Galapagos report 2011-2012

GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012
Prepared by

Funded by

General Coordination
Linda J. Cayot, Galapagos Conservancy
Galapagos Coordinator
Desirée Cruz
Editing
Linda J. Cayot
Desirée Cruz
Richard Knab, Galapagos Conservancy
Translation
Spanish to English: Linda J. Cayot
English to Spanish: Desirée Cruz
Figures and Graphic Design
Maria Fabiola Alvarez
Photographs
Front cover: Michael Perlmutter
Back cover: Patricia Jaramillo
Impresión
Imprenta Monsalve Moreno
ISBN: 978-9942-944-01-6
How to cite this document
GNPS, GCREG, CDF, and GC. 2013. Galapagos Report 2011-2012. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador.
How to cite an article
Author(s). 2013. Article title. Pp. xx-xx. In: Galapagos Report 2011-2012. GNPS, GCREG, CDF and GC.
Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador.
Sources must be cited in all cases. Sections of the publication may be translated and reproduced without
permission as long as the source is cited.
The authors of each article are responsible for the contents and opinions expressed.
The Galapagos National Park Service has its headquarters in Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos
and is the Ecuadorian governmental institution responsible for the administration and management of
the protected areas of Galapagos.
The Governing Council of Galapagos has its headquarters in Puerto Baquerizo Moreno, San Cristóbal
Island, and is the Ecuadorian governmental institution responsible for planning and the administration
of the province.
The Charles Darwin Foundation, an international non-profit organization registered in Belgium,
operates the Charles Darwin Research Station in Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos.
Galapagos Conservancy, based in Fairfax, Virginia USA, is the only US non-profit organization focused
exclusively on the long-term protection of the Galapagos Archipelago.

4

FOREWORD
The Governing Council of Galapagos, the Galapagos National Park
Directorate and the Charles Darwin Foundation are pleased to present
the 2011-2012 Galapagos Report - a compendium of scientific and social
analyses and observations designed to stimulate cogent, thoughtful
discussion and public policy that will help to protect Galapagos
ecosystems and its biodiversity and promote human well-being (“Buen
Vivir”) in the archipelago.
The articles presented in this edition of the Galapagos Report reflect
a range of disciplines and opinions within the general areas of human
systems, tourism, marine management, and biodiversity and ecosystem
restoration. In addition, two articles present the framework for
establishing a knowledge management initiative and a citizen science
program for Galapagos. We are pleased to include articles by authors
based in Galapagos as well as colleagues from around the globe, all of
whom have shared valuable ideas and information on critical and timely
issues.
It is the intent of the Galapagos Report to inform and stimulate discussion,
as well as catalyze critical research, and effective public action and
management policy. We are grateful to the wide range of collaborators
who have shared their vision for Galapagos and whose work is so critical
to the health and future of the archipelago. Our three institutions remain
committed to working in coordination with all Galapagos stakeholders
to ensure the long-term sustainability of this natural treasure, symbol of
Ecuador’s natural patrimony.

Edwin Naula

Director of the Galapagos National Park

Jorge Torres

President
Governing Council of Galapagos

Swen Lorenz

Executive Director of the
Charles Darwin Foundation

5

INTRODUCTION
THE GREAT CHALLENGE OF GALAPAGOS TODAY AND IN THE FUTURE: HUMAN WELFARE DEPENDENT
ON THE CONSERVATION OF ITS ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY
Washington Tapia and Juan Carlos Guzmán

11

NEW APPROACHES
A KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GALAPAGOS: AN IMMINENT NEED
Juan Carlos Guzmán, Linda J. Cayot, Johannah Barry and James P. Gibbs

17

CITIZEN SCIENCE: A NEW CONSERVATION TOOL FOR THE GALAPAGOS
Washington Tapia, Alycia Crall , Linda J. Cayot , Eleanor Sterling and James P. Gibbs

23

HUMAN SYSTEMS
ISLAND CULTURES
Christophe Grenier

31

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN GALAPAGOS
Carlos Zapata Erazo

37

POPULATION AND MIGRATION IN GALAPAGOS
Marianita Granda León and Geovanny Chóez Salazar

44

MOBILITY PATTERNS AND USE OF SPACE IN GALAPAGOS
Josselin Guyot-Téphany, Christophe Grenier, Emmanuel Cléder and Daniel Orellana

52

BUILDING RESPONSIBLE TERRESTRIAL MOBILITY IN SANTA CRUZ
Rosa Elvira Bravo Segovia, Marianita Granda León and Edison Mendieta

59

USES, PERCEPTIONS AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER IN GALAPAGOS
Josselin Guyot-Téphany, Christophe Grenier and Daniel Orellana

67

WATER CONTAMINATION IN PUERTO AYORA: APPLIED INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
USING ESCHERICHIA COLI AS AN INDICATOR BACTERIA
Jessie Liu and Noémi d’Ozouville

76

MEASURING POVERTY IN GALAPAGOS
Marianita Granda León, Sandra González Camba and Vilma Calvopiña Carvajal

84

TOURISM
THE NEW MODEL OF TOURISM: DEFINITION AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ECOTOURISM IN GALAPAGOS
Juan Carlos García, Daniel Orellana and Eddy Araujo

95

THE TOURISM OBSERVATORY OF GALAPAGOS: A MONITORING SYSTEM
FOR THE NEW MODEL OF ECOTOURISM
Juan Carlos García, Ernesto Rangel and María Auxiliadora Farías

100

SIMAVIS: RESULTS OF MONITORING VARIOUS INDICATORS AT
VISITOR SITES IN THE GALAPAGOS NATIONAL PARK
Eddy Araujo, Ingrid Jaramillo, Jorge Flores, Joan Sotomayor, Marisela Gallardo and Silvia Ariscado

104

7

TOURISM AS AN ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVE FOR GALAPAGOS FISHERS:
OPPORTUNITIES AND LESSONS LEARNED
Pablo Palacios H. and Anna Schuhbauer

109

PERCEPTIONS OF THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF SHARKS FOR SINGLE-DAY DIVE
TOURISM AND COMMERCE IN SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
César Peñaherrera, Yasmania Llerena and Inti Keith

114

MARINE MANAGEMENT
EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT OF THE
GALAPAGOS MARINE RESERVE: KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Mario Villalta Gómez

123

SPECIES, COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS: THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN THE
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE GALAPAGOS MARINE RESERVE
Soledad Luna, Stuart Banks, Volker Koch, Diego Ruiz, Natalia Tirado, Mariana Vera,
Anna Schuhbauer, Inti Keith, David Acuña, Jennifer Suárez, Macarena Parra,
Gustavo Jiménez, Carolina García, Jorge Baque and Julio Delgado

131

THE REFORM OF THE PARMA LICENSING SYSTEM: THE FIRST STEP IN ELIMINATING
THE RACE FOR FISH IN THE GALAPAGOS MARINE RESERVE
Mauricio Castrejón

136

EVALUATION OF THE SEA CUCUMBER FISHERY IN THE
GALAPAGOS MARINE RESERVE
Harry Reyes, Jorge Ramírez and Anna Schuhbauer

143

EVALUATION OF THE SPINY LOBSTER FISHERY IN THE
GALAPAGOS MARINE RESERVE
Jorge Ramírez, Harry Reyes and Anna Schuhbauer

149

HOW TO IMPROVE THE SPINY LOBSTER FISHERY OF SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
Mauricio Castrejón, Martín Velasco, Fred Sondheimer, Jimmy Anastacio,
Leonardo Soriano and Jorge Ramírez

156

BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
MANAGEMENT OF THE AVIAN PARASITE PHILORNIS DOWNSI IN THE
GALAPAGOS ISLANDS: A COLLABORATIVE AND STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
Charlotte Causton, Francesca Cunninghame and Washington Tapia
A TRIAL TRANSLOCATION OF THE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED MANGROVE FINCH:
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT TO PREVENT THE EXTINCTION OF
DARWIN`S RAREST FINCH
Francesca Cunninghame, H. Glyn Young, Christian Sevilla, Victor Carrión and Birgit Fessl

174

GONE, GONE…GOING: THE FATE OF THE VERMILION FLYCATCHER
ON DARWIN´S ISLANDS
Godfrey Merlen

180

RECOVERY OF NATIVE AND ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES IN GALAPAGOS: THE NURSERY
AS AN IMPORTANT TOOL IN ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION
Xavier Arturo-López and Danny Rueda

189

INCREASING THE SCALE OF SUCCESSFUL INVASIVE RODENT ERADICATIONS
IN THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS
Karl J. Campbell, Victor Carrión and Christian Sevilla

8

167

194

Photo title page Introduction: © Josselin Guyot-Téphany
Photo page 10: © Juan Carlos Garcia / WWF Galapagos Program

The great challenge of Galapagos
today and in the future:
Human welfare dependent on the
conservation of its ecosystems and
biodiversity
Washington Tapia1 and Juan Carlos Guzmán2
Galapagos National Park Service, 2Governing Council of Galapagos

1

The difficulty of understanding that maintaining ecosystems and their
biodiversity over time is the foundation of our survival as a species has
been at the core of an ongoing conflict that pits “conservation” against
“development.” This struggle has come to dominate economic, political
and environmental discourse. However, in Ecuador and in Galapagos
in particular, the Constitution establishes the legal and conceptual
framework to contextualize this paradigm. Given the changing
environmental conditions resulting from global climate change and the
relentless pressure on natural ecosystems, there is an urgent need for
humans to coexist in balance with nature. This philosophy, referred to as
“buen vivir” or “living well” is expressed in Article 258 of the Ecuadorian
Constitution, which states that there will be a special legal framework in
Galapagos and that “planning and development will adhere strictly to the
principles of conservation of Ecuador’s natural patrimony and buen vivir.”
This clearly demonstrates recognition and understanding that Galapagos
ecosystems, which encompass all human activities in the islands,
determine the limits that must be respected and the opportunities that
can be taken advantage of.
The vision of buen vivir provided by the Ecuadorian Constitution must be
supported by management tools that help translate the Special Law into
planning and public policy that will build a sustainable, just and equitable
society—one where the population lives in harmony with nature and
becomes a model for the world. The road to sustainability in Galapagos
must be built collectively, reflecting both the individual perspective and
the common good, both today and in the future.
The first step is to recognize and accept that Galapagos is not only unique,
but also a place where everything is interconnected. While it is divided
into different administrative units, the interconnections among them
11

are undeniable. These interconnections include
both the natural world (flow of matter and energy)
but also human society (flow of people, materials,
information, etc.). Moreover, the biophysical,
economic and sociocultural flows operate at different
scales of space and time, requiring an understanding
of the connections and relationships between each
island and the archipelago, each canton and the
province, Galapagos and the Republic of Ecuador,
and Ecuador and the planet. Therefore, when
making decisions we must not only optimize the use
of economic and financial resources but also, and
more importantly, ensure that our actions are based
on two fundamental and absolutely complementary
criteria: 1) the carrying capacity of ecosystems, which
establishes the foundation for the development of
the local society, and 2) the creation of the conditions
needed to achieve human wellbeing today and in
the future.
Galapagos is currently experiencing an accelerated
loss of its isolation, or what some authors call an
increase in its “geographical opening.” This makes the
province and its ecosystems very vulnerable to any
natural or anthropogenic disruptions. In this sense,
it is clear that the province urgently needs a unique
and integrated land use plan that ensures the longterm sustainability of its socioecological system.
Land use planning is an important issue in the
archipelago, and it is central to the process of
change currently occurring in Ecuador. Planning
and methodology documents are no longer merely
interesting creations to be archived in institutional
libraries; rather they are becoming effective tools
that guide institutional planning and management
based on clearly established national goals and
objectives. To ensure a better present and future
for Galapagos, land use planning must help us
to implement the special regimen for Galapagos
established in the Constitution, through integrated
and preventive management that anticipates
external factors to which we are and will be exposed,
and that also promotes buen vivir in perhaps one of
the last natural paradises on earth.
It is important to link socioeconomic activities to
the conservation of ecosystems and their ability
to generate environmental services. Land use
planning in Galapagos should: 1) respect the
ecological integrity and resilience of insular and
marine ecosystems, understanding that they are
the natural foundation of the archipelago, and 2)
understand the potential of the archipelago from the
12

perspective of the needs and activities of humans
within a sustainable system. Efforts must be made to
establish a well-organized and structured land use
model for the region, and to develop public policy
guidelines to ensure that programs and projects
are developed consensually and are aligned with
common territorial objectives. These efforts should
result in zoning and land use that move beyond the
mindset of protected areas versus populated areas. A
single zoning system is needed that rationally assigns
uses and activities, delimits the protected areas, and
establishes criteria for the location and establishment
of infrastructure, in such a way that will:
•

Promote the rational use of ecosystem services,
respecting their integrity and ecological
resilience;

•

Contribute to social welfare and economic
development in a balanced and sustainable way
throughout the province, and

•

Define the areas designated for protection
and for human settlements in a coherent and
integrated manner.

In order to align the mandate of the Constitution
with the local population’s need to live in a healthy
environment with equal opportunity (the essence
of sustainability), it is important to establish
cooperative relationships among stakeholders
of the urban and agricultural areas, and between
those areas and the natural system of Galapagos.
The conservation of Galapagos is the fundamental
prerequisite to achieve sustainability of the province.
Human wellbeing must be seen as the ultimate goal
with the economy the means to achieving that goal,
not the goal itself.
This edition of the Galapagos Report, like previous
editions, is intended to be more than just a
publication. It is meant to be a useful tool for citizens
and decision-makers alike. It includes a range of
articles that address many of the changes that are
needed to ensure the conservation of the natural
resource base of Galapagos and the welfare of the
local population.
The report is organized into five sections:
1. New approaches.
Effective
knowledge
management, including access to and use of
information, is vital for informed and responsible
decision-making. The first section of the report

Photograph: © 2008 Edinson Cárdenas S.

deals with the development of new approaches
for the generation and management of
knowledge.
2. Human systems. The second section focuses
on human systems, providing information
about critical issues such as population and
migration, and the establishment of systems and
regulations for water use and human mobility.
Tackling these issues is essential if we want
Galapagos to move towards sustainability.
3. Tourism. As tourism is the main indirect driver
of change in the socioecological system of
Galapagos, the third section speaks to the urgent
need to transition to a true ecotourism model in
the archipelago.

5. Biodiversity and ecosystem restoration. The
final section of the report includes topics related
more directly to the natural world, such as the
control and eradication of invasive species, as
well as the restoration of threatened ecosystems
and species.
We hope that a more informed society will come
to understand and accept that nature does not
need humans, but that we humans depend on the
capacity of ecosystems to generate environmental
services (benefits). In the case of Galapagos, we still
have time to shape the path of development within
the limits of the archipelago’s natural ecosystems. If
we do not succeed, future generations will inherit
the need to find another place to live.

4. Marine management. In addition to tourism,
marine fisheries represent an important
economic activity for Galapagos. But these
activities pose potential threats to coastal
marine ecosystems. Applied science focused
on generating information for the effective
management of these areas must be considered
a top priority.
13

Photo title page New Approaches: © Richard Renn


A knowledge management plan for
the Galapagos: An imminent need
Juan Carlos Guzmán1, Linda J. Cayot2, Johannah Barry2 and James P. Gibbs3
Governing Council of Galapagos, 2Galapagos Conservancy, 3SUNY-ESF

1

Photograph: Theresa Baldwin

There is a very real need for improved development of, access to, and use
of knowledge about the Galapagos Islands. Although Galapagos is one of
the most studied places in the world, timely access to even basic information
about the archipelago is often difficult. Effective knowledge management
underpins effective natural resource management, decision-making, and policy
development in support of biodiversity conservation and a sustainable society.
Current challenges include lack of standardized archiving and cataloging of
existing information, inadequate technology infrastructure, poor data integration
(especially between natural and social sciences), lack of access to data/
information, and a general disconnect between data/information generators and
data/information users.
The primary goal of the Knowledge Management Initiative for Galapagos is
to foster a culture that incorporates both knowledge and wisdom as a critical
component of decision-making and policy development at all levels of governance
and ensures broad engagement and participation of all stakeholders. Developing
and facilitating knowledge management for Galapagos will be a collaborative
process to ensure engagement of all stakeholders. The Initiative will benefit many
constituencies: the Ecuadorian government, managers and political appointees,
researchers, Galapagos residents, tourists who visit the Islands, and people
around the globe interested in Galapagos even if unable to visit. Engagement and
participation by all sectors of the community should produce better informed
choices, social capital, and a shared vision for the future of Galapagos.

The workshop
The strategies and general outline for the Knowledge Management Plan were
developed at an international workshop, Strategic Administration and Management
of Knowledge for Galapagos, held in Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, 30 September
to 3 October 2011. The workshop was convened by the Governing Council of
Galapagos (CGREG), and included key governmental and non-governmental
stakeholders as well as experts in knowledge management systems.
Prior to the workshop, a series of interviews were completed with various
stakeholders, both in Galapagos and continental Ecuador as well as
internationally, to gain a broad sense of the concerns and needs that users and
producers of information felt most important when considering knowledge
management for Galapagos.

17


Knowledge management for Galapagos
Many organizations working in Galapagos are undertaking
projects at the data/information level of knowledge
management, digitizing historical information, facilitating
access to data, and integrating information related to
Galapagos’ human population. The potential benefits of
integrating and sharing knowledge among Galapagos
institutions and researchers are becoming increasingly
apparent. Additionally, rapidly evolving data capture and
dissemination technologies make establishing a highly
functional knowledge management system far more
feasible than even a few years ago.

The challenge is to facilitate movement upward on the
so-called Knowledge Management Pyramid – from the
level of raw data to intellectual capital and wisdom –
in a manner that incorporates everyone in Galapagos,
from observers to users of knowledge (Figure 1). As
more of the decision-making and policy development in
Galapagos is based on the upper levels of the pyramid,
the natural ecosystems of Galapagos will also benefit
from this Knowledge Management Initiative. None of the
levels are exclusive and both knowledge generators and
knowledge seekers can be found at any level.

WISDOM
W

General public, residents, visitors, educators, scientists,
students, guides, tour operators, donors, media, decision-makers

I.C.

INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL

Sectors within the community & employees within Galapagos
institutions and organizations

KNOWLEDGE

INFORMATION

DATA

KNOWLEDGE

Managers, planners, policy makers,
researchers & students

INFORMATION

Program managers, researchers & students

DATA

Observers & researchers

Figure 1. The Knowledge Management Pyramid (at left in blue) shows the foundation of wisdom and the movement from raw data through knowledge
to wisdom. Data = raw data, field notes, observations, baseline geographic information system (GIS) and remote sensing data, etc.; Information =
processed data, protocols and methods, trip reports, routine reports, summary statistics and analyses, etc.; Knowledge = that used to solve problems
– includes plans, technical reports, narrative analyses, and publications, etc.; Intellectual Capital = intangible combination of knowledge within an
institution or group; and Wisdom = ability to identify which knowledge has the potential to become intellectual capital and provide for future growth
and capacity. The inverted pyramid (at right in orange) shows the variety of potential beneficiaries at each level.

Three general themes were identified during the
workshop as core areas to be covered in the development
of knowledge management for Galapagos: biophysical
knowledge, socioeconomic knowledge, and legacy
knowledge. The Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) and
the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) have already
begun key initiatives to establish accessible databases in
the biophysical area (Figure 2). However, this type of data/
information is also spread across the globe, housed in a
wide variety of institutions and in the files of individual
scientists and others, where much of it is relatively
inaccessible.
Although numerous governmental organizations as well
as non-profits and educational institutions have been
involved in collecting socioeconomic data (Figure 3),
these data are often less organized and accessible, and
sometimes of lower quality, especially when collected
18

for administrative purposes rather than research and/or
adaptive management.
Perhaps the most difficult knowledge to obtain and
organize is so-called legacy data (Figure 4). These
previously collected data, spread all over the world, are
currently often found on decaying paper and in scattered,
and outdated computer files. The poor condition of much
of this data may require immediate action to save it.

Vision for knowledge management for Galapagos
Sustainable development and the quality of life of the
human society in Galapagos depends upon the health
of the archipelago’s natural heritage; maintaining that
heritage relies on a capacity for all to quickly access what
we collectively know about Galapagos.


Citizen science

Monitoring data

Herbarium/
museum/
laboratory
specimens

Current research

Geographical /
maps and place
names

Current and
ongoing
management
actions/results

Biophysical
Knowledge

Figure 2. Some of the components within the biophysical area that should be included in knowledge management for Galapagos.

Utilities:
electricity,
water, waste
management

Commerce:
agriculture,
fisheries,
construction

Health,
education
and labor

Censuses and
surveys

Tourism

Monitoring and
periodic data

Socio-economic
Knowledge

Transportation

Figure 3. Some of the components within the socioeconomic area that should be included in knowledge management for Galapagos.

Historical
photos / videos

People history
- resident &
scientists

Deteriorating
documents

Citizen science

(anecdotal,
logbooks, journals,
guide reports)

Historical
management
actions/ results

Literature /
bibliography

Legacy
Knowledge

Unpublished
scientific data

Figure 4. Some of the components within legacy knowledge that should be included in knowledge management for Galapagos.

19

Galapagos will have effective knowledge management
that involves all sectors of Galapagos society and
stakeholders, and links both tacit (“know-how”) and
explicit (formal) knowledge to decision-making. In
this way, it will enhance the capacity for long-term
conservation of the biodiversity and unique ecosystems
of Galapagos, and sustainable development of its society.
Knowledge management for Galapagos will provide a
platform for open participation of all sectors of Galapagos
society as both contributors and users of knowledge,
nurturing the development of an informed society that
values and cares for its natural and cultural environments,
works to prevent and mitigate environmental degradation,
and supports and pursues socioeconomic policies that
are consistent with the broad goal of conserving the
biodiversity and unique ecosystems of Galapagos.

Goals and objectives of knowledge management
for Galapagos
1.

Foster a culture that incorporates knowledge/wisdom
as a critical component of decision-making and policy
development at all levels, and that ensures broad
engagement and participation of all stakeholders.

2.

Create, share, and use tacit (“know-how”) and explicit
(formal) knowledge about Galapagos, enabling
adequate response to the needs of the communities
for the conservation of ecosystems and sustainable
development.

3.

Catalyze research in and about Galapagos to attain
and strengthen conservation and sustainable
development within the archipelago over the
medium- and long-term.

4.

Provide better and more complete access to
knowledge for decision-makers to enable more
informed decision-making, policy development, and
management, thus improving the outcomes of the
political and governance processes.

In addition to the goals, a series of 19 specific objectives
were developed; key among them were:
1.

2.

Improve the technological infrastructure in the
Galapagos to support the Knowledge Management
System and its use by all.

3.
20

Facilitate the use and distribution of knowledge
about Galapagos through the establishment of a
Knowledge Management System for Galapagos
under the leadership of the Governing Council of
Galapagos (CGREG – for its initials in Spanish) and
through the fostering of a “knowledge culture” in
Galapagos.

Establish and maintain a system of coordination and

cooperation among institutions and communities
that generate and use knowledge about Galapagos.
4.

Standardize data collection and storage and the
production of information, thus establishing a culture
of common practices to facilitate reproducible
research and effective monitoring practices.

5.

Define short-term pilot projects to demonstrate
the usefulness and applicability of Knowledge
Management for Galapagos [e.g., initial citizen
science initiatives, Integrated Indicator System for
Galapagos (SIIG for its initials in Spanish), etc.].

The Plan
The Plan for the Development and Facilitation of
Knowledge Management for Galapagos establishes a
framework for the development of a unified, accessible
knowledge management infrastructure for Galapagos
that will integrate diverse information resources, such
as demographic, economic, and social data about the
Galapagos human community, observations on the
distribution and abundance of native and migratory
species, records of marked plants and animals, records
from museum collections (both in the Galapagos and
around the world), and other data and information. The
plan outlines the establishment of tools, protocols, and
networks of institutions and individuals to facilitate
the production, sharing, and use of knowledge. As this
project proceeds, it will benefit from the experience
of organizations that have successfully implemented
relevant knowledge management initiatives in other parts
of the world and will make use of existing technology and
protocols whenever possible.
The development of knowledge management for
Galapagos will be carried out over three phases. Due to
financial realities, this project must proceed according
to the defined phases and be developed in a modular
fashion so that while all parts will become integrated, the
success of any single component does not depend upon
the success of all other components.
Phase I will involve simultaneous execution of critical
start-up tasks including the necessary audits (technology
and knowledge) and needs assessment in Galapagos
and beyond (especially in relation to legacy data), the
establishment of a project management team, oversight
body, and an advisory team network, development of a
financial/fundraising plan, and initiation of pilot citizen
science projects and an Integrated System of Indicators
for Galapagos.
Phase II will include the development of an infrastructure
plan for the Knowledge Management System, a prioritybased modular expansion plan for the construction of the
system, the establishment of standards and protocols, an
incentive system to create collaboration and cooperation

among institutions, capacity building within institutions,
development of the initial database component of the
Knowledge Management System, and expansion of the
citizen science program.
Phase III will be the long-term implementation of the
Knowledge Management Initiative and incorporation of
knowledge management within the Galapagos culture,
with adequate evaluations and feedback for continual
improvements.
Outreach to the community will be important throughout
all phases and the project management team should
work continuously to ensure the public’s support of
knowledge management.

Project supervision and management
The Plan for the Development and Facilitation of Knowledge
Management for Galapagos will be carried out by a project
management team under the leadership of the Governing
Council of Galapagos. The team should include, at a
minimum, a project leader, who will be responsible
for all non-technical managerial responsibilities,
communication, and outreach, and sufficient personnel
to cover the following: management of the technical
aspects of the Knowledge Management System, GIS/
database expertise, web programming, data specialist(s)
(data entry, retrieval, and analysis), and technical writing.
In addition to the project leader, an ideal team might
consist of the following positions:

•

Understand the highly dynamic nature of the
workload from start to finish — involves continuous
long-term commitment by project managers

As the Knowledge Management System is built, emphasis
will be placed on continuous and long-term enhancement
of the technical capacity and management skills in the
CGREG, GNPS, NGOs, and other institutions in Galapagos.

Project evaluation
Continual project evaluation is critical and will be built
into the Knowledge Management Initiative to ensure
effective evaluation and feedback from the start of Phase
I through development and implementation. Measures of
success and methodology for project evaluation will be
developed during Phase I and updated when appropriate.
Results from regular evaluations should lead to specific
actions that improve program operations.

Community education, capacity building, and
public relations
Good communications and public involvement are not
only critical to the successful completion of this project,
they are important components for the long-term value
of the project and to ensure that knowledge created in
and about Galapagos will serve as the foundation for
decision-making and policy development over the long
term. During Phase I, a detailed plan will be developed for
institutional and community involvement.

•

System technical director

•

GIS/database expert

•

Be primarily comprised of permanent staff to ensure
project continuity
Central to the success of the Knowledge Management
Initiative is local ownership and a willingness to think
Have redundancy to accommodate contingencies broadly about information. The combined thinking of
(e.g., key personnel are sick or traveling, staff attrition external experts and local stakeholders has evolved
and recruitment, etc.)
since the initial framework was conceived and drafted.
Collectively, the language moved from simple data
Maintain excellent records to permit institutional management (systems) to a broader philosophical
learning, integrated data management, and approach to problem solving that relies on a strong
continuity of knowledge
culture of sharing wisdom and experience. This will create

Financial plan

A financial plan with a well-developed fundraising
strategy and any necessary project proposal(s) will be
• Web programmer
developed during Phase I. The plan will include start-up
funding to cover the initial audits (consultants) and the
• Data specialist (data entry, retrieval, and analysis)
establishment of the project management team and
oversight body. Funding for the Knowledge Management
• Technical writer (this could be covered by the data Initiative for Galapagos will require large commitments
specialist or someone else) – ideally with fundraising of financial and in-kind support from the Ecuadorian
experience
Government and from private, corporate, and foundation
sources worldwide. A long-term financing system should
Any missing skills could be compensated for by using also include some level of funding by institutional users
paid consultants for particular tasks.
and other beneficiaries of the Knowledge Management
System.
The project management team should:

•

•

Conclusion

21


Photograph: Alycia Crall

a dynamic flow of data and experience among institutions
and people and will not stop at the mechanical collection
of data.
The Knowledge Management Initiative for Galapagos will
provide a platform for the incorporation of Galapagos into
the national network currently being established by the
Ecuadorian Government, “YACHAY – City of Knowledge,”
the most revolutionary project at a national level. The
advantages of this strategy are countless: 1) a strong
collaboration with the international scientific community;
2) an innovative way to produce knowledge based on
technology of the latest generation; 3) a real presence of
national research institutions, and 4) effective access to
information.
The Knowledge Management Initiative for Galapagos
will require dedication and time of many individuals and
organizations. Effective knowledge management should
enhance conservation efforts and the development of a
sustainable society in Galapagos to such an extent that
it will outweigh all costs. Decision-making and policy
development for both effective conservation and a
sustainable society require open and timely access to the
highest quality knowledge available. The execution of
the Plan for the Development and Facilitation of Knowledge
Management for Galapagos will provide just that.

22

Acknowledgments
Funding for the workshop was provided by a grant to the
Galapagos Conservancy from the Tinker Foundation, Inc.


Citizen science: A new conservation
tool for the Galapagos
Washington Tapia1, Alycia Crall2, Linda J. Cayot3, Eleanor Sterling4 and
James P. Gibbs1,5
Galapagos National Park Service, 2Rutgers University, 3Galapagos Conservancy,
American Museum of Natural History, 5SUNY-ESF

1

4

Photograph: Zorica Kovacevic

The role of citizen science in Galapagos
The Galapagos Islands could be easily described as a research mecca, attracting
scientists from around the world interested in studying the region’s unique
ecosystems and biodiversity and experiencing its scientific history firsthand.
However, timely access to basic scientific information about the archipelago is
difficult to obtain. Baseline data and resources for generating new data are lacking
even though such information is essential for effective conservation management.
These challenges have resulted in efforts to assess new avenues for collecting
and disseminating data necessary for maintaining the ecological integrity and
sustaining the human population in the archipelago.
Citizen science seeks to involve members of the public as vital partners in
the scientific research process, often generating data to inform conservation
management and decision-making (Dickinson & Bonney, 2012). Although citizen
science is currently used in many areas of the world with impressive results
(Dickinson et al., 2012), it has yet to gain widespread use in the Galapagos Islands,
where it could be extremely valuable in creating a nexus among scientific research,
management, and social-ecological sustainability. Specifically, the Islands provide
the opportunity to develop citizen science with both the local community (~25,000
permanent residents) and the community of tourists who visit the archipelago
(currently >185,000 per year). While there have been occasional attempts to use
citizen science in the Galapagos, a majority of previously initiated efforts have
been conducted in isolation and findings from research studies have not been
disseminated in an effective way. There has never been an attempt to create a
broad, well-integrated program that will deliver answers to the many critical
questions faced by multiple stakeholders in the archipelago.

The workshop
Outlining the elements of a successful citizen science program was the overall goal
of a workshop convened by the Galapagos National Park (GNP) on June 25-29, 2012.
Participants in the workshop included international experts in citizen science, GNP
managers, scientists, naturalist guides, fundraisers, local community members,
and other stakeholders. Workshop participants sought to examine primary
issues about how public participation in environmental monitoring can improve
conservation practice through discussion of: 1) priority questions, environmental
indicators, and protocols; 2) engaging the public; 3) reaching new audiences, and
4) integrating informal and scientific knowledge. These categories highlighted not
only the ecological but also the social aspects the workshop planners hoped to
integrate into program development.

23


Citizen science: benefits and challenges
At the onset, workshop participants explored the
benefits and challenges of utilizing citizen science in the
Galapagos. By weighing these, stakeholders can better
assess the appropriateness of citizen science for the
specific research questions and issues that need to be
addressed. Evaluation of on-going programs suggests
multiple benefits for adopting this monitoring approach
in the Galapagos, with benefits spanning across multiple
stakeholders. Scientists benefit through the generation of
data to assess spatial and temporal trends in societal and
environmental indicators. The sampling extent, amount
of data collected, and the frequency of data collection are
not feasible through traditional scientific investigation
(Dickinson et al., 2010). Continued analyses of trends in
these data result in scientific findings that can inform
management and policy, and generate new research
questions.
Managers and policy makers benefit from increased
amounts of data made available in real-time that can
identify emerging trends or serious issues that need to be
responded to in the short term. However, having access to
data in real-time is atypical of many professional scientific
studies that disseminate results only after all data
collection and analyses have been completed, sometimes
years after the initiation of the study. Citizen science
programs typically use a cyber-infrastructure that enables
data to flow in near real-time from community observers
to stakeholders via the internet (Newman et al., 2011).
These data can then pass through customized filters and
analysis mechanisms to decision-makers, allowing them
to identify trends in indicators of interest and in places of
concern and respond in a timely fashion.
Some of the greatest benefits to development of these
programs are to the participants themselves. Participants
learn about the environment, gain science literacy, and
experience firsthand how information contributes to
decision and/or policy-making through participation
(Brossard et al., 2005; Jordan et al., 2011; Crall et al., 2012).
Participation also gives citizens a sense of ownership
in the process of monitoring the environment while
building social capital and expanding a collective
sense of environmental stewardship (Overdevest et al.,
2004). Residents will have access to greater knowledge
about the islands, which should translate into increased
understanding and greater support for conservation and
the development of more sustainable local communities
(Overdevest et al., 2004). Engagement and participation
by all sectors of the community in the integrated vision
that knowledge management creates should produce
more informed choices and a shared vision for the future
of Galapagos (Danielsen et al., 2005).
Challenges to implementing a citizen science program
will also need to be considered in the early stages of
the program’s development. Because the data collected
24

through the program will be used to guide management
and policy, data quality will be paramount. Program
developers will need to build on existing quality assurance
and quality control procedures from existing programs
and adopt protocols that have been tested and validated
with citizen scientists in the field (Delaney et al., 2008;
Crall et al., 2011; Bonter & Cooper, 2012). Sustainability of
the program will also be a significant challenge, directly
related to the availability of ongoing financial resources
and participant retention.

Project design considerations
Once benefits and challenges were discussed, workshop
participants identified priorities, motivations, and
participant groups to guide program development.
Working groups were established to develop potential
pilot projects for tourists and/or residents. These groups
focused on developing projects considered most
appropriate for a citizen science approach. Specifically,
projects addressed research questions requiring
monitoring at large spatial and temporal scales and
frequent data collection, all of which are not feasible
using traditional monitoring methods. When possible,
participants also sought to develop projects that
complemented existing professional efforts. Issues and
research questions deemed less appropriate included
those requiring specialized knowledge, those already
being addressed, and/or those involving sensitive
information such as the location of endangered species.
Projects explored included: an early warning system
for reporting both social and ecological indicators,
development of a sustainable society (monitoring both
water and waste), monitoring the health of terrestrial
ecosystems (urban and rural), and monitoring by both
visitors and crews during both regular and dive cruises.
Working groups developed these projects given the
following design considerations: 1) what are the needs
of the stakeholders involved?; 2) what management
decisions can be informed by the data?; 3) how will the
project be implemented?; 4) who is the audience?; 5) what
protocols should be used?; 6) will training be needed?; 7)
how will data be analyzed and disseminated?, and 8) how
will the project be evaluated? Following development,
workshop participants sought ways to integrate these
projects into the development of a larger, umbrella
program.

Program development
To succeed, any program involving the public in
environmental monitoring must be flexible, iterative,
standardized, user-friendly, and self-reinforcing. It needs
to develop positive feedback that will ensure that it
becomes embedded in a community’s culture. It should
produce results that are accessible on a continuous basis
for decision-makers and all interested parties. It will also,
in the long term, build social capital (a combination of

people and their skill sets) as well as trust in and respect
for one another that strengthens everyone’s commitment
to work together for the betterment of their community
and environment. Therefore, the Galapagos citizen
science program will be implemented in three phases: 1)
program development; 2) initiation of pilot projects, and
3) expansion of the program. Modifications to this general
framework may occur based on preliminary evaluation
and feedback from stakeholders.
Key start-up tasks for Phase 1 will include a needs
assessment, team development, defining research
questions and issues, and developing or refining existing
protocols. Most successful citizen science programs begin
with a needs assessment to provide baseline data on
the needs of the program’s stakeholders that will guide
program development and implementation (Friedman,
2008). These data can then be used to determine priority
research questions and conservation/management issues
that need to be addressed. A program management
team will be established; with guidance from an external
advisory board, the team will be responsible for program
development and implementation, balancing the needs
of a diverse group of stakeholders.
In Phase 2, the program management team will pilot
four to five projects within either tourist or resident
tracks based on the needs assessment and those projects
outlined by the workshop’s working groups. Each project
will follow five primary steps (participant recruitment,
participant training, data collection, data analysis, and
dissemination of findings).
Phase 3 will extensively evaluate the pilot projects
initiated during Phase 2, making modifications as needed
to meet previously defined goals outlined during Phase
1. Depending on the successful implementation of the
program, Phase 3 will also include the addition of more
projects and greater expansion of the program. If this

occurs, a system will be established for coordinated
expansion based on the most recently identified needs of
the program’s stakeholders.

Future development and broader application
Throughout the development and evaluation of the
Galapagos citizen science program, stakeholders
will need to maintain communication with citizen
science practitioners to adopt best practices while also
contributing to the broader field of research. Citizen
science, community-based monitoring, participatory
monitoring, and volunteer monitoring are all types
of programs now commonly referred to as “public
participation in scientific research” (PPSR). Bonney et al.
(2009) define three primary models of PPSR (later refined
by Shirk et al., 2012) that relate to the level of engagement
citizen science participants have in the scientific process:
contributory, collaborative, and co-created. These models
range from those requiring participation in data collection
only (contributory) to those in which participants work
alongside scientists and managers to develop projects
of common interest (co-created). Because engagement
in contributory projects is often short-term, these
projects may be more relevant to tourist participants. In
co-created projects, participants are actively involved in
the entire scientific process, so these projects are more
likely to produce results relevant to the local community.
Therefore, the larger Galapagos citizen science program
will provide an umbrella program for a number of diverse
projects, spanning the range across the three different
PPSR models (Figure 1). Development of pilot projects
for tourists versus residents can account for the degree
of participation from each stakeholder group in different
aspects of the scientific process.
Building on the models described above, the development
and evaluation of the Galapagos program can be further
refined by placing it in the framework developed for

Resident Track
Tourist Track

CONTRIBUTORY
PROJECTS

Project participants are
asked by scientists to
collect and contribute data
and/or samples

COLLABORATIVE
PROJECTS

Projects participants assist
scientists in developing a
study and collecting and
analyzing data for shared
goals

CO-CREATED
PROJECTS

Members of the community
develop a study and work
with input from scientists
to address a question or
issue of common concern

Degree of Participation
Figure 1. The Galapagos citizen science program will be the umbrella for a number of diverse projects (contributory, collaborative, co-created;
Bonney et al., 2009) that involve tourists and residents in the scientific process.

25


INPUTS

ACTIVITIES

Phase 1

Identify questions
or issues

Needs assessment:
Scientific interests
Management Interests
Community interests

OUTPUTS

OUTCOMES

Phase 2
Develop program
infrastructure and
manage
implementation
of pilot projects

IMPACTS
Phase 3

Observations and
experiences

Science: research
findings, publications

Management:

Capacity
Sustainability
Conservation
Global Community

established priorities,
management plans

Outcomes reinforce interests
Dictate motivations, satisfaction, retention

Individuals:
knowledge, skills,
Identity, self-efficacy
Socio-ecological
systems: action,
collaboration

Figure 2. Framework developed for public participation in scientific research projects (Shirk et al., 2012), with modifications for application to the
Galapagos.

PPSR projects as they relate to the quality of participation
and project outcomes (Shirk et al., 2012). The existing
framework closely follows the three phases of program
development identified at the workshop and provides
opportunities for standardization and evaluation across
the larger field of research (Figure 2).
Specifically, inputs into the program will need to
balance the interests of each stakeholder in the citizen
science program (scientists, managers, local and global
communities) as outlined in the needs assessment (Phase
1; Shirk et al., 2012). Inputs will be negotiated through the
establishment of diverse pilot projects and will be used
to frame project design and influence project outcomes.
Activities (Phase 2) will include the work necessary to
implement each project and will be carried out by each
project team (established in Phase 1). Outputs will include
the results of activities such as observations (raw data)
and experiences (from data collection and analysis; Phase
2). Outcomes (i.e., measurable elements) will result from
these outputs and will include those relevant to each
stakeholder group (Phase 3). Achievable outcomes will
be defined through the needs assessment, but may result
in research findings or publications to advance science;
established priorities and management plans to advance
management; knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy to
build individual capacity; and action and collaborations
to sustain socio-ecological systems. Over time, these
outcomes may develop into long-term and sustained
impacts that build capacity, enhance conservation, and/
or build a global community involved with conservation
of the Galapagos (Phase 3). Program sustainability can
then be realized by quantifying outcomes and impacts
to align with the initial goals (inputs) of the program.
Goals represent stakeholder interests and motivations, so
meeting those goals will result in overall satisfaction and
retention (Shirk et al., 2012).
26

Conclusions and recommendations
Based on the findings from this workshop, many
opportunities for developing citizen science projects in
the Galapagos exist. These opportunities include, but
are not limited to, involving tourists and residents in
scientific research and conservation efforts; generating
the data necessary for effective management; building
capacity among local residents; and developing a
global community of Galapagos conservation stewards.
However, development of the pilot projects and umbrella
program will take significant resources. A detailed plan
building on the framework described here will need to be
generated. The plan should prioritize the steps necessary
to initiate the proposed program within current staff and
financial constraints while outlining potential approaches
for expansion as new resources become available. The
program should also seek to leverage resources available
from international partners currently engaged in citizen
science. These resources include standardized protocols,
cyberinfrastructures, and established volunteer networks.
If done well Galapagos will not only benefit from adopting
citizen science as a new conservation tool but also become
an exemplar around the world for engaging the public in
diverse ways to help guide conservation decision-making.

Acknowledgments
The workshop was enabled by the generous support
of the Galapagos Conservancy. Logistical support was
provided by HeliGal.


References
Bonney R, H Ballard, R Jordan, E McCallie, T Phillips, J Shirk & CC Wilderman. 2009. Public participation in scientific research:
defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Center for
Advancement of Informal Education (CAISE), Washington, D.C.
Bonter DN & CB Cooper. 2012. Data validation in citizen science: a case study from Project FeederWatch. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 10:305-307.
Brossard D, B Lewenstein & R Bonney. 2005. Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science
project. International Journal of Science Education 27:1099-1121.
Crall AW, R Jordan, KA Holfelder, G Newman, J Graham & DM Waller. 2012 - in press. The impacts of an invasive species
citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Understanding of Science.
Crall AW, G Newman, DM Waller, TJ Stohlgren, KA Holfelder & J Graham. 2011. Assessing citizen science data quality: An
invasive species case study. Conservation Letters 4:433-442.
Danielsen F, ND Burgess & A Balmford. 2005. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches.
Biodiversity and Conservation 14:2507-2542.
Delaney DG, CD Sperling, CS Adams & B Leung. 2008. Marine invasive species: Validation of citizen science and implications
for national monitoring networks. Biological Invasions 10:117-128.
Dickinson JL & R Bonney, editors. 2012. Citizen Science: Public Participation in Environmental Research. Comstock
Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY.
Dickinson JL, J Shirk, D Bonter, R Bonney, RL Crain, J Martin, T Phillips & K Purcell. 2012. The current state of citizen science
as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:291-297.
Dickinson JL, B Zuckerberg & DN Bonter. 2010. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Pp
149-172. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Vol 41.
Friedman AJ (ed.). 2008. Framework for Evaluating Impacts of Informal Science Education Projects. National Science
Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Jordan RC, SA Gray, DV Howe, WR Brooks & JG Ehrenfeld. 2011. Knowledge gain and behavior change in citizen-science
programs. Conservation Biology 25:1148-1154.
Newman G, J Graham, A Crall & M Laituri. 2011. The art and science of multi-scale citizen science support. Ecological
Informatics 6:217-227.
Overdevest C, CH Orr & K Stepenuck. 2004. Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource Issues.
Human Ecology Review 11:177-185.
Shirk JL, HL Ballard, CC Wilderman, T Phillips, A Wiggins, R Jordan, E McCallie, M Minarchek, B Lewenstein, M Krasny & R
Bonney. 2012. Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society 17:29.

27

Photo title page Human Systems: Alejandra Badillo


Island cultures
Christophe Grenier
Université de Nantes, LETG
Photograph: Shilo Landis

The international workshop Cultural Identities and Sustainable Lifestyles in
Islands was convened in Galapagos by the Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF)
from September 28-30, 2010. More than 30 presentations1 were given by 20
participants: eight permanent Galapagos residents; seven representatives from
foreign islands; four scientists associated with the CDF, and the author. This article
presents a summary of the highlights of the presentations followed by my analysis
of the factors that best explain the presence or absence of insular cultures in the
islands represented at the workshop.
Participants provided a number of definitions of culture. According to Bustamente,
“it is what makes the everyday endowed with meaning, significance, value; it is
something collective that is transmitted between generations.” Ruiz Ballesteros
described culture as “a combination of material and ideal traits, from which
relationships among humans and between a society and its environment are
derived.” Grenier suggested that “culture has ‘geograficity:’ it can be understood
by examining the traces left by society in the region it occupies, and it evolves
through time according to the connectivity of the region with the rest of the world.”

The situation in Galapagos
Residents of the Galapagos Islands stressed that the societies within the
archipelago are changing rapidly. Floreana was described as an island driven by
community spirit related to its relative isolation, where the hope for further tourism
development is tempered by the fear of succumming to the same process (Freire).
Isabela is undergoing major tourism development, which is rapidly transforming
social and economic relations within the local community (Zechettin, Espinoza).
Speakers from San Cristóbal expressed the suffering of old settlers when faced
by some of the current changes in the urban landscape (Cox). Santa Cruz was
described as “urban”, “materialistic”, “continentalized” and “living with their backs
to the sea” (Betancourt).
The speakers from Galapagos gave differing views on the relationship between
culture, space, and time. According to Zechettin, the number of years of
residence in Galapagos does not determine one’s love or concern for the islands.
For Cruz, Galapagos residents are divided into three categories: older colonists
(two generations and more) with a “strong ecological conscience;” residents who
arrived about 20 years ago, who have a “warm respect” for conservation; and
newcomers, “opportunists removed from the reality of island life.” To Masaquiza,
See summaries of the presentations in Grenier (2011). Throughout this article, the name of the speaker is provided in parenthesis;
a list of speakers and their affiliations is presented at the end of the article.
1

31

Years BP since the first human population

14000
12000

Lemnos

10000

Navarino

8000

Orkneys
Fiji

Oceania

6000

Hawaii
4000
Easter Island

Polynesia

2000

New Zealand

0

Galapagos
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Distance in km from the region of origin of the first colonization
Continental islands

Oceanic islands

Figure 1. Geohistory of the first insular human settlements.

representing the Salasaca community in Galapagos,
it is difficult to maintain the Salasaca culture in the
Islands because this implies regular trips away from the
archipelago to maintain ties with their home region.
The speakers from Galapagos also presented different
views on the possibility of creating an island culture in
the archipelago. According to Zapata, we cannot wait
for an island culture to be created on its own, rather
it is necessary to establish habits that will ensure the
sustainability of Galapagos. For Cruz, the only way to
create an island culture in Galapagos is to seek a shared
vision of the archipelago among all stakeholders. And
for Espinoza, “social capital” must be created through
environmental education of children.
Presentations on the scientific analyses of the culture of
the Galapagos population highlighted the following:
1.

2.

32

Population, economic, political and scientific
dynamics in Galapagos are all driven from outside
the archipelago, creating a common culture between
mainland Ecuador and Galapagos (Bustamante).
The very short human history in Galapagos (closely
linked to the evolution of the Modern World system
/ period of globalization) and a concomitant process
of geographic opening (whose amplitude is currently
causing both an ecological and sociocultural
“continentalization” of the populated islands; Grenier,
2010) have prevented the formation of an island
culture adapted to the specific insularity of the
archipelago (Grenier).

Where do island cultures exist among the
islands discussed?
The islands discussed during the workshop are very
diverse. They include oceanic islands (Galapagos, Hawaii,
New Zealand, Fiji, Easter) as well as continental islands
(Navarino, Lemnos, Orkney). They are located in the
tropics (Hawaii, Galapagos, Fiji) and temperate zones.
They have oceanic climates (New Zealand, Orkney),
Mediterranean climates (Lemnos), and subtropical
climates (Easter Island); only Navarino is located in a cold
region. Their shapes and sizes are highly varied, ranging
from small islands (Easter Island, 172 km2) to large islands
(New Zealand, 268,000 km2). They belong to countries
with major differences in economic development and
have permanent populations of highly variable sizes,
from about 2500 inhabitants in Navarino to over 12
million in Hawaii. Their populations consist of various
cultures: European (Orkney, Lemnos, New Zealand),
Polynesian (Hawaii, New Zealand, Easter), Melanesian
(Fiji), American (Hawaii), and Latin America (Galapagos,
Easter, Navarino).
However, none of these criteria explains the presence
or absence of an island culture. None of the speakers
argued that an island’s biophysical characteristics were
determining factors in the maintenance of an island
culture within an insular population. Therefore other
explanations for the presence/absence of an island
culture must be considered. One such explanation is that
it is the geohistories of these islands and their societies
in the ecumene (the portion of the planet occupied by
humans throughout history) and the Modern World

system that determine whether or not island cultures
emerge or endure.

able to colonize more remote archipelagos, which then
provided centers for secondary settlements. The three
sides of the “Polynesian Triangle” cover much of the Pacific,
including Hawaii (populated from the Marquesas; Sproat),
Easter Island (from Gambier; Vargas), and New Zealand
(from Tahiti; Mead). These islands have a certain cultural
unity, although the isolation of the most remote islands,
such as Rapa Nui/Easter, has enabled the development of
unique island cultures.

Geohistory of the first human settlements
Two criteria from the geohistory of these islands provide
hypotheses related to island culture (Figure 1):
1. Age of the earliest human settlements: the longer
the human occupation of an island, the greater the
possibility that an island culture has developed.

Galapagos is an isolated oceanic archipelago, but
does not form part of Oceania. The permanent human
settlement in Galapagos is less than two centuries old and
the inhabitants originated from mainland Ecuador.

2. Distance between islands and the regions of origin
of the first colonists: the more isolated the insular
population, the more unique its culture.

Although the geohistories of the earliest human
settlements in all of these islands explain the emergence
of island cultures, neither the length of time a human
population has existed on an island nor an island’s
isolation are determining factors for the maintenance
of that culture. To understand the presence or absence
of island cultures, it is necessary to examine their paths
(entrance and situation) within the Modern World system.

All islands presented here have a much older human
population than Galapagos, and form two groups
based on proximity to the regions of origin of their first
inhabitants. The first group includes continental islands
that were populated earlier because of their proximity
to continental populations. The second group includes
the more distant oceanic islands that were populated
later, because of the need for potential settlers to master
navigating long distances. Thus the islands of Oceania
were originally populated by inhabitants of other islands
who already had an island culture, who then produced a
new culture with what could be called “double insularity.”

Status of islands in the Modern World system
The eight islands and archipelagos presented can be
classified into three groups according to their position
in the current World System (Figure 2). This classification
explains the type of colonization that took place, each
island’s relationship with the mainland, and thus the level
of its geographic opening.

Melanesia was the earliest inhabited island in Oceania
because of its proximity to the source regions of these
islanders. New Guinea was considered the origin of
the Fijian culture (Rupeni). More recently, when the
Polynesians dominated marine navigation, they were

The Pacific islands within the oceanic and continental

Periphery of the
European Union

American Pacífic

Insular states of the
South Pacific

Galapagos

Easter Island
Lemnos

Hawaii
Orkneys

New Zealand

Fiji

Navarino

Oceanic islands and the continental countries upon which they depend politically

Continental islands

Figure 2. Location and category of the islands discussed at the workshop.

33

American region were colonized in the 19th century in a
particularly brutal manner. On both Easter (Vargas) and
Navarino (Massardo) islands, the indigenous population
came close to extinction. In Hawaii (Sproat) the native
population also suffered a considerable decline, while
Galapagos was populated by forced settlement. The
colonization of the islands of the “American Pacific”
focused on extraction of natural resources followed by
the production of raw materials for global markets. Today,
these islands are under the sovereignty of North or South
American countries.
The Orkney Islands (Kerr) and Lemnos (Dodouras) are both
part of the periphery of the European Union and their
relative isolation is compensated by special subsidies. The
populations of Orkney and Lemnos have the same culture
as the nation to which they belong, with slight differences
due to their insularity. They have a common history over
millennia, and a common language and religion.
New Zealand and Fiji, two independent island nations
in the South Pacific, still maintain their original island
cultures. British settlers took much of the land belonging
to the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand and
imported manpower from India to work on sugar
plantations in Fiji. Even so, the indigenous people
managed to keep their traditional cultures alive, through
fierce fighting that led to a treaty in New Zealand (Mead)
and because the colonization in Fiji was relatively late
and superficial (Rupeni).

which is obviously unfavorable to the maintenance
of island cultures.
4.

The establishment of a foreign population in an island
is considered an important, unfavorable factor that
could derail the maintenance of an island culture, if
the new settlers bring their own lifestyle and culture.
In all of the islands, except Orkney islands, Lemnos
and Fiji (where Hindus now represent 40% of the
population), the immigration of settlers was extensive
and their numbers now exceed the indigenous
population.

5.

Autonomy or political independence favors an island
culture, by affirming a national or regional identity.
Of particular note are the two South Pacific island
states: in Fiji, the “kastom” or traditional Melanesian
governance has recognized political authority
(Rupeni), while in New Zealand, the Maori have
achieved official recognition of their cultural values
with some of them incorporated into the country’s
laws (Mead). The autonomy of Orkney or the state
of Hawaii has allowed these islands to maintain an
intermediate level of island culture. Other islands
are politically and adminsitratively integrated into
their sovereign country; for example, Galapagos is
a province of Ecuador (although today it has special
status) and Easter Island is a department of Chile.

6.

The existence of a policy to strengthen culture favors
the maintenance of an island culture and is related to
the previous point [except for Easter Island, where the
Polynesian cultural renaissance resulted from Rapanui
population struggles and also Chile’s recognition of
its cultural diversity (Vargas)].

7.

The extensive geographic opening present on these
islands since the 19th century is unfavorable to the
permanence of an island culture; Lemnos is the only
island discussed whose society and island ecology
have not been scarred by connections with the rest
of the world (Dodouras).

8.

Tourism drives the current geographic opening in
Galapagos and Easter Island, and plays an important
role in Hawaii, where there are many more tourists
than permanent residents. Tourism is unfavorable
to the permanence of an island culture because it
involves major geographic opening.

9.

Tourism can result in the “folklorization” of an island
culture. This has been the case in Hawaii and Easter
Island, where cultural shows are created specifically
for tourists and native cultural events become tourist
attractions, often making it impossible to distinguish
between the two (Sproat, Vargas). For now, Navarino
does not show this tendency, but the policies of the
Ethnobotanic Park Omora to recover the Yaghan

Finally I propose nine criteria that explain the permanence
or lack of permanence of an island culture in the islands
presented (Table 1).
1.

The presence of an indigenous population that has
lived in the islands prior to colonization or assimilaton
by Europeans is a factor that favors the development
and permanence of an island culture. Galapagos is the
only case presented where there was no indigenous
island population.

2.

The colonization of these islands in the 19th century
by various groups (missionaries, businessmen,
soldiers, settlers, etc.) from Europe or America works
against the permanence of an island culture. Some of
the European islands, however, were settled prior to
the century of imperialist expansion and have thus
experienced different trajectories than the others,
all of which were colonized territories (including
Galapagos, Ecuador’s only colonized territory).

3.

34

Different types of colonization have different effects
on island culture. In Fiji and New Zealand, colonists
had to accommodate themselves to the indigenous
inhabitants who maintained part of their culture. In
American Pacific islands, colonization nearly caused
the disappearance of the indigenous populations,

Table 1. Criteria of island culture.

CRITERIA

ISLANDS
Lemnos Orkney

Fiji

New
Zealand

Hawaii

Easter

Navarino Galapagos

With indigenous population

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

Colonized during the 19 century

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Where the indigenous population
nearly disappeared

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

Not
applicable

With a high proportion of the
population foreign

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Politically autonomous or
independent

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Polícy to promote an
island culture

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

Not
applicable

With major geographic
opening since the 19th century

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

With substantial tourism
(>resident population)

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

With island culture folklorized for
tourism

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

NO

Not
applicable

SYNTHESIS: with strong island
culture

YES?

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

th

Criteria unfavorable to the permanence of
an island culture

Criteria favorable to the permanence of an island culture

culture as a tourism resource may have this effect
(Massardo).
10. In synthesis:
a)

The islands of the American Pacific have no island
cultures, or at least no culture that has spread
throughout the population. Three of the four islands
in this group are oceanic, but depend on a distant
mainland state.

b) In the two Pacific island states, a strong island
culture exists in the general population; although
in New Zealand it is perhaps more symbolic among
residents of European origin, who have converted
their isolation from Great Britain into a form of local
culture.
c)

In the European islands, island culture seems strong,
especially in the Orkneys.

d) Of all the islands presented, the Galapagos are the
only ones that have none of the factors that favor an
island culture. Three of the nine factors, which refer to
an indigenous population, are not applicable to this
archipelago.

Conclusion
An island culture is like an endemic organism: it is not
created overnight but develops slowly, under particular
geographic conditions related to space, limited resources,
and isolation. An island culture is adapted to a particular
combination of natural environment and location
within the World System. It is unique, although it can be
compared with other cultures with similar geographical
conditions.
In Galapagos, the history of the islands’ oldest families
covers barely a century. The lifestyle of today’s population
is similar to that of the inhabitants of mainland Ecuador,
as opposed to being adapted to the particuliarities of
the archipelago. The possibility of forging an island
culture in Galapagos as well as ensuring the survival of
its unique ecology depends on finding a way to reduce
the geographic opening of the archipelago and at the
same time inventing a lifestyle more adapted to a certain
degree of insular isolation.

Acknowledgments
The workshop was made possible by the kind sponsorship
of Galapagos Conservancy and The Leona M. and Harry B.
Helmsley Charitable Trust.

35


Photograph: Copyright Heidi Snell / Visual Escapes Images

List of speakers and their affiliations

•

•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Betancourt, R – Entrepreneur, Santa Cruz
Bustamante, T - FLACSO, Quito
Cox, W – Naturalist guide, San Cristóbal
Cruz, E - WWF-Galapagos, Santa Cruz
Dodouras, S - Mediterranean Institute for Nature and
Anthropos, Greece
Espinoza, M – Naturalist guide, Isabela
Freire, M – President of the parish board of Floreana
Grenier, C – Charles Darwin Foundation (2008-2010),
Galapagos
Kerr, S - Heriot-Watt University, Scotland
Masaquiza, L – Representative of the Salasaca
community, Santa Cruz
Massardo, F - Universidad de Magallanes / Parque
Etnobotánico Omora, Chile

•
•
•
•
•

Mead, A – Victoria University of Wellington, New
Zealand
Ruiz Ballesteros, E - Universidad Pablo Olavide de
Sevilla, Spain
Rupeni, E – International Union for the Conservation
of Nature (IUCN), Fiji
Sproat, K – University of Hawaiii
Vargas, P – University of Chile
Zapata, F – President of the Governing Council of
Galapagos
Zechettin, E – Hotel owner, Isabela

References
Grenier C. 2010. La apertura geográfica de Galápagos. In: Informe Galápagos 2009-2010. Pp. 123-131. FCD, PNG y Consejo
de Gobierno de Galápagos, Puerto Ayora, Galápagos, Ecuador.
Grenier C. 2011. Informe sobre el taller internacional sobre culturas isleñas. Fundación Charles Darwin, 28-30 de septiembre
2010. Pp. 15.

36


Citizen participation in Galapagos
Carlos Zapata Erazo
FUNDAR Galapagos
Photograph: Carlos Zapata

The challenge for Galapagos society and indeed for other human societies
around the globe is to identify, build, and foster a suite of social benefits that
enhance public wellbeing. ”Public good” or “wellbeing” refers to those important
but intangible civil rights that are guaranteed by the constitution of Ecuador (and
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations). Ecuador has
been a pioneer in terms of including third-generation rights, such as “rights of
nature”, the “right to personal privacy,” etc., in its constitution.
Identifying and constructing the “public good” is done both by public institutions
(government) and organized civil society at different levels of partnership
and responsibility. Ecuador’s constitution guarantees citizens the privilege of
participation at different decision-making levels.
When civil society participates in the construction of the public good, we can say
that it is “democratizing” public policy. This has taken place in Galapagos since
the Special Law for Galapagos of 1998, which permits organized groups within
the civil society to participate along with the public sector in the creation of local
public policy (INGALA Council and committees, Inter-Institutional Management
Authority, Participatory Management Board). Within Ecuador, Galapagos
pioneered the democratization of public policy, as reflected in the 1998 law that
established the partnership and collaboration between the public sector and
civil society.
Since the establishment of the Special Law for Galapagos tensions have existed
between: 1) private or proprietary interests and the public interest; 2) the public
sector and civil society, and 3) national public policy and local/regional public
policy in Galapagos.
During the first decade of this century, in addition to the institutionalized
opportunities for participation, several citizen groups temporarily emerged
to generate public proposals. The Constitution of 2007 created new rights and
opportunities for participation that allow civil society to find new ways in which to
build the public good. However, despite the existence of constitutional and legal
opportunities, as well as the freedom to organize and exercise the right to speak,
oppose, collaborate, control, etc., the population as a whole is not participating
in this process. To better understand the perceptions, motivations, and potential
of Galapagos society on this topic, we conducted a qualitative study of local
perceptions about citizen participation in Galapagos.

1
Karel Vasak, first Secretary General of the International Institute of Human Rights, stated in 1979 that human rights are of three
generations, based on the principles of the French Revolution: liberty, equality and fraternity. Third generation rights are related to
solidarity.

37


None

34.3 %

Other organization

8.2 %

Political party or movement

6.8 %

Neighborhood councils

10.8 %

Limited or anonymous company

4.4%

Union

4.0%

Commercial production association or guild

3.1 %
15.4%

Cooperative
Alumni association

5.2 %

Professional guild

4.9 %
8.6%

Foundation/charitable group/charity
Watch dog or social control groups

4.0 %

Citizen organizations

11.0%
23.3 %

Churches or religious groups

Figure 1. Citizen participation in civil society organizations during the last ten years in Galapagos (May 2012).

Methodology

Citizen action

This study was conducted within the populations of the
islands of Santa Cruz, San Cristóbal and Isabela. We used a
survey containing eight general questions. A total of 781
surveys were distributed as follows: 240 in San Cristóbal,
240 in Isabela and 301 in Santa Cruz. Respondents were
randomly selected by neighborhood in order to achieve
a more uniform coverage of the population. The surveys
were conducted in May 2012.

Citizen participation can be considered as purposeful
engagement in developing the public good or public
“common.” To determine how citizen participation has
occurred in Galapagos, we asked the following question:
“Have you at some time or other ever taken one or more
of the following actions during the last ten years? (Choose
more than one if necessary);” 18 alternatives options were
then listed.

Participation in organizations

The greatest percentage of respondents indicated
that they had donated money or goods in response
to “telethons” (38%), followed by providing assistance
to a stranger (37%), or donating medicines, clothes or
food in the case of a disaster (28%). A second group of
citizen actions corresponded to volunteer participation
in support of environmental and social causes, signing
letters of support for an initiative, or sending supporting
emails.

Citizens become drivers of social transformation when
they speak out and create civil society organizations
(CSOs). Formal or informal CSOs are fora for dialogue
and participation. To know how much an individual
participates in CSOs we asked the following question:
“Do you participate or have you participated in any of the
following organizations during the last ten years? (Choose
more than one if necessary.).”
A third of the respondents indicated that they had not
belonged to any organization (Figure 1). Of those who
said that they had belonged to some type of organization,
the most frequent were religious organizations (23.3%),
cooperatives (15.4%), citizen organizations (11%) and
neighborhood councils (11%).

38

Credibility and accessibility of citizen participation
Civic participation is often a thankless task as it does not
always achieve results. To understand the perception
of Galapagos residents regarding the importance and
effectiveness of public participation, we asked six specific
questions under the following general question: “Please
indicate your level of agreement with the following


None

16%

Other citizen action

3%

Placed banners, posters, photographs in support of a cause

12%

Organized public interest meetings or events

7%

Participated in protests on social or environmental issues

9%

Spoke on the radio or television on a theme of public interest

5%

Published a letter to the editor in a newspaper

2%

Sent a letter to the mayor, ministers, assembly members or other activities

5%

Sent a letter to the president of Ecuador

3%

Signed a letter in support of a just cause

15%

Donated money or goods to a telethon

38%

Participated in a social charitable group, a foundation or citizen group

6%

Used a badge identified with people who defend an idea

5%

Sent an email message in support of a given cause

17%

Donated money to a social charity or environmental organization

11%

Donated blood

14%

Participated as a volunteer in an environmental activity

17%

Participated as a volunteer in an activity with social benefits

16%

Donated food, medicine, clothing in disasters

28%

Helped a stranger

37%

Figure 2. Citizen activism in Galapagos during the last ten years (May 2012).

questions (a lot, some, little, none), (strongly agree,
somewhat agree, disagree).”
In general, respondents expressed optimism and belief in
citizen participation (Table 1). Of greatest note is that 88%
of respondents believes that programs implemented by
public institutions are much or somewhat improved when
there is public participation. Two out of three people
showed much or some interest in actively participating
and agreed that Galapagos would be much (20%) or
somewhat (45%) better in ten years.
We also asked about the “Level of agreement on whether the
constitution and laws of Ecuador allow active participation:”
51% strongly agreed, while 32% somewhat agreed (Figure
3). Only one in ten respondents disagreed. Respondents
in Isabela tended to be more optimistic, while those on
Santa Cruz were, relatively, the most skeptical among the
three islands.

Trust in organizations
Trust in institutions was also assessed, defining an
institution as those forms of social organization with

formal or informal structures that focus on specific
purposes. Institutions were evaluated within the public,
private and civil society sectors. The following question
was asked: “Please indicate how much you trust the
institutions or groups on the following list: a lot, some, little
or none.” The family was the institution receiving the
most “very confident” responses (88.7%), followed by
two public institutions: the educational system (42.6%)
and the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS - 34.4%;
Figure 4). Foundations, churches and civic groups fell into
a second level of trust (24-31%).
In contrast, the institutions that received more “no
confidence” responses included neighbors (10.6%),
tourism companies (9.6%) and the National Assembly (9%).
Comparing results among islands, the family and the
educational system received the greatest levels of trust
on all the islands; the GNPS is the third institution in order
of confidence in Isabela, and fifth in San Cristóbal and
Santa Cruz. Churches are the third organization in San
Cristóbal and Santa Cruz, while not even among the top
six in Isabela.

39

Table 1. Perceptions of citizen participation in Galapagos (May 2012).

Question

A lot

Some

Little

None

NS

How much do you think that the social and environmental
programs of public institutions are improved by citizen
participation?

58%

29%

8%

2%

2%

How much do you think corruption can be controlled by citizen
participation?

36%

36%

19%

7%

2%

Do you consider the Galapagos community participatory?

33%

38%

22%

5%

2%

Are you interested in actively participating in meetings, citizen
oversight committees or groups?

29%

36%

17%

13%

5%

Do you agree with the following statement: "only public
participation generates social change?"

46%

29%

12%

10%

4%

Do you agree that Galapagos will be better in ten years than
it is now?

20%

45%

13%

7%

14%

Isabela

Santa Cruz

San Cristóbal

70%

46%
38%

7%

34%
22%

19%
7%

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

10%

10%

Disagree

1%

6%

Don’t know

Figure 3. Level of agreement with the statement that the constitution and laws of Ecuador allow active participation (May 2012).

Citizen interest
To assess interest in participating, the following question
was asked: “Would you be interested in actively supporting
a cause? YES___ No___. If the answer is yes, how? (Choose
more than one if necessary).” In Isabela, 76% of respondents
expressed interest in actively participating as did 62% in
Santa Cruz and 36% in San Cristóbal (Figure 5).
Of those who indicated interest in actively supporting a
cause, the vast majority indicated that they would like
to do it through volunteer work (Figure 6). Participating
by donating money was the least interesting option for
respondents.
Exploring still further, we asked the following question:
“What causes, ideas or topics would interest you to
actively participate? (Choose more than one if necessary).”
Conservation was of greatest interest (65%), while 37% and
36% were interested in helping to “avoid pollution” and
“improve opportunities for young people,” respectively
40

(Figure 7). Respondents on the three islands agreed with
conservation as the primary cause, but respondents in
Santa Cruz and San Cristóbal identified “avoid pollution”
and “improve opportunities for young people” as the
second and third causes respectively, while respondents
in Isabela identified “improving opportunities for young
people” and “improving economic conditions” as the
second and third leading causes they would be interested
in supporting.

Problems with citizen participation
To determine why some people choose not to participate,
the following question was asked: “There are people who
have no interest in participating in citizen groups, why do
you think this happens? Please list three causes.” The most
frequently listed reason was lack of time (70%) (Figure 8).
Digging deeper regarding the perception of the
effectiveness of participation in achieving results, we asked:
“Who really has the power to generate change in Galapagos?


17.3%

Governing Council
Galapagos National Park

34.4%

FUNDAR Galápagos

25.5%

Neighbors

24.1%

Tourism companies

16.5%

Foundations

30.7%

Government institutions

15.7%

Citizen groups

30.6%

Municipality

17.3%

National Assembly

16.6%

Educational system

42.6%

Church / religious groups

27.7%

Family

88.7%

Figure 4. Percentage of responses indicating that they have a lot of trust in various institutions in Galapagos (May 2012).

76%
62%
80%
36%

60%
40%
20%
0%

Isabela

Santa Cruz

San Cristóbal

Figure 5. Interest in actively participating in a cause (May 2012).

Select the top three in order of importance.” Almost a third
of respondents indicated that the central government has
the greatest power (32%), followed by organized citizens
(21%) and municipalities (16%; Figure 9).

2.

The majority of respondents agrees or strongly agrees
that participation improves social and environmental
programs of public institutions and helps to control
corruption.

Conclusions and recommendations

3.

Galapagos society is interested in participating and
has a positive perception regarding the usefulness
of citizen participation. The preferred mechanism for
participation is volunteerism, although the Galapagos
society has primarily been involved through the
donation of goods and money, and by helping
strangers (although relatively fewer than in other
countries, such as Mexico, where 56% report having
donated goods and money, or assisting a stranger;
Espinoza, 2008). Conservation of natural biodiversity
motivates Galapagos residents, especially in Isabela
where respondents expressed a greater willingness
to participate in such activities.

Although no good historical baseline on the evolution of
citizen participation in the Galapagos exists, this research
shows that a high percentage of the Galapagos population
believes that participation is important for the archipelago.
Specifically, the study revealed the following:
1.

Churches, cooperatives and neighborhood councils
are important places where social involvement is
possible, although such participation is often not very
visible. 66% of the Galapagos society is involved in
some way with a Galapagos civil society organization.

41


Other

29

Signing letters and petitions

71
106

Participating in protests, marches

166

Participating in meetings
48

Monthly monetary support

277

Volunteer work for several hours per week

Figure 6. Total number of individuals surveyed with interest in participating through specific mechanisms (May 2012).

Other activity

4%

Improve citizen safety

17%

Improve basic services: water, electricity, telephone

24%

Improve economic conditions

26%

Care for retired, sick, incapacitated, etc.

20%

Improve transparency and avoid corruption

23%
36%

Improve opportunities for the young

37%

Avoid pollution
Improve judicial system

15%

65%

Conserve Galapagos and its species

Figure 7. Causes, ideas or themes of interest to Galapagos residents for participation (May 2012).

Other reason
Specific interests of organizer/participants

2%
16%

Disorderly meetings
Does not achieve results, ineffective

36%
26%

Does not learn of the meetings

22%

Politics of the meetings or talks

21%

Lack of time

Figure 8. Perceptions regarding the reason that some people do not actively participate (May 2012).

42

70%


Other organization/actor
Churches
Economically powerful groups from the continent

0%
1%
2%

Foundations
Foreign governments

6%
4%

Tourism companies
Communication media
National Assembly
Municipalities
Organized citizens

5%
4%
9%
16%
21%

Central government – presidency

32%

Figure 9. Perception about who has the power to initiate socioenvironmental change in Galapagos (May 2012).

4.

The main reason that some people do not participate
is lack of time, followed by the disorderly meetings of
civil society organizations.

5.

Galapagos residents believe the central government,
citizens and municipalities are those with the
greatest ability to generate change. The family, which
is the most important institution for society, the
educational system and churches represent important
opportunities for socialization and have the potential
for building public wellbeing.

6.

There are constitutional and legal opportunities
that allow citizens to be important social activists.
The right to participate in formal or unconventional

ways (including the right of resistance) will continue
to generate tensions, but far from representing an
obstacle, this kind of participation makes it possible to
develop societies with full rights based on discussion
and collaboration.
Monitoring annual changes in perceptions on citizen
participation is recommended, through the collection of
homogeneous data that will make it possible to identify
trends over time. A study of the potential impact of
training (governance, managing meetings and volunteers,
etc.) is also recommended with the goal of strengthening
the ability of civil society organizations to promote and
maximize the impact of citizen participation.

References
Espinoza V. 2008. Compromiso cívico y participación ciudadana en México: Una perspectiva nacional y regional. América
Latina Hoy. April, number 048. Universidad de Salamanca. Salamanca, Spain.

43


Population and migration
in Galapagos
Marianita Granda León and Geovanny Chóez Salazar
Governing Council of Galapagos
Photograph: Lori Ulrich

Introduction
The official population of any jurisdiction, whether a country, province, canton
or parish, is the number of inhabitants present there at a particular point in
time. In Ecuador, seven population censuses have been carried out since 1950.
The census counts all citizens and foreigners who are present in a particular
jurisdiction on the day of the census. The censuses include those who were born
and live in a place, people born elsewhere but who have made their residence in
that jurisdiction, and visitors present at the time of the census.

Floating population and usual residents
According to the latest census conducted in Ecuador on November 28, 2010,
Galapagos has a population of 25,124 inhabitants. Galapagos has the smallest
population of all of the provinces and represents only one percent of the national
population.
The total population consists of usual residents and a floating population. Usual
residents, in demographic terms, are people who have been living in a place for at
least six months or if they have been there for less time, plan to stay in that place
for more than six months. For example, students traveling to Quito for university
become usual residents of that city, since they plan to stay there for longer than
six months.
The floating population consists of people who are in a place for vacation,
business, medical care, family visits or other reasons, and do not plan to stay there
for more than six months. For example, on a given day there are people from
other provinces and other countries in Galapagos, but there are also Galapagos
residents who are outside of the province, either in mainland Ecuador or abroad.
Unfortunately census results do not distinguish between “Permanent Residence”
or “Temporary Residence,” which is determined in Galapagos by the Governing
Council; in a national census questions and criteria conform to situations that are
common throughout the country. Permanent and temporary residences describe
conditions that occur only in Galapagos, the only province with a special regime
under the Constitution.
Of the 25,124 people who were in the archipelago on Census Day in 2010, 23,046
declared that the islands are their usual place of residence. The remaining 2078
were part of a floating population consisting of two groups: 1394 from abroad
and 684 from mainland Ecuador. At the same time, a total of 584 Galapagos

44

residents were counted in mainland Ecuador, indicating
that their main place of residence was Galapagos and

Usual residents*:

23,046

Floating foreign population:

Galapagos residents*
censused in the
continent: 584

1,394

Floating national population:
Population in Galapagos:

they were on the continent for a short stay (less than six
months; Figure 1).

684
25,124

The map is not to scale
*With or without permanent or temporary resident card
Figure 1. General distribution of the population of Galapagos on the day of the census 2010 (28 November).

Geographic distribution of the population
For political and administrative purposes, the province
of Galapagos is divided into three cantons each with a
corresponding municipal capital or urban parish: San
Cristóbal/Puerto Baquerizo Moreno, Santa Cruz/Puerto
Ayora and Isabela/Puerto Villamil. In addition to the urban
parishes, each canton has at least one rural parish: El
Progreso and Santa Maria/Floreana Island in San Cristóbal;
Bellavista, Santa Rosa and Baltra in Santa Cruz, and Tomás
de Berlanga in Isabela.
More than half of the province’s population (61%) is
concentrated in Santa Cruz, while San Cristóbal has
30% and Isabela 9% (Table 1, Figure 2). The Galapagos

population lives mainly in urban areas, with 83% residing
in the three municipal capitals and only 17% in rural
parishes.
On the day of the census, 1059 people were at sea, but
not all those counted on cruise ships were tourists; some
members of the usual population of Galapagos were at
sea as crew members. The majority of people counted at
sea (458 people) embarked at the port on Baltra Island,
and were thus included in the total count for Baltra,
which in turn forms part of the Santa Rosa parish of
Santa Cruz. A total of 385 people embarked at Puerto
Ayora (Santa Cruz), while 176 and 17 people embarked
at Puerto Baquerizo Moreno (San Cristóbal) and Puerto
Villamil (Isabela), respectively.

LEGEND AND SYMBOLS
Canton seat (port)
Population at sea*

481 ind.

Baltra

23 ind.

490 ind.
2,425 ind.
11,589 ind.

* Cruise with onboard accomodations

Santa Cruz
658 ind.

Isabela
2,075 ind.

San Cristóbal Canton
Santa Cruz Canton
Isabela Canton
Total population: 25,124

164 ind.

385 ind.
17 ind.

Floreana

San Cristóbal
6,496 ind.
176 ind.

145 ind.

Figure 2. Geographic distribution of the Galapagos population on the day of the 2010 Census (map not to scale). The arrows indicate the port from
which the individuals departed on cruises, not the direction that they took. Source: Population Census 2010, INEC

45

Galapagos report 2011-2012

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (9)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (7)

Ähnlich wie Galapagos report 2011-2012

Ähnlich wie Galapagos report 2011-2012 (20)

Mehr von Nova Galapagos Foundation

Mehr von Nova Galapagos Foundation (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Galapagos report 2011-2012