GAL
AP
A
GOS REPO
T 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.
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.
Swen Lorenz
Executive Director of the Charles Darwin Foundation
Jorge Torres
President Governing Council of Galapagos
Edwin Naula
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
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 167
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
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
1Galapagos National Park Service, 2Governing Council of Galapagos
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
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 long-term 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
A knowledge management plan for
the Galapagos: An imminent need
Juan Carlos Guzmán1, Linda J. Cayot2, Johannah Barry2 and James P. Gibbs31Governing Council of Galapagos, 2Galapagos Conservancy, 3SUNY-ESF
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
General public, residents, visitors, educators, scientists, students, guides, tour operators, donors, media, decision-makers
INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
Sectors within the community & employees within Galapagos institutions and organizations
KNOWLEDGE
Managers, planners, policy makers, researchers & students
INFORMATION
Program managers, researchers & students
DATA
Observers & researchers
DATA INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE
I.C. W
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
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.
Biophysical Knowledge
Geographical / maps and place
names
Current research
Citizen science Monitoring data
Herbarium/ museum/ laboratory specimens Current and ongoing management actions/results Socio-economic Knowledge Commerce: agriculture, fisheries, construction Utilities: electricity, water, waste management Health, education and labor Censuses and surveys Tourism Monitoring and periodic data Transportation Legacy Knowledge People history - resident & scientists Historical photos / videos Deteriorating documents Citizen science (anecdotal, logbooks, journals, guide reports) Historical management actions/ results Literature / bibliography Unpublished scientific data Figure 2. Some of the components within the biophysical area that should be included in knowledge management for Galapagos.
Figure 3. Some of the components within the socioeconomic area that should be included in knowledge management for Galapagos.
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. 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.
2. Improve the technological infrastructure in the Galapagos to support the Knowledge Management System and its use by all.
3. 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 priority-based 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:
• System technical director • GIS/database expert • Web programmer
• Data specialist (data entry, retrieval, and analysis) • Technical writer (this could be covered by the data
specialist or someone else) – ideally with fundraising experience
Any missing skills could be compensated for by using paid consultants for particular tasks.
The project management team should:
• Be primarily comprised of permanent staff to ensure project continuity
• Have redundancy to accommodate contingencies (e.g., key personnel are sick or traveling, staff attrition and recruitment, etc.)
• Maintain excellent records to permit institutional learning, integrated data management, and continuity of knowledge
• 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.
Financial plan
A financial plan with a well-developed fundraising strategy and any necessary project proposal(s) will be developed during Phase I. The plan will include start-up funding to cover the initial audits (consultants) and the establishment of the project management team and oversight body. Funding for the Knowledge Management Initiative for Galapagos will require large commitments of financial and in-kind support from the Ecuadorian Government and from private, corporate, and foundation sources worldwide. A long-term financing system should also include some level of funding by institutional users and other beneficiaries of the Knowledge Management System.
Conclusion
Central to the success of the Knowledge Management Initiative is local ownership and a willingness to think broadly about information. The combined thinking of external experts and local stakeholders has evolved since the initial framework was conceived and drafted. Collectively, the language moved from simple data management (systems) to a broader philosophical approach to problem solving that relies on a strong culture of sharing wisdom and experience. This will create
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.
Acknowledgments
Funding for the workshop was provided by a grant to the Galapagos Conservancy from the Tinker Foundation, Inc. Photograph: Alycia Crall
Citizen science: A new conservation
tool for the Galapagos
Washington Tapia1, Alycia Crall2, Linda J. Cayot3, Eleanor Sterling4 and
James P. Gibbs1,5
1Galapagos National Park Service, 2Rutgers University, 3Galapagos Conservancy, 4American Museum of Natural History, 5SUNY-ESF
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.
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
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
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 Resident Track
Tourist Track
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.
INPUTS
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
IMPACTS
Outcomes reinforce interests Dictate motivations, satisfaction, retention Identify questions or issues Needs assessment: Scientific interests Management Interests Community interests Develop program infrastructure and manage implementation of pilot projects Observations and experiences Capacity Sustainability Conservation Global Community Science: research findings, publications Management: established priorities, management plans Individuals: knowledge, skills, Identity, self-efficacy Socio-ecological systems: action, collaboration
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
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).
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.
Island cultures
Christophe GrenierUniversité 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, 1 See summaries of the presentations in Grenier (2011). Throughout this article, the name of the speaker is provided in parenthesis;
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. 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). 2. 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
Continental islands Oceanic islands
Years BP since the first human population
Distance in km from the region of origin of the first colonization Lemnos Navarino Orkneys Fiji Hawaii Easter Island New Zealand Galapagos Oceania Oceania Polynesia Polynesia 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 1000 2000 30003000 4000
system that determine whether or not island cultures emerge or endure.
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. 2. Distance between islands and the regions of origin
of the first colonists: the more isolated the insular population, the more unique its culture.
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.” 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Pacific islands within the oceanic and continental
Lemnos Orkneys Navarino
Galapagos Easter Island Hawaii New Zealand Fiji
Oceanic islands and the continental countries upon which they depend politically Continental islands
Periphery of the European Union
Insular states of the South Pacific American Pacífic
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).
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. 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,
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
