Islands as a Tourism Destination: Ecosystem Impacts of Tourism on the Galapagos Islands

Rosa van Schaick 10801634 Bachelor Thesis 734301500Y – Political Ecology Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences – Human Geography Beatriz Pineda Revilla & Andres Verzijl 14th of August 2017 Universiteit van Amsterdam Amsterdam

This thesis set out to understand and analyse the causality between tourism and current environmental problems on the Galapagos islands by using the Pressure-State-Response model and understanding the Tourism Area Life Cycle. The rapid increase in tourism and economic growth resulted in population growth and immigration flows to the islands over the past decades. However, with tourism pressures on the island ecosystem have increased due to urban development, waste production and introduced species. The exact role of tourism in these events is difficult to establish however, tourism is most likely the driver of these problems affecting the ecosystem. Tourism demands for certain services which increase the pressures on the urban system like waste management which is lacking in most places. Additionally, the coming of tourism has increased the likeliness of non-native species which increases competition that native- species are not accustomed to. Sustainable tourism development, even though mass tourism is likely to occur in the near future, is possible if all stakeholders contribute and development is maintained locally which may lower tourism growth pressures.

2 Table of Content List of figures and tables ...... 4 Introduction ...... 5 Islands and tourism ...... 7 Islands ...... 7 Tourism ...... 7 Island tourism ...... 8 Theoretical Framework ...... 10 Carrying capacity ...... 10 Ecosystem carrying capacity ...... 10 Tourism carrying capacity ...... 10 Tourism area life cycle ...... 11 Stages of exploration, involvement, development ...... 11 Stages of consolidation and stagnation ...... 12 Stages of decline ...... 12 Sustainable tourism ...... 13 Ecotourism ...... 13 Greenwashing of ecotourism ...... 14 Environmental assessment frameworks ...... 14 Pressure-State-Response framework ...... 15 Driving force-State-Response framework ...... 15 Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework ...... 15 Methodology ...... 16 Research design and strategy ...... 16 Data collection ...... 16 Data analysis ...... 17 The case of the Galapagos Island ...... 19 Pressures of Tourism Growth ...... 21 Tourism growth on the Galapagos ...... 21 Tourism and transportation ...... 21 Tourism and the economy ...... 22 State of Change ...... 24 Habitat loss ...... 24 Urban Development ...... 24 Visitor activities and load ...... 25 Waste production ...... 26 Increase in waste generation ...... 26 Consequences of poor waste treatment ...... 27 Introduced species ...... 27 Trend of invasive species ...... 28 Insects and mammals ...... 29 Responses to Tourism of the Galapagos Islands ...... 31 Sustainable ecotourism ...... 31 Ecotourism Charter ...... 31 Sustainable Mass Tourism and Unsustainable Mass Tourism ...... 32 Discussion ...... 34 Conclusion ...... 36 References ...... 38 Appendix I – Tourism Statistics 1979-2015 ...... 45 Appendix II – Increase in land-based tourism, 1982, 1991 and 2006 ...... 46

3 List of figures and tables

Figure 1. The Tourism Area Life Cycle ...... 13 Table 1. Deep and Shallow Ecotourism ...... 14 Figure 2. Population and tourism growth from 1950s to 2010 on the Galapagos islands ...... 19 Figure. 3 Tourism growth form 1979 to 2015 ...... 22 Table 2.The increase in land-based tourism shown through hotels, rooms, beds and restaurants from 1982 to 2006...... 25 Figure 4. Present and estimated increase in waste production on the Galapagos islands ...... 27 Figure 5. Increase in tourism number, residents and introduced species ...... 28 Table 3. Number of native and non-native species on the Galapagos islands ...... 29

4 Introduction

The globalization process increased interconnectedness between regions, creating a single world society whereby travel has become more accessible. It is believed that globalization has become the main driver of increased tourism flows worldwide due to changes in society and the economic position of people (Dwyer, 2015). As the largest industry sector, the effects of tourism are often seen as positive as it may enhance economic and social development of the destination through for example, contributing to the national gross domestic product (Archer, Cooper & Ruhanen, 2005). However, the forecasted tourism growth reaching up to 1.8 million tourists within the next 15 years will bring adverse effects to the environment of the destination (UN World Tourism Organization, 2014). Many tourist activities and destinations have been shaped and financed in order to make it more desirable and attractive to tourists while the residents are being neglected and positive impacts may diminish (Archer et al., 2005). According to the tourism area life cycle theory of Butler (1980), severe damage to the environment is done when mass tourism pressures are exerted on the destination.

Islands are popular tourist attraction most likely due to their representation of paradise and the unique characteristics on biological and ecological basis, especially in the Mediterranean, Pacific and Caribbean (Wong et al., 2005). Islands attract tourism for leisure, holiday and recreational purposes of the marine and coastal areas. Unfortunately, island tourism is often seen as disruptive to the ecological, social and economic components of the destination because of its isolation and vulnerability (Carlsen & Butler, 2011). Islands are characterized by isolation, insularity and remoteness, this causes the islands to be vulnerable to external forces as the capacity to cope with change is limited. Island ecosystems are represented by connected marine and terrestrial ecosystems with high rates of endemism, native species to the islands, and local adaptations; local communities are strongly dependent on the ecosystem services the island provides. High rates of endemism and extinction share an affinity with the level of remoteness and isolation. Increased population growth and introduction of tourism affects the balance within island ecosystems. Although pressures have been exerted on coastal areas of islands in terms of agriculture, fisheries and human settlement, interference with the natural system of coastal areas is likely to disturb the long-term stability of the environment (Hall, 2001). Environmental impacts of tourism in the Caribbean and Pacific are related to damage from boat anchors, scuba divers and tourism development resulting in erosion and pollution as well as the growing number of cruise ships. Additionally, coastal development may impact the ecological and geomorphological dynamics of the region, for example, mangrove removal for tourism development in Vanuatu and Fiji resulted in increased erosion and vulnerability of the shoreline (Hall, 2001).

In the early stages of tourism development on islands, ecotourism plays an important role. Ecotourism, or nature-based tourism, is attracted to an area because of its ecological and biological characteristics and aims to submerge with the local communities and conserve the environment; the demand for tourist development remains low (Acott, Trobe & Howard, 1998). Even though ecotourism may be promising, the term is often misused and promoted to attract regular tourism, increasing the likeliness of mass tourism (Acott et al., 1998; Self, Self & Bell-Haynes, 2010). This process is occurring on the Galapagos Islands. The Galapagos archipelago is an isolated

5 group of islands famous for its contribution to Darwin’s evolutionary theories. It is characterized by a high level of endemism like Darwin’s finches, the marine iguanas and giant tortoises (Jackson, 1993). Initially, tourism consisted of explorers or researches. However, since 1979 the tourism number rose from 12000 to 244755 tourists in 2015 (Parque Nacional de Galapágos, 2015). Although the national park is under strict observation and protection, the biodiversity is still harmed. Air travel has increased, as well as the number of cruise ships visiting and possibilities for on-land accommodation (Kenchington, 1989). Tourism brings many economic benefits to the islands and is the biggest sector contributing to the total gross island product; in the period of 1999 to 2005 tourism contributed with 68% to the 78% economic growth (Taylor, Hardner & Steward, 2009). However, the increase in tourism is likely to be harmful to the environment as islands have a lower carrying capacity than continental regions that are able to sustain disturbances to the environment (Wong et al., 2005). According to Hall (2001), the economic benefits tourism brings an island or coastal region overshadows the research needed in terms of environmental impact.

This thesis aims to assess the impacts of tourism on the Galapagos archipelago, specifically on the environment. The rapid growth of tourism in the last decades coincides with the Tourism Area Life Cycle model of Butler (1980) that argues that the growth of tourism starts with ecotourism and is likely to result in mass tourism and possible environmental degradation. As islands are vulnerable to change, this thesis aims to review the environmental changes occurring as a result of tourism and how this reflects in the tourism area life cycle. Additionally, the concept of carrying capacity shall be reviewed to better understand the processes, consequences and drivers of changes that may occur. However, as the carrying capacity is difficult to measure, this thesis will show the causality between tourism and environmental changes on the island ecosystem of the Galapagos islands through the Pressure-State-Response framework developed by the OECD (2003) (Coccossis et al., 2001). By using the Pressure-State- Response framework, this research aims to answer the following question: “How does tourism impact the island ecosystem of the Galapagos islands?”. To answer this question, this thesis will elaborate on the relation between islands and tourism in general. Consecutively, the underlying processes of this relationship, like carrying capacity and Tourism Area Life Cycle will be examined and the method of research will be explained. After introducing the case of the Galapagos, the tourism phenomenon on the Galapagos islands shall be analysed through the Pressure-State-Response model. First, the question “What are the consequences of tourism growth on the Galapagos islands?” will be answered by analysing tourism growth on the islands. Secondly, the state of impacts on the archipelago will be analysed by answering the question: “How does tourism contribute to the current environmental problems occurring on the islands?” Lastly, possible responses to tourism growth shall be discussed by answering the question: “How may sustainable tourism help reduce the tourism pressures on the environment of the Galapagos islands?” to examine the sustainability of tourism development on the islands. After this analysis the answer to the research question shall be discussed and concluded.

6 Islands and tourism

The following chapter introduces the affiliation between islands and tourism. It will discuss the nature of islands and why islands have the tendency to be more vulnerable to disturbances than continental lands; isolation is the main focus here. Additionally, the main driver of the increasing tourism growth will be discussed, also in relation to island tourism and the possible effects it may have on a social, economic and environmental basis.

Islands Islands have attracted interest of voyagers, bio-geographers, biologist and ecologist ever since the first expeditions. This attraction comes from the special features some islands have that make them interesting scientific research grounds, like their origin, geographical setting, isolation, and dynamism (Fernández-Palacios, 2010). Additionally, islands are associated with specific geophysical settings and are strongly influenced by the surrounding oceans and atmosphere, creating climatic fluctuations.

Islands differ from continental lands due to their specific characteristics and uniqueness, especially on a biological and ecological basis. The barrier of water bodies and distance to mainland is the primary reason for the isolated nature of islands (Wong et al., 2005). As a consequence, little or no genetic exchange with continental populations has occurred, resulting in high rates of local adaptation and endemism (Wong et al., 2005). The adaptation and endemism is mostly related to the non-migratory species. The number of endemic species and extinction is affected by the size of the islands, isolated small islands often experience higher rates of extinction than near islands which are influenced by higher immigration rates (Warren et al., 2015). Islands are characterized by highly connected terrestrial and marine ecosystems. These ecosystems provide multiple services such as fisheries, biodiversity, tourism and fresh water to the islanders and contribute to their well-being (Baldacchino, 2004). Islands are vulnerable to natural hazards and climate change because of size, isolation, environmental conditions, low resilience and demographic structure (Pelling & Uitto, 2001). The IPCC (2001) argues that small islands are among the communities most adversely impacted by climate change due to their small size, and limited human and financial capacities. Additionally, natural disasters will hit harder on small islands due to isolation and thus a limited capacity to buffer the possible impacts, increasing the likeliness of disrupting the islands’ systems and well-being of its population (Wong et al., 2005). Like continental countries, islands are under stress as a result of environmental and sociocultural and socioeconomic processes. Population growth has become a problem for islands due to the pressures exerted on limited resources (Zann et al., 2000). Besides population growth and increased migration flows, tourism is contributing to pressures exerted on island resources and the ecosystem services.

Tourism Globalization is the main driver of the increased tourism flows worldwide. Globalization increased the interconnectedness between countries that resulted in a single world society whereby traveling either for tourism, work or migration is becoming more accessible (Dwyer, 2015). It is argued that globalization increased the economic growth of many countries which altered the income distribution and increased the market potential for tourism. The United Nations World Tourism Organization (2014) projects

7 tourism rates to grow with 3.3% per year until 2030 fuelled by economic growth. Dwyer (2015) also argues that the increase in tourism flows resulted from demographic changes which consequently changes the value households and individuals have toward travelling and tourism destination. These global changes have led to the continued demand of tourism destination and market which in turn is continuously responded to with supply.

Tourism is often regarded in terms of economics and management where the effects of tourism are reviewed in relation to increased job opportunities for natives and increased global competition. However, tourism development is often unsustainable and causes problems for the surrounding environments (Peeters & Landré, 2011). Dwyer (2015) and Peeters et al (2011) both argue that tourism contributes to climate change through the increase in consumption, resource use and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, tourism demands reinforce population density, urbanization and economic development which are likely to have a positive feedback on climate change. Besides contributing to climate change, tourism also directly and indirectly affects ecosystems negatively. These negative impacts of tourism are also visible on islands and are likely to be amplified by island characteristics (Wong et al., 2005).

Island tourism Islands have been seen as idyllic tourist destinations as they offer unique cultural and natural environments, completely different from the urban lives of many tourists. Islands are often represented as mystical, unknown and paradisiacal, attracting many tourism flows, especially to the Mediterranean, Caribbean and South Pacific (Carlsen & Butler, 2011 ; Baum, 1997). Island tourism is often seen as disruptive to the ecological, social and economic components of the destination which are related to isolation and vulnerability. From an economic perspective, islands are characterized by structural weaknesses which are exploited by tourism development and beneficial returns are often little (Carlsen et al., 2011). At the social level island tourism is seen as a destructive force of cultures through commodification and exploitation, especially where mass tourism is at play. Also on the ecological level can island tourism be harmful. Tourism development is found to be responsible for ecosystem destruction through marine and terrestrial pollution, habitat destruction and species extinction (Carlsen et al., 2011). Additionally, islands face serious challenges due to the introduction of non-native species which is often, unconsciously, brought by tourism. Invasive species compete with native species for resources and have the ability to alter the existing ecosystems. The number of invasive species and the degree of disruption depends on the island’s resilience to change. The Convention of Biological Diversity (2004) argues that the vulnerability of islands increases the impacts of invasive species. Island ecosystems are more vulnerable to disturbances, therefore it can be argued that due to the relationship between terrestrial and marine ecosystems island carrying capacity is limited to buffer natural and anthropogenic changes, leaving them vulnerable to for example environmental degradation, climate change or human pressures like tourism (Wong et al., 2005).

Although island tourism may create negative consequences, Wong et al, (2005) argue that island tourism has the potential for biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use. Especially ecotourism or nature tourism are seen to be effective in promoting nature conservation. Wong et al (2005) argue that it is often the “rapid and

8 uncontrolled tourism growth” that results in environmental degradation. Sustainable tourism development is seen as beneficial to islands and can be a means to avoid and mitigate the negative effects of tourism. Murphy & Price (2005) argue that sustainable tourism should consider the environment as a supporting system for a long period of time in relation to nature, scale and location and so, social and economic values should be seen as equals to the environment.

9 Theoretical Framework

The previous chapter states that tourism may have detrimental impacts on islands, socially and ecologically. Due to insularity, isolation and vulnerability, tourism may challenge the capacity of an island to sustain to growing pressures. This theoretical framework approaches carrying capacity, the tourism area life cycle and environmental assessment frameworks in order to gain better understanding of processes that may lead to environmental degradation of a tourism area and how this may be best assessed.

Carrying capacity Thomas Malthus, in 1789, addressed the problem of continuous population growth and the finite number of resources available which he denoted as the “limits to growth”. This idea was modified by Verhulst in 1838, who addressed it as the earth’s carrying capacity; the maximum population that can be supported by the earth’s resources, like water and food (Del Monte-Luna et al., 2004). The relationship between resources and population can be expressed through the maximum sustainable yield which is the point where the population growth is half of the carrying capacity and the maximum yield of resources is still sustainable. After surpassing this point, the number of resources will become unsustainable and close to running out as the population reaches its maximum (Del Monte-Luna et al., 2004). Thus, the carrying capacity hypothesis assumes that an environment can support a finite number of individuals and its consumption without experiencing degradation (Abernethy, 2001). It can be argued that the carrying capacity is a two-fold notion between factors that control growth and the individuals or species in the ecosystem.

Ecosystem carrying capacity The carrying capacity model has been used in many instances, namely to determine the capacity of species communities, population growth, and ecosystems. The aim of this thesis is to analyse the impact of tourism on the ecology of the Galapagos islands, and because of this it is important to understand the carrying capacity of ecosystems that plays a role in island biodiversity and how the biological equilibrium can be disturbed. Ecosystem diversity is determined by community succession via re-colonialization of species, linking ecosystems to carrying capacity (Del Monte-Luna et al., 2004). The carrying capacity of ecosystems can be defined as the number of species or population growth an ecosystem can support. The increase in species can be either through species reproduction, immigration and diversification. The biological equilibrium is determined by species growth and extinction. However, as the carrying capacity is reached or surpassed, species growth will decline and extinction rates will increase to maintain its balance (Del Monte-Luna et al., 2004). Besides being regulated by biological processes, the equilibrium can also be affected by climate changes, physical factors and anthropogenic influences, damaging the ecosystem’s integrity (Futuyma, 1998 cited in Del Monte-Luna et al., 2004).

Tourism carrying capacity The damage anthropogenic influence can do to the balance within the carrying capacity of an ecosystem or the stress it can sustain can be referred to as the environmental carrying capacity in recreational context, but is often termed tourism carrying capacity when tourists are involved (MacLeod & Cooper, 2005). For many destinations, especially islands, tourism carrying capacity can provide insight into the cause of environmental

10 damage and tourism growth or decline. It is argued that the carrying capacity of tourism should not be viewed in absolute limits but as a means to an end to avoid irreversible damage to an ecosystem’s value (MacLeod et al., 2005). The relationship between tourism and carrying capacity is dependent upon three types of environments: the natural environment, man-made environment and social environment. Theoretically, the man-made and social environment are more flexible to an increase of visitors and pressures, the natural environment’s carrying capacity is more fixed and if exceeded environmental degradation will occur (Coccossis & Parpairis, 1992).

Carrying capacity plays a big role in tourism and pressures the Galapagos archipelago can sustain before irreversible changes occur. However, carrying capacity is difficult to define and measure. Especially when concerning tourism development may carrying capacity pose analytical problems (Lindberg & McCool, 1998). Coccossis et al., (2001) argue that although carrying capacity is useful in policy making, it can also be regarded as a controversial concept due to the analytical difficulties which stem from the multiple dimensions and constraints of the concept in relation to the research area. Because of this, this thesis is not focussing on the carrying capacity but uses it as an underlying concept. Instead, the focus is on the impacts of tourism on the island ecosystem of the Galapagos islands, characterized by the connected and endemic terrestrial and marine ecosystems. The affinity between natural and man-made resources and tourism remains important in this thesis as it may show why certain tourism growth trends occur in a destination, as is explained by the Tourism Area Life Cycle model of Butler (1980).

Tourism area life cycle Tourists are attracted to the intermingling of different cultural backgrounds and to unique environments. Initially, tourism was seen as a product that created economical and social benefits for the local community through flows of money into the national economy. This inflow was believed to result in turnover, household incomes, increased employment rates and contributes to the overall GDP (Archer et al., 2005). Nonetheless, tourism has proven to have adverse effects too. These are mostly recognized in socio- cultural components and environmental conditions. Archer et al (2005) argue that local culture and customs can be exploited to satisfy the demands and expectations of tourist from more prosperous and culturally distinct regions, often at the expense of the community’s pride. These cultural distinctions lead to development and pressures of mass tourism. Environmental degradation imposed by tourism is related to the magnitude and volume of the tourists; the more attractive a site is, the more tourists are visiting (Hillery et al, 2001).

Stages of exploration, involvement, development The flows of tourism are not only dependent on the cultural and historical intermingling but also on the areas of destination. These areas change and evolve over time due to the pressures of tourism. Plog (1972) (cited by Butler, p.5, 2006) supports this argument by suggesting that different types of tourists are attracted to an area as the area evolves and changes, starting with adventurous tourists and leading to mass tourism. Based on these assumptions, Butler (1980) created a tourism cycle for destination areas, see figure 1. The cycle starts with the exploration state which is characterized by a small number of non-local tourists with irregular visitation patterns. These visitors are likely to come to the area because of its unique natural and cultural surroundings. The area

11 has not been in contact with many tourists, and so, tourism development is minimal, increasing the likeliness for tourists to come in contact with locals.

Eventually the number of tourists will increase and with that the regularity of visits, which will lead to the demand for facilities. This stage is called the involvement stage as locals will start providing facilities for tourists (Butler, 1980). Although the tourist number is increasing the contact with locals will remain high, possibly contributed by the development of facilities. The development of facilities defines the beginning of a market for tourists, resulting in advertisement of the area and tourist travel arrangements in order to attract more visitors. The establishment of a market leads to the development state shaped by advertising and promoting the tourist area (Butler, 1980). During this stage, the local involvement will decrease and external organization will have taken the upper hand concerning facilities and visitor accommodations. Tourist development will be done according to tourists demands and likeliness, despite not being welcomed by the local community. The tourist number will continue to expand, in periods it may even surpass the population number. This stage also marks the end of the area being solely used by explorers and adventurers by opening up to a wider market of people (Butler, 1980).

Stages of consolidation and stagnation When the rate of increase in tourists declines, while the total number of visitors still increases, the consolidation stage is reached. The majority of the area’s economy will be tied to tourism as the industry continues to grow (Butler, 1980). Opposition and discontent among the permanent residents will increase, especially for those not integrated into the tourism industry. During the stagnation stage the peak in tourism number will have been reached, exceeding most of the capacity levels of the area resulting in economic, social and environmental problems. The economy is dependent on repeat visitations, and eventually the resorts will be seen apart from the geographical environment. The tourism that is still likely to come is identified as mass tourism (Butler, 2006).

Stages of decline As the destination will not be able to compete with the market, the decline stage (E in figure 1) is entered and the destination will face a decline spatially and numerically. The length of trips will be shortened to days or weekends. The decline in visitors will result in property turnover and tourism moves away from the area (Butler, 1980; Butler, 2006). Resorts, facilities and accommodations may lose their purpose and ultimately the area may lose its tourist appeal and function completely. The decline of tourism is not the only possible outcome. Rejuvenation may occur as well (A in figure 1). During the rejuvenation stage the area will have to change all attractions tourism was based on (Butler, 1980). This can be done by introducing man-made attractions that make use of unused natural resources. The figure includes four other possible slopes, namely a continued growth at a reduced rate (B), stay within the capacity levels to remain stable (C), market decline resulting from overuse of resources (D) and complete decline of tourism (E) (Butler, 1980).

12

Figure 1. The Tourism Area Life Cycle (Butler, 1980 cited in Butler 2006; p.7)

Sustainable tourism Butler (2006) argues that even though the life cycle of tourist areas can be conceptualized, each area may perceive the stages differently. The increase in tourism implies a reduction in the quality and attractiveness of the destination. Some areas will experience this sooner than others or more severely, depending on capacity levels. Although this model is accepted by many, it has been criticized for not being able to explain and integrate sustainability due to its prescriptive nature (Weaver, 2000; Rodríguez et al., 2008). Tourism sustainability in terms of management, politics and principles is deemed important to develop tourism while regarding the protection of environmental, cultural and infrastructural resources (Rodríguez et al., 2008). According to Wight (1997) (cited in Murphy & Price, 2005) sustainable tourism should consider that the environment is to support activities over a long period of time in relation to nature, scale and location. Social, economic and environment goals should be integrated through “community based economics”, “conservation with equity” and “integration of the environment with the economy” (Murphy et al., 2005, p.174). Sustainable tourism development has been recognized as being important in the conservation of a destination (Tsaur, Lin & Lin, 2006).

Ecotourism As argued by Butler (1980) the exploration stage of the Tourism Area Life Cycle marks the beginning of contact with local communities for tourists. The number of tourism remains low and are attracted to the destination due to its natural and cultural uniqueness. Tourism with regard to the value of nature is often termed ecotourism. As defined by Weaver (2001) ecotourism is “a form of nature-based tourism that strives to be ecologically, socio-culturally and economically sustainable while providing opportunities for appreciating and learning about the natural environment or specific elements thereof.” Ecotourism has become a means to conserve and support natural parks and protected areas, promoting environmentalism through profit, people and nature (Campbell, Gray & Meletis, 2007).

Ecotourism, when referred to in ecological terms, can be divided into deep and shallow ecotourism with shallow ecotourism having the tendency to become mass tourism

13 (Acott, La Trobe & Howard, 1998). Deep ecotourism recognizes the intrinsic value of nature, sees itself as part of the environment and reviews matters from a bio-centric perspective. The environmental commitment excludes demands for Western services, includes willingness to merge with the local community and emphasises strong sustainability (Weaver, 2001; Acott et al., 1998). In this sense, ecotourism is able to help conserve and empower the local community (Campbell et al., 2007). Shallow ecotourism is more techno-centric in that it sees humans separate from nature, which is reflected in the demand for Western services like accommodation. Additionally, nature is regarded in its extrinsic value and sustainability concerns are weak (Acott et al., 1998). Shallow ecotourism has the tendency to become mass tourism as some ideologies are overlapping, for instance techno-centrism and low levels of sustainability are both present in mass tourism and shallow ecotourism, see table 1 (Acott et al., 1998). Mass tourism is likely to occur when economic growth is considered more important than sustaining the environment and anthropogenic views on the environment take preference (Acott et al., 1998). The misuse of ecotourism, through greenwashing of the tourism sector, is likely to lead to mass tourism, and according to Butler (2006) may contribute to environmental degradation in the area’s life cycle.

Table 1. Deep and Shallow Ecotourism, adapted from Acott et al., 1998) Deep ecotourism Shallow ecotourism Mass tourism Eco-centrism Techno-centrism Gianism Communalism Accommodation Intervention Deep ecologist Self-reliance, soft Environmental managers Cornucopians: Anthropogenic technologists view on environment Deep ecology Shallow ecology Very strong Strong Weak sustainability Very weak sustainability sustainability sustainability

Greenwashing of ecotourism The greenwashing of ecotourism is related to the use of green travel as a marketing tool to attract tourist to a nature destination by commercializing and popularizing nature- based tourism. Self, Self & Bell-Haynes (2010) argue that due to the lack of mandatory international standards for ecotourism, the market is open for greenwashers. Greenwashed ecotourism or green travel promotes the conservation of nature and the ecological phenomena that destinations might offer the tourist experience, while doing the opposite during the travel itself (Self, et al., 2010; Stem et al., 2003). Instead of upholding the zero environmental impact ideology of ecotourism, greenwashers are most likely unsustainable and resemble shallow or mass tourism ideologies. As is believed that green travel often shares its beliefs with shallow ecotourism, Self et al. (2010) argue that ecotourism is likely the indirect cause of environmental problems occurring at destinations, as it may lead to the attraction of other tourism sectors and an increase in advertising resulting in increased unsustainable tourism and thus negative impacts.

Environmental assessment frameworks Environmental assessments have been used more frequently in the planning and evolution of decision-making on the national, regional and local level. The assessments are usually based on conceptual frameworks of causal relations that help organize and determine indicators that resulted in the current situation and possible responses (Niemeijer & de Groot, 2008). Most environmental reports use one of the following three

14 frameworks: the Pressure-State-Response (PSR), the Driving force-State-Response (DSR) and the Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework (Niemeijer et al., 2008).

Pressure-State-Response framework The PSR-model was adopted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to structure environmental policies and reporting (OECD, 2003). It assumes that human activities exert pressure on the quality and quantity of resources within an environment by changing its current state and may provoke responses by the society (OECD, 2003). Its objective is to highlight cause-effect relationships between human and nature interactions. By proposing a causal model, the framework does not imply that there is a single problem but multiple causes that result in an environmental change (Wolfslehner & Vacik, 2008). The PSR-model is often associated with a more sustainable approach to planning and decision-making by focussing on both the positive and negative pressures (Guio-Torres, 2007).

Driving force-State-Response framework The Driving force-State-Response framework was adopted by both the OECD and the United Nations and used as an indicator of sustainable development (Regions for sustainable change, 2011). The use of driving force instead of pressure gives it the possibility to include social, economic and institutional indicators and allows for both negative and positive impacts (United Nations, 2007). The focus is mainly on sustainable development when regarding environmental frameworks and how this is influenced by human activities, processes and patterns (Regions for sustainable change, 2011).

Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework The DPSIR framework is an extended version of the PSR and DSR model combined. The model recognizes driving forces as the cause of human pressures and includes the impact to society after the change in state occurs (Guio-Torres, 2007). By distinguishing between the driving forces and pressures it is possible to include macro level changes on a local scale which in turn may give more insight into the appropriate responses and nature of the problem (Niemeijer et al., 2008).

The PSR, DSR and DPSIR are all often used and recognized as useful assessment frameworks due to the highlighting of causal relationships. They are used in both sectoral and environmental themes and have been integrated more in environmental issue assessment. The division between the causes, changes and responses makes interrelations and possible feedback more visible.

15 Methodology

This chapter will outline the research design and strategy that this thesis is based upon. It will elaborate on the research methods and strategies used. Additionally, the method and choices of data collection and analysis of literature will be elaborated on.

Research design and strategy The research design used in this thesis is a case study design. A single case can show different aspects of the two concepts that are the basis of this research, namely tourism and the environment. Their relationship can be analysed and proven more profoundly by intensive examination of the setting (Bryman, 2012). Due to the explanatory nature, Yin (2003) argues that a case study is most suitable for a location where a phenomenon is occurring daily as it may provide more elaborative information and processes instead of researching the phenomenon, tourism, on a larger scale. Although this thesis refers to the connection between islands and tourism in general, the Galapagos archipelago is its main focus of analysis. The research for this case will be conducted using qualitative research methods by analysing existing literature and aiming to provide new insights and assumptions based on connections found within the literature. The desk-research will make use of figures, tables and statistics to support arguments and show the severity of the problem. By analysing literature and reports this thesis aims to find new relations between variables that affect the relationship between tourism and the environment of the Galapagos islands.

Data collection This thesis aims to analyse the environmental changes occurring on the Galapagos islands as a result of tourism and how this is reflected in the Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC). However, to make a more explicit distinction between the causes, consequences and solutions, the pressure-state-response model is used. The pressure-state-response (PSR) model visualizes the causal relationship between anthropogenic pressures and environmental impacts, together with being locally oriented and focussing on sustainability (Meyar-Naimi &Vaez-Zadeh, (2012). Although the TALC and pressure- state-response model differ, this thesis debates that the stages of the life cycle fit within the PSR-model and it is therefore used to examine the tourism conditions on the Galapagos.

As explained in the theoretical framework, Butler (1980) argues that there are six different stages in the life cycle of a tourist destination: exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation and decline. The author believes that the exploration, involvement and development stage coincide with pressures that tourism exerts on a destination as the development stage marks the point where the market opens up for mass tourism. These three stages are categorized as pressures of tourism as the growth has implications for the islands. The data gathered for the analysis was retrieved from Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar which both provide articles, reports and books concerning social and natural sciences. Data on the pressures of Galapagos islands’ tourism was found using general keywords like “Galapagos islands” and “Tourism growth” specified with keywords like “ecotourism”, “conservation”, “population growth”, “transport” and “economic value”. These keywords relate to and help answer “what are the consequences of tourism growth of the Galapagos islands?” The information gathered data from 1989 until 2007 as that was the year UNESCO

16 added the Galapagos islands to their World Heritage in Danger list due to uncontrolled tourism growth and failure to counteract the environmental impact (Nash, 2009).

The stages of consolidation and stagnation, according to the author, relate to the state of change within the PSR-model. Within these stages, changes occur due to uncontrolled tourism growth leading to environmental problems. The information gathered aims to answer “how does tourism contribute to the current environmental problems on the Galapagos islands?” To collect data, keywords like “Galapagos islands”, “Tourism” and “environmental problems” were used and showed three recurring environmental impacts, namely habitat destruction, waste production and the presence of invasive species. The choice to analyse these three problems was based upon existing literature which argues that tourism depletes natural resources, increases waste pollution and changes the physical conditions of a place (Sunlu, 2003; Stylidis et al., 2007; Mihalič, 2000). When concerning islands, Watkins (2008) and Vinueza et al., (2014) argue that habitat destruction, pollution and invasive species pose threats to the unique ecosystems on islands. Specifying the data collection using keywords concerning “waste production”, “pollution”, “introduced species threat”, “tourism development”, “biodiversity loss” and “urbanization” together with “Galapagos islands” and “Tourism” resulted in literature corresponding with the environmental impacts mentioned above (Reaser et al., 2007; Wong et al., 2005; Simberloff, 2005; Watkins et al., 2007; Hernández & Martín-Cejas, 2005; Hoornberg & Bhada-Tata, 2012; Walsh et al., 2010 and Hall, 2001). The analysis focuses on changes occurring after 2007 as that marks the year tourism growth was considered a problem by Unesco.

The response section coincides with the different forms of decline occurring in a life cycle, depending on the solutions or responses applied. To answer the question “how may sustainable tourism help reduce the tourism pressures on the environment of the Galapagos islands?” sustainable tourism development and possible decline in tourism and its implications is debated. Also for this analysis both Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar were used to retrieve information. Again, more general keywords like the “Galapagos islands” and “Tourism” were used and were specified using “conservation”, “rules”, “sustainability”, “responses” and “sustainable tourism development”. Also the response section makes use of literature after 2007, however the choice has been made to include non Galapagos cases to review the possibilities.

Overall, most statistical data was retrieved from the Charles Darwin Foundation publications. The foundation publishes scientific reports focussing on social, economic and environmental development on the Galapagos islands. Reports from 2007 on were used to adapt tables, graphs and figures. Additionally, reports were used to search for specific data on tourism on the Galapagos and how it was addressed by inhabitants and institutions.

Data analysis For the analysis of tourism impacts on the Galapagos islands a lot of data has been gathered and analysed with a similar approach. First, after finding an appropriate title, the introduction is reviewed whether it concerned the Galapagos islands and tourism. As tourism is the focus of this research, literature lacking this focus were often discarded unless it provided detailed information corresponding with data concerning tourism. Important when analysing literature was the causality between tourism and

17 environmental impacts and so literature was sought that approached these concepts together, otherwise it is difficult to determine if one influences the other. Consecutively, the discussion and conclusion of the existing literature were analysed for positive and negative conclusions and contradictions as well. These are conclusions the author compared to other literature to properly understand and examine the tourism conditions on the islands.

Comparisons between literature was deemed important to find contradictions and similarities. To get an overview of comparable data, the information was categorized per subject in a document or notebook. The subject was decided upon from reading introductions; if multiple scholars argued or mentioned similar events data was grouped, for example under “urban development”. The categorized information based upon similar keywords was compared to find contradictions or biases. This method was especially helpful for the section describing the state of change, as a more detailed overview of different forms of impacts and patterns became clear. Also, if arguments were based upon in-text references, the cited literature was scanned for information for the same keywords, as the original literature in some cases provided more suitable data, for example citations between Walsh et all (2010), Alava (2011) and Alava et al., (2014).

In case of tourism growth and pressures, literature was scanned for historical overviews which might elaborate on tipping points. For example, Kenchington (1989) argued for transport accessibility as a cause for rapid tourism growth, this argument was also given by Elper (2007). Within the literature multiple causes were found and so, the data were sorted into different causes, for example, transportation and economic growth. This provided two keywords that were used to analyse literature in combination with tourism. In response to the environmental impacts of tourism the author analysed literature based upon sustainable tourism development and tourism restrictions on the islands. The author analysed literature for evidence of sustainable tourism development on the Galapagos, however this was restricted and so the Galapagos data were compared to more universal theories on sustainable tourism. By comparing tourism management and sustainable tourism development the author analysed literature to find overlap.

As mentioned earlier, Galapagos reports and publication from the Charles Darwin Foundation were used to gather statistical data like graphs, figures and tables. When going over these reports, the author focussed on the specific keywords which are described in the paragraphs above. For example, keywords concerning tourism development and accommodations led to a table in Epler (2007) which showed the increase in number of accommodations on the Galapagos islands. However, in some cases graphs and tables were too elaborate and not everything seemed useful in comparison to information from other literature. In these cases, the necessary data was extracted and adapted into a new table to help visualize an argument better without mentioning data which was not elaborated on.

18 The case of the Galapagos Island

The Galapagos islands are an archipelago, consisting of 20 islands, emerged from volcanic activity in the seafloor of the Pacific Ocean, giving them both a unique volcanic environment and geographical isolation. The island formation and insularity causes the island’s outlines to change through the processes of erosion and deposition (Jackson, 1993). Although the Galapagos lie in the tropical climate zone, it is relatively dry and the islands only experience two seasons which are influenced by wind and ocean currents and occasionally by El Niño, impacting the biodiversity on the islands. It is because of the climate’s unpredictability and changing environment that only a few species are able to live on the Galapagos. Natural selection and adaptation play an important role in determining the species present and extinction rates (Jackson, 1993).

The Galapagos islands are best known from Darwin’s theory on evolution, the survival of the fittest and natural selection, which was ground breaking for biological thought on nature (Jackson, 1993). The Galapagos are home to Darwin’s finches, the marine iguana, the giant tortoises, a rich marine life and many other endemic species which have adapted to the unique environment that the Galapagos represent (UNESCO, 2001). The different processes affecting the composition of the islands, namely the volcanic activity, changing climate, terrestrial, evolutionary and biological processes, have led to the protection of the Galapagos in 1959. The islands are being protected against invasive species, illegal fishing, population growth and tourism in the hope to minimize the impacts. The Galapagos islands were listed as a World Heritage site in 1978 by UNESCO (UNESCO, 2001). Despite the effort, population and tourism growth continued, as it visualized in figure 2.

Figure 2. Population and tourism growth from 1950s to 2010 on the Galapagos islands (Watkins et al., 2007, p.5).

Population growth and tourism growth have both impacted the ecological integrity of the islands. Until the 1970s the number of residents was approximately 4000, however have increased to more than 20000 over the course of three decades, shown in figure 2. The increase of residents is believed to be related to the growth in tourism as tourism generates approximately 418million dollars a year (Galapagos Conservancy, 2010). This contributed to the growth of the local economy resulting in an increase in immigration

19 rates. The environmental characteristics of the Galapagos have attracted tourism since the 1960s. Initially the tourism flows were uncontrolled and incidental, however after the 1970s tourism became more controlled and increased rapidly (De Groot, 1983). The increase in tourism, shown in figure 2 led to the recognition that tourism had to be controlled on the islands in order to minimize the impacts on the vulnerable environment. The National Park of the Galapagos is the most controlled national park, since only two of the five segments allow tourists under strict rules. When the protective rules of the national park were established, the maximum number of tourists were set on 12000 a year, yet this number was exceeded in 1979 (De Groot, 1983). One of the reasons this number was exceeded is because of the benefits tourism brought to the islands, which the government and tourist companies did not want to miss, eventually mass tourism struck the islands. Initially tourists came to the islands with small boat; nowadays, tourists arrive in planes, yachts and cruise ships, polluting the environment. According to the National Park of the Galapagos islands, 244755 tourists visited the island in 2015, which is much more than the maximum number set in the 1970s (Parque Nacional Galapagos Ecuador, 2015). The increase in population and tourism are bringing stress to the islands ecosystem in different manners. The following sections will analyse the impacts in terms of pressures and the state of change and aims to provide possible responses to lower the pressures in the future.

20 Pressures of Tourism Growth

The following section elaborates on the first component of the pressure-state-response model, namely the pressures of tourism growth on the Galapagos islands by answering the following question “What are the consequences of tourism growth of the Galapagos islands?” Zubair et al (2010, cited in Carlsen et al., 2011) argue that the growth rate of island tourism exceeded the growth rate of tourism worldwide over the past two decades. However, the limited capacity and resources to cope with this increase puts pressure on the social, economic and environmental elements on an island. This section elaborates on the pressures coming from the increasing tourism flows in Galapagos by considering the misuse of ecotourism as a central attribute and initiator. The Tourism Area Life Cycle sees ecotourism as the beginning of the cycle that may affect the environment of the destination (Butler, 2006). Additionally, the pressures that occur shall be identified to clarify the changes that may occur.

Tourism growth on the Galapagos The Galapagos islands are unique because of isolation, ecological and evolutionary processes and the lack of predators resulting in low competition within the biodiversity, the increase in human activity, including tourism, is challenging these processes (Stronza & Durham, 2008). In the 1960s tourists started visiting the islands under special conditions, or via personal contacts as transportation was limited; the annual number reached up to a 1000 visitors. During the 1970s tourism began to boom and reached up to 4500 visitors. Conservationist policies argued for a maximum of 12000 tourist visitations annually, however this limit was exceeded by 1978 (Kenchington, 1989). Initially, the tourists coming to the islands were nature-based, denoted as ecotourists willing to learn and experience the ecological phenomena on the islands. However, as ecotourism grew during the 1980s, attraction to the islands by other tourist sectors grew as well. Self et al., (2010) elaborate on the increase of green travel and the greenwashing of tourism which also occurred in the Galapagos islands resulting in increasingly unsustainable tourism development. In the research of Self et al., (2010) is concluded that greenwashing is likely to be present on the tour operators of the Galapagos islands. The involvement of local communities in tourism development is considered important within ecotourism, however is lacking in most tour operators, as well as pleas for nature conservation. Self et al., (2010) also conclude greenwashing seems evident in terms of sustainability which is deemed an important pillar of ecotourism.

Tourism and transportation By the 1980s tourism numbers had increased with 50% and doubled every five years. According to Kenchington (1989) this was due to the increase and accessibility of air travel to and from the islands. This increase was accompanied by an increase of international travel agents who promoted ecotourism tours to the Galapagos via cruise ships or aircrafts. Visitor limit policies were introduced again in 1987 and were set on 30000 visitors; this number was surpassed in the same year (Kenchington, 1989). It was concluded that the growth was difficult to stop and likely tied to the capacity of vehicles and services. The increase in airport capacity and development increased the number of tourists that were able to come to the islands and increased the accommodation possibilities on the islands themselves. Air travel is not the only transportation possibility to the Galapagos islands, cruise ships are used frequently as well. There was a

21 72% increase from 1991-2005 (Epler, 2007). There are approximately 12 million tourists who make use of cruise ships worldwide annually, some of those pass along the Galapagos (Davenport & Davenport, 2009). Cruise ships are accompanied by ecological threats. According to Davenport et al., (2009) cruise ships cause seafloor and reef damage through anchoring and contribute to the waste production of islands by dumping their waste in landfills and the illegal discharge of waste in the water. This is also occurring in the Galapagos where the WWF (2010) argues that cruise ships generate 2 tonnes of waste per day.

Figure. 3 Tourism growth form 1979 to 2015 (Adapted from Parque Nacional de Galapagos, 2015, appendix I)

Tourism and the economy The economy of the Galapagos islands became dependent on the revenues obtained by the increase in tourism flows. Taylor et al. (2009) estimate that tourism contributed with 68% to the 78% growth of the total gross island product between the period of 1999 and 2005, and brought 63 million dollars to the economy annually. In the period 2005-2006 this grew up to 88% including entrance fees (Taylor et al., 2009). This growth is accompanied by the increase of visitors which went from 66071 to 121689 in the same time period (Parque Nacional de Galapagos, 2015). This can be related to the consolidation stage of the TALC of Butler (2006) as in this stage, the majority of the area’s economy comes from the tourism industry. Tourism has increased the population growth on the Galapagos islands. Particularly in terms of immigration rates. According to Walsh et al. (2010) the increasing tourism industry has driven migration form Ecuador to the Galapagos islands. Tourism is in this case seen as a pull factor; the growing industry may provide jobs in for instance construction for tourism services. The growth in immigration rates has increased the urban footprint on the Galapagos islands (Walsh et al., 2010). With the increase in tourism and residents, the pressures on infrastructure and resources, especially in the inhabited areas increased rapidly (Galapagos Conservancy, 2010). The increase in human footprint on the Galapagos islands is seen as a threat to the conservation of the National Park (Gonzalez et al., 2008). The uncontrolled tourism and population growth was recognized by UNESCO in 2007 when the Galapagos archipelago was put o the World Heritage Danger List (Nash, 2009).

22 Tourism on the Galapagos islands can be seen as a cultural ecosystem service, which is dependent on the regulatory, provision and supporting services the ecosystem may provide to the residents. The increase in tourism possibly changes the range of ecosystem services as the growth of one may lead to a decline of the other, and may therefore alter the ecosystem of the islands (Benitoz-Capistros et al., 2014). The increase in economic dependency has led to increased population growth through migration resulting in increased pressures on the ecosystem. Nash (2009) argues that invasive species, introduced by population growth and tourism, are endangering native species. Additionally, the increase in tourism demands for urban development and agriculture which changes land cover and damages ecosystems. Another threat comes from waste generated by the visitors in the national park, but also from the increased presence of cruise ships and other boats as well as air travel (UNESCO, n.d). Hall (2001) argues that there has been an increase in cruise tourism which has environmental impacts of its own, for example the damage done to coral reefs and marine wildlife through anchorage. The changes that have occurred in the islands ecosystems and threats accompanying tourism flows shall be discussed in the following section.

23 State of Change

In 2007 UNESCO put the Galapagos islands on the World Heritage Danger List due to uncontrolled tourism growth which could possibly have negative impacts on the island’s ecosystem. The following section will elaborate on the impacts that are occurring on the Galapagos islands, directly or indirectly driven by tourism growth. This section aims to answer the following question “How does tourism contribute to the current environmental problems on the Galapagos islands?”. This will be done by first analysing the changes in habitat on the islands for tourism purpose in terms of urban development and activities, then the increase in waste production and consequences will be discussed and lastly increase of introduced species and the role of tourism.

Habitat loss Tourism, when playing an important role in the economy, has the tendency to result in development. However, the development is exerting pressure on the environment in terms of habitat loss for tourism services (Baine, 2007). In coastal areas, estuaries are often dredged and cleared of biodiversity for tourism development, this results in habitat loss and changes in the food web (Hall, 2001). Tourism growth results in an increase in demands for accommodation and activities, for which the physical environment is often altered, also on the Galapagos islands. Much of the biodiversity on the Galapagos islands is protected by law, and so approval must be asked for urban expansion. As this is not always given, population density rises and increases pressures on the urban system and environment (Walsh et al., 2010).

Urban Development Only 3% of the Galapagos islands is inhabited as the rest accounts for the National Park. As was established previously, tourism growth leads to population growth, and due to the limited space on the islands, pressures on resources increase. Tourism led to urban development in several ways on the Galapagos islands. First of all, as the number of tourists grew, demands for accommodation by land-based tourism grew as well, resulting in the construction of hotels. Epler (2007) shows that from 1991 to 2006 the number of hotels grew with 150%, including all islands, able to accommodate more than 1600 people. Initially, tourism accommodation was on the vessels with which they arrived, however this has changed. Land-based tourism has increased as towns began to establish themselves as tourism destination, a process which continued to occur through the decades (Epler, 2007). In comparison to the other islands, are hotels on Santa Cruz the most successful, most likely because of the tourist hub it presents. This leads to the second argument for urban development. Vinueza et al., (2014) argue that a new model of tourism has emerged in the Galapagos, namely island hopping, the moving around of tourists from island to island in several days. Some of these island hopping tours require land-based accommodation, and this has increased the demand of urban development on all islands, not just the tourist hubs like Santa Cruz. Lastly, the tourism industry provides a pull factor for immigrants from the mainland, Ecuador. Immigrants seeking to find employment in the tourism sector were likely to enrol in construction jobs for tourism purposes (Walsh et al., 2010). This lead to an increase in tourism development but also a need for resident living possibilities. The increase in immigrants lead to an increase in population which demanded services of its own. The growth in tourism and population led to an increase of the urban footprint of the Galapagos islands, while also losing native nature and reducing the natural buffers of the islands (Walsh et al., 2010).

24 Table 2.The increase in land-based tourism shown through hotels, rooms, beds and restaurants from 1982 to 2006 (Adapted from Epler, 2007, p 17). 1982 1991 2006 % change 1982- % change 1991- 1991 2006 Number of hotels, 18 26 65 44 150 pensions etc Number of rooms 755 Number of beds 214 880 1668 311 90 Number of restaurants 20 31 114 55 268 and bars

Although the urban footprint has increased, local utilities are behind and are not able to support the increase in demand due to poor management in terms of infrastructure, water sanitation and electricity. Waste water management remains the biggest challenge as it pollutes fresh water, which is scarce on the islands; the consequences of poor waste water management shall be discussed later on (Walsh et al., 2010). Besides the increase in waste production has tourism put pressure on the agricultural production of the islands. Although much of the products used on the islands are imported from the mainland, some are cultivated outside the urban areas in designated rural lands. Market pressures, in terms of tourism and population growth, resulted in a higher demand of products, and many farmers have introduced pesticides in their practices to protect their harvest (O’Connor & D’Ozouville, 2015). This has lead to environmental degradation and loss of ecosystems. It poses danger to native species as well as invasive ones. Additionally, the increase in tourism has resulted in pressures on the Galapagos marine reserve due to pollution and anchorage of ships and tourist activities (Vinueza et al., 2014).

Visitor activities and load Tourist activities have the tendency to alter and contribute to destruction of ecosystems and habitats, especially in high tourist density conditions. On the Galapagos islands, dive tourism has increased since the 1980s due to the endemic coral and marine species. The increase in tourism may jeopardize the balance of trophic systems and endemic coral species near shores are under threat of potential human impacts (Feingold & Glynn, 2014). Additionally, shark dive tourism has increased as well, posing a potential threat to the habitats, however limited data is accessible (Hearn et al., 2014). The Galapagos National Park has implemented a visitor site zoning system based on biophysical, social and ecological consideration to determine the number of visitors and possible impacts in these zones (Reck et al., 2010). Some zones are restricted to tourism and only accessible under special circumstances and after quarantine while others are intensive visitors zones only accessible with guides and strict rules. Some of these intensive zones are also management zones where human impacts have occurred in terms of erosion, that are being managed immediately. Near-town and recreational zones are able to sustain a higher level of visitors as the ecosystems are less vulnerable (Reck et al., 2010). The overestimation and underestimation of the visitor loads has resulted in some areas experiencing habitat loss through erosion of trails and interaction with the native nature or through increased waste disposal and trash (Araujo et al., 2013). This means that despite strict rules and management, habitat alterations occur outside of the urban zones as well. However, pressures on the urban zones are less well managed and may pose high risk to the environment due to for example, poorly managed waste treatment.

25 Waste production The World Bank (Hoornberg & Bhada-Tata, 2012) argues that islands generate the largest amount of waste per day, mostly due to tourism industries. Especially for small islands is waste management more challenging due to the isolation and the tourism dominant economy (Willmott & Graci, 2012). Economic growth and increase in tourism contribute to higher levels of pollution which poses risks in coastal environment and food web, especially when chemical and biological pollutants are the main source. This may cause illness to both wildlife and humans and fishery quality and quantity will diminish, all with social and economic consequences (Alava et al., 2014).

Increase in waste generation The inhabited islands of the Galapagos archipelago have a high generation of solid waste which is not always sustainably managed, and will continue to grow, see figure 4. In areas with high population density, there is generally a waste management program, but in other places with lower population density waste is burned, releasing toxins and chemicals into the air (Ragazzi et al., 2014). The World Wildlife Fund (2010) argues that this is most likely due to the lack of resources. Waste management and availability of resources developed slower than population and economic growth trends. This is the case in San Cristobal, one of the inhabited areas of the Galapagos. A new waste treatment program was implemented that could sustain the waste of 6000 residents. This is significantly less than the 6.672 inhabitants living there - and tourism waste production is not included (Vinueza, et al., 2014). The role of tourism in the waste production is most likely indirect. As tourism demands increase, population growth increases as well, due to the possible economic benefits it might offer. As a consequence of tourism growth, waste production will grow, especially when tourism attractions, boats and accommodations are challenging sustainability (Ragazzi et al., 2014).

Figure 2 shows the current and estimated future increase in waste production on the Galapagos islands. It is predicted that by 2020 the islands will generate 30 tonnes of waste per day, excluding waste disposal on the landfills of the current 87 cruises berthing each day, so this will likely be more (Alava et al., 2014). Besides the increase in waste production, water and energy consumption and the accompanying pollution have gained as well with the growth in tourism. The main contribution of tourist waste is kitchen organic waste, glass, cardboard and plastic bags. The high amount and usage of plastic and cardboard comes from the import market of the Galapagos islands (WWF, 2010; Ragazzi et al, 2014). Another problem occurring due to the increase of pressures on urban systems from tourism is that freshwater and coastal environments are polluted by waste and sewage water. Although urban development has increased, the management of local utilities stayed behind, especially in terms of waste water and sanitation. Without proper management of sewage, will the pollutants enter the ground water and damage the environment at discharge points, additionally, the pollutants may enter the fresh drinking water; both cause health problems to tourists and residents (Walsh et al., 2010).

26 12 Pollution as an Emerging Threat for the Conservation of the Galapagos Marine... 255

35 Isabela San Cristobal 30 Santa Cruz Galapagos (Total) 25

20

15

10

5 (tonnes/day/island) Prodcution Waste

0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Figure 4. Present and estimated increase in waste production on the Galapagos islands Fig. 12.2 Estimated and predicted production of solid waste in the Galapagos Islands, including the production per island for the three(Alava et al., 2013, p.255) major islands harboring human centers (i.e., Isabela, San Cristo´bal, and Santa Cruz), from 1974 to 2020. Predicted data for the period 2010–2020 were based on annual forecasts for the expected human population from 2010 to 2020 in the Galapagos, Consequences of poor waste treatmentas projected by INEC (2011) The additional pollution and waste produced by tourists and lack of proper waste management is causing environmental threats to the marine and terrestrial ecosystems. from Puerto Ayora and 3 km from Puerto Baquerizo Moreno (Kerr et al. 2004). Marine pollution, regarding tourism, is mostly causeEfforts have been carried out to improve the wasted by tourism ships and cruise ships. management of municipal organic waste to avoid the generation of dioxin and chronic accumulation of trash It is legal for cruise ships to dispose of their organic waste into the water, however it by implementing recycling programs (see WWF and Toyota 2010) and banning the often contains plastics and inorganic materials which end up in the water as well (WWF, burning of this kind of waste in open areas close to harbors and coastal zone, but 2010). Also, the untreated trash from thethere is still much to be done in this regard. cruise ships is transported to the islands and dumped at a dumpsite or landfill where this is likely to be burned. The burning of plastics and bleached materials without the right treatment results in the increase of toxins and dioxins being released; if The Solid Tide: Marine Debris the dumpsite is close to aquatic systems, the toxins are likely to enter and affecting the biodiversity (Alava et al., 2014). According to De la Torre (2008, cited in WWF, 2010) tourism boats produce 3.1 tonnes per day of waste.Anthropogenic debris has become part of the oceanic environment, and it is now Tourism is found one from of the the polesmajor to energy the equator using and fromsectors shorelines, of the estuaries, Galapagos and the islands, sea especially surface to ocean bottom (STAP 2011). Not even the remotest places on Earth, with boats and fewer transportation people or without vehicles human use presence, high escape concentrations from this harmful of diesel environmental and gasoline. The release of hydrocarbons, like oil, diesel and gas, into the oceans, although unintentional, problem (Derraik 2002; UNEP 2009; STAP 2011). Marine debris is generated from result in immediateboth sea-based impacts on the marine environment. The contamination of marine and land-based sources and is defined as “any persistent, and coastal manufactured environments or processed has detrimental material used effects by humans on its and biodiversity. deliberately or For example, debris and plastics floating in the waters affect birds and mammals like sea lions who unintentionally discarded, disposed of or abandoned in the marine environment, mistake the floating dincluding the transportebris as food, resulting in illne of these materials to the oceanss and starvation (Alava, 2011) by rivers, drainage, storm . The water and sewage systems or by winds” (UNEP 2005a, b, 2009; STAP 2011). current waste management program on the Galapagos islands is becoming better and Marine pollution by debris in Galapagos waters is emerging as a significant effective, concern however for there biota. A is beach–shoreline no management cleanup plan program for around waste the generation Galapagos in on board of tourism vessels and fishi1999 retrieved 22,140ng boats which pass near and dock on the islands (Alava et al., kg of debris, with plastics and metals being the predominant 2014). objects, accounting for 25 and 28 % of the total (Fig. 12.3; Fundacio´n Natura and

From the analysis above it is difficult to tell how much waste tourism produces as it is intertwined with waste production of the residents. The increase in tourism has contributed to the increase in waste generation and has driven urban development. According to Walsh et al (2010) there are no current plants for waste water treatment systems which, with the increase in tourism pressures, may continue to cause problems.

Introduced species Insular ecosystems, like the Galapagos, are more vulnerable and susceptible to threats from alien species than continental ecosystems. This is because the isolation of islands lowered the competition and predator presence in the food chain to which endemic

27 species have not adapted. Also, is it believed that insular species do not have the capacity to adjust to predator pressures like mainland species have (Berger et al., 2007). Tourism is considered important in the spread of non-native species due to the concentration of people from different places and transportation vehicles. The figure represent the increase in tourists, population and introduced species, what can be seen is that these three variables follow the same trend. Although transportation vectors are likely to bring non-native species, tourists can directly transport non-native species through recreational activities, especially in protected and national parks were transport vehicles are not allowed (Anderson et al., 2015). Introduced species are likely to thrive in areas were competition is low or where habitats have been destroyed for tourism purposes. Besides affecting terrestrial environment, marine ecosystems have been affected too through recreational activities concerning boats or yachts which may spread algae and shellfish. The same processes are occurring on the Galapagos islands as well.

Trend of invasive species The Galapagos islands have three main taxa groups, namely mammals, reptiles and birds, through the invasion of non-native species, amphibians and freshwater fish are now present on the island. Phillips, Wiedenfeld & Snell (2011) argue that the annual visit of 150.000 tourists and 78 the growth in populationM.R. Gardener are the main contributors and C. Grenier to the changed status of alien species. you pay’. For example,Figure 5 s a 1 day stay wouldhows the growth in tourism, population and cost a US$1,000 park entrance introduced species fee, which a 5 day stay gives would cost rise US$500 to and believe 10 days or more that would there cost US$100. is an existing affiliation If carefully managed, fewer tourists staying longer in the islands could bring between tourism growth and the number of introduced species. Although the scale in more benefits to local population, reduce movement of goods and invasive spe- which the increase in population, tourism andcies between the continent and islands and favor introduced species is different, the trend a slower-paced and therefore less consumptive tourism. The tourism tax could be more specifically directed is showing similarities. Watkins & Cruzz (2007) have found that there are approximately to support national and local public projects, such as the whole Ecuadorian 750 introduced plant species versus the 500 native species and that when accounting all protected areas network or Galápagos education initiatives. introduced species, the number has grown from 120 to 1321 in the period of 1900- 2007. Table 1 shSustainableows the number of introduced species per taxonomic group in 2008, Enterprise Development where introduced plant species have grown since 2007 (Gardener & Grenier, 2011). Islands inhabited In the by Galápagos, humans water have availability, more soil quality introduced and dense plantspecies invasions than present uninhabited islands, biophysical constraints to agricultural development. The high cost of labor also due to livestock and pets. The introduction of cattle and grazing animals like goats and presents an economic constraint. In a globalized world, however, these constraints pigs are threatening can be overcome, the biodiversity even if it is to the through detriment of the land local natural cover environment. change, affecting the food Presently, in the Galápagos, nearly all food is imported and water shortages have sources of many native species like the torbeen resolved using the expensive techniquetoises of reverse. However, they also brought osmosis. All indicators seedlings from plant species and aid in the spread, like the guava tree which is extremely invasive show that population, economic growth and damage to the environment have been increasing in an unsustainable fashion (Fig. 6.2). This damage has been enabled by (Walsh et al., 2008). highly subsidized Additionally, fossil fuels (e.g. reptiles the price of gasoline are increasingly is fixed at $0.35/liter being in the introduced to the islands via cargo, as these animals are awhole of Ecuador including the Galápagos).ble to survive on the islands they pose threats to In 2005, the archipelago imported 34 million liters of fuel for energy production and transport and this amount is increas- the ecosystems ing and at a rate increase of over 10% likeliness per annum (Jacome of 200 predator8). Growth -alsoprey has less competition obvious, (Phillips et al., 2011).

2000 Population (x10) Tourists (x100) Cargo (tonnes x10) Fuel (liters x 100000) 1500 introduced (species)

1000

500

0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year

Fig. 6.2 Growth of resident population, tourists, cargo, introduced species and fossil fuel con- Figure 5. Increase in tourism number, residents and introduced species (Gardener et al., 2011sumption: 1960–2007. (Data adapted from Jacome 2008; Watkins and Cruz 2007; Charles Darwin , p. 78) Foundation, Galápagos National Park). Note the acceleration of growth rates after the Special Law of Galápagos, 1998

28

Table 3. Number of native and non-native species on the Galapagos islands adapted from Gardener et al. (2011, p. 82).

Taxonomic group Native species Of which endemic Introduced species Vertebrates except fish 117 69 55 Fish 396 51 2 Terrestrial invertebrates 3000 1560 543 Marine invertebrates 1384 362 Unknown Vascular plants 378 238 888 Non vascular plants 986 184 Unknown

Insects and mammals Insects pose a threat as these may spread diseases once introduced. Bataille et al (2009) argue that mosquitos are often introduced through human transportation methods and anthropogenic changes to the environment. It has been shown that aircraft and tourism boats from the mainland contribute to invertebrate species introduction to the Galapagos islands. In their research, Bataille et al. (2009) state that over a course of 12 months 74 alive invertebrates were present on the airports of the Galapagos, all non- native. Besides airports, cargo ships and tourism boats transporting food and other goods have shown evidence of transporting non-native species. Not all invertebrate species introduced have the capacity to travel across all islands and so dispersal is likely to be human-aided as is the case for the Culex mosquito. The Culex mosquito is posing threats to the biodiversity by spreading diseases, like a sort of malaria that affects birds to which the native species are not accustomed to.

Insects are not the only species that may be harmful to native species. Mammals and vertebrates have been introduced to the islands since the first settlers and the number of non-native species are still increasing as is visible in figure 5, posing threats to the biodiversity due to increased predator-pray competition. Black rats, introduced by population increase in the Galapagos have effected bird and tortoise population as hatchlings and eggs are a food source contributing to the decline of several species and extinction of native rodents (Phillips et al., 2011). Feral dogs and cats, also introduced by humans, have impacted the marine and land iguana populations and contributed to its decline, as well as the decline of seabird species. Berger et al (2007) conducted research on the threat and capability of marine iguanas to adapt to predators. The research argues that marine iguanas have a slight ability to adapt to threats, however are often not fast enough of to reluctant. Although marine iguana population decline due to predators, iguanas living closely to tourist exposure have the ability to cope with stress and assess threats, increasing the likeliness of new adaptations and predator-prey changes. This ability was only found in iguanas living in the presence of humans, those living on uninhabited islands are less likely to develop this mechanism.

Although there have been many attempts to eradicate invasive species, the increase in population growth through migration and the increase in tourism numbers has made it difficult to stop the introduction of non-native species, especially in terms of plants and insects (Self et al., 2010). The number of introduced species is likely to increase and alter the ecosystems present on the islands. Yet, it is difficult to show to what extent

29 tourism is responsible for which species and for how many but also how many non- native species are present in terrestrial and aquatic systems (Anderson et al., 2015).

Loss of habitat, pollution, waste production and introduced species were regarded as negative anthropogenic impacts on the environment of islands, where tourism plays a role (Watkins, 2008; Vinueza et al., 2014). What can be concluded from the analysis above is that tourism is in many cases the driver of the impacts occurring. Tourism increases the likeliness of population growth and pressures the urban system to develop to accommodate and sustain more tourists. This results in an increase in waste production which is not properly managed on many islands, increasing the risk of pollution and harming of marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Additionally, invasive species are posing a threat to the environment of the Galapagos, and tourism and globalization may play a role, however the number of species introduced by tourist is hard to establish.

30 Responses to Tourism of the Galapagos Islands

The aim of Galapagos institutions was to pursue economic success while lowering tourism threats on the environment by increasing environmental responsibility, however as there was not immediate leadership in the 1990s to do this, environmental regulations were not undertaken and tourism and its threats continued to grow (Brewington, 2012). Additionally, by not recognizing the interconnectedness of tourism and population growth was tourism not addressed in the 1998 law to reduce population growth. The following section examines the possible responses to lower tourism pressures on the environment by answering the following question: “How may sustainable tourism help reduce the tourism pressures on the environment of the Galapagos islands?”. The Galapagos National Park Service aims to conserve and protect the ecosystems by implementing strict management rules. Rules have been set up to prevent damage to the nature. Interaction with wildlife is strictly forbidden, additionally no products made from animals or vegetation are allowed to be taken from the islands. Also, there are strict rules in terms of fees, restricted areas and routes (Galapagos conservancy, 2017). Furthermore, if necessary the national park authority has the ability to close sites or change visitor number in response to an increase in disturbance. According to MacFarland (2001; cited in Watkins et al., 2007) the direct impacts on the visitor sites are minimal due to this management.

Sustainable ecotourism Strict land zoning views 97% of the Galapagos islands as the national park, leaving 3% of the islands under less strict management rules (Brewington, 2012). The negative impacts of tourism are therefore felt more on a regional social, economic and ecological scale than in the visitor areas. It is difficult to determine whether tourism on the Galapagos islands is unsustainable due to the local involvement on the one hand and the striving for economic growth through tourism resulting in increased population growth on the other (Kerr, 2005; Taylor et al., 2009; Watkins et al., 2005). Island development often relies upon two strategies; economic growth and people-centred development whereby the latter is the more sustainable one. People-centred development aims at participatory decision-making that promotes equal distribution of wealth, empowerment and participatory management. The relation between tourism and sustainable development on islands is complex as tourism is often a globally unsustainable pattern while local involvement in the tourism industry on islands aims for sustainable development. The limited control on exogenous forces of islands makes it thus difficult to establish sustainable development (Kerr, 2005).

Ecotourism Charter According to Grenier (2010), the tourism footprint was 8.7% above average in 2010, and may become more as the tourism trends shows continues growth. With the impact tourism has on the environment, tourism with a lower ecological footprint is needed, preferably ecotourism. During the 2010 Summit for sustainable tourism development on the Galapagos Islands this vision on tourism was confirmed, where by the main focus was on ecotourism (García, et al., 2013a). Sustainable ecotourism was to rely on three principles: 1) participation and equality to promote integrated development and local benefits, 2) conservation to minimize the impacts of tourism activities to promote long- term sustainability without increased pollution, waste and habitat loss and 3) shared responsibility (García et al., 2013a). These three principles were to be achieved through

31 tourism observatories, strengthening of governance, reengineering of the destination and changing of the market position, however gaining the support of stakeholders, both local and regional, within these approaches remains the main challenge (García et al., 2013b). Additionally, behavioural patterns have to change in the visitor sites, for instance, Araujo et al., (2013) argue that waste or trash disposal occurs more frequently on sites where many visitors are and where one follows the other in terms of behavioural patterns. Furthermore, Araujo et al., (2013) believe that by managing the capacity of visitors sites properly to find a balance between overcapacity and underutilization, the number of invasive species may decrease. Generally, the idea of the ecotourism charter is to go back to nature-based tourism that emerged on the islands before mass tourism set in to have both economic benefits and conservation.

Sustainable Mass Tourism and Unsustainable Mass Tourism Ecotourism is seen as a form of tourism that promotes conservation and sets in motion sustainable development, especially when there is a symbiotic relationship between the locals and tourism (Tsaur et al., 2006). Although it is difficult to tell the number of ecotourists visiting the Galapagos islands, the tourism growth and consequences in terms of habitat loss and waste generation gives rise to believe that the growth shares more resemblance to shallow ecotourism and possibly mass tourism than deep ecotourism as characterized in table 1. As tourism on the Galapagos continues to grow, and pressures on the urban system and ecosystem are occurring, the question remains whether it is possible to return to ecotourism if this many people arrive annually. The Tourism Area Life Cycle argues that as tourism continues to grow it is likely to turn into mass tourism that affects the surrounding environment negatively (Butler, 2006). However, Weaver (2000) argues that it is possible for mass tourism to be unsustainable and sustainable, this depends on the degree of regulation and intensity of visitation. Unsustainable mass tourism (UMT) occurs when tourism continues to development and exceeds the carrying capacity. Sustainable mass tourism (SMT) is mass tourism that remains within the carrying capacity of the destination where local control is exerted and big operators may take the upper hand in sustainability practices (Weaver, 2000; Rodríguez et al., 2008). To go from UMT to SMT is quite difficult in practice as the damage already done cannot be reversed. The feasibility depends on the extent of damage, support of stakeholders and time. Additionally, Krüger (2005) argues that sustainability of tourism on islands is much harder to achieve than on continental lands because of isolation and vulnerability that diminishes the line between unsustainability and sustainability.

Considering that the visitors of the Galapagos island are not all ecotourists and that the continued growth, demands and impacts resemble mass tourism, as described by Butler (2006) as the point where tourism require more accommodation and services, returning to ecotourism may be very challenging. This was also indicated by the Ecotourism charter which stated that market positioning should change and reengineering of the islands too, although, this is dependent on the stakeholders involved. Several studies argue that this dependency makes sustainable ecotourism difficult in practice due to the difference in ideologies and willingness to change (Weaver, 2000; Powell & Ham, 2008; García et al., 2013ab; Araujo et al., 2013). However, if sustainable mass tourism may provide an opportunity to lower the pressures on the ecosystem and promote conservation through strict regulation and local control, sustainable tourism development may be profitable in reducing the negative consequences of tourism

32 growth. Additionally, as Kerr (2005), Araujo et al. (2013) and García et al. (2013a) observed, local benefits and people-centred development should remain important in the development process of the Galapagos islands. As the residents are highly dependent on the tourism industry, they are likely to be involved.

33 Discussion

This thesis set out to analyse the impacts of tourism on the Galapagos archipelago, specifically on the island’s ecosystems. By reviewing the Tourism Area Life Cycle of the Galapagos islands using the Pressure-State-Response model the current tourism state was analysed. Through analysis of existing literature and data, tourism growth on the Galapagos islands was examined. The analysis showed that tourism growth is closely associated with transportation accessibility and is important for the economy of the islands, resulting in population growth and demand for natural resources. Additionally, the analysis revealed that tourism growth was accompanied by the demand for urbanization, enlarged waste production, pollution and more introduced species (see figures 4 and 5). These developments heightened the possibility of endangering the ecosystem on the islands. Examining tourism management on the islands revealed the importance of sustainable tourism development and inclusion of local communities to restrain the environmental impediment.

As the method of research is a literature review and empirical research was not conducted, the analysis is restricted to data collected by other scholar providing some limitations. First of all, the analysis might be biased as perceptions of the Galapagos inhabitants have not been taken into account. Perceptions of locals may reveal the dependency on the tourism industry and provide insights into the severity of the environmental problems. Additionally, perceptions may provide information not presented in the literature. Secondly, this thesis focuses on the environmental problems caused by tourism. However, the analysis has showed that tourism contributed significantly to the economic growth of the islands and the dependency of the local community. The weight of environmental threats against economic and social benefits of tourism may provide a broader view on the current state of tourism on the islands. Consequently, the possible revenues of tourism to help conservation strategies have not been included, limiting the scope of research. Thirdly, although this thesis aimed to provide new insights into tourism on the Galapagos islands using both the Tourism Area Life Cycle and the PSR-model, the analysis is based upon existing literature and limiting the data availability. When coming across interesting and useable data but that was not elaborated on, the possibility to include it in the analysis was little. So, due to the literature review and exclusion of social and economic benefits, the analysis may be narrow-minded. Besides possible restrictions within the analysis, the reliability of this thesis could be debated. The qualitative data provided was secondary including possible biases of scholars and limiting the possibility to cross-check conclusions and other data..

The limitations to the analysis led the author to recommendation for possible research. The inclusion of economic and social value of tourism may reveal new insights into the current situation on the islands. The costs of the environment and benefit of tourism may possibly be revealed by researching perceptions of local communities on the problem and asks for further analysis. Additionally, a comparative analysis between multiple islands and tourism may disclose patterns of environmental problems or contradictions giving the opportunity to theorize tourism on islands more. Also, the analysis revealed that population growth is associated with tourism growth, however as this was not the focus of this thesis, the relationship was not elaborated on. Further research could examine the causality between population and tourism growth on islands which includes migration and globalization. The recommended research may all

34 provide new insights into the development of tourism of the Galapagos islands without being restrained to the environment. Notwithstanding of the constraints within the analysis, several conclusions have been drawn to answer the research question.

35 Conclusion

Tourism flows have increased worldwide due to globalization as is pointed out by Dwyer (2015), also on islands where tourism may pose risks to the environment. This thesis set out to analyse the impacts of tourism on the island ecosystem of the Galapagos by examining causal relationships through the use of the Pressure-State-Response model set up by the OECD (2003). By elaborating on carrying capacity and tourism area life cycle, this thesis aimed to better understand the processes that led to the outcome of the analysis and the tourism trend on the islands. To answer the question “how does tourism impact the island ecosystem of the Galapagos islands?”, three current environmental problems were analysed, namely habitat loss, waste production and introduced species.

By examining the pressures that tourism growth exerted on the Galapagos, it was recognized that tourism is most likely a driver of population growth through immigration flows from the mainland. Tourism has increased significantly over the past 40 years and plays an important role in the economy of the islands, providing as a pull factor for immigrants. The rise in tourism and residents has increased the pressures on urban systems like development and waste management was well increasing the likeliness of introducing non-native species. According to the Tourism Area Life Cycle, as tourism grows it reaches a stage where species accommodation and tourism services are demanded and supplied by the local communities.

As the Galapagos is for only 3% inhabited, this increases urban density and pressures. Other types of destruction or loss of habitat come from the number of tourists visiting an area, areas of intense visitation show higher frequencies of erosion and trash disposal. The analysis has shown that the increase in waste production and lack of proper waste management is not able to keep up with the increased urban development, posing risks to the environment. With the increase in tourism and population, waste generation increases as well, and is added to by tourism ships. Waste is often left in landfills and burned which results in chemicals and pollutants entering both the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Within the waste production and management debate it is difficult to establish whether tourists are contributing directly or indirectly to the problem. This is also the case for invasive species, as it is difficult to establish how many species have been introduced by tourists. Tourism has increased the global flows towards the islands, bringing insects but also mammals with them in cargo, aircrafts and boats, often unconsciously. This results in competition and predator presence that endemic species are not adapted to. From the analysis can be derived that tourism is most likely driving many of these environmental threats through its continuous and rapid growth, which demands more of the Galapagos islands. The lack of specific data that shows numbers of species and waste production by tourists directly supports this believe as well. Additionally, population growth most likely causes a lot of these problems as well, which is possibly a response to tourism growth.

To lower the pressures of tourism growth on the islands, the Galapagos are striving to return to ecotourism and reduce the likeliness of mass tourism. However this is difficult, the examination of sustainable tourism has shown that sustainable mass tourism is possible on a shorter term if stakeholders are willing to participate in sustainable

36 conservation and if local communities are involved. The tourism threats are likely to continue and if it continues as currently, the impacts are most likely indirect.

37 References

Abernethy, V. D. (2001). Carrying capacity: the tradition and policy implications of limits. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2001, 9-18.

Acott, T. G., Trobe, H. L., & Howard, S. H. (1998). An evaluation of deep ecotourism and shallow ecotourism. Journal of sustainable tourism, 6(3), 238-253.

Anderson, L. G., Rocliffe, S., Haddaway, N. R., & Dunn, A. M. (2015). The role of tourism and recreation in the spread of non-native species: a systematic review and meta- analysis. PloS one, 10(10), e0140833.

Archer, B., Cooper, C., & Ruhanen, L. (2005). The positive and negative impacts of tourism. Global tourism, 3, 79-102.

Alava Saltos, J. J. (2011). Bioaccumulation of pollutants in Galapagos sea lions and marine mammals from British Columbia, Canada (Doctoral dissertation, Environment: School of Resource and Environmental Management).

Alava, J. J., Palomera, C., Bendell, L., & Ross, P. S. (2014). Pollution as an emerging threat for the conservation of the Galapagos Marine Reserve: environmental impacts and management perspectives. In The Galapagos Marine Reserve (pp. 247-283). Springer International Publishing.

Araujo, E., Jaramillo, I., Flores, J., Sotomayor, J., Gallardo, M., Ariscado, S. (2013). Simavis: results of monitoring various indicators at visitor sites in the Galapagos National Park. P. 104-109. In: Galapagos Report 2011-2012. GNPS, GCREG, CDF and GC. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador.

Baine, M., Howard, M., Kerr, S., Edgar, G., & Toral, V. (2007). Coastal and marine resource.

Baldacchino, G., 2004: Sustainable use practices, including tourism, in/for small islands. INSULA, Special Issue February 2004, pp. 15–20.

Baldacchino, G., & Niles, D. (Eds.). (2011). Island futures: conservation and development across the Asia-Pacific region. Springer Science & Business Media.

Bataille, A., Cunningham, A. A., Cedeño, V., Cruz, M., Eastwood, G., Fonseca, D. M., ... & Goodman, S. J. (2009). Evidence for regular ongoing introductions of mosquito disease vectors into the Galápagos Islands. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, rspb20090998.

Baum, T. (1997). The fascination of islands: a tourist perspective. Island tourism: Trends and prospects, 21-35.

Benitez-Capistros, F., Hugé, J., & Koedam, N. (2014). Environmental impacts on the Galapagos Islands: Identification of interactions, perceptions and steps ahead. Ecological Indicators, 38, 113-123.

38 Berger, S., Wikelski, M., Romero, L. M., Kalko, E. K., & Rödl, T. (2007). Behavioral and physiological adjustments to new predators in an endemic island species, the Galápagos marine iguana. Hormones and Behavior, 52(5), 653-663

Brewington, L. (2013). The double bind of tourism in Galapagos society. In Science and Conservation in the Galapagos Islands (pp. 105-125). Springer New York.

Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 24(1), 5- 12.

Butler, R. (Ed.). (2006). The tourism area life cycle (Vol. 1). Channel view publications.

Campbell, L.M., Gray, N. J., Meletis, Z.A. (2007). Political ecology perspectives on ecotourism to parks and protected areas. In Hanna, K. S., Clark, D. A., & Slocombe, D. S. (Eds.). (2007). Transforming parks and protected areas: Policy and governance in a changing world. Routledge.

Carlsen, J., & Butler, R. (Eds.). (2011). Island Tourism: Towards a Sustainable Perspective (Vol. 8). CABI.

CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) 2004: Status and trends of, and major threats to, island biodiversity. Document no. UNEP/CBD/AHTEG-IB/1/3. Available online at http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/island/tegib-01/ official/tegib-01–03-en.pdf

Coccossis, H., & Parpairis, A. (1992). Tourism and the environment—some observations on the concept of carrying capacity. In Tourism and the Environment (pp. 23-33). Springer Netherlands.

Coccossis, H., Mexa, A., Collovini, A., Parpairis, A., & Konstandoglou, M. (2001). Defining, measuring and evaluating carrying capacity in European tourism destinations. Environmental Planning Laboratory, Athens.

Davenport, J., & Davenport, J. L. (2006). The impact of tourism and personal leisure transport on coastal environments: a review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 67(1), 280-292.

De Groot, R. S. (1983). Tourism and conservation in the Galapagos Islands. Biological Conservation, 26(4), 291-300.

Dwyer, L. (2015). Globalization of tourism: Drivers and outcomes. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 326-339.

Epler, B. (2007). Tourism, the economy, population growth, and conservation in Galapagos. Charles Darwin Foundation.

39 Feingold, J. S., & Glynn, P. W. (2014). Coral research in the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. In The Galapagos Marine Reserve (pp. 3-22). Springer International Publishing.

Fernández-Palacios, J.M. (2010). Why islands? In V., Pérez-Mellado, C., Ramon (Eds.) Islands and evolution, Institut Menorquí d’Estudis 19, 85-109.

Hall, C. M. (2001). Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier?. Ocean & coastal management, 44(9), 601-618.

Hillery, M., B. Nancarrow, G. Griffin, and G. Syme. 2001. Tourist Perception of Environmental Impact. Annals of Tourism Research 28(4): 853–867.

Galapagos Conservancy (2010). Economy. Retrieved on the 10th of June 2017 from https://www.galapagos.org/about_galapagos/about-galapagos/people- today/economy/

Galapagos Conservancy (2017). Galapagos National Park Rules. Retrieved on the 10th of June 2017 from https://www.galapagos.org/travel/travel/park-rules/

Galapagos Conservancy (2010). Tourism and Population Growth. Retrieved on the 12th of June 2017 from https://www.galapagos.org/conservation/conservation/conservationchallenges/touris m-growth/

García, J.C., Orellana, D. & Araujo, E.. (2013a). The new model of tourism: Definition and implementation of the principles of ecotourism in Galapagos. Pp. 95-99. In: Galapagos Report 2011-2012. GNPS, GCREG, CDF and GC. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador

García, J.C., Rangel, E. & Farías. M.A. (2013b). The Tourism Observatory of Galapagos: A monitoring system for the new model of ecotourism. Pp. 100-103. In: Galapagos Report 2011-2012. GNPS, GCREG, CDF and GC. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador

Gardener, M. R., & Grenier, C. (2011). Linking livelihoods and conservation: challenges facing the Galápagos Islands. In Island futures (pp. 73-85). Springer Japan.

González, J., Montes, C., Rodríguez, J., & Tapia, W. (2008). Rethinking the Galapagos Islands as a complex social-ecological system: implications for conservation and management. Ecology and Society, 13(2).

Grenier, C. (2010). A Geographic index to measure the carrying capacity for tourism in the 143 population centers of the Galapagos. Pp. 143-151. In: Galapagos Report 2009- 2010. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador.

Gui-Torres, D. (2007, April). Sustainability indicators and the assessment of urban water systems: Seeking for a robust way forward. In Young Scientific Workshop: Urban Water Innovation.

40 Hearn, A. R., Acuna, D., Ketchum, J. T., Penaherrera, C., Green, J., Marshall, A., ... & Shillinger, G. (2014). Elasmobranchs of the Galapagos marine reserve. In The Galapagos Marine Reserve (pp. 23-59). Springer International Publishing.

Hernández, M. G., & Martín-Cejas, R. R. (2005). Incentives towards sustainable management of the municipal solid waste on islands. Sustainable development, 13(1), 13- 24.

Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. Urban development series knowledge papers, 15, 1-98.

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contri- bution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1032 Jackson, M. H. (1993). Galápagos, a natural history. University of Calgary Press.

Kenchington, R. A. (1989). Tourism in the Galapagos Islands: the dilemma of conservation. Environmental Conservation, 16(03), 227-232.

Kerr, S. A. (2005). What is small island sustainable development about?. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48(7), 503-524.

Krüger, O. (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora’s box?. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14(3), 579-600.

Lindberg, K., & McCool, S. F. (1998). A critique of environmental carrying capacity as a means of managing the effects of tourism development. Environmental Conservation, 25(04), 291-292.

MacLeod, M., & Cooper, J. A. G. (2005). Carrying capacity in coastal areas. In Encyclopedia of Coastal Science (pp. 226-226). Springer Netherlands.

Meyar-Naimi, H., & Vaez-Zadeh, S. (2012). Sustainable development based energy policy making frameworks, a critical review. Energy Policy, 43, 351-361.

Mihalič, T. (2000). Environmental management of a tourist destination: A factor of tourism competitiveness. Tourism management, 21(1), 65-78.

Monte-Luna, D., Brook, B. W., Zetina-Rejón, M. J., & Cruz-Escalona, V. H. (2004). The carrying capacity of ecosystems. Global ecology and biogeography, 13(6), 485-495.

Murphy, P. E., & Price, G. G. (2005). Tourism and sustainable development. Global tourism, 3, 167-193

Nash, S. (2009). Ecotourism and other invasions. BioScience, 59(2), 106-110.

Niemeijer, D., & de Groot, R. S. (2008). Framing environmental indicators: moving from causal chains to causal networks. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(1), 89-106.

41 O’Connor, M. & D’Ozouville, N. (2015). Agricultural use of pesticides on Santa Cruz. P. 30- 34. In: Galapagos Report 2013-2014. GNPD, GCREG, CDF and GC. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador.

OECD (2003). OECD Environmental indicators: development, measurement and use. Retrieved on 10th of march 2017 from http://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling- outlooks/24993546.pdf

Parque Nacional de Galapágos (2015). Estadística de Visitantes. Retrieved on the 10th of May 2017 from http://www.galapagos.gob.ec/estadistica-de-visitantes/

Peeters, P., & Landré, M. (2011). The emerging global tourism geography—An environmental sustainability perspective. Sustainability, 4(1), 42-71.

Pelling, M., & Uitto, J. I. (2001). Small island developing states: natural disaster vulnerability and global change. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 3(2), 49-62.

Phillips, R. B., Wiedenfeld, D. A., & Snell, H. L. (2012). Current status of alien vertebrates in the Galápagos Islands: invasion history, distribution, and potential impacts. Biological Invasions, 14(2), 461-480.

Powell, R. B., & Ham, S. H. (2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro- conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. Journal of sustainable tourism, 16(4), 467-489.

Ragazzi, M., Catellani, R., Rada, E. C., Torretta, V., & Salazar-Valenzuela, X. (2014). Management of municipal solid waste in one of the Galapagos Islands. Sustainability, 6(12), 9080-9095.

Reaser, J. K., Meyerson, L. A., Cronk, Q., De Poorter, M., Eldrege, L. G., Green, E., ... & O'DOWD, D. E. N. N. I. S. (2007). Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of invasive alien species in island ecosystems. Environmental Conservation, 34(02), 98-111.

Reck, G., Casafont, M., Naula, E., Oviedo, M. (2010). Simavis: System of Managing Visitors of the Galapagos National Park. P. 93-103. In: Galapagos Report 2009-2010. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador.

Regions for sustainable change (2011). What methodologies can be used to develop indicators? Retrieved on the 11th of April 2017 from http://www.rscproject.org/indicators/index.php?page=what-methodologies-can-be- used-to-develop-indicator-s-or-indicator-set

Rodríguez, J. R. O., Parra-López, E., & Yanes-Estévez, V. (2008). The sustainability of island destinations: Tourism area life cycle and teleological perspectives. The case of Tenerife. Tourism Management, 29(1), 53-65.

42 Self, R. M., Self, D. R., & Bell-Haynes, J. (2010). Marketing tourism in the Galapagos Islands: Ecotourism or greenwashing?. The international business & economics research journal, 9(6), 111.

Stem, C. J., Lassoie, J. P., Lee, D. R., & Deshler, D. J. (2003). How'eco'is ecotourism? A comparative case study of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of sustainable tourism, 11(4), 322-347 Stronza, A., & Durham, W. H. (Eds.). (2008). Ecotourism and conservation in the Americas (Vol. 7). CABI.

Stylidis, D., Terzidou, M., & Terzidis, K. (2007). Island tourism and its socio- economic impacts. University of Surrey.

Sunlu, U. (2003). Environmental impacts of tourism. In Conference on the Relationships between Global Trades and Local Resources in the Mediterranean Region.

Taylor, J. E., Dyer, G. A., Stewart, M., Yunez-Naude, A., & Ardila, S. (2003). The economics of ecotourism: A Galápagos Islands economy-wide perspective. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 51(4), 977-997.

Taylor, J. E., Hardner, J., & Stewart, M. (2009). Ecotourism and economic growth in the Galapagos: an island economy-wide analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 14(02), 139-162.

Tsaur, S. H., Lin, Y. C., & Lin, J. H. (2006). Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tourism management, 27(4), 640-653.

United Nations (2007). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. Retrieved on the 11th of April 2017 from http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf

UN World Tourism Organization (2014). Tourism Highlights 2014. Retrieved on the 20th of May 2017 from http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284416226

UNESCO (2001). Advisory Body Evaluation 2001: World Heritage Nomination – IUCN technical evaluation. Retrieved on the 15th of May 2017 from http://whc.UNESCO.org/en/list/1/documents/

UNESCO (N.D.). Case Study: Galapagos. Retrieved on the 20th of May 2017 from http://whc.UNESCO.org/en/activities/615/

Vinueza, L., Post, A., Guarderas, P., Smith, F., & Idrovo, F. (2014). Ecosystem-based management for rocky shores of the Galapagos Islands. In The Galapagos Marine Reserve (pp. 81-107). Springer International Publishing.

Walsh, S. J., McCleary, A. L., Mena, C. F., Shao, Y., Tuttle, J. P., González, A., & Atkinson, R. (2008). QuickBird and Hyperion data analysis of an invasive plant species in the

43 Galapagos Islands of Ecuador: Implications for control and land use management. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(5), 1927-1941.

Walsh, S. J., McCleary, A. L., Heumann, B. W., Brewington, L., Raczkowski, E. J., & Mena, C. F. (2010). Community expansion and infrastructure development: implications for human health and environmental quality in the Galápagos Islands of Ecuador. Journal of Latin American Geography, 9(3), 137-159.

Warren, B.H., Simberloff, D., Ricklefs, R.E., Aguilée, R., Condamine, F.L., Gillespie, R.G., Gravel, D., Morlon, H., Mouquet, N., Rosindell, J., Casquet, J., Conti, E., Cornuault, J., Fernández-Palacíos, J.M., Hengl, T., Norder, S.J., Rijsdijk, K.F., Sanmartín, I., Strasberg, D., Triantis, K., Valente, L.M., Whittaker, R.J., Emerson, B.C., Thébaud, C. (2015). Islands as model systems in ecology and evolution: progress and prospects fifty years after MacArthur – Wilson. Ecology Letters 18, 200-217

Watkins, G., & Cruz, F. (2007). Galapagos at risk. A socioeconomic analysis. Charles Darwin Foundation, Galapagos, Ecuador.

Watkins, G. (2008). A paradigm shift in Galapagos research. Journal of Science and Conservation in the Galapagos Islands, 65, 30-36.

Weaver, D. B. (2000). A broad context model of destination development scenarios. Tourism management, 21(3), 217-224.

Weaver, D. (2001). Ecotourism as mass tourism: Contradiction or reality?. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 104-112.

Willmott, L., & Graci, S. (2012). Solid waste management in small island destinations: a case study of Gili Trawangan, Indonesia. Téoros: Revue de recherche en tourisme, 71-76.

Wolfslehner, B., & Vacik, H. (2008). Evaluating sustainable forest management strategies with the analytic network process in a pressure-state-response framework. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(1), 1-10.

Wong, P.P., Marone, E., Lana, P., Fortes, M. (2005) Island Systems. In: United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP). Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Washington, Island Press 1, 663-680

World Wildlife Fund (2010). Waste Management Blueprint for the Galapagos Islands. Retrieved on the 20th of may 2017 from https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/329/files/original/Waste_Managem ent_Blueprint_for_the_Galápagos_Islands_%28PDF__2.01_MB%29_2010.pdf?134573266 5

Zann, L.P., V. Vuki and C.R.C. Sheppard, 2000: The southwestern Pacific islands regions. In: Seas at the Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation. C.R.C. Sheppard (ed.), Pergamon, Amsterdam, v.2, pp. 705–722.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. edition

44 Appendix I – Tourism Statistics 1979-2015 Parque Nacional de Galapágos (2015)

45 Appendix II – Increase in land-based tourism, 1982, 1991 and 2006 Epler (2007), p. 17

46