Fig 1.
Simplified visual model of the transmission dynamics of the disease between hosts.
Fig 2.
Compartmental diagram for the transmission dynamics of cystic echinococcosis between dogs (), sheep (
) and humans (children (
) and adults (
)) of the m area (peri-urban, urban and rural).
Fig 3.
Visual model of the transmission and spread dynamics of the disease between dogs (), sheep (
) and humans (
) of m zones (peri-urban, urban and rural). α , δ and τ denote the host mobility parameters between zones.
Fig 4.
Graph for epidemiological dynamics and mobility.
Graph for epidemiological dynamics and mobility in dogs between peri-urban (blue), urban (red), and rural (green) areas. The direction of the arrow indicates the direction of host movement.
Fig 5.
Graph of host mobility between peri-urban, urban , and rural areas.
Graph of host mobility between peri-urban (blue), urban (red), and rural (green) areas; (a) host X (dog or human) and (b) host O (sheep). The direction of the arrow indicates the direction of host movement. The α fraction of the host moves to the other two zones at a rate of δ, where it remains for an average time of 1 ∕ τ .
Fig 6.
Graph for epidemiological dynamics and mobility in humans.
Graph for epidemiological dynamics and mobility in humans (children and adults) between peri-urban (blue), urban (red), and rural (green) areas. The direction of the arrow indicates the direction of host movement.
Fig 7.
Graph for epidemiological dynamics and mobility in the sheep.
Graph for epidemiological dynamics and mobility in the sheep between peri-urban (blue) and rural (green) areas. The direction of the arrow indicates the direction of the host movement.
Fig 8.
Graphs on the mobility of infected dogs.
Graphs on the mobility of infected dogs in the areas P , U and R . Simulation made at 20 years. (a) Infected dogs without mobility, (b) infected dogs with mobility in the three areas, and (c) total infected dogs with and without mobility.
Fig 9.
Graphs on the mobility of infected sheep.
Graphs on the mobility of infected sheep in the areas P and R . Simulation made at 20 years. (a) Infected sheep without mobility, (b) infected sheep with mobility in both areas and (c) total infected sheep with and without the possibility of mobility.
Fig 10.
Infected sheep per infected dogs.
Graph showing the number of infected sheep per infected dogs in the peri-urban area with and without the possibility of mobility and a sub-graph (zoomed in) of the Infected relative in the first two years of the simulation.
Fig 11.
Graphs on the mobility of infected children.
Graphs on the mobility of infected children in the areas P , U and R . Simulation made at 20 years. (a) Infected children without the possibility of mobility and a sub-graph (zoomed in) of the infected between six and eight years of the simulation is presented, (b) infected children with mobility in the three areas and a sub-graph (zoomed in) of the infected between four and six years of the simulation is presented, and (c) total infected children with and without the possibility of mobility.
Fig 12.
Graphs on the mobility of infected adults.
Graphs on the mobility of infected adults in the areas P , U and R . Simulation made at 20 years. (a) Infected adults without mobility and a sub-graph (zoomed in) of the infected between sixteen and twenty years of the simulation is presented, (b) infected adults with mobility in the three areas and a sub-graph (zoomed in) of the infected between four and six years of the simulation is presented, and (c) total infected adults with and without mobility.
Fig 13.
Infected humans per infected dogs.
Graph showing the number of infected humans per infected dogs with and without the possibility of mobility between the three areas (total).
Fig 14.
Graphical representation of the sensitivity index on with respect to a; (a) epidemiological parameters (without mobility), (b) epidemiological parameters (with mobility) and (c) mobility parameters.