Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article Not peer-reviewed version
Analysis of the Management of
Protected Areas in Galapagos: 60 Years
after Its Declaration as a National Park
María Maestro , María Luisa Pérez-Cayeiro , Harry Reyes , Juan Adolfo Chica-Ruiz *
Posted Date: 23 May 2024
doi: 10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
Keywords: assessment; Galápagos; management; marine protected areas; socio-ecosystem.
Preprints.org is a free multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that
is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently
available and citable. Preprints posted at Preprints.org appear in Web of
Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.
Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Article
Analysis of the Management of Protected Areas in
Galapagos: 60 Years after Its Declaration as a
National Park
María Maestro 1, María Luisa Pérez-Cayeiro 2, Harry Reyes 3 and Juan Adolfo Chica-Ruiz 4,*
1 Faculty of Ocean and Environmental Sciences, University of Cadiz, Avda. República Saharaui s/n, Puerto
Real 11510, Puerto Real, Cadiz, Spain; maria.maestro@uca.es
2 Institute of Marine Research (INMAR), University of Cadiz, Avda. República Saharaui s/n, Puerto Real
11510, Cadiz, Spain; isa.perez@uca.es
3 Galápagos National Park Directorate, Av. Charles Darwin s/n, Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos
Islands, Ecuador; hreyes@galapagos.gob.ec
4 Institute of Marine Research (INMAR), University of Cadiz, Avda. República Saharaui s/n, Puerto Real
11510, Cadiz, Spain; adolfo.chica@uca.es
* Correspondence: adolfo.chica@uca.es
Abstract: The Galápagos Islands are one of the most emblematic protected areas on the planet, and also one of
the most studied. Their main economic activity is tourism, which has grown rapidly in recent years. The
increase in tourists is associated with the increase in population and the introduction of invasive species, which
puts conservation at risk. This makes adequate management even more necessary and relevant on an
international scale, since the economy of Galápagos depends on the good state of conservation of its ecosystems
and species. Numerous studies have shown that social factors, rather than physical-natural ones, determine
the success or failure of a marine protected area (MPA), so they must be urgently incorporated into all phases
of MPA management. In this study we have analyzed the management of the protected areas of Galápagos:
the National Park and the Marine Reserve. The methodology used presents five prescribed scenarios in which
priority is given to one or other factors, each of which has an impact on biophysical and socio-economic systems
that are influenced by the MPA. These scenarios have been called: proactive, interactive, centralized, learning,
and formal management. The results show that the archipelago’s protected areas follow a proactive
management model, with a continuous feedback loop. This feedback is a key element in any adaptive
management process, which also allows practitioners to anticipate future problems. Both public participation
and strategic planning are essential.
Keywords: assessment; Galápagos; management; marine protected areas; socio-ecosystem
1. Introduction
The designation of marine protected areas (MPAs) has increased worldwide in recent decades,
which places value on protection as one of the most effective tools to conserve biodiversity and
natural resources, and to decrease human impacts [1,2]. However, the protection of biodiversity is no
longer an end in itself, but has evolved towards more ambitious goals, such as the conservation of
the planet’s natural capital or the fight against climate change [2,3].
MPAs can have different levels of protection and/or use of spaces and their resources. Generally,
the benefits for local communities and the general population, as well as for biodiversity, tend to be
greater as the level of protection increases [4–7]. However, the results are not always obvious or
immediate. This increase in the number of MPAs has often caused resistance from local communities,
who see the protection of the oceans as a limitation on their rights in the use of resources [8–11].
Because of this, there has also been increased work on the impact that MPAs have on the lifestyle and
well-being of coastal communities [12,13]. Numerous studies have shown that social factors, rather
than physical-natural factors, determine the success or failure of an MPA [14–17], so they must be
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
© 2024 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.
2
incorporated into all phases of MPA management [9,10]. The inclusion of the social dimension in the
design, implementation and management of MPAs is more recent than that of the biological aspects.
In many MPAs, it has received little attention [14,18,19].
The Galapagos Islands are one of the most emblematic protected areas on the planet, and also
one of the most studied and best preserved archipelagos. An exceptionally high percentage of the
flora and fauna are endemic, including 42% of the vascular plants, 67% of the terrestrial vertebrates
and 20% of the coastal fish, marine algae and marine invertebrates [20]. It has a great abundance of
marine megafauna, including sharks, manta rays, turtles, sea lions and fur seals [21]. There is also a
great deal of variation among the islands, as they are home to genetically distinct populations, races
and species, reflecting the different stages of genetic diversification [20].
Since its constitution as a National Park (NP) in 1959, a management system based on scientific
research has been developed. Although numerous studies have been carried out, these have mainly
focused on biodiversity, which is undoubtedly necessary for the protected area to be considered
successful, while those in the socio-economic field are more recent and scarce, and mainly address
the fisheries sector [22–26] and tourism [27–30]. Today the main economic activity is tourism, which
has grown rapidly in recent years [27,29,31,32]. The increase in tourists is associated with population
growth and the introduction of invasive species, which puts conservation at risk. This makes
adequate management even more necessary and relevant at an international scale, since the economy
of Galapagos depends on the good state of its ecosystems and species.
The declaration of the Marine Reserve (MR) in 1998, caused major conflicts between the
administration and fishers, who saw their opportunities for development limited. This led to a lack
of respect for fishing restrictions, the drastic decrease of the main fish species and effects on the
marine ecosystem and the local economy [33,34]. Due to problems of local development, the increase
in internal and external pressures and the conflicts generated between the population and the
administration [35], there is a need for multidisciplinary and applied research, which considers
Galapagos as a socio-ecosystem and allows local interests to be combined with better management
of the ecosystems. According to Salas et al. [36], a socio-ecosystem is a complex and adaptive system
that refers to the processes of coupling and interaction between social systems (culture, economy,
social and political organization) and ecological systems (nature) in a given space-time.
Protected areas are especially important in remote islands, both for local people and
conservation organizations due, among other factors, to the concentration of human activities in
coastal areas and the high dependence on marine ecosystem services [37–39]. In this regard, recent
publications suggest that marine spatial planning (MSP), including MPAs, should evolve towards a
bottom-up model, in which local population are involved in planning processes [40], or towards an
intermediate model that combines elements of both top-down and bottom-up [41–43], as exemplified
in Figure 1 for Galapagos.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
3
Figure 1. Bottom-up vs. top-down models in MPAs applied in Galapagos.
The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) is the most comprehensive global database on
terrestrial and marine protected areas. It is a joint project between the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), managed by
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). The IUCN-WDPA has developed a
framework for evaluation based on indicators. It comprises an iterative cycle of context, vision,
planning, inputs, management processes, products, results and evolution [44]. The indicators
measure the inputs and outputs of management to evaluate strengths, weaknesses and needs. Based
on this framework, several specific methodologies have been developed with a consistent and global
approach that assess the effectiveness of management (Table 1).
Table 1. Some examples of methodologies to assess the management of protected areas based on the
IUCN-WDPA framework.
Name Year Characteristics Source
Rapid Assessment
and Prioritization of
Protected Area
Management
2003
Identifying strengths and weaknesses of
management in networks of protected areas,
comparing the management of different places.
It is the most commonly used today
[45]
Management
Effectiveness
Tracking Tool
2007
To evaluate the progress of management in an
individual protected area over time. The Marine
Score-Card evaluation is an adaptation of this
methodology for MPAs
[46]
Enhancing our
Heritage 2007
It was originally designed for adaptive
management in Natural World Heritage sites.
It is a more exhaustive methodology than the
previous two, and therefore provides more
detailed results.
[47]
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
4
How is your MPA
doing? 2004 Evaluating the management of MPAs,
prioritizing actions and strengthening support. [48]
Sistema de Análise e
Monitoramento de
Gestão
2016
It is a methodology for evaluating and
monitoring the management of protected areas,
with quick application and immediate results. It
is composed of two main elements: evaluative
characterization and analysis of management
instruments.
[49]
Evidence suggests that organizational and social factors determine the overall success or failure
of a MPA, indicating the inherent need for increased consideration of human dimension [11,18,50–
53]. Also, MPA success has been found to be significantly hampered by governance shortcoming (e.g.,
lack of participation) and capacity shortfalls (e.g., inadequate management processes) [54,55]. In this
context, the analysis of management in the NP and MR of Galapagos is proposed as a tool to
understand the current situation of the actions and management components and to detect strengths
and weaknesses, which will allow effective decisions to be made and future errors to be avoided [44].
In this regard, the Directorate of the Galapagos National Park (DPNG in Spanish) has conducted
three evaluations of management effectiveness, in 1998, 2003 and 2012, being a pioneer in Latin
America [56]. On all three occasions the same methodology was used: Measurement of Management
Effectiveness of Protected Areas [1], based on the WDPA. This evaluation generated information that
was fundamental in defining management programme strategies [56]. Also noteworthy is the work
by Heyling and Bravo [35], who analyzed the co-management regime then in place in the MR. The
analysis was based on nine elements of governance: strategic vision, participation, responsible
representation, consensus orientation, empowerment, equity, credibility, resilience and efficiency.
They concluded that the Galapagos co-management process performed well in terms of strategic
vision, participation, empowerment, consensus orientation and resilience, but not so well in terms of
responsible representation, equity and credibility. In addition, an evaluation of the new zoning of the
MR of Galapagos has recently (2024) been carried out by Castrejón et al. [23].
The objective of this paper is to analyze the management model of the Galapagos National Park
and Marine Reserve, with the intention of highlighting the weaknesses and strengths of the
management of one of the most iconic protected areas in the world. We have chosen a methodology
proposed by Maestro et al. [57], which presents five possible management scenarios and allows us to
see how an MPA is evolving, and to propose a series of improvements.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
The Galapagos archipelago is made up of islands, islets and rocks or promontories of volcanic
origin located in the Pacific Ocean, 960 km from continental Ecuador (Figure 2). The importance of
its biodiversity is recognized at an international level and in 1979 it was declared the first UNESCO
World Heritage Site. It also has been designated as Biosphere Reserve, Whale Sanctuary, RAMSAR
Site, National Park and Marine Reserve [56].
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
5
Figure 2. Galapagos archipelago. Source: adapted from Schuhbauer and Koch [26].
Its protected area consists of the National Park (1959) and the Marine Reserve (1998), covering
97% of the land area and 100% of the marine area, respectively. The NP covers approximately 8,006
km² and occupies most of the 234 emerging land units. The MR comprises the entire marine area
within a forty-nautical-mile strip measured from the straight baselines of the archipelago and its
territorial waters. It has a total area of approximately 138,000 km², of which 70,000 km² is inland, and
1,753 km of coastline [56].
It should be noted that Galapagos has recently (2022) expanded its marine area with the creation
of the Hermandad Marine Reserve [58]. This new MPA is justified, among other reasons, by the
declaration signed at the XXVI United Nations Conference on Climate Change (Glasgow, Scotland)
for the Conservation and Management of Ecosystems within the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine
Corridor (CMAR), which aims to properly manage the biodiversity and resources found between the
Galapagos (Ecuador), Cocos (Costa Rica), Mapelo (Colombia) and Coiba (Panama) islands. The
Hermandad Marine Reserve adds 60,000 km² to the marine area, of which 30,000 km² are for the
protection of critical ecosystems and migratory species, and another 30,000 km² for responsible
fishing [58]. This paper will examine the management of the Galapagos NP and MR.
The Directorate of the Galapagos National Park administers and manages the two areas and
reports directly to the Minister of Environment. This differentiates them from other coastal and
marine protected areas of Ecuador, which are administered through the Undersecretary of Marine
and Coastal Management. However, the Directorate is subject to national, regional and provincial
laws and regulations.
In 2014, the management instruments of the NP and the MR were unified into a single document
that makes it possible to manage the archipelago as a socio-ecosystem, integrating both areas and
these with the inhabited areas of the province. So, at the time of decision-making, the archipelago is
considered as a whole, promoting integrated and comprehensive management.
2.2. Methodology
The methodology used to evaluate the management of the Galapagos National Park and the
Marine Reserve has been designed by Maestro et al. and it has been applied before in the Azores
Marine Park in Portugal [57], Santa Rosa, Marino Ballena and Cahuita National Parks in Costa Rica
[59] and Brijuni National Park, Telašcica Nature Park and Pakleni Islands Significant Landscape in
Croatia [60]. This work has a socio-economic perspective, focusing on the analysis of two
fundamental elements: processes and people involved.
The main feature of this methodology is the classification of the MPAs analyzed in one of the 5
scenarios proposed: proactive, learning, interactive, centralized and formal. This offers a valuable
tool to decision-makers, as it focuses on those weaknesses and strengths that need to be addressed
for the management of the protected area to be improved or maintained (depending on the case). In
brief, the steps to be taken are as follows:
Step 1. Selection of key management aspects
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
6
Based on the bibliography reviewed and analyzed, four management aspects were identified as
key. Key aspects are considered to be those of a transversal nature and that also encompass different
elements. These are: management body, planning stage, public participation, and implementation
stage. Based on the methodologies developed by the WDPA (Table 1), these four aspects have been
chosen because, in a first approach, we aim to cover the whole process of planning and execution,
and the people involved in the management: the managers and stakeholders.
Step 2. Identification of specific indicators
A series of specific indicators (in question form) were selected for each aspect. This resulted in
26 indicators (Table 2), which were chosen based on the literature reviewed and on our expert criteria.
Table 2. Indicators of the assessment.
Key
management
aspect
Indicator Evaluation
Managem
ent body
1. Background of the staff
1 Without basic training or education.
2
Higher education: only natural
sciences.
3
Higher education: multidisciplinary
team (natural and social sciences).
2. Technical training offered to
staff
1 No, or sporadically.
2 Yes.
3 It also anticipates future needs.
3. MPA staff participation in the
planning processes
1 No.
2 Sporadic.
3 In all planning processes.
4. MPA staff have the necessary
procedures to participate in the
planning processes
1 No.
2
It has some procedures, sometimes
insufficient.
3 Yes.
5. Cooperation with other
institutions at the local level
1 No.
2 Not with all institutions or not on a
regular basis.
3
It exists on a regular basis with all
institutions.
6. Cooperation with other
institutions at the regional level
1 No.
2 Not with all institutions or not on a
regular basis.
3
It exists on a regular basis with all
institutions.
7. Cooperation with other
institutions at the international
level
1 No.
2 Not on a regular basis.
3
It exists on a regular basis, with a
large number of institutions.
1 No.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
7
8 Collaboration and exchange of
knowledge with other
international
projects/programmes
2 Not on a regular basis.
3
It exists on a regular basis, with a
large number of
projects/programmes.
Planning
stage
9. Management plan
1 No.
2
Not implemented, or only partially
implemented.
3
It exists, is updated, is fully
implemented, and has an established
schedule for regular reviews and
updates.
10. Strategies and management
measures identified with the
management objectives
1 They do not exist or are not related to
the objectives.
2
They exist partly in relation to the
objectives.
3
They exist and are completely
identified with the objectives.
11. Operational Plan
1 No.
2 Partially implemented.
3 Fully implemented.
12. Ecosystem diagnosis carried
out prior to the development of
the management plan
1 No.
2 Not available to interested parties.
3 Yes, and it is published or available.
13. The MPA integrated into an
MPA network
1 No.
2 It’s in the process of being integrated.
3 Yes.
Public
participati
on
14. Public participation in the
process of developing the
management plan
1 There was or is no management plan.
2 Yes.
3
Yes, at all stages of the development
of the management plan and
participation is foreseen for the
evaluation of the management plan.
15.
Representative public
participation in the process of
developing the management plan
1
There was no management plan, it
was not representative or there is no
management plan.
2
Only the priority groups were
represented.
3 Both primary and
secondary users
were represented.
1 No.
2 Through consultation
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
8
16. Social actors participation in
management decision making or
planning processes
3 Interactive participation with a direct
impact on decision making
17. Collegiate body for
participation
1 No.
2 Is not representative and/or does not
function properly.
3
It exists, it is representative and it
works properly.
18. Communication between
stakeholders and managers
1 Very little or none.
2
Not within an established
programme.
3
A communication programme is
being implemented to build
stakeholder support for the MPA.
19. Sustainability education
activities
1 No.
2 Sporadically.
3
On a regular basis and with wide
participation.
20. Volunteer or environmental
communication activities
1 No.
2 Sporadically.
3
On a regular basis and with wide
participation.
21. MPA information available to
stakeholders and the general
public
1 No.
2 Part is available upon request to the
park management.
3
It is available on the website,
available to any interested party.
Implemen
tation
stage
22. Zoning of the MPA
1
It does not exist for the use or
conservation of resources.
2
It exists for use and conservation, but
it is only partially functional or
outdated.
3 It exists updated, with measures and
concrete uses for each zone.
23. Budget allocated for the
management of the MPA is
adequate
1 This information is not accessible.
2
The
budget guarantees the costs of
the administration and surveillance
staff and the means necessary for
management (vehicles, equipment,
fuel, etc.).
3
The budget also allows for other
innovative activities such as:
research, development, etc.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
9
24. Monitoring and evaluation of
biophysical, socio-
economic and
governance indicators
1 No.
2
It does not follow a strategy or regular
collection of results, which are not
systematically used for management.
3
There is a good system of monitoring
and evaluation, which is well
implemented and used in adaptive
management.
25. Scientific information
integrated into MPA management
1 No.
2 In some cases.
3 It serves to evaluate and improve the
management of the MPA.
26. The MPA considered a socio-
ecosystem
1 No.
2
The social system is an important
factor, but the natural system is a
priority.
3
It is considered and taken into
account throughout the process.
Some of them have been developed by the authors, while others have been adapted from
WDPA-derived methodologies. From these methodologies, we have selected indicators that address
specific management issues, rather than those that assess the natural physical elements. Table 3
shows the general themes that have been drawn from these sources.
Table 3. Topics evaluated with indicators adapted from other methodologies.
Topics Sources
Trainings [46,47,61]
Planning tools [61]
Management plans [46,47,61,62]
Operative plans [46,47]
Public participation [47,61]
Collegiate bodies [62]
Comunication [46,47,61,62]
Environmental education [47,61]
Volunteer [47]
Information [62]
Budget [47,61]
Monitoring [47,61]
Scientific knowledge [46,47,62]
Step 3. Assessment of indicators: score from 1 to 3 points
Each of the indicators has been rated on a scale of one to three, with one being the most
unfavorable situation and three the optimum. It has been decided to respond with three options
because, although it is a simple form, it covers the entire spectrum of responses, from a negative
assessment of the indicator to an optimal situation, passing through an intermediate state. This
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
10
system facilitates responses and future proposals for improvement. For each indicator, each of the
ranges has been specified to identify what “optimal state” means (Table 2).
To respond to the indicators, several sources of information have been used. A comprehensive
literature review has been carried out, including scientific publications and official government
documents, which has allowed us to obtain information from secondary sources. Moreover, primary
data have been collected through in-depth interviews carried out with representatives of the
management body (in this case, the 7 area directors of the DPNG), with the president of the
fishermen’s association COPROPAG and with an official from the Ministry of Tourism. In addition
to this, the author spent 2 months (August-October 2019) at the DPNG offices conducting in situ
observations.
The information obtained from the bibliographic sources (academic, institutional and from
international organizations) was contrasted with the interviews and what was observed in the field
to determine the score obtained by each indicator.
Step 4. Definition of five possible management scenarios: expert criteria
Once all the indicators have a value from 1 to 3, the average of each of the four key aspects is
calculated, to see what score they obtain. Depending on the value from 1 to 3 of each of the aspects,
the different possibilities that can be found are considered. From this combination, we have proposed
five scenarios that represent five realities, depending on four variables each (Table 4).
A method of analysis and projection of reality through the construction of scenarios has been
used. Alternative (five options) and contrasted (can be compared) scenarios are used [57]. It is a tool
for understanding the potential and limits of management. The factors that define these scenarios can
change over time, thus, are images of present, future, and/or desirable situations [63,64]. Therefore,
it is a proposal that allows us to understand the evolution of a management model. In addition, it can
be seen whether certain specific changes (in any of the indicators) cause significant changes to the
general model or not.
Ordered from the ideal situation to the least favorable, are as follows:
Scenario 1: Proactive management: The team that makes up the management body is
multidisciplinary and highly-trained. They collaborate and cooperate with other institutions.
Participatory management is carried out where all stakeholders are represented. It is planned years
ahead and possible problems are anticipated.
Scenario 2: Learning management: All 4 elements have the same intermediate value, therefore,
they are in a situation where they could be improved. The management body is multidisciplinary. It
is planned for the medium term and is managed in response to past mistakes and successes. There is
public participation but it is not fully representative or well consolidated.
Scenario 3: Interactive management: The authority responsible for management falls largely on
social actors. All stakeholders are well represented and have appropriate participation mechanisms.
Planning and implementation stages are carried out transparently by the authorities. Awareness is
high among the population.
Scenario 4: Centralized management: The management body is sound and multidisciplinary in
its training and activities and functions correctly. It can function at different scales. It has
responsibility, determines the management objectives and develops and executes the management
plan. However, public participation is not very common in decision-making.
Scenario 5: Formal management: Priority is given to short-term management. Planning is
extremely static, public participation in decision-making is not carried out, nor are there evaluation
mechanisms or strategic medium to long-term objectives.
Table 4. Management Scenarios.
Type of
management
Rating
Management
body
Planning
stage
Public
participation
Implementation
stage
Proactive 3 3 3 3
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
11
Learning 2 2 2 2
Interactive 1,2 1,2,3 3 1,2,3
Centralized 3 1,2,3 1,2 1,2,3
Formal* 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2
* Formal management occurs with any combination of one and two when the total is not two.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Evaluation of Indicators
Figure 3 shows the results obtained for each of the indicators of the four elements analyzed. It is
followed by the discussion of the results.
Figure 3. Assessment of indicators.
3.1.1. Management Body
From the institutional point of view, the DPNG is divided into seven directorates, each with a
director and internal planning. There is no doubt that training is essential to successfully address the
management of protected areas. In the DPNG there is an interdisciplinary team that covers a large
number of areas of knowledge, including, for example, graduates in biology, tourism or fisheries
technicians. All managers have a master’s degree. However, there is no solid training programme,
although technical training is offered sporadically. Often, the courses are due to mandatory
0123
Socio-ecosystem
Scientific information
Indicators monitores
Budget
Zoning
Avaliable information
Volunteer programme
Education programme
Communication programme
Collegiate body
Social actors participation
Representative participation
Participative management
MPA network
Diagnosis
Operation plan
Strategies
Management plan
Exchange of knowledge
International cooperation
Regional cooperation
Local cooperation
Necessary procedures
Staff participation
Technical training
Background of the staff
Score
Indicators
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
12
requirements. This has led to the absence of an institutional training culture and a focus on the short
term [56].
There is extensive cooperation and collaboration with other public and private institutions at
different scales. These include the Ministry of Tourism, the Navy Oceanographic Institute, the
Galapagos Special Regime Government Council, the Charles Darwin Foundation, Conservation
International, WWF, Galapagos Conservation and several universities. In addition, on several
occasions, park rangers have undertaken exchange programmes with other national and
international parks. This extensive network of collaboration and exchange is crucial for enhancing
the conservation efforts, ensuring the sustainable management of the NP and MR unique
biodiversity, and sharing valuable knowledge and practices that can lead to more effective
environmental protection strategies globally.
The stability of the management body is fundamental, especially in intermediate positions and
management structures. In the case of Galapagos, successive changes in the leadership of the Ministry
of the Environment and the DPNG intensified the complexity and conflicts during the process of
rezoning the MR approved in 2016 (six DPNG’s directors from November 2012 to December 2018)
[23,65].
3.1.2. Planning State
As mentioned above, since 2014 there has been a single Management Plan that includes both the
NP and the MR. It is presented as an innovative management tool that recognizes Galapagos as a
socio-ecosystem, and therefore becomes an integral part of the planning and territorial management
of the province. Some aspects of the Plan represent a significant change in the approach of the
previous one, like the explicit consideration of ecosystem services and the combination of terrestrial,
aquatic and coastal-marine ecosystems in a single management scheme.
Planning for future (mission, vision and goals) and for carrying out current activities (strategy)
is necessary to achieve better MPA effectiveness [66]. Goals should be quantitative and refined
through time and should have appropriate metrics. Data collection protocols should be selected and
standardized to track the degree of goals achieved. The strategy should be designed consistently with
the formalized mission, vision and goals, to provide clarity on crucial activities, like enforcement,
environmental education and monitoring [66]. This all takes place in the Galapagos. The basic
objectives are articulated in a series of management programs with specific objectives, strategies and
adapted indicators [56].
Although the management plan is valid indefinitely, a 10-year reference horizon has been
established for the development of the programmes, with a view to objectively measuring the
achievements made. The plan will have two highly participatory evaluation processes of its
effectiveness, one after year four and another after year eight, preparing and strategically ordering
information on the socio-ecological system of Galapagos [56]. The first of these reviews began in 2019.
In parallel with the last evaluation of management effectiveness (2012), an analysis of the
problems affecting the management of protected areas was carried out from five main approaches:
conservation, territorial, institutional, social and scientific-technological. The main problems
identified were: 1) ecological integrity and biodiversity threatened by some anthropogenic activities;
2) lack of an integral and shared vision of the territory; 3) lack of articulation between the
management model of the organizational structure and the objectives of the management plan; 4)
minimum support for management from the Galapagos population; and 5) insufficient use of
interdisciplinary research for management by decision makers. This diagnosis is published together
with the management plan.
3.1.3. Public Participation
The management plan for the NP and MR is characterized by a participatory and representative
process during all phases of its preparation, which was innovative in its creation and development
at national level, allowing for greater legitimacy in decision-making processes. However, the lack of
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
13
evaluation and monitoring of this system has caused it to be weakened. This has generated serious
criticism of the DPNG by the fishing sector, affecting the credibility of its decisions.
In 1998, the Organic Law for the Special Regime of Galapagos (LOREG) introduced the concept
of participatory management, for which a Participatory Management Board (PMB) was created,
allowing management decisions to be made by mutual agreement between the stakeholders, and not
exclusively by the environmental authority [67,68]. In 2015 a new LOREG came into force, and the
PMB became an advisory council [65,67], which led to the exclusion of local stakeholders, particularly
the fishing community, from management decision processes [23].
These changes in the management structure of the MR might have influenced both conservation
and socio-economic outcomes, resulting in a decrease in rule adherence, diminishing trust, and
negative economic effects on local livelihoods [23,65,69]. A decrease in stakeholder participation has
introduced difficulties to the adaptability of management practices needed to tackle critical
governance issues. For example, there has been a delay of over nine years in a participatory process
intended to revise fishing regulations, underscoring a lack of ongoing follow-up and accountability
mechanisms previously supported by the PMB [35].
The creation of the MR caused controversy among the inhabitants of the archipelago. This
rejection of an MPA is very common, as traditional resource users see their use rights limited [70,71].
Since then, the DPNG has worked to involve stakeholders and local communities in management
decisions [72]. For example, prior to changes in the zoning of the MR, the DPNG consulted with
various community groups and workshops were held in the cities of Puerto Ayora (Santa Cruz
Island), Puerto Villamil (Isabela Island) and Puerto Baquerizo Moreno (San Cristobal Island). A
similar rezoning process took place in the Great Barrier Reef National Park, where there was an
unprecedented participatory process [73]. However, in Galapagos, the process was not fully known,
as it was decided to create the Darwin and Wolf Marine Sanctuary without prior communication with
the fishermen, which weakened confidence in the administration and damaged the previous work
[23,65]. For their part, fishermen feel that decision-making processes should be more inclusive, take
into account their livelihood needs and leave more time for debate and deliberation. In general, they
claim that the rezoning process did not include adequate participation, and that the zoning plan
should not have been imposed without prior consultation [65]. According to Pazmiño et al. [74], for
the perceptions of Galapagos inhabitants to influence decision-making, there is an urgent need to
increase local technical and organizational capacity.
Information management is crucial to achieve valid and informed decision-making results.
Stakeholders should have access to the rules, decisions, actions and responsibilities of the MPA [75].
In the case of Galapagos, information regarding the park is available to any interested party on the
DPNG website. This aspect is highly advantageous, as it is not universally observed across all MPAs
(i.e., [75]).
3.1.4. Implementation State
The 2014 Management Plan recommended a new zoning for Galapagos NP and MR, which was
approved in 2016. In the case of the MR, the protected area, which until then had been closely related
to use (tourism, artisanal fishing, conservation) and limited to the coastal strip (up to two nautical
miles from the coast line), was considerably expanded. The new zoning includes both coastal and
marine habitats. The non-extraction zone was increased from 0.8% to 34%. In addition, there was a
shift in focus from a traditional model of conservation and biodiversity indicators to one focused on
ecosystem services [65,76]. Despite efforts, the process remains incomplete as of March 2024 [23].
Protected areas are under increasing pressure on their ecosystems and their capacity to generate
services [77], and Galapagos is no exception. This increases the difficulties in obtaining an adequate
budget to meet all management needs. Lack of adequate financial support is often a factor preventing
MPAs from meeting their objectives [78]. The largest source of funding for Galapagos comes from
the Central Government and the income derived from paying the entrance fee to protected areas [56].
Both sources are subject to global economic dynamics, which affect the mobilization of tourists to
Galapagos and, therefore, have a direct impact on annual budgets. Similarly, international support is
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
14
indispensable to complement the implementation of conservation and development programmes in
Galapagos.
The evaluation and monitoring of protected area management is a topic of particular interest
and importance. According to Sarker et al. [79], the success of a MPA depends on the continuous
evaluation and monitoring of biophysical, socio-economic and governance aspects, and their
corresponding adjustments. Monitoring and evaluation is part of the management of Galapagos
protected areas. It makes it possible to determine the level of execution of the various programmes
and strategies and to analyze the impact of the objectives. In addition, it helps to identify weaknesses
and strengths, analyze costs and benefits and generate greater transparency in management. The NP
has been a pioneer in Latin America in adopting, implementing and improving a management
effectiveness evaluation methodology with the experiences of 1998, 2003 and 2012. The results of the
last evaluation served as a starting point for the development of the current Management Plan. The
DPNG also controls the visitors that the park receives through the Visitor Management System,
which monitors the main visitor sites to avoid impacts. In the case of marine resources, the
monitoring is done in collaboration with local fishermen, a key and decisive sector in the
management of the park.
Much research has been carried out in Galapagos, which has generated a great deal of
information from national and international sources. However, the scientific-technical information
does not have an integrated system, limiting its usefulness for management, and in many cases it is
lost. In addition, in the MR, research efforts have often centered mainly on biological and ecological
perspectives over human and social dimensions, ignoring the role of existing collaborative
approaches in building adaptive capacity, although this is gradually changing, and the
socioeconomic perspective is gaining importance [24].
The ecosystem approach includes human and social dimensions. While the biophysical
components may be easy to delineate, humans are more complex and dynamic, but including the
social component can help build public support for an MPA [65,80,81]. For example, in New Zealand,
Aotearoa’s planning evolved from a conflictive to a collaborative process, which was accompanied
by improvements in management efficiency and greater support for MPA implementation [75]. In
Galapagos, the social element is considered just as important as the natural part. This demonstrates
the high value that protected areas have as a livelihood for the local population, thanks to the
provision of ecosystem services. In this context, as one of the most important aspects to guarantee the
future of the local population, the plan promotes the maintenance of the ecological integrity and
resilience of the ecosystems [82], and as such their capacity to generate a rich flow of services for the
sustenance of the population of the archipelago [56].
3.2. General Evaluation
After examining the 4 key elements, the Galapagos protected areas have obtained a score of 2.7
for the management body, 3 for the planning stage, 2.6 for public participation and 2.8 for the
implementation stage (Figure 4). It was determined that the management is currently adapted to a
proactive scenario, since all elements are close to or equal to 3.
Figure 4. Evaluation of the management of the Galapagos protected areas.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
15
The challenge presented by this type of scenario is to maintain proactive management sustained
over time. Conflict with some extractive activities, mainly the fishing sector, is a constant. There are
tools that could be used to improve this situation, such as early warning systems, consultation of
standards, creation of spaces for dialogue, advisory councils, awareness campaigns, etc. [83].
Another threat is the annual budget, which is often unstable and dependent on international
sources. In the case of Galapagos, it is positive that protected areas have private financing
mechanisms, which reduce public dependence (i.e., tourism fees and private foundations), and could
reduce the linkage to the federal budget and finance maintenance, monitoring and surveillance
programs, increasing management efficiency [84].
Even well-managed MPAs have to deal with direct or indirect threats such as climate change,
overfishing or pollution [85,86], although this does not mean that they are not beneficial. There is
evidence to suggest that marine reserves with complex, intact ecosystems are often more resilient and
recover better from disturbance than unprotected areas [87]. Despite the problems faced by
Galapagos protected areas, the management process follows a proactive scenario, which is
continually being fed back. This feedback is a key element in any adaptive management process,
which also allows it to anticipate future problems.
The unification of the two plans into one and the consideration of the archipelago as a socio-
ecosystem represent a great innovation with respect to previous management. This integrative
scenario favors the proactive scenario and adapts to international trends that advocate an ecosystem
approach [2]. Galapagos is an international reference in terms of management and conservation of its
ecosystems and associated services. This is possible thanks to rational management, which also
includes participation in the different stages of the process. All these factors contribute to the
successful management of one of the most symbolic parks in the world, with unique biodiversity, on
which the population depends.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually
long or complex. Our management analysis demonstrates the value of a broad set of metrics for
assessing protection that go beyond biophysical parameters. Collectively, these indicators help guide
efforts towards more adaptive and participatory management that also strengthens biodiversity
conservation.
In the case of Galapagos, planning stands out, in which all indicators have obtained the
maximum score, so from the theoretical point of view it is very satisfactory. The most notable
deficiency, where more emphasis should be placed, is in public participation. While other aspects are
well-developed, this is where the most weaknesses are shown and where attention should be paid to
the successful development of future plans. Participation between stakeholders and managers should
be strengthened (especially the fishing sector), and it should be ensured that adequate tools are
available so that the stakeholders can intervene in management decisions, which will inevitably affect
their lives. Eliminating the deficiencies in the participation system will improve the relations and
trust that the population has in the park, especially the fishing sector. Therefore, it is convenient to
make a serie of recommendations to strengthen some of the indicators with the lowest scores:
- Implement a permanent training program for technicians and managers. This program would
consist of specific courses related to MPA management and would be taught by specialized
university professors and experienced managers.
- Hold regular meetings in Galapagos between the DPNG and research associations or
foundations (Charles Darwin Foundation and Galapagos Conservancy) between technicians and
scientists. The main objective is to improve training through the exchange of experiences, best
practices and the search for solutions to problems.
- Sign collaboration agreements between the DPNG and associations or foundations dedicated
to research (Charles Darwin Foundation and Galapagos Conservancy) for the creation of a
biophysical and socioeconomic database, including all research conducted in the archipelago, which
is updated and available to interested parties.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
16
- Create the Galapagos Participation Forum. It should be a place for free, open (maximum 150-
200 members) and transparent discussion of issues of interest to the community.
- Create a Communication System that disseminates the evolution of the implementation process
of the management plan. In addition, an Annual Management Report will be edited and published,
describing the main achievements obtained during that period of time, as well as pointing out those
projects that encounter obstacles to their development.
- Create a public fund for the conservation and management of Galapagos. This instrument will
serve to encourage and channel the joint actions of the various administrations and individuals. It
could also be fed by proportional shares of certain real estate investments linked to leisure and
recreation, which would be earmarked for the conservation of the natural heritage.
With these recommendations, some of the problems that were already identified in the
evaluation conducted in 2012, and that still persist, could be at least partially solved (specifically, low
support from the population). These recommendations can also help to strengthen and maintain
those indicators that have obtained the highest scores, thus ensuring a proactive management
scenario over time. It is encouraging that the application of this methodology in a case as significant
as Galapagos revealed that the archipelago is moving towards a consistent system of protected areas,
through consolidated strategic planning and the inclusion of the population in all phases of the
management process.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M.; methodology, M.M., M.L.P.-C. and J.A.C.-R.; resources, J.A.C.-
R., H.R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.; writing—review and editing, M.L.P.-C. and J.A.C.-R. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding
author.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Galapagos National Park Directorate and the Campus
of International Excellence of the Sea (CEIMAR) for their support during the research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Cifuentes, M.; Izurieta, A.; de Faria, H. Medición de la efectividad del manejo de áreas protegidas; Serie técnica.
WWF, UICN y GTZ: Turrialba, Costa Rica, 2000; 105 pp. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/7775
2. Maestro, M.; Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Reyes, H. Marine protected areas in the 21st century:
Current situation and trends. Ocean & Coastal Management 2019, 171, 28-36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.01.008
3. Sala, E.; Lubchenco, J.; Grorud-Colvert, K.; Novelli, C.; Roberts, C.; Sumaila, U.R. Assessing real progress
towards effective ocean protection. Marine Policy 2018, 91, 11-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.004
4. Wilson, J. R.; Bradley, D.; Phipps, K.; Gleason, M.G. Beyond protection: Fisheries co-benefits of no-take
marine reserves. Marine Policy 2020, 122, 104224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104224
5. Navarro, M.; Kragt, M.E.; Hailu, A.; Langlois, T.J. Recreational fishers’ support for no-take marine reserves
is high and increases with reserve age. Marine Policy 2018, 96, 44-52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.021
6. Buglass, S.; Reyes, H.; Ramirez-González, J.; Eddy, T.D.; Salinas-de-León, P.; Jarrin, J.M. Evaluating the
effectiveness of coastal no-take zones of the Galapagos Marine Reserve for the red spiny lobster, Panulirus
penicillatus. Marine Policy 2018, 88, 204-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.028
7. Sala, E.; Giakoumi, S. No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean. ICES J.
Marine Science 2017, 75, 1166–1168. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx059.
8. Jones, N.; Graziano, M.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G. Social impacts of European Protected Areas and policy
recommendations. Environmental Science & Policy 2020, 112, 134-140. 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.004
9. Yates, K.L.; Clarke, B.; Thurstan, R.H. Purpose vs performance: What does marine protected area success
look like? Environmental Science & Policy 2019, 92, 76-86. http://hdl.handle.net/10871/34842
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
17
10. Sowman, M.; Sunde, J. Social impacts of marine protected areas in South Africa on coastal fishing
communities. Ocean & Coastal Management 2018, 157, 168-179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.02.013
11. Jentoft, S.; Pascual-Fernandez, J.; De la Cruz Modino, R.; Gonzalez-Ramallal, M.; Chuenpagdee, R. What
stakeholders think about marine protected areas: case studies from Spain. Human Ecology 2012, 40, 185-197.
10.1007/s10745-012-9459-6
12. Eriksson, B.; Johansson, F.; Blicharska, M. Socio-economic imipacts of marine conservation efforts in three
Indonesian fishing communities. Marine Policy 2019, 103, 59-67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.007
13. Mallol, S.; Goñi, R. Unintended changes of artisanal fisheries métiers upon implementation of an MPA.
Marine Policy 2019, 101, 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.043
14. McKinley, E.; Acott, T.; Yates, K.L. Marine social sciences: Looking towards a sustainable future.
Environmental Science & Policy 2020, 108, 85-92. 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.015
15. Zorondo-Rodríguez, F.; Díaz, M.; Simonetti-Grez, G.; Simonetti, J.A. Why would new protected areas be
accepted or rejected by the public?: Lessons from an ex-ante evaluation of the new Patagonia Park Network
in Chile. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104248
16. Morea, J.P. A framework for improving the management of protected areas from a social perspective: The
case of Bahía de San Antonio Protected Natural Area, Argentina. Land Use Policy 2019, 87, 104044.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104044
17. Walton, A.; Gomei, M.; Di Carlo, G. Stakeholder Engagement: Participatory Approaches for the Planning and
Development of Marine Protected Areas; World Wide Fund for Nature and NOAA-National Marine Sanctuary
Program, Roma, Italia, 2013; 23 pp.
18. Di Franco, A.; Thiriet, P.; Di Carlo, G.; Dimitriadis, C.; Francour, P.; Gutiérrez, N.L.; de Grissac, A.J.;
Koutsoubas, D.; Milazzo, M.M.; Otero, M.; Piante, C.; Plass-Johnson, J.; Sainz-Trapaga, S.; Santarossa, L.;
Tudela, S.; Guidetti, P. Five key attributes can increase marine protected areas performance for small-scale
fisheries management. Scientific reports 2016, 6, 38135. 10.1038/srep38135
19. Christie, P.; Bennett, N.J.; Gray, N.J.; Aulani, T.; Lewis, N.A.; Parks, J.; Ban, N.; Gruby, R.L.; Gordon, L.;
Day, J.; Taei, S.; Friedlander, A.M. Why people matter in ocean governance: incorporating human
dimensions into large-scale marine protected areas. Marine Policy 2017, 84, 273-284.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.002
20. Danulat, E. & Edgar, G. (eds.). Reserva Marina de Galapagos. Línea Base de la Biodiversidad. Fundación
Charles Darwin, Servicio Parque Nacional Galapagos, Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador, 2022; 484 pp.
21. Cerutti-Pereyra, F.; Moity, N.; Dureuil, M.; Ramírez-González, J.; Reyes, H.; Budd, K.; Marín, J.; Salinas-de-
León, P. Artisanal longline fishing the Galapagos Islands–effects on vulnerable megafauna in a UNESCO
World Heritage site. Ocean & Coastal Management 2020, 183, 104995.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104995
22. Castrejón, M.; Defeo, O.; Reck, G.; Charles, A. Fishery Science in Galapagos: From a Resource-Focused to a
Social–Ecological Systems Approach. In The Galapagos Marine Reserve. Social and Ecological Interactions in the
Galapagos Islands, 1st ed.; Denkinger, J., Vinueza, L., Eds.; Springer: New York, U.S.A., 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02769-2_8
23. Castrejón, M.; Moity, N.; Charles, A. The bumpy road to conservation: Challenges and opportunities in
updating the Galapagos zoning system. Marine Policy 2024, 163, 106146.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106146
24. Caceres, R.; Pittman, J.; Castrejón, M.; Deadman, P. The Galapagos small-scale fishing sector collaborative
governance network: Structure, features and insights to bolster its adaptive capacity. Regional Studies in
Marine Science 2023, 59, 102800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2022.102800
25. Carr, L.A.; Stier, A.C.; Fietz, K.; Montero, I.; Gallagher, A.J.; Bruno, J.F. Illegal shark fishing in the Galapagos
Marine Reserve. Marine Policy 2013, 39, 317-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.005
26. Schuhbauer, A.; Koch, V. Assessment of recreational fishery in the Galapagos Marine Reserve: Failures and
opportunities. Fisheries Research 2013, 144, 103-110. 10.1016/j.fishres.2013.01.012
27. Burbano, D.V.; Valdivieso, J.C.; Izurieta, J.C.; Meredith, T.C.; Ferri, D.Q. “Rethink and reset” tourism in the
Galapagos Islands: Stakeholders’ views on the sustainability of tourism development. Annals of Tourism
Research Empirical Insights 2022, 3(2), 100057. 10.1016/j.annale.2022.100057
28. Mestanza-Ramón, C.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Anfuso, G.; Mooser, A.; Botero, C.M.; Pranzini, E. Tourism in
Continental Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands: An Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)
Perspective. Water 2020, 12, 1647. doi:10.3390/w12061647.
29. Muñoz, A. La contradicción del turismo en la conservación y el desarrollo en Galapagos-Ecuador. Estudios
y perspectivas en turismo 2015, 24(2), 399-413. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5215615
30. Mejía, C.; Brandt, S. Managing tourism in the Galapagos Islands through Price incentives: A choice
experiment approach. Ecological Economics 2015, 117, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.014
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
18
31. Alencastro, L.A.; Carvache-Franco, M.; Carvache-Franco, W. Preferences of Experiential Fishing Tourism
in a Marine Protected Area: A Study in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. Sustainability 2023, 15(2), 1382.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021382
32. Burke, A. The crossroads of ecotourism dependency, food security and a global pandemic in Galápagos,
Ecuador. Sustainability 2021, 13(23), 13094. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313094
33. Jones, P.J.S. A governance analysis of the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Marine Policy 2013, 41, 65-71.
10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.019
34. Castrejón, M.; Charles, A. Improving fisheries co-management through ecosystem-based spatial
management: the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Marine Policy 2013, 38, 235–245.
35. Heylings, P.; Bravo, M. Evaluating governance: A process for understanding how co-management is
functioning, and why, in the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Ocean & Coastal Management 2007, 50, 174-208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.09.003
36. Salas Zapata, W.; Ríos Osorio, L.; Álvarez, J. Bases conceptuales para una clasificación de los sistemas
socioecológicos de la investigación en sostenibilidad. Revista Lasallista de Investigación 2012, 8(2): 136-142.
37. Sena, N.; Veiga, A.; Semedo, A.; Abu-Raya, M.; Semedo, R.; Fujii, I.; Makino, M. Co-Designing Protected
Areas Management with Small Island Developing States’ Local Stakeholders: A Case from Coastal
Communities of Cabo Verde. Sustainability 2023, 15(20), 15178. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152015178
38. Benítez-Capistros, F.; Hugé, J.; Koedam, N. Environmental impacts on the Galapagos Islands: Identification
of interactions, perceptions and steps ahead. Ecological Indicators 2014, 38, 113-123.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.019
39. Costa, R.; Longnecker, N.; Schmidt, L.; Clifton, J. Marine Conservation in remote small island settings:
Factors influencing marine protected area establishment in the Azores. Marine Policy 2013, 40, 1-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.032
40. Arévalo-Valenzuela, P., Peña-Cortés, F. & Pincheira-Ulbrich, J. Ecosystem services and uses of dune
systems of the coast of the Araucanía Region, Chile: A perception study. Ocean & Coastal Management 2021,
200, 105450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105450
41. Ballarini, E.; D’Adamo, R.; Pazienza, G.; Zaggia, L.; Vafeidis, A. Assessing the applicability of a bottom-up
or top-down approach for effective management of a coastal lagoon area. Ocean & Coastal Management 2021,
200, 105417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105417
42. Ferreira, A.; Seixas, S.; Marques, J.C. Bottom-up management approach to coastal marine protected areas
in Portugal. Ocean & Coastal Management 2015, 118, 275-281.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.008
43. Cowel, C.; Bissett, C.; Ferreira, S.M. Top-down and bottom-up processes to implement biological monitoing
in protected areas. Journal of Environmental Management 2020, 257, 109998.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109998
44. Pomeroy, R.S.; Parks, J.E.; Watson, L.M. Cómo evaluar una AMP. Manual de Indicadores Naturales y Sociales
para Evaluar la Efectividad de la Gestión de Áreas Marinas Protegidas. UICN: Gland, Suiza and Cambridge,
Reino Unido, 2006; XVI + 216 pp.
45. Ervin, J. WWF: Rapid Assessment and prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology.
WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2003.
46. Stolton S.; Hockings, M.; Dudley, N.; MacKinnon, K.; Whitten, T.; Leverington, F. Reporting Progress in
Protected Areas. A Site-Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool, 2nd ed. World Bank, WWF: Gland,
Switzerland, 2007.
47. Hockings, M.; Stolton, S.; Courrau, J.; Dudley, N.; Parrish, J.; James, R.; Mathur, V.; Makombo, J. The World
Heritage Management Effectiveness Workbook: 2007 Edition. UNESCO, IUCN, University of Queensland, The
Nature Conservancy: Queensland, Australia, 2007; 105 pp. https://www.cbd.int/doc/pa/tools/iucn-tnc-
2007-02-en.pdf
48. Pomeroy R.S.; Parks, J.E.; Watson, L.M. How is your MPA doing? A Guidebook of Natural & Social Indicators
for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness. IUCN, WWF, US National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration: Gland and Cambridge, 2004.
49. ICMBio (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade). Relatório de aplicação do sistema de
análise e monitoramento de gestão SAMGe - Ciclo 2020. MMA: Brasilia, Brasil, 2021; 138 pp.
50. Bennett, N.J.; Di Franco, A.; Calò, A.; Nethery, E.; Niccolini, F.; Milazzo, M.; Guidetti, P. Local support for
conservation is associated with perceptions of good governance, social impacts, and ecological
effectiveness. Conservation letters 2019, 12(4), e12640. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12640
51. Di Cintio, A.; Niccolini, F.; Scipioni, S.; Bulleri, F. Avoiding “Paper Parks”: A Global Literature Review on
Socioeconomic Factors Underpinning the Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas. Sustainability 2023, 15(5),
4464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054464
52. Marzo, D.; Cavallini, I.; Scaccia, L.; Guidetti, P.; Di Franco, A.; Calò, A.; Niccolini, F. Drivers of Small-Scale
Fishers’ Acceptability across Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas at Different Stages of Establishment.
Sustainability 2023, 15(11), 9138. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119138
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
19
53. Muccitelli, S.; Pozzi, C.; D’Ascanio, R.; Magaudda, S. Environmental Contract: A Collaborative Tool to
Improve the Multilevel Governance of European MPAs. Sustainability 2023, 15(10), 8174.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108174
54. Di Franco, A.; Hogg, K.E.; Calo, A.; Bennett, N.J.; Sévin-Allouet, M.A.; Alaminos, O.E.; Lang, M.;
Koutsoubas, D.; Prvan, M.; Santarossa, L.; Niccolini, F.; Milazzo, M.; Guidetti, P. Improving marine
protected area and governance through collaboration and co-production. Journal of Environmental
Management 2020, 269, 110757. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110757
55. Gill, D.A.; Mascia, M.B.; Ahmadia, G.N.; Glew, L.; Lester, S.E.; Barnes, M.; Craigie, I.; Darling, E.; Free, C.;
Geldman, J.; Holst, S.; Jensen, O.; White, A.; Basurto, A.; Coad, L.; Gated, R.; Guannel, G.; Mumby, P.;
Thomas, H.; Whitmee, S.; Woodley, S.; Fox, H. Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine
protected areas globally. Nature 2017, 543(7647), 665-669. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21708
56. DPNG (Dirección del Parque Nacional Galápagos). Plan de Manejo de las Áreas Protegidas de Galapagos para
el Buen Vivir. Ministerio del Ambiente: Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador, 2014; 209 pp.
57. Maestro, M.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L. Analysis of marine protected area management: The
Marine Park of the Azores (Portugal). Marine Policy 2020, 119, 104104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104104
58. MAATE (Ministerio del Ambiente, Agua y Transición Ecológica). Plan de Manejo de la Reserva Marina
Hermandad. Dirección del Parque Nacional Galápagos. Subsecretaría de Patrimonio Natural. Fundación de
Conservación Jocotoco, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador, 2023.
59. Maestro, M.; Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L.; Morales-Ramírez, A.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A. Evaluation of the management of
marine protected areas. Comparative study in Costa Rica. Journal of Environmental Management 2022, 308,
114633. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114633
60. Maestro, M.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Popović Perković, Z.; Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L. Marine protected areas
management in the Mediterranean Sea. The case of Croatia. Diversity 2022, 14(6), 448. 10.3390/d14060448
61. Coad, L.; Leverington, F.; Knights, K.; Geldmann, J.; Eassom, A.; Kapos, V.; Kingston, N.; de Lima, M.;
Zamora, C.; Cuardros, I.; Nolte, C.; Burgess, N.D.; Hockings, M. Measuring impact of protected area
management interventions: current and future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management
Effectiveness. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2015, 370, 20140281. ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0281
62. Gillespie, A. PESTEL analysis of the macro-environment. Foundations of Economics. Additional Chapter
on Bussiness Strategy. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007.
63. Licha, I. La construcción de escenarios: herramienta de la gerencia social. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo,
Instituto Interamericano para el Desarrollo (INDES), 2000; 11 pp. http://ibcm.blog.unq.edu.ar/wp-
content/uploads/sites/28/2018/04/Licha-2000.pdf
64. Nygrén, N.A. Scenario workshops as a tool for a participatory planning in a case of lake management.
Futures 2019, 107, 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.10.004
65. Burbano, D.; Meredith, T.; Mulrennan, M. Exclusionary decision-making processes in marine governance:
The rezoning plan for the protected áreas of the ‘iconic’ Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. Ocean & Coastal
Management 2020, 185, 105066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105066
66. Scianna, C.; Niccolini, F.; Giakoumi, S.; Di Franco, A.; Gaines, S.; Bianchi, C.; Scaccia, L.; Bava, S.;
Cappanera, V.; Charbonnel, E.; Culioli, J.M.; Di Carlo, G.; De Franco, F.; Cimitriadis, C.; Panzalis, P.;
Santoro, P.; Guidetti, P. Organization Science improves management effectiveness of Marine Protected
Areas. Journal of Environmental Science 2019, 240, 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.052
67. Llerena E.; Quisingo, T.; Maldonado, R. Analysis of agreements reached in the Participatory Management Board
2010-2015. Galapagos Report 2015-2016. GNPD 105, 111, 2017.
68. Erazo, C. (2005). Informe final: Entre el conflicto y la colaboración: El manejo participativo en la Reserva Marina de
Galápagos. Fundar Galápagos, Puerto Ayora, Ecuador. http://hdl.handle.net/10625/32669
69. Burbano, D.V.; Meredith, T.C. Conservation strategies through the lens of small-scale fishers in the
Galapagos Islands, Ecuador: perceptions underlying local resistance to marine planning. Society & Natural
Resources 2020, 33(10), 1194-1212. 10.1080/08941920.2020.1765058
70. Steinvorth, K. Evaluación integral del impacto de los bienes y servicios ecosistémicos provistos por el Parque Nacional
Marino Ballena sobre las estrategias y medios de vida locales. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y
Enseñanza, Escuela de Posgrado: Turrialba, Costa Rica, 2012.
71. Hind, E.J.; Hiponia, M.C.; Gray, T.S. From community - based to centralised national management - a
wrong turning for the governance of the marine protected area in Apo Island, Philippines. Marine Policy
2010, 34, 54-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.04.011
72. Barragán-Paladines, M.J.; Chuenpagdee, R. A step zero analysis of the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Coastal
Management 2017, 45(5), 339-359. 10.1080/08920753.2017.1345606
73. Emslie, M.; Logan, M.; Williamson, D.; Ayling, A.; MacNeil, M.; Ceccarelli, D.; Cheal, A.; Evans, R.; Johns,
K.; Jonker, M.; Miller, I.; Osborne, K.; Russ, G.; Sweatman, H. Expectations and outcomes of reserve
network performance following re-zoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Current Biology 2015, 25(8),
983-992. 10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.073
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
20
74. Pazmiño, A.; Serrao-Neumann, S.; Low Choy, D. Towards comprehensive policy integration for the
sustainability of small islands: A landscape-scale planning approach for the Galápagos Islands.
Sustainability 2018, 10(4), 1228. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041228
75. Davies, K.; Murchie, A.; Kerr, V.; Lundquist, C. The evolution of marine protected area planning in
Aotearoa New Zeland: Reflections on participation and process. Marine Policy 2018, 93, 113-127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.025
76. Smith, F.; Pazmiño, C.; Calvopiña, M. Propuesta del Plan de Monitoreo para la zonificación de las Áreas Protegidas
de Galapagos. Conservación Internacional: Puerto Ayora, Ecuador, 2018.
77. De Andrés, M.; Barragán, J.; García J. Ecosystem services and urban development in coastal Social-
Ecological Sustem: The Bay of Cádiz case study. Ocean & Coastal Management 2018, 154, 155-167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.011
78. Da Silva, J.M.; de Castro Dias, T.C.; da Cunha, A.C.; Cunha, H.F. Funding deficits of protected areas in
Brazil. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 104926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104926
79. Sarker, S.; Rahman, M.; Yadav, A.; Islam, M. Zoning of marine protected areas for biodiversity conservation
in Bangladesh through socio-spatial data. Ocean & Coastal Management 2019, 173, 114-122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.03.002
80. Bennett, N.J.; Teh, L.; Ota, Y.; Christie, P.; Ayers, A.; Day, J.C.; Franks, P.; Gill, D.; Gruby, R.L.; Kittinger,
J.N.; Koehn, J.Z.; Lewis, N.; Parks, J.; Vierros, M.; Whitty, T. S.; Wilhelm, A.; Wright, K.; Aburto, J.A.;
Finkbeiner, E.M.; Gaymer, C.F.; Govan, H.; Gray, N.; Jarvis, R.M.; Kaplan-Hallam, M.; Satterfield, T. An
appeal for a code of conduct for marine conservation. Marine Policy 2017, 81, 411-418. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MARPOL.2017.03.035
81. Day, J.C. Effective public participation is fundamental for marine conservation-lessons from a large-scale
MPA. Coastal Management 2017, 45(6), 470-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2017.1373452.
82. Noble, M., Harasti, D., Pittock, J. & Doran B. Linking the social to the ecological using GIS methods in
marine spatial planning and management to support resiliente: A review. Marine Policy 2019, 108, 103657.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103657
83. Mora, N. y Bernales, M. Guía práctica para el abordaje de conflictos en el sector pesquero artesanal. Informe
especializado; WWF: Lima, Perú, 2019.
84. Mills, M.; Magris, R.A.; Fuentes M.P.B.; Bonaldo, R.; Herbst, D.F.; Limaf, M.C.S.; Kerber, I.K,G.;
Gerhardinger, L.C.; de Mourai, R.L.; Domitj, C.; Teixeira, J.B.; Pinheirol, H.T.; Vianna, G.M.S., Rodrigues
de Freitas, R. Opportunities to close the gap between science and practice for Marine Protected Areas in
Brazil. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 2020, 18, 161-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2020.05.002
85. Hughes, T., Kerry, J., Alvarez-Noriega, M., Alvarez-Romero, J., Anderson, K., Baird, A., Babcock, R. et al.
Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 2017, 543, 37-377. 10.1038/nature21707
86. Rodgers, K.S., Bahr, K.D., Jokiel, P.L. & Donà, A.R. Patterns of bleaching and mortality following
widespread warming events in 2014 and 2015 at the Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve, Hawai‘i. PeerJ 2017, 5,
e3355. 10.7717/peerj.3355
87. Roberts, C.M., O’Leary, B.C., McCauley, D.J., Cury, P.M., Duarte, C.M., Lubchenco, J., Pauly, D., Sáenz-
Arroyo, A., Sumaila, U.R., Wilson, R.W., Worm, B. & Castilla, J.C. Marine reserves can mitigate and
promote adaptation to climate change. PNAS 2017, 114, 6167-6175. 10.1073/pnas.1701262114
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those
of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s)
disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or
products referred to in the content.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 23 May 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202405.1481.v1
