![Indicators of the assessment. Source: Adapted from Maestro [4].](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382722208/figure/tbl1/AS:11431281264080486@1722453159843/Indicators-of-the-assessment-Source-Adapted-from-Maestro-4_Q320.jpg)
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156532 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
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
2,
*
1
Faculty of Ocean and Environmental Sciences, University of Cadiz, Avda. República Saharaui s/n,
11510 Puerto Real, Cadiz, Spain; maria.maestro@uca.es
2
Institute of Marine Research (INMAR), University of Cadiz, Avda. República Saharaui s/n,
11510 Puerto Real, Cadiz, Spain; isa.perez@uca.es
3
Galápagos National Park Directorate, Av. Charles Darwin s/n, Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz,
Galapagos Islands, Ecuador
* Correspondence: adolfo.chica@uca.es
Abstract: The Galapagos 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 introduc-
tion 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 Galapagos 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 pro-
tected area (MPA), so they must be urgently incorporated into all phases of MPA management. In
this study, we analyzed the management of the protected areas of Galapagos, including the National
Park and the Marine Reserve, with the purpose of highlighting their weaknesses and strengths. The
methodology used presents five prescribed scenarios in which priority is given to one or other fac-
tors, each of which has an impact on the biophysical and socio-economic systems that are influenced
by the MPA. These scenarios were called proactive, interactive, centralized, learning, and formal
management. Data were obtained through a comprehensive literature review and primary data col-
lection methods, including in-depth interviews with key stakeholders and DPNG managers, as well
as direct observations. Interviewees covered the main relevant sectors in the archipelago (fishing,
tourism, and conservation). The results show that the archipelago’s protected areas follow a proac-
tive 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; Galapagos; 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 am-
bitious goals, such as the conservation of the planet’s natural capital or the fight against
climate change [2,3].
MPAs vary in their levels of protection and use of spaces and their resources, with
the benefits for local communities, the general population, and biodiversity typically in-
creasing as protection levels rise [4–8]. Nonetheless, the outcomes may not always be
readily apparent 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
Citation: Maestro, M.; Pérez-
Cayeiro, M.L.; Reyes, H.; Chica-Ruiz,
J
.A. Analysis of the Management of
Protected Areas in Galapagos: 60
Years after Its Declaration as a Na-
tional Park. Sustainability 2024, 16,
6532. hps://doi.org/10.3390/
su16156532
Received: 3 July 2024
Revised: 22 July 2024
Accepted: 23 July 2024
Published: 30 July 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swierland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Aribution (CC BY) license
(hps://creativecommons.org/license
s/by/4.0/).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 2 of 20
their rights in the use of resources [9–12]. Because of this, there has also been increased
work on the impact that MPAs have on the lifestyle and well-being of coastal communities
[13,14]. Numerous studies have shown that social factors, rather than physical–natural
factors, determine the success or failure of an MPA [15–18], so they must be incorporated
into all phases of MPA management [10,11]. One of the most relevant is stakeholder com-
mitment [19], in addition to monitoring, leadership, political will, and the existence of
sanction and conflict resolution mechanisms. Despite its importance, in many MPAs, it
has still received lile aention [15,20,21]. It is therefore necessary to expand studies in
this area.
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 inver-
tebrates [22]. It has a great abundance of marine megafauna, including sharks, manta rays,
turtles, sea lions, and fur seals [23]. There is also a great deal of variation among the is-
lands, as they are home to genetically distinct populations, races, and species, reflecting
the different stages of genetic diversification [22].
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 scarcer and mainly address the fisheries sector [24–28] and tourism [29–
32]. Today the main economic activity is tourism, which has grown rapidly in recent years
[29,31,33,34]. The increase in tourists is associated with population growth and the intro-
duction of invasive species, which puts conservation at risk. This makes adequate man-
agement 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, a drastic decrease in the main fish species,
and effects on the marine ecosystem and the local economy [35,36]. Because of problems
with local development, the increase in internal and external pressures, and the conflicts
generated between the population and the administration [37], there is a need for multi-
disciplinary and applied research that considers Galapagos as a socio-ecosystem and al-
lows local interests to be combined with beer management of the ecosystems. According
to Salas et al. [38], 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 on remote islands, both for local people and
conservation organizations. This is due, among other factors, to the concentration of hu-
man activities in coastal areas and the high dependence on marine ecosystem services [39–
41]. Recent publications suggest that marine spatial planning (MSP), including MPAs,
should evolve to address these unique circumstances. One proposed approach is a bot-
tom-up model, in which the local population is involved in planning processes and ap-
propriate governance mechanisms are in place [42] (versus a top-down approach, in
which decisions are made by the management body without public participation). Alter-
natively, an intermediate model that combines elements of both top-down and boom-up
methods may be effective [43–45], as exemplified in Figure 1 for Galapagos.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 3 of 20
Figure 1. Boom-up vs. top-down models in Galapagos MPAs.
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 the 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 [46]. 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 assesses 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
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of protected area
network management. Compares different sites. It is
currently the most widely used.
[47]
Management Effectiveness
Tracking Tool 2007
Assess the evolution of management over time. Marine
Score-Card assessment is an adaptation of this
methodology to MPAs.
[48]
Enhancing our Heritage 2007
Originally designed for adaptive management in natural
World Heritage sites. It is a more comprehensive
methodology than the previous two, thus providing more
detailed results.
[49]
How is your MPA doing? 2004 Evaluates MPA management, prioritizes actions, and
strengthens support. [50]
Sistema de Análise e
Monitoramento de Gestão 2016 Rapid implementation and immediate results. It consists of
two main elements including the evaluative [51]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 4 of 20
characterization and the analysis of management
instruments.
As mentioned before, evidence suggests that organizational and social factors deter-
mine the overall success or failure of an MPA, indicating the inherent need for increased
consideration of the human dimension [12,20,52–55] and, therefore, acting as a socio-eco-
system. Also, MPA success has been found to be significantly hampered by governance
shortcomings (e.g., lack of participation) and capacity shortfalls (e.g., inadequate manage-
ment processes) [56,57]. 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 elements and to detect strengths and weaknesses, which will allow effective
decisions to be made and future errors to be avoided [46].
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 [58]. On all three occasions, the same methodology was used,
i.e., Measurement of Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas [1], based on the
WDPA. This evaluation generated information that was fundamental in defining manage-
ment program strategies [58]. Also noteworthy is the work by Heyling and Bravo [37],
who analyzed the co-management regime then in place in the MR. Their analysis was
based on nine elements of governance including strategic vision, participation, responsi-
ble 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 was recently (2024)
carried out by Castrejón et al. [25].
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
chose a methodology proposed by Maestro [4], which presents five possible management
scenarios and allows us to see how an MPA is evolving and to propose a series of im-
provements.
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 is also designated as a Biosphere
Reserve, Whale Sanctuary, RAMSAR Site, National Park, and Marine Reserve [58].
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 8006 km2 and occupies most of the 234 emerging land units. The MR com-
prises 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 1753 km of coastline [58].
It should be noted that Galapagos has recently (2022) expanded its marine area with
the creation of the Hermandad Marine Reserve [59]. This new MPA is justified, among
other reasons, by the declaration signed at the XXVI United Nations Conference on Cli-
mate 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
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 5 of 20
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
[59]. This paper, however, examines the management of the Galapagos NP and MR.
Figure 2. Galapagos protected areas. Source: adapted from the Galapagos National Park Direc-
torate—Galapagos Protected Areas Zoning System 2016.
The DPNG administers and manages the two areas and reports directly to the Min-
ister 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 pro-
vincial 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, integrat-
ing both areas with the inhabited areas of the province. So, at the time of decision-making,
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 6 of 20
the archipelago is considered as a whole, promoting integrated and comprehensive man-
agement.
2.2. Methodology
The methodology used to evaluate the management of the Galapagos National Park
and the Marine Reserve was designed by Maestro [4] and it was applied before in one
protected area in Portugal [60], three national parks in Costa Rica [61], and three protected
areas in Croatia [62].
The main feature of this methodology is the classification of the MPAs analyzed in
one of the five scenarios proposed as follows: proactive, learning, interactive, centralized,
and formal. This offers a valuable tool to decision-makers, as it focuses on the 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.
Based on the literature reviewed and analyzed, four management aspects were iden-
tified as key. Key aspects are considered to be those of a transversal nature and that also
encompass different elements. In particular, this research focuses on two fundamental
components including people and processes.
“People” refers to all those who are directly or indirectly involved in or affected by
the management of protected areas. Two strategic aspects of management were chosen as
follows: the management body, which represents one of the components of governance
(government), and public participation, which emphasizes the other two components (pri-
vate and social organizations).
On the other hand, “processes” refers to all the stages that management goes through
and the inputs that are necessary to carry it out. These aspects refer to the iterative man-
agement process itself. Thus, a distinction is made between the following two stages: the
first part is planning (approval of the management plan), and the second part is imple-
mentation. Therefore, the four elements to be analyzed with this methodology include the
following: managing body, planning stage, public participation, and implementation
stage.
• Step 2. Identification of indicators.
Specific indicators 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. Each
indicator was rated on a three-point scale, with one representing the least favorable con-
dition and three indicating the optimum. A three-option response system was chosen be-
cause, despite its simplicity, it encompasses the full range of possible assessments, from a
negative evaluation of the indicator to an optimal state, with an intermediate level in be-
tween. This approach streamlines the response process and enables future improvement
proposals. For each indicator, the criteria defining an “optimal state” were clearly defined
(Table 2).
Table 2. Indicators of the assessment. Source: Adapted from Maestro [4].
Key Management
Aspect Indicator Evaluation
Management 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 the staff.
1 No, or sporadically.
2 Yes.
3 It also anticipates future needs.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 7 of 20
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.
8 Collaboration and exchange of
knowledge with other international
projects/programs.
1 No.
2 Not on a regular basis.
3 It exists on a regular basis, with a large
number of projects/programs.
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 is in the process of being integrated.
3 Yes.
Public
participation
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.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 8 of 20
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.
16. Social actors participation in
management decision-making or planning
processes.
1 No.
2 Through consultation
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 program.
3
A communication program 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.
Implementation
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.
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.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 9 of 20
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.
• Step 3. Assessment of indicators: score from 1 to 3 points.
Several sources of information were used to respond to the indicators. A comprehen-
sive literature review was conducted, including scientific publications and official govern-
ment documents, which provided secondary source information. Primary data were col-
lected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders relevant to this
study. Interviewees covered the main sectors in the archipelago, including fishing, tour-
ism, and conservation, and were key actors with access to information relevant to this
study. Specific interviewees included representatives of the management body (the 7 area
directors of the DPNG), the president of the fishermen’s association COPROPAG, and an
official from the Ministry of Tourism. Additionally, one author conducted non-participant
observations during a two-month period (August–October 2019) at the DPNG offices.
The triangulation of information obtained from bibliographic sources (academic, in-
stitutional, and international organizations), interviews, and field observations was used
to validate and determine the scores for each indicator.
• Step 4. Definition of five possible management scenarios: expert criteria.
Once all indicators had assigned values ranging from 1 to 3, the averages for each of
the four key aspects were computed to determine their respective scores. The range of
values for each aspect (1 to 3) was then considered to explore the various possibilities that
could be found. From this combination, we proposed five scenarios that represent five
realities, depending on four variables each (Table 3).
A method of analysis and projection of reality through the construction of scenarios
was used. Alternative (five options) and contrasted (can be compared) scenarios were
used [60]. It is a tool for understanding the management potential and limits. The factors
that define these scenarios may change over time, so they are images of present, future,
and/or desirable situations [63,64]. It is therefore an approach that allows for understand-
ing the evolution of a management model. Furthermore, it is possible to see whether or
not specific changes (in any of the indicators) lead to significant changes in the overall
model. Ordered from the ideal situation to the least favorable, they are as follows:
1. Proactive: The team that comprises the management body is multidisciplinary and
highly qualified. They collaborate and cooperate with other institutions. Participa-
tory management is conducted in which all stakeholders are represented. It is
planned years in advance, and potential problems are foreseen.
2. Learning: All 4 elements are of equal intermediate value, so they are in a situation
where there is room for improvement. The management body is multidisciplinary. It
is planned for the medium term, and its management responds to past mistakes and
successes. There is public participation, but it is not fully representative or well-con-
solidated.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 10 of 20
3. Interactive: Management authority is largely vested in the social partners. All stake-
holders are well-represented and have adequate participation mechanisms. The plan-
ning and implementation phases are carried out transparently by the authorities.
Public awareness is high.
4. Centralized: The management body is strong and multidisciplinary in its formation
and activities and functions well. It can operate at different scales. It is accountable,
determines the management objectives, and elaborates and implements the manage-
ment plan. Public participation, however, is not very common in decision-making.
5. Formal: Priority is given to short-term management. Planning is highly static, there
is no public participation in decision-making, no evaluation mechanisms, and no me-
dium- or long-term strategic objectives.
Table 3. Management scenarios.
Type of Management Rating
Management Body Planning Stage Public Participation Implementation Stage
Proactive 3 3 3 3
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
Figure 3 shows the results obtained for each indicator of the four elements analyzed.
The managing body is assessed in green, the planning stage in blue, public participation
in pink, and the implementation stage in orange.
After examining the four key elements, the Galapagos protected areas 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). The planning stage is particularly note-
worthy, where all indicators obtained the highest score. It was determined that the man-
agement is currently adapted to a proactive scenario since all elements are close to or equal
to 3. The results of the four elements analyzed are presented below.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 11 of 20
Figure 3. Assessment of indicators.
Figure 4. Evaluation of the management of protected areas in Galapagos. A spider diagram was
used, with each vertex marked with the mean score obtained for each of the key elements. The num-
bers 1, 2, and 3 represent the possible values assigned to each element evaluated, where 1 indicates
the least optimal situation, 2 indicates moderate or satisfactory performance/management, and 3
indicates ideal or beer performance/management. The mean scores represented at each vertex are
the result of calculating the mean of the different variables evaluated for each key element.
3.1. 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 fundamental
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 12 of 20
to managing protected areas successfully. 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 strong training program, although technical training is sporadically offered.
Often, the courses are due to mandatory requirements. This has led to the absence of an
institutional training culture and a focus on the short term [58].
There is extensive collaboration and cooperation with other public and private insti-
tutions at different scales. These include the Ministry of Tourism, the Navy Oceano-
graphic Institute, the Galapagos Special Regime Government Council, the Charles Darwin
Foundation, Conservation International, WWF, Galapagos Conservation, and several uni-
versities. In addition, on several occasions, park rangers have undertaken exchange pro-
grams with other national and international parks. This extensive network of collabora-
tion and exchange is crucial for enhancing conservation efforts, ensuring the sustainable
management of the NP’s and MR’s 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 po-
sitions 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 directors
from November 2012 to December 2018) [25,65].
3.2. Planning State
As mentioned above, since 2014, there has been a single management plan that in-
cludes 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 ecosys-
tems in a single management scheme.
Planning for the future (mission, vision, and goals) and for carrying out current ac-
tivities (strategy) is necessary to achieve beer MPA effectiveness [66]. Goals should be
quantitative and refined through time and should have appropriate metrics. Data collec-
tion 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 Galapagos. The basic objectives are articulated
in a series of management programs with specific objectives, strategies, and adapted indi-
cators [58].
Although the management plan is valid indefinitely, a 10-year reference horizon was
established for the development of the programs, with a view to objectively measuring
the achievements made. The plan will have two highly participatory evaluation processes
of its effectiveness, preparing and strategically ordering information on the socio-ecolog-
ical system of Galapagos [58]. 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 including 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 manage-
ment from the Galapagos population; and 5) insufficient use of interdisciplinary research
for management by decision-makers.
3.3. Public Participation
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 13 of 20
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 the national level, allowing for greater legitimacy in decision-
making processes. However, the lack of 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
among 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 [25].
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, di-
minishing trust, and negative economic effects on local livelihoods [25,65,69]. A decrease
in stakeholder participation has introduced difficulties in 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, under-
scoring a lack of ongoing follow-up and accountability mechanisms previously supported
by the PMB [37].
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 com-
munities 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). However, the process was not fully known, as
it was decided to create the Darwin and Wolf Marine Sanctuary without prior communi-
cation with the fishermen, which weakened confidence in the administration and dam-
aged the previous work [25,69]. For their part, fishermen feel that decision-making pro-
cesses 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 [69].
Information management is crucial to achieve valid and informed decision-making
results. Stakeholders should have access to the rules, decisions, actions, and responsibili-
ties of the MPA [73]. 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., [73]).
3.4. Implementation State
The 2014 Management Plan recommended a new zoning for the Galapagos NP and
MR, which was approved in 2016. In the case of the MR, 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 coastline), 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 conserva-
tion and biodiversity indicators to one focused on ecosystem services [69,74]. Despite ef-
forts, the process remains incomplete as of March 2024 [25].
Protected areas are under increasing pressure on their ecosystems and capacity to
generate services [75], and Galapagos is no exception. This increases the difficulties in ob-
taining an adequate budget to meet all management needs. A lack of adequate financial
support is often a factor preventing MPAs from meeting their objectives [76]. The largest
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 14 of 20
source of funding for Galapagos comes from the Central Government and the income de-
rived from paying the entrance fee to protected areas [58]. 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 in-
dispensable to complement the implementation of conservation and development pro-
grams in Galapagos.
The evaluation and monitoring of protected area management is a topic of particular
interest and importance. Monitoring and evaluation are part of the management of Gala-
pagos protected areas. It makes it possible to determine the level of execution of the vari-
ous programs 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. Galapagos has been a pioneer in Latin America in
adopting, implementing, and improving a management effectiveness evaluation method-
ology 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 mon-
itoring is performed 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, ig-
noring the role of existing collaborative approaches in building adaptive capacity; how-
ever, this is gradually changing, and the socioeconomic perspective is gaining importance
[26].
In Galapagos, the social element is considered just as important as the natural part.
This demonstrates the high value that protected areas have in the livelihood of 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 [77], and, as
such, their capacity to generate a rich flow of services for the sustenance of the population
of the archipelago [58].
4. Discussion
The challenge presented by the proactive scenario is to maintain proactive manage-
ment over time. The ecosystem approach includes both human and natural dimensions.
While the biophysical aspects may be easy to delineate, humans are more complex and
dynamic, but including the social component can help build public support for an MPA
[69,78,79]. For example, in New Zealand, Aotearoa’s planning has evolved from a conflic-
tive to a collaborative approach, which was accompanied by enhancements in manage-
ment efficiency and increased support for MPA implementation [73]. Something similar
should happen in Galapagos, as 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, advi-
sory councils, awareness campaigns, etc. [80]. In fact, according to Pazmiño et al. [81], for
the perceptions of Galapagos inhabitants to influence decision-making, there is an urgent
need to increase local technical and organizational capacity.
Another threat to the proactive scenario is the annual budget, which is often unstable
and dependent on international sources. In the case of Galapagos, it is positive that pro-
tected 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
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 15 of 20
and finance maintenance, monitoring, and surveillance programs, increasing manage-
ment efficiency [82].
Even well-managed MPAs have to deal with direct or indirect threats such as climate
change, overfishing, or pollution [83,84], although this does not mean that they are not
beneficial. There is evidence to suggest that marine reserves with complex, intact ecosys-
tems are often more resilient and recover beer from disturbance than unprotected areas
[85]. 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. In fact, according to Sarker et al. [86], the success of an MPA depends on the
continuous evaluation and monitoring of biophysical, socio-economic, and governance
aspects and their corresponding adjustments.
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. An-
other successful case of considering an area as a socio-ecosystem can be found in the Cabo
de Palos-Islas Hormigas Marine Reserve (Spain). Initially, there was opposition from fish-
ermen (as in Galapagos), but over time, the same fishermen recognized the positive effects
(increase in catches and their profitability) and defended its extension [87]. Moreover, the
benefits have gone beyond fishing, as the whole ecosystem has benefited and this has
translated into a very positive flow of other services, such as recreational activities. This
integrative approach favors the proactive scenario and adapts to international trends that
advocate an ecosystem approach [2]. Other case studies that enjoy proactive management
are the Santa Rosa and Cahuita National Parks in Costa Rica [61]. In both cases, the pop-
ulation is highly involved and governance mechanisms are transparent.
Galapagos is an international reference in terms of the 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
Our management analysis showcases the importance of utilizing a comprehensive
range of metrics to evaluate protection measures that extend beyond biophysical param-
eters. Together, these indicators play a crucial role in steering initiatives toward more
adaptive and participatory management practices that concurrently enhance biodiversity
conservation efforts.
In Galapagos, planning is outstanding, in which all indicators obtained the maximum
score. 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 aention should be paid to the successful development of future
plans. Participation between stakeholders and managers should be strengthened (espe-
cially in the fishing sector), and it should be ensured that adequate tools are available so
that stakeholders can intervene in management decisions, which will inevitably affect
their lives. Eliminating the deficiencies in the participation system will improve the rela-
tions and trust with the DPNG, especially in the fishing sector.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 16 of 20
Recommendations
Therefore, we propose the following series of recommendations to strengthen some
of the indicators with the lowest scores:
- Implement a permanent training program for technicians and managers. This pro-
gram should consist of specific courses related to MPA management and should be
taught by specialized university professors and experienced managers.
- Hold regular meetings between the DPNG and research associations or foundations.
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 for the creation of a biophysical and socioeconomic database,
including all research conducted in the archipelago, which is updated and available
to interested parties.
- Create the Galapagos Participation Forum. It should be a place for free, open (maxi-
mum 150–200 members), and transparent discussion of issues of interest to the com-
munity.
- Create a communication system that disseminates the evolution of the implementa-
tion process of the management plan. In addition, an Annual Management Report
could 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 in-
strument will serve to encourage and channel the joint actions of the various admin-
istrations 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 natural heritage.
- Jointly address the management of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor,
given the connectivity of its ecosystems, which cannot be addressed independently.
With these recommendations, some of the persistent problems identified in the 2012
evaluation, in particular, the low public support, could be at least partially addressed.
Furthermore, these recommendations can help to maintain and reinforce the indicators
that achieved the highest scores, thus ensuring a proactive management scenario over
time.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M.; methodology, M.M., M.L.P.-C., and J.A.C.-R.; re-
sources, J.A.C.-R. and 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 this 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; 105p. Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/7775 (accessed on 23 April 2022).
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 Coast. Manag. 2019, 171, 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.01.008.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 17 of 20
3. Sala, E.; Lubchenco, J.; Grorud-Colvert, K.; Novelli, C.; Roberts, C.; Sumaila, U.R. Assessing real progress towards effective
ocean protection. Mar. Policy 2018, 91, 11–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.004.
4. Maestro, M. Análisis de la Gestión de Espacios Naturales Costero-Marinos Protegidos: Nuevos Enfoques y Tendencias. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Cadiz, Cadiz, Spain, 2022.
5. Wilson, J.R.; Bradley, D.; Phipps, K.; Gleason, M.G. Beyond protection: Fisheries co-benefits of no-take marine reserves. Mar.
Policy 2020, 122, 104224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104224.
6. 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. Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.021.
7. 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. Mar. Policy 2018, 88, 204–212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.028.
8. Sala, E.; Giakoumi, S. No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2017, 75,
1166–1168. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx059.
9. Jones, N.; Graziano, M.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G. Social impacts of European Protected Areas and policy recommendations. En-
viron. Sci. Policy 2020, 112, 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.004.
10. Yates, K.L.; Clarke, B.; Thurstan, R.H. Purpose vs performance: What does marine protected area success look like? Environ. Sci.
Policy 2019, 92, 76–86. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/34842 (accessed on 4 November 2023).
11. Sowman, M.; Sunde, J. Social impacts of marine protected areas in South Africa on coastal fishing communities. Ocean Coast.
Manag. 2018, 157, 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.02.013.
12. 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. Hum. Ecol. 2012, 40, 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9459-6.
13. Eriksson, B.; Johansson, F.; Blicharska, M. Socio-economic imipacts of marine conservation efforts in three Indonesian fishing
communities. Mar. Policy 2019, 103, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.007.
14. Mallol, S.; Goñi, R. Unintended changes of artisanal fisheries métiers upon implementation of an MPA. Mar. Policy 2019, 101,
237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.043.
15. McKinley, E.; Acott, T.; Yates, K.L. Marine social sciences: Looking towards a sustainable future. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 108,
85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.015.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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, Italy, 2013; 23p.
19. Giakoumi, S.; McGowan, J.; Mills, M.; Beger, M.; Bustamante, R.H.; Charles, A.; Christie, P.; Fox, M.; Garcia-Borboroglu, P.;
Gelcich, S.; et al. Revisiting “Success” and “Failure” of Marine Protected Areas: A Conservation Scientist Perspective. Front.
Mar. Sci. 2018, 5, 223. ISSN: 2296-7745. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00223.
20. 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.; et al. Five key attributes can increase marine protected areas performance for small-scale fisheries manage-
ment. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38135. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38135.
21. Christie, P.; Bennett, N.J.; Gray, N.J.; Aulani, T.; Lewis, N.A.; Parks, J.; Ban, N.; Gruby, R.L.; Gordon, L.; Day, J.; et al. Why people
matter in ocean governance: Incorporating human dimensions into large-scale marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 2017, 84, 273–
284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.002.
22. Danulat, E.; Edgar, G. (Eds.) Reserva Marina de Galapagos. In Línea Base de la Biodiversidad; Fundación Charles Darwin, Servicio
Parque Nacional Galapagos: Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador, 2022; 484p.
23. 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 Coast. Manag.
2020, 183, 104995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104995.
24. 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, NY, USA, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02769-2_8.
25. Castrejón, M.; Moity, N.; Charles, A. The bumpy road to conservation: Challenges and opportunities in updating the Galapagos
zoning system. Mar. Policy 2024, 163, 106146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106146.
26. 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. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2023, 59, 102800.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2022.102800.
27. Carr, L.A.; Stier, A.C.; Fietz, K.; Montero, I.; Gallagher, A.J.; Bruno, J.F. Illegal shark fishing in the Galapagos Marine Reserve.
Mar. Policy 2013, 39, 317–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.005.
28. Schuhbauer, A.; Koch, V. Assessment of recreational fishery in the Galapagos Marine Reserve: Failures and opportunities. Fish.
Res. 2013, 144, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2013.01.012.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 18 of 20
29. 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. Ann. Tour. Res. Empir. Insights 2022, 3, 100057.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annale.2022.100057.
30. 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.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061647.
31. Muñoz, A. La contradicción del turismo en la conservación y el desarrollo en Galapagos-Ecuador. Estud. Y Perspect. En Tur.
2015, 24, 399–413. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5215615 (accessed on 17 February 2024).
32. Mejía, C.; Brandt, S. Managing tourism in the Galapagos Islands through Price incentives: A choice experiment approach. Ecol.
Econ. 2015, 117, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.014.
33. 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, 1382. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021382.
34. Burke, A. The crossroads of ecotourism dependency, food security and a global pandemic in Galápagos, Ecuador. Sustainability
2021, 13, 13094. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313094.
35. Jones, P.J.S. A governance analysis of the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Mar. Policy 2013, 41, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar-
pol.2012.12.019.
36. Castrejón, M.; Charles, A. Improving fisheries co-management through ecosystem-based spatial management: The Galapagos
Marine Reserve. Mar. Policy 2013, 38, 235–245.
37. Heylings, P.; Bravo, M. Evaluating governance: A process for understanding how co-management is functioning, and why, in
the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2007, 50, 174–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.09.003.
38. Salas Zapata, W.; Ríos Osorio, L.; Álvarez, J. Bases conceptuales para una clasificación de los sistemas socioecológicos de la
investigación en sostenibilidad. Rev. Lasallista De Investig. 2012, 8, 136–142.
39. 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, 15178. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152015178.
40. Benítez-Capistros, F.; Hugé, J.; Koedam, N. Environmental impacts on the Galapagos Islands: Identification of interactions,
perceptions and steps ahead. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 38, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.019.
41. Costa, R.; Longnecker, N.; Schmidt, L.; Clifton, J. Marine Conservation in remote small island settings: Factors influencing ma-
rine protected area establishment in the Azores. Mar. Policy 2013, 40, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.032.
42. 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 Coast. Manag. 2021, 200, 105450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oce-
coaman.2020.105450.
43. Ballarini, E.; D’Adamo, R.; Pazienza, G.; Zaggia, L.; Vafeidis, A. Assessing the applicability of a bottom-up or top-down ap-
proach for effective management of a coastal lagoon area. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 200, 105417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oce-
coaman.2020.105417.
44. Ferreira, A.; Seixas, S.; Marques, J.C. Bottom-up management approach to coastal marine protected areas in Portugal. Ocean
Coast. Manag. 2015, 118, 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.008.
45. Cowel, C.; Bissett, C.; Ferreira, S.M. Top-down and bottom-up processes to implement biological monitoing in protected areas.
J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 257, 109998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109998.
46. Pomeroy, R.S.; Parks, J.E.; Watson, L.M. Cómo Evaluar una AMP. Manual de Indicadores Naturales y Sociales para Evaluar la Efecti-
vidad de la Gestión de Áreas Marinas Protegidas; UICN: Gland, Suiza; Cambridge, UK, 2006; pp. XVI + 216.
47. Ervin, J. WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology; WWF: Gland, Switzer-
land, 2003.
48. 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.
49. 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, Aus-
tralia, 2007; 105p. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/pa/tools/iucn–tnc-2007-02-en.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2022).
50. 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, Switzer-
land; Cambridge, UK, 2004.
51. 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; 138p.
52. Bennett, N.J.; Di Franco, A.; Calò, A.; Nethery, E.; Niccolini, F.; Milazzo, M.; Guidetti, P. Local support for conservation is asso-
ciated with perceptions of good governance, social impacts, and ecological effectiveness. Conserv. Lett. 2019, 12, e12640.
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12640.
53. 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, 4464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054464.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 19 of 20
54. 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, 9138.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119138.
55. 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, 8174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108174.
56. 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.; et al. Improving marine protected area and governance through collaboration and co-production. J. Environ.
Manag. 2020, 269, 110757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110757.
57. Gill, D.A.; Mascia, M.B.; Ahmadia, G.N.; Glew, L.; Lester, S.E.; Barnes, M.; Craigie, I.; Darling, E.; Free, C.; Geldman, J.; et al.
Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 2017, 543, 665–669. Available online:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21708 (accessed on 11 September 2022).
58. DPNG (Dirección del Parque Nacional Galápagos). Plan de Manejo de las Áreas Protegidas de Galapagos para el Buen Vivir; Minis-
terio del Ambiente: Puerto Ayora: Galapagos, Ecuador, 2014; 209p.
59. 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, Gala-
pagos, Ecuador, 2023.
60. Maestro, M.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L. Analysis of marine protected area management: The Marine Park of the
Azores (Portugal). Mar. Policy 2020, 119, 104104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104104.
61. 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. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 308, 114633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114633.
62. Maestro, M.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Popović Perković, Z.; Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L. Marine protected areas management in the Mediterra-
nean Sea. The case of Croatia. Diversity 2022, 14, 448. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14060448.
63. Licha, I. La Construcción de Escenarios: Herramienta de la Gerencia Social; Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, Instituto Interame-
ricano para el Desarrollo (INDES): 2000; 11p. Available online: http://ibcm.blog.unq.edu.ar/wp–content/up-
loads/sites/28/2018/04/Licha-2000.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2022).
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 Coast. Manag. 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.; et al. Organization Science improves management effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas. J. Environ. Sci. 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. Gala-
pagos Report 2015–2016; Dirección del Parque Nacional Galápagos: Puerto Ayora, Ecuador: 2017; Volume 105, p. 111.
68. Erazo, C. Informe Final: Entre el Conflicto y la Colaboración: El Manejo Participativo en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos; Fundar Galá-
pagos: Puerto Ayora, Ecuador, 2005. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/32669 (accessed on 12 February 2024).
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. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2020, 33, 1194–1212.
https://doi.org/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. Mar. Policy 2010, 34, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar-
pol.2009.04.011.
72. Barragán-Paladines, M.J.; Chuenpagdee, R. A step zero analysis of the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Coast. Manag. 2017, 45, 339–
359. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2017.1345606.
73. Davies, K.; Murchie, A.; Kerr, V.; Lundquist, C. The evolution of marine protected area planning in Aotearoa New Zeland:
Reflections on participation and process. Mar. Policy 2018, 93, 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.025.
74. 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.
75. De Andrés, M.; Barragán, J.; García, J. Ecosystem services and urban development in coastal Social-Ecological Sustem: The Bay
of Cádiz case study. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 154, 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.011.
76. 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.
77. 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. Mar. Policy 2019, 108, 103657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103657.
78. Bennett, N.J.; Teh, L.; Ota, Y.; Christie, P.; Ayers, A.; Day, J.C.; Franks, P.; Gill, D.; Gruby, R.L.; Kittinger, J.N.; et al. An appeal
for a code of conduct for marine conservation. Mar. Policy 2017, 81, 411–418. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.MARPOL.2017.03.035.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6532 20 of 20
79. Day, J.C. Effective public participation is fundamental for marine conservation-lessons from a large-scale MPA. Coast. Manag.
2017, 45, 470-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2017.1373452.
80. Mora, N.; Bernales, M. Guía Práctica para el Abordaje de Conflictos en el Sector Pesquero Artesanal. Informe Especializado; WWF: Lima,
Perú, 2019.
81. Pazmiño, A.; Serrao-Neumann, S.; Low Choy, D. Towards comprehensive policy integration for the sustainability of small is-
lands: A landscape-scale planning approach for the Galápagos Islands. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1228.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041228.
82. 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.; et al. Opportunities to close the gap between science and practice for Marine Protected Areas in Brazil. Perspect.
Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 18, 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2020.05.002.
83. Hughes, T.; Kerry, J.; Alvarez-Noriega, M.; Alvarez-Romero, J.; Anderson, K.; Baird, A.; Babcock, R.; Beger, M.; Bellwood, D.R.;
Berkelmans, R.; et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 2017, 543, 37–377.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21707.
84. 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. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3355.
85. 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.; et al. Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2017, 114, 6167–6175. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701262114.
86. Sarker, S.; Rahman, M.; Yadav, A.; Islam, M. Zoning of marine protected areas for biodiversity conservation in Bangladesh
through socio-spatial data. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 173, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.03.002.
87. Santos-Martín, F.; Montes, C.; Alcorlo, P.; García-Tiscar, S.; González, B.; Vidal-Abarca, M.R.; Suárez, M.L.; Royo, L.; Férriz, I.;
Barragán, J.; et al. La Aproximación de los Servicios de los Ecosistemas Aplicada a la Gestión Pesquera; Fondo Europeo de Pesca, Fun-
dación Biodiversidad del Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(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.
