bhatta et al. (2024) and Machado et al. (2022)note that systematic maintenance of infrastructure, together with the availability of up-to-date technical information, is a determining factor in ensuring the sustainability and efficiency of community water supply systems.

The relevance of these findings extends beyond the two community-managed water systems analyzed in Ecuador. Community-based water organizations operate in multiple regions of Latin America and in other low- and middle-income contexts, where the long-term sustainability of drinking water services frequently depends on local institutional capacity. Although governance arrangements, regulatory frameworks, and socioeconomic conditions vary among countries, the interaction between infrastructure, operational capacity, organizational continuity, and community participation represents a recurring challenge. In this regard, the ICAF provides an analytical structure that could be adapted to other territorial contexts, allowing comparative assessments of institutional strengths and vulnerabilities across community-managed water systems.

Continuous monitoring should also be understood as a central component of institutional sustainability rather than exclusively as a technical control mechanism. Periodic assessment of infrastructure conditions, maintenance practices, water-quality monitoring, administrative records, financial management, and community participation can help organizations identify emerging weaknesses before they affect service continuity or drinking water safety. Therefore, institutional monitoring can support a transition from reactive management toward preventive and adaptive governance, increasing the capacity of community organizations to respond to environmental, operational, and socioeconomic pressures.

The results regarding operational capacity reflect an adequate level of performance in both JAAPs, as evidenced by service continuity, the implementation of preventive maintenance programs, documented water-quality monitoring practices, and ongoing operational control of the treatment stages. These practices contribute to supporting water-quality assurance and strengthen the planning and management of community water supply systems, in line with the findings of López-Esquivel et al. (2024), who emphasize that systematic water quality assessments are a fundamental tool for supporting the management of community organizations and promoting water security.

The organizational dimension recorded the lowest scores in both management boards, suggesting that this component represents the main challenge to strengthening institutional sustainability. Although the organizations have defined administrative structures, technically trained staff, and basic financial management mechanisms, the results show lower levels of community participation and coordination with supporting institutions. Various studies (Raja Ariffin et al., 2024; Bilalova et al., 2025; Rosso, 2025; Saldaña-Escorcia, 2025) agree that water governance requires participatory processes, inter-institutional coordination, and the strengthening of local capacities to ensure the sustainability of water supply services.

Finally, the application of the ICAF made it possible to integrate the technical, operational, and organizational dimensions into a single indicator, facilitating the comparative evaluation of the performance of drinking water management boards. The information generated by this index can serve as input for the evaluation, monitoring, and institutional strengthening processes promoted by the Water Regulation and Control Agency (ARCA, 2016). From this perspective, the ICAF is a useful tool for identifying strengths and opportunities for improvement, as well as for supporting planning, monitoring, and decision-making in community water supply systems, in line with the findings of Bolatova et al. (2025) and Lidvina Bere Mau et al. (2024). These findings are particularly relevant in the context of Sustainable Development Goal 6, because achieving universal and equitable access to safe drinking water requires not only infrastructure expansion but also institutions capable of sustaining services over time. From this perspective, progress toward SDG 6 should incorporate indicators related to institutional capacity, governance, monitoring, resilience, and community participation alongside conventional measures of access and water quality. The ICAF may therefore contribute to identifying institutional gaps that remain hidden when sustainability is assessed exclusively through physical infrastructure or service coverage. Furthermore, its application in other contexts could promote the development and standardization of methodologies for assessing the institutional capacity of community organizations responsible for water resource management.

The study therefore suggests that the sustainability of community-managed drinking water systems should be interpreted as an institutional outcome emerging from the interaction of technical assets, operational practices, organizational capacity, and governance arrangements. Strengthening these dimensions simultaneously may be more effective than isolated infrastructure interventions and may provide a more resilient pathway toward achieving SDG 6 in rural and peri-urban communities. However, as this research was designed as a comparative case study based on two purposively selected management boards, the findings should be interpreted as context-specific and are not intended to provide statistical generalization to all community-managed drinking water systems. In addition, the purposive selection of formally established organizations with available technical and administrative information may introduce positive selection bias, which should be considered when interpreting the results and when applying the proposed framework in other contexts.

5 Conclusion

The application of the Institutional Capacity Index allowed for a comprehensive evaluation of the technical, operational, and organizational capacities of the drinking water management boards, revealing that both exhibit a performance level classified as “Sustainable.” The results confirm that the sustainability of community water supply systems depends on the interaction among these three dimensions and not solely on infrastructure conditions.

The comparative analysis showed that the JAAP Baños achieved higher institutional performance than the JAAP Proyecto Nero, due to better results in the technical and operational dimensions. In both organizations, organizational capacity received the lowest rating, with community participation and institutional coordination being the indicators with the lowest scores within this dimension.

As a methodological contribution, the ICAF proved to be a useful tool for integrating multiple indicators into a single institutional assessment, facilitating comparisons among community organizations and identifying strengths and opportunities for improvement that can support planning, monitoring, and decision-making processes in drinking water management.

Finally, the proposed methodology can be applied and validated in other drinking water management boards, contributing to the development of standardized instruments for assessing institutional capacity and strengthening the governance of community water supply systems.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Isabel Ramos, Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences Headquarters Ecuador, Ecuador

Reviewed by: Manoj Kumar Jindal, Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur, India

Medali Cueva Rodríguez, Universidad Nacional de Cajamarca, Peru