Content uploaded by Andrea Cecchin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrea Cecchin on Apr 11, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Material flow analysis for a sustainable resource
management in island ecosystems
A case study in Santa Cruz Island (Galapagos)
Andrea Cecchin*
Prometeo Project, Technical University of Cotopaxi, Latacunga, Ecuador
(Received 26 October 2015; final version received 5 October 2016)
The Galapagos Archipelago (Ecuador) is one of the most well-known natural sites in
the world for its unique biodiversity. This sensitive ecosystem is at risk due to a
problematic equilibrium between its conservation policy and development demand.
To contribute to implementing integrated sustainable resource management in the
Galapagos Islands, a material flow analysis (MFA) of Santa Cruz – the island with the
highest anthropic pressure in the archipelago – has been performed, outlining a
quantitative and qualitative assessment of the direct flow of goods throughout the
system. MFA outcomes have been used to evaluate and forecast the impact of some
policies and strategies on the local system, focusing in particular on fossil fuel
consumption and local agricultural production. This case study stresses the need to
introduce a local MFA protocol to decision-makers’ toolbox, as it provides
quantitative assessments on a broad spectrum of local development issues.
Keywords: material flow analysis; sustainable resource management; environmental
policy; islands; Galapagos Islands
1. Introduction
The Galapagos Archipelago is celebrated as one of the world’s greatest sanctuaries of
biodiversity, both because of its unique ecosystem and its essential role in inspiring one
of the most innovative ideas of all time – the evolutionary theory (Darwin 1859). Located
in the Pacific Ocean, approximately 1,000 km off the coast of Ecuador, this group of
islands has become a real challenge for sustainability science over the past few decades.
This sensitive ecosystem is at risk due to increasing pressure in meeting the demands of
both conservation policy and economic development. The Galapagos share most of the
environmental concerns with other islands around the world (Bass and Dalal-Clayton
1995; Kerr 2005; Mimura et al. 2007; Hein 2010; UNEP 2013; Polido, Jo~
ao, and Ramos
2014; Fernandes, Guiomar, and Gil 2015). More specifically, some anthropic factors
threaten the Galapagos ecosystem: constant increase in pressure from tourism and
population growth, water pollution, waste generation, inefficient land use in rural areas
and problematic management of boundaries between areas used for conservation and
agricultural production, the introduction of alien species through supply flows and
tourism vectors, and local resource depletion (Mauchamp 1997; Snell et al. 2002; Taylor
et al. 2003; Kerr, Cardenas, and Hendy 2004; Taylor, Hardner, and Stewart 2006; Epler
2007; Watkins and Cruz 2007; Gonz!
alez et al. 2008; Benitez-Capistros, Hug!
e, and
*Corresponding author. Email: a.cecchin@unive.it
2016 Newcastle University
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2017
Vol. 60, No. 9, 1640–1659, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1246997
Koedam 2014; GNP, 2014; Valdivia, Wolford, and Lu 2014). These are among the major
challenges for the Galapagos’ biodiversity. In such an isolated and fragile environment,
these same elements are critical factors for the socioeconomic system as well, affecting
the local population’s quality of life and future in the islands.
All the above listed problems have a direct connection to flows of materials, as well as
how they are planned and managed. Examples of such flows in the Galapagos Islands are:
agricultural production and local consumption, supplies import for resident and tourist
needs, water use, local resource extraction, waste management, fossil fuel import and
use, just to mention the most significant ones.
A deeper analysis of the interactions between anthropic and natural systems is a
priority action on the path to mediating local development needs and conservation goals
in the archipelago (Gonz!
alez et al. 2008; Tapia et al. 2009; Miller et al. 2010; Mart!
ınez-
Inglesias et al.,2014; Utreras et al. 2014). This work aims to adopt a systematic
evaluation of the flows (material flow analysis [MFA] methodology) to bring to light and
quantify the flows network on the Santa Cruz Island, and use the outcomes to assess some
policies in resource management. As underlined above, the clear interdependence
between the socioeconomic flows of materials and the threats for the conservation of the
Galapagos Islands makes a detailed study of these flows an important tool for decision-
makers, and strengthens their capacity to analyze and assess the impact of human activity
on the environment.
2. MFA in the island context
Brunner and Rechberger (2004, 3) have described MFA as “a systematic assessment of
the flows and stocks of materials within a system defined in space and time.” Using the
principle of mass balance, MFA generates a picture of material flow patterns in a well-
defined socioeconomic context. This allows for a quantitative assessment of system
metabolism, providing a very useful set of indicators for decision-makers in policy
implementation.
Over the past 50 years, MFA has been employed in a large number of studies, as a
strong flexible tool that is scalable and capable of describing a system at different levels
of detail. In a recent meta-analysis by Moriguchi and Hashimoto (2015), the authors
identified more than 300 scientific papers in the Web of Science search engine, by only
looking in the field of waste management and recycling, where an MFA approach is used.
Although still evolving, MFA is recognized as a well-developed and powerful approach
in assessing the sustainability and efficiency of resource management (OECD 2008;
Fischer-Kowalski et al. 2011).
To study a bounded socioeconomic system such as an island, the economy-wide
material flow analysis (EW-MFA) framework is generally employed, and adapted for
the island-scale context. The EW-MFA approach (Bringezu, Sch€
utz, and Moll 2003;
Fischer-Kowalski et al. 2011) is nowadays widely used to evaluate national and
regional economies, as it can highlight problems, opportunities and trends in resource
management (OECD 2008).
Although the application of MFA at an economy-wide level can potentially provide
valuable insights, even in spite of its challenges and limitations, as Fischer-Kowalski and
colleagues (2011) have noted, the study of material flows in local economies (i.e.,
islands) must yet undergo a process of evolution. Island environments are close to ideal
systems to examine material flows, because they are well-bounded, isolated geographical
units with a limited availability of resources (Deschenes and Chertow 2004; Chertow,
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1641
Fugate, and Ashton 2013). Despite this fact, the material flow research in island
environments is still under-investigated (Eckelman et al. 2014).
A large part of the available scientific works in this field of study have explored the
relationship between materials metabolism and waste management, generally focusing on
a specific economic sector or type of waste (Lenzen 2008; Owens, Zhang, and Mihelcic
2011; Sarkar, Chamberlain, and Miller 2011; Saito 2013; Tamura and Fujie 2014) and
attempting to identify more efficient solutions to reduce waste production (for a more
detailed review, see Eckelman et al. 2014). Only a number of studies, however, have
carried out a comprehensive MFA of an island economy, e.g., in N€
amd€
o Island
(Sundvkist et al. 1999), Trinket Island (Singh et al. 2001), Hawaii (Houseknecht, Kim,
and Whitman 2006; Eckelman and Chertow 2009), Iceland and Trinidad and Tobago
(Krausmann, Richter, and Eisenmenger 2014), the island of Samsø (Nielsen and
Jørgensen 2015) and the Balearic Islands (Ginard and Murray, 2015).
A few studies have examined material flows with their impact on the environment and
local economy in the Galapagos Islands, focusing primarily on food products (Chiroboga
and Maignan 2006; Zapata 2008,2009; Berube 2014), water (Reyeset et al. 2015) and
waste (Cecchin 2015). Mart!
ınez-Iglesias and colleagues (2014) have performed a
metabolic study of the Isabela Island using the Multi-scale Integrated Analysis of
Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism (MuSIASEM) approach (Giampietro, Mayumi, and
Ramos-Martin 2009). They studied some flows (energy, water and solid waste) and
integrated the outcomes with socioeconomic indicators in order to support the analysis of
alternative scenarios of tourism development. However, none of these studies have
analyzed the whole material flow pattern in any of the four populated islands in the
archipelago.
To date therefore, only a limited number of studies have attempted to use an island-
wide MFA to assess and directly support the decision-making process underlying
sustainability and resource management policies. The purpose of this work is to
contribute to implementing the MFA approach in insular environments, and to achieve a
better understanding of the human impact on this high-value ecosystem, by performing a
systemic analysis of material flow in Santa Cruz Island. The results of this study provide
useful information for national, regional and local policymakers in creating, assessing
and monitoring strategies and actions to pursue more sustainable development in the
Galapagos. The approach developed in this study can effectively facilitate knowledge
transfer between scientific analysis and local governance practice (Michaels 2009; Leith
et al. 2014).
3. Methodology
3.1. The MFA approach
In this study, an MFA of the socioeconomic system of Santa Cruz Island for the year 2012
is performed, considering the direct flows of goods in the island. The methodology used is
an adaptation of the EW-MFA to the island context (Bringezu and Moriguchi 2002;
OECD, 2008, Eurostat 2013). This framework aggregates the flows in three main
categories: input, consumption and balance and output materials (OECD 2008). The first
group defines the material needs of an economy, where imports and domestic extraction/
production of resources are taken into account. The consumption and balance section
highlights the level of consumption within a system and describes the physical growth of
the economy, assessing the quantity of materials that remain in the system as a part of the
1642 A. Cecchin
stock (added to the stock) and those that are removed from it. Finally, those materials that
have been used or produced within the system but are leaving it (emissions, waste and
exports) are considered outputs in an MFA framework. The MFA methodology also
offers aggregated indicators that provide an overview on the biophysical performance of
an economy (Bringezu and Moriguchi 2002). Indicators used in this case study are:
– Direct material input (DMI: input of materials used in an economy) DDomestic
extraction/production CImports;
– Domestic material consumption (DMC: total amount of materials directly used in
an economy) DDMI – Exports;
– Domestic processed output (DPO: total amount of materials flowed into the
environment after being used by an economy) DEmissions CWaste;
– Net additions to stock (NAS: measure of the physical growth of an economy) D
DMI – DPO – Exports;
– Direct material output (DMO: total amount of materials that leave an economy by
being released into the environment or exported) DDPO CExports;
– Physical trade balance (PTB: measure of the physical trade surplus or deficit in an
economy): DImports – Exports.
Having described the materials flow pattern in the Santa Cruz Island, a more in-depth
analysis is carried out to study the relationships between flows and local dynamics in
resource use, and to address the main environmental issues of concern for the
conservation of the Galapagos. Furthermore, outcomes of the analysis are used to assess
and quantify the impact of some ongoing policies and strategies in the island (mainly
focusing on two topics – fossil fuels and local food production), to support more efficient
policy-making processes.
3.2. Data sources
The study of a well-bounded and geographically limited system reduces the uncertainty of
estimations and assumptions in material flow analysis. Data used in the present MFA
were collected from public and private institutions, research centers and local experts.
When available, primary sources were official and reliable statistics or direct survey
research; when official information was missing, the required data were collected from
published literature (mainly local studies and research projects), which underwent a
cross-control when the level of approximation was high. The last source of information
was expert interviews, always cross-checked to reinforce the estimation solidity. Once
the MFA was concluded, results were presented to a number of key stakeholders to
review the process and optimize the model. A table containing the sources of information
used in the MFA study is provided in the online supplementary material.
3.3. The case study area: Santa Cruz Island (Galapagos)
Santa Cruz Island was selected for this study because it is the most populous island in the
archipelago – with 15,393 inhabitants out of 25,124 in the whole region (CGREG 2012b)
– and has the highest rate of population growth (Epler 2007; GADMSC 2012). Moreover,
a large part of the economic activity in the Galapagos is concentrated in this island,
which also serves as the primary gateway for tourism. Given it has the largest impact on
the archipelago ecosystem, Santa Cruz is an ideal case study for the purposes of this work.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1643
Besides the main island, the connected island of Baltra (where the airport is located)
has been included within the boundaries of the system, as well as the water zone
surrounding the Santa Cruz Island in order to include marine activities (i.e., fishing and
tourism) that directly contribute to the island’s socioeconomic metabolism.
4. MFA results and discussion
The following sections summarize the MFA results in five categories (i.e., water
resources, imports, domestic production, waste and exports) and discuss the outcomes.
Figure 1 expands upon the material flows diagram of the whole Santa Cruz system (water
is not included) for the year 2012.
4.1. Water resource
Similar to other local systems, water constitutes the main resource flow in the island with
approximately 1.4M tons/year. A quantitative analysis of the water management system
in Santa Cruz is shown in Figure 2.
Water is a critical resource in the island and serves as the primary carrier of
environmental contamination. About 95% of the managed water comes from
underground sources and the remaining part from rainwater collection (principally in the
most isolated rural areas). Since the availability of groundwater is still high in Santa Cruz
Island, the quality of the extracted resource is of a greater concern compared to its
quantity. Moreover, local water management is characterized by a high level of
inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the supply and wastewater treatment systems.
IMPORTS
52,480
Food: 12,440
I
norganic goods:26,000
Fossil fuels: 14,040
EXPORTS
360
EXPORTED
WASTE
930
DOMESTIC
PRODUCTION
198,820
Food: 6,360
Wood products: 710
Mine products: 191,750
OUTPUT
(emissions + waste)
36,950
STOCK
214,000
Local goods:192,500
Imported goods: 21,500
USE and
CONSUMPTION
250,940
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
8,340
Waste
collection
“Managed”
environmental
pollution
5,470
Recycling
(1,940)
Direct
environmental
pollution
28,610
Raw
materials
Imported
goods
Goods for export
Emissions
+ waste
generation
Exported
waste
Local
goods
Goods added
to stock
IMPORTED
WASTE
(marine
litter)
10
DMI: 251,310 tons
DMC: 250,020 tons
DPO: 36,950 tons
NAS: 214,000 tons
DMO: 37,310 tons
PTB: 51,200 tons
Figure 1. Diagram of material flows in Santa Cruz Island (year: 2012). The flows are expressed in
tons/year.
1644 A. Cecchin
The quality of water supplied through the municipal water system is strongly affected
by high levels of chloride, which can reach 3–4 times the threshold for human
consumption. In addition, in recent years an alarming increase in biological
contamination levels (coliforms) has been detected, most likely due to organic pollution
in the aquifer recharge area. However, the main problem with the municipal water system
is the high level of chloride, which cannot be reduced in the current water treatment
plant. Water supplied by the system is therefore not suitable for human consumption, and
the local population has been forced to use alternative ways to access potable water. This
demand is partially met by private sector initiatives through a supply service for purified
water, mainly using reusable 5-gallon bottles and tanker trucks. Unfortunately, this
system is not completely safe and episodes of coliform contamination have been
observed (Liu and D’Ozouville 2013). The majority of the population is connected to the
municipal water supply network, yet a portion of inhabitants in rural areas use different
means, such as tanker trucks or rainwater collection systems. Having a water supply
network that distributes non-potable water has the additional effect of reducing the
perceived value of water, increasing resource wastefulness and worsening the water issue
on the island (Guyot-T!
ephany, Grenier, and Orellana 2013).
Wastewater management also suffers from other major problems; namely, the absence
of a drainage system and a wastewater treatment plant. A large part of domestic and
commercial users drain wastewater into septic tanks (78%), yet only a few receive
regular and effective maintenance. Considering the vulnerable underground water system
of a volcanic island and the extraordinary ecological value of the Galapagos archipelago,
the wastewater management issue represents a serious environmental emergency in Santa
Cruz. The current system is a huge source of point and non-point pollution. However,
when only considering the populated area, this phenomenon seems more like a unique
source of diffuse pollution. In the past few years, increasing levels of contaminants in
Public Water Supply
82%
Rainwater Collection 5%
Private Wells 3%
Drinkable Water 2%
Tanker Trucks for
A
g
riculture Use 9%
Septic Tank
78%
Cesspit 3%
Lack or Other
Systems
3%
Agriculture 9%
Artificial Dry
Swamp
Water
managed:
1,439,000
ton/yr
7%
INFLOWS OUTFLOWS
WATER SUPPLY WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
Figure 2. Water management (inflows and outflows) in Santa Cruz Island (year: 2012).
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1645
surface and underground waters have been reported and, in some cases, restrictive actions
have been undertaken to protect public health. It is worth stressing that the 9% of water
managed by the public system is supplied to the rural agricultural sector. This practice
also results in another serious consequence for the local system in that irrigating with
high chloride water may – over time – cause a soil salinization problem, thus affecting
the already critical level of soil fertility.
Hopefully this situation is about to be solved through a new water management
system. During the second part of the year 2016, a new public water supply network for
the main urban settlement on Santa Cruz Island is scheduled to be installed along with a
water purification plant. Furthermore, by 2017–2018, a complete drainage system and
wastewater treatment plant should be fully operational (E. Mendieta Betancourt, personal
communication, July 8, 2016).
4.2. Imports
The economy of Santa Cruz (and other islands of the Galapagos Archipelago) is strictly
dependent on the import of goods. Several factors influence this dependence on the
mainland: the demands from the tourism industry, constant population increase, limited
agricultural lands and low productivity of food farming, and limitations in industrial
development due to ecosystem conservation policy.
The Galapagos archipelago is also subject to a quarantine regime to protect its fragile
ecosystem from external biological threats. Specific procedures for the import of organic
and inorganic goods have been established to reduce the risk of introducing alien species.
The Galapagos Biosecurity Agency manages a complex system to control imported
goods through checkpoints on the mainland and in the Galapagos (Wildaid 2012).
Organic goods represent the biggest biological risk for the Galapagos ecosystem; to
reduce this hazard, a specific procedure is adopted and a number of products are totally or
partially banned (ABG 2013).
Materials (i.e., organic and inorganic goods, fuels) imported to Santa Cruz during
2012 amounted to 52,480 tons; approximately 95% of this amount arrived by cargo
ship (50,090 tons) and less than 5% by plane (2,390 tons). The macro-category
‘organic goods’ is composed of fresh products (fruit and vegetable), dry products
(mainly cereals for human and animal consumption), packaged food, frozen
products, processed meat, dairy products and chicks (for local poultry farms). This
fraction is 23.7% of total imports (12,440 tons). Within the macro-category
‘inorganic goods,’ which amount to 26,000 tons (49.5% of imports), 73% are
materials used in the construction sector such as cement (the most important item
with 10,430 tons, 20% of all imported goods), bricks, asphalt, paints, hardware, iron
and wood.
Fossil fuels constitute 26.8% of total imports. In 2012, Santa Cruz Island needed
14,040 tons of fuel (almost 4.9 million gallons); 40% was used to generate
electricity (by means of diesel engines) for local demand (75% of total diesel
consumption), whereas 50% went to transport (27% automotive sector and 23%
naval sector). LPG for heating and cooking uses represents the main part of the
remaining 10%.
This import supply system is extremely vulnerable, as the sinking of three out of five
cargo ships operating in the Galapagos in less than a year has shown. Importing through
air freight shipping is an expensive and limited service, because goods are carried in
touristic flights and there is no regular cargo service.
1646 A. Cecchin
4.3. Domestic production (local resources)
Santa Cruz has a number of local resources that are essential for the island’s metabolism;
however, these are still insufficient to guarantee self-sufficiency in any economic sector.
There are many limitations in resource availability and accessibility, mainly caused by
the land management framework. Island conservation goals and resource exploitation for
local demand generate a conflict in resource use and the pressure due to tourism needs
often aggravates this situation.
Rural areas in Santa Cruz are located in the southern part of the island, north of Puerto
Ayora. In 2012, the island’s farms produced approximately 3,860 tons of crop products,
including bananas (1,050 tons), coffee (730 tons), plantains (430 tons) and vegetables
(390 tons), as well as grass and fodder for animal feed (890 tons). The livestock sector
provided 460 tons of beef, 14 tons of pork, 440 tons of chicken and 240 tons of eggs. The
total amount of milk produced annually on the island is approximately 1,830 tons, which
generates 1,030 tons of processed products (i.e., cheese, yoghurt and milk) for the local
market. Unfortunately, these are only rough estimations of local production, since the last
agricultural census in the Galapagos was carried out in 2001 (at the end of 2014 a new
census has been undertaken).
Fishing is another important industry for the island’s economy, and fish is Santa
Cruz’s principal export product. In 2012, 320 tons of fish were caught; mainly tuna (147
tons), swordfish (56 tons) and lobster (45 tons). Fishing activity is strictly regulated by
the Galapagos National Park to preserve fish stock and avoid unsustainable practices and
behaviors.
Rural areas also provide wood for the local market, and in particular, for
woodworking and the construction sector. Native trees cannot be exploited to preserve
the peculiar ecosystem community; therefore, only non-native plants can potentially
contribute to the island’s economic development. The use of non-native woody materials
on the island is dominated by two main species: local woodworkers use Spanish cedar
(Cedrela odorata) almost exclusively in their works, and bamboo is used in the
construction sector to build temporary scaffolding. Local woodworkers’ associations and
wood stores estimate an annual consumption of 390 tons of cedar and 320 tons of
bamboo canes. Forestry exploitation is a good example of conflict in resource use within
the Galapagos region, as it involves community demand, conservation goals and
regulatory frameworks. Spanish cedar has the highest economic value for the local
system and is the best wood to build furniture among the non-native species present on
the island. At the same time, Spanish cedar is an alien species for the Galapagos
ecosystem, and hence it is slated for eradication from the archipelago by the National
Park Authority. To make the issue more complicated, in 2007 the Environment Ministry
of Ecuador issued a directive to stop the exploitation of this tree for two years because it
was considered an endangered species in the country, generating a widespread impact on
the Galapagos economy. Amidst such a tangled situation, the use of Spanish cedar at the
local level is currently tolerated while the authorities and local community seek a clear
and final solution.
Volcanic rock extraction for construction uses is also a very important resource for the
local economy and represents the second main flow of material on the island after water
resource: 191,750 tons were mined in the quarries ‘Granillo rojo’ (Red granite) and
‘Granillo negro’ (Black granite) in 2012. These two sites provide materials for local
needs in building construction, concrete block production, public works and other private
uses. Public activities, such as road construction and urban renovation, consume the
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1647
largest portion of local extraction. Rock mining is another example of the complexity of
resource management in the Galapagos: this material is essential for the development of
the local community, yet Santa Cruz Island’s two quarries are both located within the
Galapagos National Park’s boundaries and the Ecuadorian law on mine regulation
(Ecuador Government 2009) prohibits mining activity in protected areas (art. 25). There
are also a number of limitations on importing non-processed geological materials,
because such action might increase the risks associated with biosecurity in the Galapagos
ecosystem. Replacing extraction with imports does not seem to be a feasible solution, as
the annual demand for rock is almost four times the cargo capacity of existing shipping
patterns and the economic and environmental costs of this option would be too high.
Currently, research efforts are ongoing to find alternative materials for the construction
sector to reduce the use of local natural resources.
4.4. Waste management
During the last 10 years, the waste management system in Santa Cruz has improved in
terms of organization and efficiency, including the inception of a door-to-door collection
system. Waste is collected in four categories (i.e., organic, recyclable, non-recyclable and
hazardous waste) and depending on the category, is sent to either a recycling plant or to
landfill. Improving waste management has been a priority in the island because it was –
and still is – one of the most dangerous threats to conservation in the Galapagos (WWF
and Toyota 2010). Despite these efforts, the fragility of this unique ecosystem still
requires significant improvements in waste management. This measure is also important
in guaranteeing the local population’s quality of life, because the waste generated by
human activity is already affecting the quality of fresh water resources on the island
(D’Ozouville 2007).
The local waste management system is run by the Municipal Government of Santa
Cruz and, in 2012, it managed 8,200 tons of residue. Local waste flows can further be
subdivided into the three following categories:
780 tons of inorganic recyclable waste (9.6%). A large part of this waste is collected
through a door-to-door system and then manually separated in the municipal
recycling center. Almost 40% of recyclable waste is paper and cardboard (300
tons); 190 tons of glass, 80 tons of plastic and 6 tons of metal cans were also
recycled in 2012. In addition, this category includes used tires (110 tons), metal
scraps (90 tons) and cement packaging bags (5 tons). All recyclable waste is
shipped outside the island to be recycled on the mainland because there are no
processing plants in the archipelago;
2,860 tons of organic waste (34.8%). The total amount of urban organic waste is
900 tons/year (in 2012); 490 tons from household users and 410 tons from
economic activities. Organic waste produced aboard tourist boats can be discharged
into the sea (according to some specific conditions). The majority of organic
residue is green waste (1,830 tons), taking into account both public and private
contributions. This large amount constitutes a problem for the local system because
not all the green waste can be treated, and the recycling center does not have
enough space to store this volume of biomass. To reduce this quantity, 50% of
green waste is burnt, thereby adding 1,650 tons of carbon dioxide to total local
emissions. The last fraction (120 tons) is the process residue from the public
slaughterhouse. The organic waste is used to produce compost, which is mainly
1648 A. Cecchin
donated to the Galapagos National Park and Charles Darwin Foundation for
reforestation initiatives, delivered to the rural agricultural sector, and used for
public works and maintenance (e.g., public gardens);
4,560 tons are classified as non-recyclable waste (55.6%). This fraction includes the
non-recyclable waste from domestic users (1,660 tons), economic activities (1,700
tons) and tourist boats (300 tons); it also includes the portion of recyclable waste
collection that was improperly classified (440 tons) and construction and
demolition debris delivered to public waste management systems (470 tons). The
non-recyclable fraction is transported to a landfill located outside of the urban area.
This site began operating in 2012 to assure a better waste management, as
previously there was no landfill but only an open area used as a dumpsite.
However, the geological conditions of Santa Cruz Island, where it is not possible to
build large and deep landfills, cannot guarantee this facility a long life. As such, the
production of non-recyclable waste must be reduced over the next few years to
extend the site’s lifetime.
Used oil is another type of waste that is dangerous for the environment if improperly
managed. Since 2000, a private operator in Santa Cruz, ReLuGal, has collected used oil
(mainly mineral oil, but also cooking oil). One hundred and forty-five tons were collected
in 2012 and shipped to the mainland, where they were incinerated. Prior to the inception
of this private service, exhausted oils were dispersed in both the marine and terrestrial
environment.
Similar to other islands, Galapagos’ coasts collect litter transported by the sea
currents. A marine litter quantification has not yet been performed, but there is an
initiative to support local fishermen in collecting sea trash. During the year 2012, 10 tons
of marine litter were picked up along Santa Cruz’s coast.
4.5. Exports
Exports do not constitute a very significant flow in the Santa Cruz system. The island’s
chief exported products are fish (266 tons) and coffee (92 tons). These low values in the
export sector are the result of the limited local production of goods, which is insufficient
to satisfy the island’s demand, taking into consideration the needs of both inhabitants and
the tourist sector. There is also a hidden export flow related to souvenirs purchased by
tourists and taken outside of the Galapagos, which cannot be quantified with the available
data-set.
Broadening the analysis to overall output flows, waste shipping to the mainland is the
most significant flow with 930 tons, of which 785 tons are recyclable solid waste and 145
tons are used oil.
5. Policy analysis
The purpose of this section is to apply the results of MFA to policy assessment – ongoing
or planned on the island – in the field of resource management. The analysis of
biophysical flows is a basic tool with which to evaluate the effectiveness of some
strategies and actions aimed at improving the sustainability of Santa Cruz and the
Galapagos Islands. To show the potential of an MFA study to support decision-makers in
a broad spectrum of policy analysis within a local context, an assessment of fossil fuels
management and agricultural domestic production have been carried out.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1649
5.1. Fossil fuels
Santa Cruz Island and the whole Galapagos region lack a local source of fossil fuels.
Therefore, all of the fuel in the islands must be imported from the continental part of
Ecuador. The risk associated with fuel transportation is a serious threat to the fragile
ecosystem of the archipelago. In 2001, the fuel tanker Jessica spilled 180,000 gallons of
fuel oil (diesel and intermediate fuel oil), leaving a lasting impact on the local ecosystem
and economy (Lougheed, Edgar, and Snell 2002; Born et al. 2003; Edgar et al. 2003;
Marshall and Edgar 2003; Salazar 2003).
The logistics management of fuels on Santa Cruz Island is highly complex and
vulnerable, mainly due to difficulties in docking phases for large and medium ships. The
shipping dock in Puerto Ayora is unfit to receive heavy vessels with deep drafts, which
increases the spill risk and likelihood of ships grounding.
High levels of acute contamination risk for accidents and the pollution generated from
fuel combustion (44,600 tons/year of CO
2
in Santa Cruz in 2012) motivated the
Ecuadorian Government to develop policies and actions to reduce the impact of fuel
consumption in the Islands. As a consequence of the Ecuadorian Government’s
declaration in regard to the risk situation in the Galapagos in 2007, a ‘Zero Fossil Fuels in
the Galapagos’ program was launched with the general goal of eliminating the use of
fossil fuels in the Islands. In the framework of this program, three projects were
developed on Santa Cruz Island: a wind power plant on Baltra Island (three wind turbines
with a total capacity of 2.25 MW), a 1.5-MW photovoltaic system in Puerto Ayora, and
another 0.2-MW photovoltaic plant with an energy storage system on Baltra Island. As of
the end of 2014, the first two installations have started inputting energy into the local
grid. Considering the total energy demand of Santa Cruz (24,161 MWh in 2012,
25,173 MWh in 2013), once these two plants begin to function at operating speed, the
contribution from renewable sources will be approximately 30% of the total energy
demand in Santa Cruz (4,800–6,000 MWh generated by the wind power plant and
2,200 MWh from the photovoltaic installation in Puerto Ayora). This development
represents truly meaningful progress for the island, but the goal of ‘zero fossil fuels’ is
still far off in the short and medium periods, given that 50% of fossil fuels are used for
local transport. Once all the envisaged renewable energy plants are fully operational,
their contribution will represent approximately 10%–15% of current fossil fuel
consumption in Santa Cruz; hence a more diversified approach is needed, including
strategies and actions to reduce local consumption and increase energy use efficiency.
5.1.1. Transportation sector
Important reductions in fuel consumption in this sector require a well-structured and long-
term policy that can fundamentally reorganize the transport system in the Galapagos. In
the short and medium period, plans and strategies can be designed to gradually decrease
the fuel demand, e.g., fostering the sustainable mobility of people (collective transport,
bike use) and logistics for goods (a better integration of sea and terrestrial vectors). The
regional government of the Galapagos and the local government of Santa Cruz have
already developed plans to improve efficiency and reduce the impact of the transportation
system in the archipelago. Experimentation is also ongoing, e.g., a solar energy boat to
move people between Baltra and Santa Cruz islands. Substituting the current terrestrial
car fleet with electric vehicles is another interesting alternative that both national and
regional governments are currently assessing. Theoretically, the use of electric vehicles
1650 A. Cecchin
could decrease fossil fuel consumption by around 25%, even if this alternative would
simultaneously increase the demand for electricity. In any case, the tradeoff would be
positive from an environmental perspective. Another strategy to reduce the presence of
diesel and gasoline in Santa Cruz and the Galapagos Islands is to add biofuels to regular
fuels. Ecuador is currently trying to boost its own biofuel production to reduce the
internal demand for fossil fuels. If a reasonable 10% of fuel used in the Santa Cruz
transportation sector is replaced with biofuels (e.g., bioethanol for gasoline and biodiesel
for diesel), imports to the island may be reduced by 5%.
5.1.2. Electricity production and consumption
Different actions can be undertaken to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels related to
electricity generation in Santa Cruz. These measures can include boosting energy
production from renewable sources, increasing efficiency in power production (e.g.,
cogeneration to recover embedded energy in the electricity production process),
instituting energy micro-generation projects in rural areas which are not grid-connected,
enacting more efficient standards in construction (e.g., better isolation, passive cooling),
fostering the use of energy saving appliances and reducing public consumption of energy
(e.g., LED illumination). A number of these measures are already underway – in
particular, those striving to reduce domestic consumption.
Among these strategies, the most effective in drastically reducing the use of fossil
fuels for electricity production in the medium-term seems to be the increase in renewable
sources contribution, i.e., the bio-oil option. The smallest inhabited island of the
Galapagos, Floreana (approximately 200 people), is already using jatropha oil to generate
electricity. A report by ERGAL – the organization in charge of developing projects
related to renewable energy in the Galapagos – shows that the national production of this
type of oil would fulfill the needs of the entire archipelago in terms of electricity
production (ERGAL 2015). In this scenario, the largest investment lies in the conversion
of generators to run with biofuel. In 2008 a study found that approximately 8 million
dollars would be needed for the conversion of the whole archipelago (DED 2008), an
amount that would be updated to the current energy demand and technology costs. This
option can cut the fossil fuel consumption in Santa Cruz by 40%. In this scenario, the risk
related to fuel transportation, although lower than the base scenario, would still exist.
5.1.3. LPG consumption
In Ecuador, LPG for domestic use is strongly subsidized to make it an affordable source
of energy for the entire population. High levels of LPG consumption (largely used for
cooking) generate a significant impact on the nation’s economy. The Ecuadorian
government recently launched a campaign to support the diffusion of induction cooking
technology into households. The purpose of this measure is to reduce the direct
consumption of oil-derived fuels such as LPG, thereby shifting the demand toward the
electricity grid. Even if it is not yet possible to assess the impact of this policy in the
Galapagos, a preliminary analysis can be developed. Replacing Santa Cruz’s LPG
consumption with an electric energy supply would reduce approximately 8% of fossil
fuel imports. However, this shift would mean an increase in diesel consumption for
electricity generation in the absence of new sources of renewable energy. In this scenario,
the global environmental risk related to fossil fuel transportation could potentially
increase because LPG arrives in the Galapagos in storage cylinders while diesel is carried
in tanker vessels and transferred several times.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1651
5.2. Local agricultural production vs. imports
As explained in the imports section of MFA, local production cannot meet the islands’
self-sufficiency challenge because of local resource scarcity and the prioritization of
conservation policies in the Galapagos. Despite these constraining conditions, the local
system can still improve its production and productivity, to reduce the import of goods
(mainly organic products) and therefore reduce the related biological risk of ecosystem
contamination.
Focusing on the food supply analysis (i.e., farming and cattle raising products, fish,
processed food), local production (6,360 tons) is around half of ‘organic goods’ imports
(12.440 tons). As such, in the Santa Cruz market, just one-third of these types of products
are produced locally. Although an uncertainty is introduced due to a lack of detailed
information for air-carrier imports in 2012, a deeper analysis can still be carried out.
Aggregating products in categories, the most significant group in terms of quantity is
‘fresh and perishable farming products,’ of which more than 50% are locally produced.
Most ‘dairy products’ are produced on the island, as well as ‘meat and eggs.’ Conversely,
‘dry food products’ and ‘processed food’ (excluding dairy products) are almost totally
imported and represent 60% of ‘organic imports’ by ships (7,410 tons), thus more than
the global amount of ‘organic goods’ produced in Santa Cruz. These last values show
almost a total lack of food transformation industry on the island (except for the dairy
industry and coffee), strengthening the island’s dependence on the mainland.
Several local decision-makers and experts have discussed means by which the Santa
Cruz agricultural system could increase food production and overall productivity
(Chiroboga and Maignan 2006; SIPAE 2006; MAGAP 2009; CGREG 2012a; GADMSC
2012; Viteri-Mej!
ıta 2014; Guzm!
an and Poma 2015), including:
land planning reorganization according to soils’ agricultural potential;
better water resource management;
fostering a food processing industry and technology transfer in agriculture;
promoting cooperation among farmers and provisioning support in product
commercialization;
the introduction of market mechanisms to incentivize or protect local production.
In the Santa Cruz system, therefore, local production of fresh and processed products
can be both supported through specific policies and plans. Boosting the production of fresh
products or the inception of a food processing industry are different strategies that could be
developed simultaneously, but it is also important to consider their impact on the local
system. The food processing industry in Santa Cruz provides an excellent opportunity in
socioeconomic terms as it would increase the value chain of local production, while also
reducing the periodicity of some cultivations and products – thereby limiting seasonal
overproduction. Furthermore, it would have a great potential in local and touristic markets
because of a lack of competition on the island. On the other hand, this strategy, without
any actions taken to increase local production, would have the effect of reducing the
availability of fresh local products in the market (most likely going down below the 50%
threshold). From an ecological perspective, the import of fresh agricultural products is one
of the most dangerous vectors of alien species introduction in the Galapagos. In terms of
ecosystem conservancy, therefore, putting more effort into increasing the local production
of fresh products is a more sustainable strategy. Hence a well-considered and holistic
approach must be found to attain sustainable development within the local agricultural
system while also achieving ecosystem conservation.
1652 A. Cecchin
The particular condition of the Galapagos requires an integration of some market
regulation mechanisms to reduce dependence on the mainland while simultaneously
strengthening conservation policy. Solutions such as import taxation for fresh products
and subsidies for the local agricultural sector might have a positive impact on the island
economy (Viteri-Mej!
ıa 2014). These measures can adjust some local diseconomies,
protecting the local market and compensating for the higher costs of agricultural
production in insular areas. It is not possible to quantify the exact impact of this new
scenario on the flow of fresh food due to contextual complexity (i.e., tourism and local
population demand and needs, agriculture productivity, labor and migration regulation,
etc.), as well as the absence of detailed data. However, it is reasonable to expect an
increase in the local contribution of fresh products accounting for up to 70%–80% of the
total market. A total substitution of imports cannot be achieved because of a prohibition
on some types of cultivation in the archipelago designed to protect the islands’
biodiversity, but other factors should be considered to consolidate or increase the
consumption of local products in the Galapagos. Campaigns to augment awareness about
the strong relationship between local product consumption and ecosystem conservation
goals are an effective strategy by which to change consumption habits, mainly towards
Galapagos’ tourists who generally are quite sensitive to environmental issues.
Clearly a higher demand for local products has to be supported by a parallel strategy
to increase local production and productivity by incentivizing business partnerships
between local producers and tour operators.
6. Conclusions
Although a sustainable and non-conflictual equilibrium between ecosystem conservation
and economic development may be difficult to achieve within the Galapagos Islands,
employing quantitative indicators is essential to support policy-makers’ decisions to
sustainably manage the available resources and ecosystems.
The outcomes of the MFA of Santa Cruz Island expound an economy that largely
depends on imports from the mainland, and the extraction and use of its own limited local
resources. The results of this study demonstrate that there is still much room for
improvement when it comes to management of the outflows (e.g. wastewater, air
pollution and solid waste). The MFA performed here presents indicators of resource use
in the island (MFA results), as well as a qualitative assessment to highlight the most
significant relationships between material flows and their environmental impact. These
include, for example: water supply and contamination, resource-use and land-use conflict
in local resource extraction (e.g. wood and construction material), and the
interdependence between local agricultural policy and natural ecosystem conservation.
This work also evaluates practical options for reducing the human footprint by
quantifying and discussing the local consumption patterns, such as priority actions
needed to reduce fossil fuel use (section 5.1). This study argues that the current focus on
decarbonizing electricity generation, which only makes up 40% of fossil fuel
consumption on the island, may undermine the more ambitious goal of eliminating all
non-renewable energy sources in the archipelago. Hence, more effective and coordinated
efforts should be directed towards the transportation sector, which makes up 50% of the
total fossil fuel demand on the island. In Section 5.2, a scenario assessment based on the
MFA results demonstrates that boosting agro-industrial transformation of local food
production in Santa Cruz may have a positive effect on the local economy, but it would
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1653
also expand the demand for imported fresh products with a consequential increase in
associated biological risks for the local ecosystem.
Besides the policy analysis outlined in the paper, this research is a reference point
for future evaluations related to local sustainable management and resource use in the
Santa Cruz Island and the Galapagos Islands. This study provides data and
information for local policy-makers in improving and tuning local strategies in water
management and pollution control (Section 4.1), natural resources exploitation
(Sections 4.3 and 5.2), waste management (Section 4.4) and energy production and
consumption (Section 5.1).
In contexts such as the Galapagos Islands, where the future of human settlements
depends strictly on the protection of the local ecological system, an in-depth study of
the socio-economic metabolism should become a priority when forming any policy
related to resource use and conservation. This study strongly recommends an
extension of the proposed analysis to the whole archipelago. Linking a comprehensive
MFA (such as the one presented in this study) with an assessment of the socio-
economic system connected to the biophysical flows (such as the previously
mentioned research performed in Isabela by Mart!
ınez-Iglesias and colleagues [2014])
would be a powerful tool to build and evaluate multiple scenarios and policies within
the framework of sustainable resource management. Such effort should be pursued by
the institutions in charge of designing and implementing regional policies for
sustainable development and ecosystem conservation (i.e. Galapagos Regional
Government Council and Galapagos National Park Authority), along with local
governments and other technical and scientific partners (e.g. research centers, local
government agencies and NGOs).
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Prometeo Project of the Secretariat for Higher Education, Science,
Technology and Innovation of the Republic of Ecuador. The research could not have been achieved
without the support of the Technical Secretary of Planning and Sustainable Development for Santa
Cruz Municipality and Agency of Regulation and Control of Biosecurity and Quarantine
of Gal!
apagos, Carpenters Union of Santa Cruz, Conservation International, Control Fund for the
Invasive Species of Gal!
apagos, COOPROPAG – Fishermen Association of Santa Cruz, Department
of Public Water Management – Santa Cruz Municipality, Department of Environmental
Management – Santa Cruz Municipality, ‘El Cascajo’ Farmers Association, Elecgalapagos,
Gal!
apagos Foundation Ecuador, Gal!
apagos National Park, Government Council of Gal!
apagos,
Ministry of Agriculture – Gal!
apagos Office, Petroecuador, ReLuGal, World Wildlife Fund –
Gal!
apagos Office.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Funding
Prometeo Project of the Secretariat of Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation of the
Republic of Ecuador. Grant number [20140541BP].
Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
1654 A. Cecchin
References
ABG. 2013. Resoluci!
on No. D-ABG-004-07-2013. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos: Agency for the
Regulation and Control of Biosecurity and Quarantine for Galapagos. Accessed June 30, 2016.
http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ecu140491.pdf
Bass, S., and B. Dalal-Clayton. 1995. “Small Iisland States and Sustainable Development: Strategic
Issues and Experience.” Environmental Planning Issues 8. Accessed June 30 2016. http://pubs.
iied.org/pdfs/7755IIED.pdf
Benitez-Capistros, F., J. Hug!
e, and N. Koedam. 2014. “Environmental Impacts on the Galapagos
Islands: Identification of Interactions, Perceptions and Steps Ahead.” Ecological Indicators 38:
113–123.
Berube, P. 2014. La demanda y oferta de productos frescos en Gal!
apagos. [Demand and Supply of
Fresh Products in Galapagos]. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos: Conservaci!
on Internacional.
Born, A. F., E. Espinoza, J. C. Murillo, F. Nicolaides, and G. J. Edgar. 2003. “Effects of the Jessica
Oil Spill on Artisanal Fisheries in the Gal!
apagos. Marine Pollution Bulletin 47: 319–324.
Bringezu, S., and Y. Moriguchi. 2002. “Material Flow Analysis.” In A Handbook of Industrial
Ecology, edited by R. U. Ayres and L. W. Ayres, 79–90. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bringezu, S., H. Sch€
uts, and S. Moll. 2003. “Rationale for and Interpretation of Economy-Wide
Materials Flow Analysis and Derived Indicators.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 7 (2): 43–64.
Brunner, P. H., and H. Rechberger. 2004. Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis. Boca
Raton, FL: Lewis.
Cecchin, A. 2015. “La gesti!
on de los residuos entre formalidad e informalidad: l
!
ımites y potencialidades
para el reciclaje en Gal!
apagos.” [Formal and Informal Waste Management: Limitations and
Potentialities of Recycling in the Galapagos Islands] UTCencia 2 (2): 61–71. Accessed June 30
2016. http://www.utc.edu.ec/Portals/0/pdf/INV/revistas/2015/UTCiencia%20V-2%20N-2-agosto-
2015.pdf?verD2015-11-26-133016-230
CGREG. 2012a. Plan estrat!
egico de aplicaci!
on de las pol!
ıticas de desarrollo agropecuario de
Gal!
apagos 2012-2016 [Strategic Plan to Implement Agricultural Development Policies in
Galapagos 2012-2016]. Puerto Baquerizo Moreno, Galapagos: Galapagos Regional
Government Council.
CGREC. 2012b. Principales caracter!
ısticas demogr!
aficas de Gal!
apagos: Resultados del Censo
2010 [Main Demographic Characteristics of Galapagos: 2010 Census Results]. Puerto
Baquerizo Moreno, Galapagos: Galapagos Regional Government Council. Accessed June 30
2016. http://www.slideshare.net/radioencantada/principales-caracteristicas-demograficas-de-
galapagos
Chertow, M., E. Fugate, and W. Ashton. 2013. “The Intimacy of Human-Nature Interactions on
Islands.” In Long Term Socio-Ecological Research: Studies in Society-Nature Interactions
Across Spatial and Temporal Scales, edited by S. Singh, H. Haberl, M. Chertow, M. Mirtl, and
M. Schmid, 315–337. Dordrecht: Springer.
Chiriboga, R., and S. Maignan. 2006. An!
alisis aproximativo a los flujos de productos agropecuarios
y a elementos del mercado en Gal!
apagos [Approximate Analysis of Agricultural Product Flows
and Market Elements in Galapagos]. Proyecto ECU/00/G31: Especies Invasoras de las
Gal!
apagos. Ecuador: SIPAE.
Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray.
DED. 2008. Energ!ıa renovable para Gal!apagos: Proyecto ERGAL, Sustituci!on de combustibles
f!
osiles por biocombustibles en la generaci!
on de energ!
ıa el!
ectrica en la Isla Floreana
[Renewable Energies for Galapagos: ERGAL Project, Substitution of Fossil Fuels with
Biofuels in Electricity Generation in Floreana Island]. Quito: German Development Service.
Accessed June 30 2016. http://www.ergal.org/imagesFTP/7734.Estudio_de_Factibilidad_par
a_el_Uso_de_Bicombustibles.pdf
Deschenes, P. J., and M. Chertow. 2004. “An Island Approach to Industrial Ecology: Towards
Sustainability in the Island Context.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47:
201–217.
D’Ozouville, N. 2007. “Fresh Water: The Reality of a Critical Resource.” In Galapagos Report
2006–2007, 146–150. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos: Charles Darwin Foundation. Accessed June 30
2016. http://www.galapagos.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/biodiv10-fresh-water-reality.pdf
Eckelman, M. J., W. Ashton, Y. Arakaki, K. Hanaki, S. Nagashima, and L. C. Malone-Lee. 2014.
“Island Waste Management Systems.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 18: 306–317.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1655
Eckelman, M. J., and M. R. Chertow. 2009. “Using Material Flow Analysis to Illuminate Long-Term
Waste Management Solutions in Oahu, Hawaii.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 13: 758–774.
Ecuador Government. 2009. Ley de miner!
ıa [Mining Law]. Suplemento del Registro Oficial 517.
Quito. Accessed June 30 2016. http://www.hidrocarburos.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/down
loads/2012/09/ley_mineria_ec.pdf
Edgar, G. J., L. Kerrison, S. A. Shepherd, and M. V. Toral-Granda. 2003. “Impacts of the Jessica Oil
Spill on Intertidal and Shallow Subtidal Plants and Animals.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 47:
276–283.
Epler, B., 2007. Tourism, the Economy, Population, Growth, and Conservation in Galapagos.
Puerto Ayora, Galapagos: Charles Darwin Foundation.
ERGAL. 2015. Accessed June 30 2016. http://www.ergal.org/cms.php?cD1272
Eurostat. 2013. Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounts (EW-MFA): Compilation Guide.
Luxembourg: European Statistical Office. Accessed June 30 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
documents/1798247/6191533/2013-EW-MFA-Guide-10Sep2013.pdf/54087dfb-1fb0-40f2-
b1e4-64ed22ae3f4c
Fernandes, J. P., N. Guiomar, and A. Gil. 2015. “Strategies for Conservation Planning and
Management of Terrestrial Ecosystems in Small Islands (Exemplified for the Macaronesian
Islands).” Environmental Science and Policy 51: 1–22.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., F. Krausmann, S. Giljum, S. Lutter, A. Mayer, S. Bringezu, Y. Moriguchi, H.
Sch€
utz, H. Schandl, and H. Weisz. 2011. “Methodology and Indicators of Economy-Wide
Material Flow Accounting: State of the Art and Reliability Across Sources.” Journal of
Industrial Ecology 15: 855–876.
GADMSC. 2012. Plan de desarrollo y ordenamiento territorial Cant!on Santa Cruz 2012-2027
[Land Use and Development Plan of Santa Cruz County 2012-2027]. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos:
Santa Cruz Municipal Government. Accessed June 30 2016. http://www.gobiernogalapagos.
gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/08/PDOT-Santa-Cruz-2012_2_primero.pdf and
http://www.gobiernogalapagos.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/08/PDOT-Santa-
Cruz-2012_2_segundo.pdf
Giampietro, M., K. Mayumi, and J. Ramos-Martin. 2009. “Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of
Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism (MuSIASEM): Theoretical Concepts and Basic
Rationale.” Energy 34: 213–322.
Ginard, X., and I. Murray. 2015. “El metabolismo socioecon!
omico de las Islas Baleares, 1996–
2010” [Socioeconomic Metabolism of the Balearic Islands, 1996-2010]. In El metabolismo
econ!omico regional espa~nol, [The Spanish Regional Economic Metabolism], edited by
O. Carpintero, 307–383. Madrid: FUHEM Ecosocial. Accessed June 30 2016.https://www.
fuhem.es/media/cdv/file/biblioteca/Metabolismo/Cap._quinto_Metabolismo_socioeconomico_I
slas_Baleares_X.Ginard_I.Murray.pdf
GNP. 2014. Plan de manejo de las !
areas protegidas de Gal!
apagos para el Buen Vivir [Galapagos’
Protected Areas Management Plan for the “Good Living”]. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos:
Galapagos National Park.
Gonz!
alez, J. A., C. Montes, J. Rodriguez, and W. Tapia. 2008. “Rethinking the Galapagos Islands as
a Complex Social-Ecological System: Implications for Conservation and Management.”
Ecology and Society 13 (2):13 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art13/
Guyot-T!
ephany, J., C. Grenier, and D. Orellana. 2013. “Uses, Perceptions and Management of
Water in Galapagos.” In Galapagos Report 2011-2012, edited by GNPS, GCREG, CDF, GC,
67–74. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos: Galapagos Conservancy.
Guzm!
an, J. C., and J. E. Poma. 2015. “Bioagricultura: una oportunidad para el buen vivir insular”
[Bio-Agriculture: An Opportunity for the Island Good Living]. In Galapagos Report 2013-
2014, edited by DPNG, GCREG, FCD, GC, 25–29. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos: Galapagos
Conservancy. Accessed June 30 2016. http://www.darwinfoundation.org/media/filer_public/11/
55/1155bb44-6ae9-472c-9b7e-75e588c4d198/informegalapagos_2013-2014.pdf
Hein, P. 2010. Views and Perspectives of the Committee for Development Policy on United Nations
Support for Small Island Developing States. New York: Economic and Social Affairs, United
Nations Development Policy and Analysis Division and Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, UN. Accessed June 30 2016. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/
cdp_background_papers/bp2010_10.pdf
Houseknecht, M., C. Kim, and A. Whitman. 2006. Material Flows on the Island of Hawai’i. Hilo,
HI: The Kohala Center.
1656 A. Cecchin
Kerr, S., S. Cardenas, and J. Hendy. 2004. Migration and the Environment in the Galapagos:
An Analysis of Economic and Policy Incentives Driving Migration, Potential Impacts from
Migration Control, and Potential Policies to Reduce Migration Pressure. Motu Working Paper
Series No. 03-17. Accessed June 30 2016. http://motu-www.motu.org.nz/wpapers/03_17.pdf
Kerr, S. A. 2005. “What is Small Island Sustainable Development About?” Ocean and Coastal
Management 48: 503–524.
Krausmann, F., R. Richter, and N. Eisenmenger. 2014. “Resource Use in Small Island States.”
Journal of Industrial Ecology 18: 294–305.
Leith, P., K. O’Toole, M. Haward, B. Coffey, C. Rees, and E. Ogier. 2014. “Analysis of Operating
Environments: A Diagnostic Model for Linking Science, Society and Policy for
Sustainability.” Environmental Science and Policy 39: 162–171.
Lenzen, M. 2008. “Sustainable Island Businesses: A Case Study of Norfolk Island.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 16: 2018–2035.
Liu, J., and N. D’Ozouville. 2013. “Water Contamination in Puerto Ayora: Applied
Interdisciplinary Research Using Escherichia coli as an Indicator Bacteria.” In Galapagos
Report 2011-2012, edited by GNPS, GCREG, CDF, GC, 76–83. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos:
Galapagos Conservancy.
Lougheed, L. W., G. J. Edgar, and H. L Snell, eds. 2002. Biological Impacts of the Jessica Oil Spill
on the Gal!
apagos Environment. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos: Charles Darwin Foundation.
MAGAP. 2009. Direcci!
on Provincial Agropecuaria de Gal!
apagos: Plan estrat!
egico 2009-2020
[Galapagos Agriculture and Livestock Provincial Office: Strategic plan 2009-2020].
Galapagos: Ministry of Agriculture, Galapagos Regional Office.
Marshall, P. A., and G. J. Edgar. 2003. “The Effect of the Jessica Grounding on Subtidal
Invertebrate and Plant Communities at the Gal!
apagos Wreck Site.” Marine Pollution Bulletin
47: 284–295.
Mart!
ınez-Iglesias, C., A. H. Sorman, M. Giampietro, and J. Ramos-Mart!
ın. 2014. Assessing
Biophysical Limits to the Economic Development of Remote Islands: The Case of Isabela in the
Galapagos Archipelago. Working Paper Series 2014–01. Centro de Prospectiva Estrat!
egica
(CEPROEC) - Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales (IAEN). Accessed June 30 2016. http://
ceproec.iaen.edu.ec/download/wps/2014_01.pdf
Mauchamp, A. 1997. “Threats from Alien Plant Species in the Gal!
apagos Islands.” Conservation
Biology 11: 260–263.
Michaels, S. 2009. “Matching Knowledge Brokering Strategies to Environmental Policy Problems
and Settings.” Environmental Science and Policy 12: 994–1011.
Miller, B. W., I. Breckheimer, A. L. McCleary, L. Guzm!
an-Ramirez, S. C. Caplow, J. C. Jones-
Smith, and S. J. Walsh. 2010. “Using Stylized Agent-Based Models for Population-
Environment Research: A Case Study from the Gal!
apagos Islands.” Population and
Environment 31: 401–426.
Mimura, N., L. Nurse, R. F. McLean, J. Agard, P. Briguglio, R. Lefale, R. Payet, and G. Sem. 2007.
“Small Islands. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.” In Contribution
of Working Group II Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, edited by M. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E.
Hanson, 687–716. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moriguchi, Y., and S. Hashimoto. 2015. “Material Flow Analysis and Waste Management.” In
Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology, edited by R. Clift and A. Druckman, 247–262. London:
Springer.
Nielsen, S. N., and S. E. Jørgensen. 2015. “Sustainability Analysis of a Society Based on Exergy
Studies: A Case Study of the Island of Samsø (Denmark).” Journal of Cleaner Production 96:
12–29.
OECD. 2008. Measuring Material Flows and Resource Productivity: Volume 1. The OECD Guide.
Paris: OECD.
Owens, E. L., Q. Zhang, and J. R. Mihelcic. 2011. “Material Flow Analysis Applied to Household
Solid Waste and Marine Litter on a Small Island Developing State.” Journal of Environmental
Engineering 137: 937–944.
Polido, A., E. Jo~
ao, and T. B. Ramos. 2014. “Sustainability Approaches and Strategic
Environmental Assessment in Small Islands: An Integrative Review.” Ocean and Coastal
Management 96: 138–148.
Reyes, M. F., N. Trifunovic, S. Sharma, and M. Kennedy. 2015. “Water Supply Assessment on
Santa Cruz Island: A Technical Overview of Provision and Estimation of Water Demand.” In
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1657
Galapagos Report 2013-2014, edited by DPNG, GCREG, FCD, GC, 46–53. Puerto Ayora,
Galapagos: Galapagos Conservancy. Accessed June 30 2016. http://www.galapagos.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/GalapagosReport_2013-2014-7-Reyes-46-53.pdf
Saito, O. 2013. “Resource Use and Waste Generation by the Tourism Industry on the Big Island of
Hawaii.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 17: 578–589.
Salazar, S. 2003. “Impacts of the Jessica Oil Spill on Sea Lion (Zalophus wollebaeki) Populations.”
Marine Pollution Bulletin 47: 313–318.
Sarkar, S., J. F. Chamberlain, and S. A. Miller. 2011. “A Comparison of Two Methods to Conduct
Material Flow Analysis on Waste Tires in a Small Island Developing State.” Journal of
Industrial Ecology 15: 300–314.
Singh, S. J., C. M. Gr€
unb€
uhel, H. Schandl, and N. Schulz. 2001. “Social Metabolism and Labour in
a Local Context: Changing Environmental Relations on Trinket Island.” Population and
Environment 23: 71–104.
SIPAE. 2006. Definici!
on de pol!
ıticas agrarias con !
enfasis en el control y erradicaci!
on de especies
introducidas y su incidencia en la econom!
ıa y ecolog!
ıa insular. Proyecto ECU/00/G31:
Especies Invasoras de las Gal!
apagos [Agriculture Policy Outline with Emphasis on Introduced
Species Control and Eradication and its Effect on the Island Economy and Ecology. Project
ECU/00/G31: Invasive Species in the Galapagos]. Quito: SIPAE.
Snell, H. L., A. Tye, C. E. Causton, and R. Bensted-Smith. 2002. “Current Status of and Threats to
Terrestrial Biodiversity of Galapagos.” In A Biodiversity Vision for the Galapagos Islands,
edited by R. Bensted-Smith, 30–47. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos: Charles Darwin Foundation and
World Wildlife Fund.
Sundkvist, A
!
., A. Jansson, A
!
. Enefalk, and P. Larsson. 1999. “Energy Flow Analysis as a Tool for
Developing a Sustainable Society: A Case Study of a Swedish Island.” Resources Conservation
and Recycling 25: 289–299.
Tamura, S., and K. Fujie. 2014. “Material Cycle of Agriculture on Miyakojima Island: Material
Flow Analysis for Sugar Cane, Pasturage and Beef Cattle.” Sustainability 6: 812–835.
Tapia, W., P. Ospina, G. D. Quiroga Reck, J. A. Gonz!
alez, and C. Montes. 2009. “Entendiendo
Gal!
apagos como un sistema socioecol!
ogico complejo: implicaciones para la investigaci!
on
cient!
ıfica en el archipi!
elago” [Understanding Galapagos as a Complex Socioeconomic System:
Implications for Scientific Research in the Archipelago]. In Ciencia para la sostenibilidad en
Gal!
apagos: el papel de la investigaci!
on cient!
ıfica y tecnol!
ogica en el pasado, presente y futuro
del archipi!
elago [Science for Sustainability in Galapagos: The Role of Scientific and
Technological Research in the Past, Present and Future of the Archipelago], edited by
W. Tapia, P. Ospina, D. Quiroga, J.A. Gonz!
alez, and C., Montes, 127–140. Quito: Parque
Nacional Gal!
apagos, Universidad Andina Sim!
on Bol!
ıvar, Universidad Aut!
onoma de Madrid
and Universidad San Francisco de Quito.
Taylor, E., G. A. Dyer, M. Stewart, A. Yunez"Naude, and S. Ardila. 2003. “The Economics of
Ecotourism: A Gal!
apagos Islands Economy"Wide Perspective.” Economic Development and
Cultural Change 51 (4): 977–997.
Taylor, E., J. Hardner, and M. Stewart. 2006. Ecotourism and Economic Growth in the Galapagos:
An Island Economy-Wide Analysis. Agriculture and Resource Economics Working Papers,
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UCD. Accessed June 30 2016. https://
escholarship.org/uc/item/3wc975kp
UNEP. 2013. Identifying Emerging Issues from the Perspective of the Small Island Developing
States. Cambridge: UNEP and UNDESA. Accessed June 30 2016. https://sustainabledevelop
ment.un.org/content/documents/1880sidsegm2.pdf
Utreras, R., J. Galindo, R. Rosero, G. Urgil!
es, N. Vacas, P. Durango, and M. Arias. 2014. Matriz de
contabilidad social con componente ambiental para las Islas Gal!
apagos [Environmentally
Extended Social Accounting Matrix for the Galapagos Islands]. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos:
Conservaci!
on Internacional Ecuador and Mentefactura.
Valdivia, G., W. Wolford, and F. Lu. 2014. “Border Crossings: New Geographies of Protection and
Production in the Gal!
apagos Islands.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104:
686–701.
Viteri-Mej
!
ıa, C. 2014. Propuestas de pol!
ıtica p!
ublica para la restauraci!
on el paisaje agr
!
ıcola
en las Islas Gal!
apagos: Documento de discusi!
on [Public Policy Proposals for Agricultural
Landscape Restoration in the Galapagos Islands: Discussion Document]. Galapagos: Conservaci!
on
Internacional.
1658 A. Cecchin
Watkins, G., and F. Cruz. 2007. Galapagos at Risk: A Socioeconomic Analysis. Puerto Ayora,
Galapagos: Charles Darwin Foundation. Accessed June 30 2016. http://www.galapagos.org/
wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Galapagos-at-Risk.pdf
Wildaid. 2012. The Quarantine Chain. San Francisco: Wildaid. Accessed June 30 2016. http://
www.wildaid.org/sites/default/files/resources/QuarantineChain.pdf
WWF and Toyota. 2010. Waste Management Blueprint for the Gal!
apagos Islands. Puerto Ayora,
Gal!
apagos: WWF. Accessed June 30 2016. http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/329/
files/original/Waste_Management_Blueprint_for_the_Gal%C3%A1pagos_Islands_
(PDF__2.01_MB)_2010.pdf?1345732665&_gaD1.29647737.752985104.1468382126
Zapata, C.. 2008. Propuesta de pol!
ıtica agropecuaria de Gal!
apagos, enfocada en el mercado
[Proposal for Market-Focused Agriculture and Livestock Policy in Galapagos]. Puerto Ayora,
Galapagos: FUNDAR, UNPD, Ministry of Environment of Ecuador.
Zapata, C. 2009. Estudio de oferta y demanda de productos agr!
ıcolas de Gal!
apagos, Ecuador
[Study of Demand and Supply of Agricultural Products in Galapagos]. Puerto Ayora,
Galapagos: BID-FOMIN, CAPTURGAL.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1659
