School of something FACULTY OF OTHER
Sustainability Research Institute SCHOOL OF EARTH & ENVIRONMENT
Bio-security in Galapagos:
Social barriers to the generation and
implementation of appropriate policy
Rose Cairns
University of Leeds
Overview
Introduction: Social scientific contributions to understanding conservation challenges on Galapagos
Methodological approach: Introducing Q methodology (outline of method and results)
Barriers to social acceptance of conservation legislation: Diverse „visions‟ of conservation in Galapagos society and challenges to the scientific
understanding of the archipelago
Barriers to the generation of policy-relevant science: disciplinary tensions and science/management divides
Galápagos : famous biodiversity…
(Less famous) society…
No culture on Galápagos?
• Popular misconception/ narrow view of culture as simply ‘exotic’
‘tribal’ or indigenous practices, beliefs and customs.
• Culture = a web of meaning in which we are all embedded.
Consists of multiple frames of reference that underpin our everyday
activities and by which we make sense of the world…
• Environmental discourses are an important and powerful part of
contemporary culture
Galápagos is the site of a rich cultural politics
of conservation
Overly narrow view of culture has lead to an overly narrow view of
what social scientists study…
Science and conservation community on Galápagos are an
integral and important part of the social and political landscape of
Galápagos, and are not outside of the subject matter of the social
sciences
What is discourse?
Not simply a neutral medium of communication but forms a part of reality and is
one of the ways in which power is exercised in the world. (cf. Foucault, Hajer)
Why analyse discourse?
• Understanding different ways in which people „frame‟ problems and the
discourses that people draw on to make sense of their world, is key to
understanding conflicts (not everyone will share the same problem definition)
• If we can expose and examine the discourses that frame debates around a
given issue, we will better understand resistance to particular ideas or policies, as
well as becoming more reflexive about the subjective values and ideals that
influence our own understanding.
How to analyse discourse?
• Textual approaches, ethnographic approaches, interviews etc….Q method
A discourse approach
Q methodology
What is it?
• Form of discourse analysis
• Works with a small number of participants
(20 – 40 people)
• Participants sort opinion statements
sampled from a range of sources into a grid
according to how like or unlike they are to
their point of view
• Sorts statistically analysed for patterns
which are interpreted with the aid of
interview data: „Quali-quantitative method
Results in the description of discourses or „patterns
of thinking‟ in the population in question
Generation of a ‘representative’ selection of statements of opinions about the topic in question
Refinement of the statements to a manageable number to administer to participants
Selection of a diverse range of participants (between 20 – 40)
Statistical analysis – search for patterns of thinking/perspective in the population
Analysis and interpretation – based on ideal sorting patterns and interview transcripts.
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Q sorts / interview recordings
Perspective C Perspective A Perspective B
Heterogeneous discourse about the topic in question
(the „Concourse‟)
Generation of a ‘representative’ selection of statements of opinions about the topic in question
Refinement of the statements to a manageable number to administer to participants
Selection of a diverse range of participants (between 20 – 40)
Statistical analysis – search for patterns of thinking/perspective in the population
Analysis and interpretation – based on ideal sorting patterns and interview transcripts.
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Q sorts / interview recordings
Perspective C Perspective A Perspective B
Heterogeneous discourse about the topic in question
(the „Concourse‟)
200 statements collected
Refined down to 52
33 diverse participants selected from 3 islands to carry out a Q sort
Q sorts analysed using PQ method and 3 factors (patterns) extracted.
Social discourse about conservation on Galapagos
1. The growth in new activities like kayaking and surfing and the move away from specialist nature
tourism is the greatest threat to the future of conservation and tourism in the islands
2. People living on Galapagos should accept certain restrictions and responsibilities as a result of
living in such a unique place
3. Stopping foreign species entering the Galapagos ecosystems needs to a priority of the Galapagos
authorities.
4. More scientific analysis is required to fully understand the challenges facing Galapagos and point to
appropriate solutions
5. Living on Galapagos is a privilege
6. Some people are interested in keeping conflict over resources alive in Galapagos as the image of a
threatened protected area attracts more funding
Ideal factor
score
Statement A B C
1. The growth in new activities like kayaking and surfing and the move away
from specialist nature tourism is the greatest threat to the future of
conservation and tourism in the islands
-1 -2 -4
2. People living on Galapagos should accept certain restrictions and
responsibilities as a result of living in such a unique place
3 3 1
3. Stopping foreign species entering the Galapagos ecosystems needs to a
priority of the Galapagos authorities.
2 3 0
4. More scientific analysis is required to fully understand the challenges facing
Galapagos and point to appropriate solutions
0 2 -1
5. Living on Galapagos is a privilege 3 3 2
6. Some people are interested in keeping conflict over resources alive in
Galapagos as the image of a threatened protected area attracts more funding
-1 0 2
7. On Galapagos, the practice of science and the furthering of human
understanding of evolution should be the main priority -2 0 0
Statements from the Q
sample
Ideal or generalised
factor score for each
discourse
Participant number and
sector Birthplace A B C
1. Tourism Ecuador 0.033 0.708 * 0.233
2. Education Galapagos 0.196 0.548 * 0.296
3. Conservation International 0.739* 0.076 -0.050
4. Business Ecuador 0.325 0.690* 0.059
5. Education Ecuador 0.391 0.274 0.503
6. Civil Society Galapagos 0.288 0.421* 0.120
7. Science International 0.066 0.378 0.491
8. Science/Conservation International 0.712* -0.058 -0.060
9. Tourism Galapagos 0.198 0.525 0.376
10. Tourism International 0.286 0.531* 0.139
11. Conservation Galapagos 0.471 0.005 0.626
12. Tourism International 0.528* 0.332 0.023
13. Fishing Ecuador -0.183 0.651* 0.351
14. Community Ecuador 0.396* 0.091 0.353
15. Community Galapagos -0.077 0.139 0.818*
16. Government Ecuador -0.258 0.534* 0.320
17. Science/Academia Ecuador 0.656* 0.222 -0.001
18. Agriculture Ecuador 0.095 0.534* 0.280
19. Tourism Galapagos 0.054 0.665 0.397
20. Tourism Galapagos 0.279 0.730* 0.169
21. Conservation Galapagos 0.140 0.734* 0.000
22. Government/Culture Ecuador -0.111 0.357 0.572*
23. Science/Conservation International 0.589* 0.353 0.226
24. Fishing Galapagos -0.143 0.383 0.632
25. Tourism International -0.206 -0.007 0.636*
26. Government Galapagos -0.012 0.442 0.614
27. Agriculture Ecuador 0.013 0.145 0.378*
28. Tourism Galapagos 0.284 0.207 0.430*
29. Tourism International 0.475 0.538 -0.079
30. Fishing Ecuador 0.283 -0.121 0.671*
31. Science/Conservation Galapagos 0.329 0.592* 0.298
32. Conservation Galapagos 0.248 0.620* -0.199
33. Science/Conservation International 0.723* 0.141 -0.017
Participants
Note: participants tend to share elements of each discourse to a degree. Individuals whose sorts were highly correlated with a particular discourse are called Loaders, and their interview transcripts are used to aid the interpretation of the narrative.
Degree to which individual‟s sorting pattern correlated with the ideal
Generalised discourses…
B: Conservation
with sustainable
development
A: Galapagos
Conservation as an
international
concern
C: Conservation
with social welfare
and equitable
development
Correlation = 0.395 Correlation = 0.367
Correlation = 0.072
The nature of Galapagos
“Galápagos wasn‟t meant for human
population; Galápagos is one of the
few places that wasn‟t meant to have
any human interference” (A)
“We have to recognize that the most
invasive of all the invasive species is
the human” (A)
• Galápagos as uninhabited „wilderness‟ into which humans have
invaded still very influential idea, and evident in discourse A
(international conservation concern)
(2002) Biodiversity Vision for Galápagos:“benchmark and the basis for the
ultimate long term aspiration for biodiversity conservation” should be the
state of Galápagos before discovery by humans (ie. pre-1535)
Concept of „invasion‟
“We have a spay and neuter programme for cats
and dogs, I think we need to implement it for the
human population…” (A)
Fragility of Galapagos
“You can‟t change it, its nature. There
could be nobody here and seeds would
carry on arriving as they arrived in the
past. It‟s not possible, life has to go on…”
(C)
“The Galápagos was colonised by invasive
species, there‟s thousands arriving every
day, through the currents and the winds and
whatnot… I mean, you can‟t stop evolution
with your mind” (C)
“Stopping foreign species entering the Galápagos
needs to be a priority of the Galápagos authorities”
[+2, +3, 0]
“Nature is changing whether we like it or not.
And we are going to have to adapt, and
nature has to adapt. And nature will easily
adapt” (C)
The goal of conservation
“If you try to keep the place the same as
it is, you end up banging your head
against the wall, and walking down and
seeing babies playing on the beach and
saying „look at this problem!‟”(C)
There is still no shared vision
about the „what, how and why of
Galápagos conservation. (Tapia
et al. 2009)
Factor C comments suggest a
frustration with what is seen as an
endless and ultimately futile drive
to keep things the same…
“If we make a whole system so that
nothing comes into Galápagos, if we
succeed we will be fragile, in the future
we will be very fragile. We need to
adapt, its part of nature…” (C)
All about education?
“No one can come here to
give me conservation
consciousness, to donate me
consciousness!‟”(C)
“People here all use the same words, from the park
director to the smallest school kids, Galápagos
Galápagos Galápagos, unique unique unique,
conservation, conservation… I never want to hear
those words again, its starting to make me feel
sick!” (C)
Historical dimensions
- Historical alignment of conservationist interests with those of
continental tour operators has ongoing repercussions evident in
a degree of suspicion about/ coldness towards conservation
(factor C).
- Historical strict separation of human/park zones felt to be
cause of contemporary problems through preventing
appropriate development of agriculture and fisheries (factor C)
- The historical figure of the early colonist (independent,
„making-do‟, idealistic, hard working) is still influential both in
terms of a conservationist ideal (factor A), and an identity for
some Galapagueños (factor C) (but these two visions are not
necessarily compatible)
„We bring things from the continent; why? Because we haven‟t developed
agriculture and fisheries, we haven‟t been able to develop in an environmentally
friendly way. And it is possible. We need to believe in the idea that human beings
can live in environmentally friendly ways. That is sustainable development.” (C)
Summary
• Justice and equity a key concern of Discourse C
• Issue with always casting population solely in terms of a problem to the environment (or as
invasive)
• Different conception of the fragility of ecosystems and questioning aim of conservation as
maintenance of static state.
• Historical resentments present
• BUT… regulations and rules are understood to be necessary (framed in terms of the best
way of achieving fairness), and conservation is broadly speaking, felt to be a good thing. Given
focus on fairness, consistency in application of the rule therefore key.
“Each person has their zone, their area, the fishermen can only fish over here, the
tour operators can only take tourists over there… its like a cake that's divided you
know? So these restrictions, people respect them, and I agree we need restrictions
because you've got to conserve this, this is for everyone...” (C)
The role of science in
conservation on Galapagos
Parque Nacional Galápagos
Fundación Charles Darwin
FUNDAR Galápagos
Conservación Internacional Galápagos
Universidad San Francisco de Quito
Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador
Motu (New Zealand)
Universidad de Missouri –St. Louis (USA)
Instituto Mediterráneo para estudios
avanzados IMEDEA (Spain)
No institutional affiliation
Total:
5
10
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
27
Participant group Second Q study
Aimed at understanding the
diversity of perspectives on
the role of science within the
„science & conservation
community‟ on Galápagos
1. Science for conservation management
Scientific research needs to be tied to conservation
management needs
Optimistic about the contribution of scientific data to
policy making (linear model)
More science is very necessary
Galápagos is a „socio-ecological system‟ ideally
managed by experts
Responsibilities of scientists broadly understood (eg.
building culture comes under remit)
“You should do the research to do
the management”
“Take away the interests of the
scientists… they are just interested
in publishing!”
2. Freedom of Science
• Science is „like art‟ and scientists need to be free to pursue individual research interests
• Distinction between „pure‟ and „applied‟ science is
considered „unhelpful‟ (only „good science and bad science‟)
• Scientists should limit themselves to providing „facts not
opinions‟
• Galápagos is not a „socio-ecological‟ system in fact humans are considered „invasive‟ on Galápagos
• Traditional disciplinary approach to science is still valid
“If Charles Darwin applied for
a research permit from the
national park today, he‟d
probably be refused!”
“You never know when pure science
becomes applied, most of the great
findings usually start with pure science,
and then you find out, wow, this is going
to help me with something…”
3. Separation of Science and Conservation
• Scientific investigation and conservation
management need to be kept separate
• Scientists need to maintain the boundary or risk
losing legitimacy
• Distinction between „pure and applied‟ science not
valid
• It is not the scientist‟s role to be „building culture‟
“I‟m not a conservationist, I‟m
a scientist, a pragmatist. I
have to be that way otherwise
it just gets too confusing my
role in life”
“Someone who gets involved in a conflict,
that same person can‟t provide
information because they aren‟t credible
any more. Its about credibility”
4. Limitations of Science
• Scientific data actually has a limited impact on policy
development
• Already plenty of scientific data about Galápagos, political
will that is missing
• Traditional disciplinary approach to science on Galápagos
is no longer valid
• Galápagos is not a socio-ecological system
• Galápagos ecosystems and societies cannot be quantified
in terms of capital
• Humans are not invasive
“The idea that you‟re going to have
any influence over conservation
policies just with biological data
seems to me completely erroneous”
“Societies are not embedded
in nature nor explainable by
natural laws”
Divisions within science
Science & conservation sector on Galápagos not homogeneous:
Relationship of science to policy is understood differently by different actors:
- evidence of a widespread linear view of science in policy, tendency towards
technocratic view of management (scientific data is substituted for political debate.)
- Different understandings of whether or not more science is
needed
- Different understandings of what frameworks and disciplines are appropriate for
the study of linked human and natural systems
Pure/applied, Science/ Management divides (although claimed to be „false‟ by various
people) is still influential on Galápagos
Disciplinary differences (eg. factor 4 appears to be a distinctive social sciences
perspective)
Tendency in some quarters towards an expansion of the remit of a scientist (eg. to
include „building culture‟ etc)
Plenty of barriers to inter-disciplinary collaboration, and communication barriers
between proponents of various positions. Situation aggravated by institutional
tensions.
Summing up
• - Conservation issues such as bio-security are not just about ecology,
conservation of species or prevention of diseases.
• - Also involve values and ideals (ie. what is valued and what is to be
maintained), and political issues of control of people and imposition of
ideas.
• - On Galápagos there fundamental differences in the social
understandings of what the Galápagos islands are and what
conservation is trying to do, and significant differences within what could
broadly be characterised as the science and conservation community.
• - It is hoped that making some of these differences explicit could ideally
lead to more open communication between the proponents of the
various positions and facilitate enhanced collaboration for socially just
conservation.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to all my participants in Galapagos and to my
supervisors and RSG members at Leeds University:
Simon Goodman (Biology), Susannah Sallu (SRI), Joseph
Murphy (SRI) , Mette Termansen (SRI) and to Andrew
Cunningham at the Institute of Zoology
Financial support gratefully received from an ESRC/NERC interdisciplinary studentship
Thanks also to the Galapagos National Park and the Charles Darwin Foundation for logistical support to
this project
Contact [email protected]
(Less famous) society…
Figure from: WATKINS, G. & CRUZ, F. 2007. Galápagos at risk: a socioeconomic analysis of the situation in the archipelago.
