Delena 1

ECOTOURISM AS A SOURCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION: A STRATEGY FOR THE GALAPAGOS PENGUIN?

Alfred W. Delena October 2012 Stanford University Sophomore College 2012: Darwin, Evolution and the Galapagos ABSTRACT

Ecotourism is a vehicular device that is driven with an engine of people interacting within a given environment (i.e.: natural landscapes). Ecotourism should offer tourist not only the chance to see and observe wildlife, but it should provide them with the opportunity to learn from the environment as well. Perhaps with this knowledge and interaction, there would be a slight chance of sparking a flame of environmental altruism, which could then light the way for tourists to support and even help contribute for the advocacy of conservation.

With regards to the Galapagos penguin, is ecotourism a sustainable approach for educating and spreading awareness to people who visit the islands? More specifically, does ecotourism encourage people to engage in pro-environmental behavior and can this eventually lead to a chain reaction of educating and bringing up awareness? To explore this, in a research survey, questions regarding information and the conservation status regarding the Galapagos penguin were asked to a group of Stanford Alumni before (pre-test) and after (post-test) their encounters in the archipelago with this creature; the results were interestingly unexpected. More concrete research needs to be achieved within this scope of work to come to accurate conclusions.

INTRODUCTION Amidst the fierce vastness of the Pacific Ocean, through the powerful combination of

the elements of fire and water, the Galapagos Islands, an archipelago of volcanic islands, were formed, originating from a hot spot. Isolated in the middle of nowhere, these islands gave birth to a wide diversity of unique species with various assortments of traits. Some of which include an iguana that forages for food in the water, a tortoise that has the ability to eat cacti on the low lands, and a penguin that is able to survive in the equatorial environment. So, how does a species such as the penguin able to withstand the harsh environment? Furthermore, the environment places its own pressures on the penguin, but with the introduction of humans to the islands, anthropogenic factors have also affected the penguin negatively. Despite this negative factor, people also have the power of promoting pro-environmental behaviors such as contributing to conservation efforts. This form of behavior has the potential to help these faunal species like the penguin. Education and awareness, as well as eco-learning, are key players that influence ecofriendly determinations in a setting like the Galapagos Islands.

BACKGROUND PENGUIN SPECIFICS

Within this strange world, among the multiple unique forms of flora and fauna of the archipelago, on the western side of these islands lives a fascinatingly curious little creature: the Galapagos penguin. According to Paul Stewart’s Galápagos: The Islands That Changed the

Delena 2

Ph

oto

co

urt

esy

of

Za

che

ry G

old

World, he describes the penguins as “one of the smallest penguin species in the world standing only 35 cm tall… and are the only penguins to breed in the tropics.” (Stewart 2006: 201)(See photo to the right and bottom left) So, how exactly is this tiny penguin species able to withstand the harsh tropical environment better than its relatives to the north and south, who live in the polar and colder regions of the world? Essentially, the Galapagos penguin has several adaptations that have enabled it to live in the warm equatorial conditions. ADAPTATIONS

Of the wide diversity of adaptations that the Galapagos penguin has, three of which are very important to the penguin for survival and reproduction.

The first adaptation is the way in which it nests. While doing his research, Hernan Vargas reports in his essay, “Penguins on the Equator: Hanging on by a Thread,” in Tui de Roy’s edited masterpiece, Galápagos: Preserving Darwin’s Legacy, Vargas explains that with the volcanic landscapes of the islands, the area offers protection from the sun as well as high temperatures. In replace, it, instead, provides cooler, temperate conditions for nesting. (Vargas 2009: 154-5) Secondly, there is a reason why this species is so small. Vargas articulates that “reduced body size is in fact not surprising, being a trait… in which the physics of temperature versus body mass dictate that closely related warm-blooded animals increase in size at higher latitudes.” (Vargas 2009:154) In simpler terms, the smaller the body size, the better its ability to regulate and dissipate heat. In addition, according to Arkive, an online collection of different animal species showcased though various sources of media such as photos and videos, points out that “standing with the flippers extended to aid heat loss, as well as panting and seeking shade…” are other forms in which it keeps cool. Thirdly, as the Humboldt Current brings in cold waters from the south, it also brings with it upwelling of rich nutrients and sources of food for the penguin like sardines. The International Penguin Conservation Work Group (IPCWG), an organization that is devoted to promoting penguin conservation and awareness of major threats, explain that these birds “have no particular breeding season” and furthermore, they have an “adaptation that allows them to take advantage of periods of high food abundance, and to cope with a very variable and unreliable food resource.” This is also known as breeding flexibility or the ability to breed when there is an abundance of rich food sources. Though, when there is poor circulation of nutrients, the penguin will hold off on breeding until those nutrients come back abundantly. THREATS (CONSERVATION STATUS) Despite the fact that these birds have marvelous adaptations for survival and reproduction in this tropical escape, one thing remains the same with a majority of species in

One of the smallest penguin species in world that is endemic to the Galapagos.

Delena 3

Ph

oto

Co

urte

sy o

f Za

che

ry G

old

Galapagos. These birds, along with other species, face constant threats, both natural and human-caused. Under the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) Red List, the Galapagos penguin is listed as ENDANGERED. Furthermore, there are less than a thousand breeding pairs, though it is subjected to fluctuations (IPCWG). The major threats to the penguin include climate change such as El Niño, pollution like oil spills, introduced disease and predation from their natural predators and introduced invasive species which includes feral dogs.

In P. Dee Boersma’s article, “Population Trends of the Galapagos Penguin: Impacts of El Niño and La Niña,” Boersma stresses how El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) has greatly affected penguin

populations: “I found El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events had a strong negative influence on the behavior, breeding, and reproductive success of

Galapagos Penguins.” (Boersma 1998: 245) In fact, during the 1982-3 ENSO, approximately 77 percent of penguin populations were completely wiped out due to starvation. (IPCWG) Other than ENSO, pollution such as oil spills contribute to the lower numbers of Galapagos penguin, including the 2000 Jessica oil spill: “The Jessica was wrecked in 2000…” spilling “over 900,000 litres of bunker and diesel.” (Stewart 2006: 162) In addition to pollution, introduced disease(s) to the islands have created fear of infection for these birds and other species in Galapagos. In "Plasmodium Blood Parasite found in Endangered Galapagos Penguins (Spheniscus Mendiculus)," a group of scientists tested these birds for any signs of disease and found that 5 percent of tested penguins had malaria parasite: “The PCR screen identified 19 (5%) of 362 penguins as positives for Plasmodium.” (Levin et al 2009: 3192) Furthermore, they articulate that “based on molecular sexing data, the 19 positive penguins consisted of 14 adult males and 5 females, three of which were juveniles.” (Levin et al. 2009: 3193) So with stress from disease and ENSO, these birds are at need of help, yet one other major threat faces the penguin.

Along with pollution and diseases, predation is yet another big concern for the

penguin. Both natural and introduced forms have preyed upon this tiny bird, but as Vargas discovered, it’s the introduced invasive species that have been killing off

“Male and female Galapagos penguins form pair bonds for life” (Arkive)

About 95% of penguin populations occupy the western islands of Isabela and Fernandina. The other 5% can be

found on Santiago, Bartolome, and Floreana Island. (Bird International)

Delena 4

the penguin. Vargas recalls his first assignment as a research assistant: “My first assignment was collecting dog feces to determine diet composition… when I identified penguin feathers and bones among other prey species... it soon turned out that these dogs had decimated

penguin populations throughout the area…” (Vargas 2009: 155) HYPOTHESES

So, clearly there is a great need for conservation and action since the Galapagos penguin does indeed face extinction, and if nothing is done, then, it may well be farewell to this endemic penguin species in Galapagos. Yet hope remains alive, ironically, hope lies in the beings that are causing the majority of these problems: humans! So, the question remains, can the Galapagos penguin (and many other species) facing extinction, can

they be saved? In truth, part of the answer can be seen through the eyes of ecotourism, eco-learning and the positive effects that it exhibits on both species and tourists. In an attempt to show this, I hypothesize the following:

1. Ecotourism increases awareness of the different threats facing the penguin. 2. Tourists visiting the Galapagos archipelago will gain some understanding of the

ecological niche of the Galapagos penguin. 3. Ecotourism increases the likelihood that tourists will engage in pro-environmental

behavior: a. Philanthropic support b. Environmental altruism

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION STUDIES Before elaborating on the methodology, eventual conducted survey, and results, there are two examples that I would like to extrapolate and put forth. The first reflects upon knowledge, attitude and behavior with regards to the bottle-nosed dolphin and the other ponders on the benefits gained after interacting with marine wildlife. Erin Barney, Joel Mintzes, and Chiung-Fen Yen explore how knowledge, attitude and behavior in people, affect a type of “megafaunal” species, which is seen in the bottle-nosed dolphin. In "Assessing Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior toward Charismatic Megafauna: The Case of Dolphins," Barney et al. came to the conclusion that “this important megafaunal species is poorly understood by the public at large… except among well-educated college students who have benefited by direct instruction.” (Barney et al. 2005: 41) This study points out that there was no initial contact with the dolphin(s), therefore, the final conclusions were based solely on the big three: knowledge, attitude and behavior. On the other hand, interactions with actual megafaunal species in the wild can lead to positive gains. According to Heather Zeppel and Sue Muloin, in "Marine Wildlife Tours: Benefits

The Galapagos penguin can live up to 15-20 years (Encyclopedia of Earth)

Delena 5

Photo Courtesy of Zachery Gold

for Participants," from Marine Wildlife and Tours: Benefits for Participants, Zeppel and Muloin point out that “on-site benefits of increased understanding or emotional response to marine wildlife encounters can lead to off-site benefits such as greater environmental awareness, supporting nature conservation work, and protection endangered species.” (Zeppel & Muloin 2008: 221) Furthermore, Heike Schänzel’s work shows two sides of what might be happening when intermingling with wildlife in nature. Participants were emotionally affected in a positive way, from interacting with marine life; they, with the knowledge that they gained, were more inclined to take environmental action. (Zeppel & Muloin 2008: 40). METHODOLOGY

From the two examples, it can be seen that with no interaction and little knowledge, there is a reduced appreciation geared towards the bottle-nosed dolphin. However, with regards to marine wildlife, tourists gain knowledge by learning from the environment while on nature tours and additionally, they are affected emotionally which can lead to pro-environmental behaviors; thus it can be seen that these people were more likely to contribute for conservation. Now, from these example studies, curiosity sparked and so, I wanted to create a survey questionnaire that would be aimed specifically towards the Galapagos penguin. Before I start to explain my survey and the overall results, I would like to acknowledge that there are certain biases and also the fact the results were not what I had hoped for. For this reason, I did not reach sufficient conclusions that fully support/refute my hypotheses.

In this survey, essentially, I had two sample groups: Group A was the Travel Group, which was comprised of Stanford Alumni, who went with my Sophomore College class to Galapagos, and the other, Group B was the Control Group, which was made up of people at Stanford whom (a) I surveyed and (b) those of whom did not go with us to Galapagos. The questions on the survey were broken up into four distinct categories, which correlated to different areas of focus:

1. Penguin Threats 2. Conservation Status 3. Ecological Niche 4. Pro-Environmental Behavior

The purpose of this was to test the hypotheses using different questions that fit into their own specific category. (See below for results in graphs and tables).

Delena 6

75%

12.50%

93.80%

12.50%

66.70%

26.70%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q10 Q11

% C

orr

ect

Penguin Threat Results Pre-Test

Post Test

Control

Figure 1a (graph) shows the results of the survey for each question. In Q10, there was a slight increase in the post-test,

increasing from 75 percent to almost 94 percent. Though interestingly enough, in Q11, there is no change in pre-test and post-

test of Group A, it is at an even 12.5 percent; there was no change.

Regarding penguin threats,

Figure 1b (below) shows the

percentage of people with the

correct answer in the three

different groups (Pre-Test, Post-

Test and Control group).

Correct

Answer:

Climate

Change

Correct

Answer:

Malaria

Parasite

31.20% 87.50%

93.70% 93.80%

66.70% 73.30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Q7 Q12

% C

orr

ect

Conservation Status Resutls

Pre-Test

Post Test

Control

In Figure 2a (graph), the

results are shown. For Q7,

there was a huge increase,

from 31.2 percent to a high of

nearly 98 percent! (People

became more aware of the

endangered status of the

penguin within the travel

group.) Similarly, in Q12, the

post-test came out on top with

close to a 94 percentile and a

small increase from 87.5

percent. These two survey

questions and results seem to

support the awareness of the

different threats facing the

Galapagos penguin.

Correct Answer:

False

Correct Answer:

False

Delena 7

PENGUIN THREATS & CONSERVATION STATUS

Within this category, the first hypothesis (ecotourism increases awareness of the different threats facing the Galapagos penguin) is addressed. For each of these questions and its corresponding results, there are two groups (Travel Group and Control Group) with the travel group having two subgroups and these are labeled as pre-test, post-test, and control group. In Q10, the hypothesis seems to be supported with 93.8 percent of the post-test answering correctly, which was a slight increase from 75 percent. Compared to the control group, it definitely shows that the post-test group had an increased awareness of the major threats facing the penguin. However, moving onto Q11, the results showed no change between the pre-test and the post-test. On the survey, when asked which pathogen has been discovered

31.30%

87.50%

75%

68.80%

93.80%

75%

62.50% 62.50% 66.70%

80%

33.30%

60%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Q6 Q8 Q9 Q13

Ecological Niche Results Pre-Test

Post Test

Control

6. Correct Answer: False

9. Correct Answer: 15-20 years 8. Correct Answer: Sardines

13. Correct Answer: True

In figure 3a

(graph), the data

results is shown.

With Q6, there

was a tremendous

increase from 31.3

percent to a spike

of 93.8 percent.

Though with the

next three

questions, the pre-

tests within the

travel group have

slightly higher

percentiles than

the post-tests.

6. Correct Answer: False

9. Correct Answer: 15-20 years

Delena 8

in 5 percent of Galapagos penguin, 12.5 percent for both the pre-test and the post-test within the travel group answered correctly, meaning that the answers did not change at all. However, when put up against the control group, the control group’s percent was double the percent of both the pre-test and the post-test.

Though, when looking at the results of the conservation status questions, the post-test percentages of the travel group appear to clearly support the hypothesis. For instance, for Q7, when asked, the Galapagos penguin is not an endangered species, of the pre-test subgroup, only 31.2 percent of people answered correctly. But, when compared to the post-test subgroup, there is huge jump in percentage of people who answered correctly, 93.7 percent to be precise. This huge spike gives the impression that, through ecotourism, people are becoming aware of the negative effects of threats that face the penguin.

PENGUIN ECOLOGICAL NICHE

The problem with having to answer a question that you have no clue about is that it can go either way; it is 50/50 chance of getting the answer right or wrong. Quite essentially, the penguin ecological niche questions were based on different features, adaptations, species size and food sources. These question results leaned towards refuting my second hypothesis which stated that tourists visiting the Galapagos archipelago will gain some understanding of the ecological niche of the Galapagos penguin. (See Figure 3a and 3b for results)

There might be several reasons why the post-test subgroup percentages did not increase after the first question. For one thing, being aboard a cruise ship, learning and digesting information for eight days straight may be a bit of an overload of information. For another thing, perhaps with the megafaunal species such as the giant tortoises, marine iguanas, and sea lions, being at the top of the list, the “mini-fauna” was under shadowed. Or perhaps there was little attention put on the Galapagos penguin because there were only a few seen during the excursion activities. Or maybe it was the way in which the questions were worded, whatever the reason is, one thing that remained perplexing was the pre-test subgroup’s responses, especially in this section. With Q8, Q9 and Q13, the percentages had slight increases over the post-test subgroups’. Why? Again, it could perhaps have been the wording, or something more. Going back, having to go out on a whim and venture a guess to a question is having a 50/50 shot in guessing right. So, if you guess the first time, you have no idea of knowing if it was right or wrong, the next time around, if there was no information presented regarding that question, you have to guess yet again. But, here is what is troubling: how do you know, if what you had guessed the first time, if that was correct? Or what if you choose to guess the other option instead, what if the people who answered correctly the first time decided to switch answers and therefore, the post-test subgroup’s percentages would have decreased slightly. All of which seem to not support my second hypothesis.

PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR

Regarding the last two questions and results (see Figure 4a and 4b), there was yet another interesting result. The third hypothesis specified that ecotourism increases the likelihood that tourists will engage in pro-environmental behavior: (1) philanthropic support and (2) environmental altruism. Q14 addresses the first portion of the hypothesis in dealing with philanthropic support, but what struck me the most was where the majority of the

Delena 9

percentages fell. (Note: these two questions were geared towards the pre-test and post-test subgroups under the umbrella of the travel group). For the pre-test, the bars are representative in the green color and for the post-test, the results are on top and do not correlate to the axis scale. For instance for the $ Amount of $100, the pre-test result percentage was 42 percent and 56.25 percent for the post-test, both of these percentages do not equal 100 percent; they just show the comparisons between pre- and post-test results.

With the pre-test subgroup, there was wider selection than the post-test subgroup. It was thought-provoking to note that with the post-test subgroup, only three monetary totals were included, which were $50, $100, and $150. Compared to six monetary values from the pre-test, the question that arouse was how the diversity of six monetary totals went down by half and what’s more, why did the majority fall within the $100 category? There could be different rationales for this purpose, but one thing that seems to have been the cause is that since the collective fund of $500 would all be donated to pressing conservation needs in Galapagos, it can be seen that a huge chunk of the money would be sent to more “pressing conservation needs.”

In relation to Q15, the majority of people in the survey zeroed in on neutral (pre and post). The question reflects environmental altruism (supporting the needs of the environment over the needs of yourself) and the likelihood that they would go to a conservation event hosted by an NGO to donate money for conservation. I was surprised to find out that in the unlikely category, with regards to the post-test subgroup, the percent increased from 19.4 percent to 25 percent. This is perplexing because even after the trip and encounters with Galapagos wildlife, instead of the 19.4 percent going down, it did exactly the opposite by going up to 25 percent. Perhaps an explanation for this is that I am inferring to the fact that these birds were under looked in that did not have a “megafaunal” outlook placed on them. Though, it seemed that the “neutral” and “likely” categories were the “hot spot” of things with a 37.5 percent for the post-test subgroup in “neutral” and 31.3 percent of the post-test subgroup within the range of “likely”. And one surprising element, the “very likely” category nearly doubled from the pre-test; the pre-test percentage was 3.2 percent whereas in the post-test subgroup, the percentage was 6.2. So, with respect to the “very likely” category, ecotourism would spark the altruism in some people in the survey. So, overall, there were different variations between the likelihoods, but it can be seen that the majority of people in the post-test subgroup favored the “neutral” and “likely” categories.

16.1 42

16.1 3.2

16.1 6.5

37.5

56.25

6.25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

% o

f P

eo

ple

Philanthorpic Support Results

Post-Test

Pre-Test

Figure 4a (below)

Delena 10

RECOMMENDATIONS

Despite the unexpected results of my research, there were definitely a number of problematic issues regarding the survey and here are several recommendations that I have now taken into consideration. Firstly, the number of participants was startlingly low with only a collective polling of 31 people (15 in control group and 16 in travel group). If there were more people involve with this survey, there might have been much more diversified and accurate data. Along with this comes the “type” of people, there had to be more diversity of people, with different age ranges, from as young as elementary students to adults. Or it can be viewed within just one age group; so age differences would have to be factored in as well. With respect to the diversity of people, there had to be more diversification because in essence, the control group is a small portion of the greater population of people in the world, and that greater population is not comprised of only Stanford affiliated people; so diversity is central. Regarding the questionnaire, for the pre-test, there was a recommendation for an “I do not know” option as one of the answer choices for the question. I pondered on this for a while and thought this would be fair since a majority of the people had no idea the Galapagos penguin have ever existed.

Another recommendation that I thought would be beneficial was survey collection. The first time, I had the surveys done via online survey program, but the second time around, I had each alumnus come in and take the post-test with me asking the questions. After this method, I thought it was a lot more helpful than the other one because it was a one-to-one interaction and I was able to better report their response.

From the survey, if ecotourism was not as strong as it could have been at the time, how could it be intensified so that it not only helps the local economic system, but that it also promotes the conversation of these endemic a unique fauna. Furthermore, would there be a

19.40%

41.90%

35.50%

3.20%

25%

37.50%

31.30%

6.20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Unlikely Neutral Likely Very Likely

Environmetal Altruism Results

Pre-Test Post Test

Figure 4b (below)

Delena 11

difference in people’s responses, when compared to those who live on the islands than those who were visiting or to those who don’t live on anywhere near the islands; how much do the people living there know about Galapagos? Overall, more research needs to be done to come to accurate conclusions and as for the hypotheses, the survey seemed to, in cases, support, but also in other cases, it refute them. But, the process has been definitely been an enriching learning experience! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the following people: A special thank you to Emily Beggs and Vincent Chen, thank you for your helpful insights, assistance, and guidance with my project. To Karen Alderate, thank you for making marvelous travel arrangements and for managing the trip. To the Captain of La Pinta, the crew, the kitchen staff aboard, a big thank you to for the amazing food and services on board. To the naturalists and park guides for the morning and afternoon excursions to the islands. Thank you to all of my Sophomore College peers, with a special thank you to Zachery Gold for the fantastic penguin photos and to Sebastián Mancera, thank you for being an absolutely incredible roommate buddy. Thank you! To the Alumni for your participation, enthusiasm, and cooperation with my research and also for making this an extraordinary trip. And last by not least, a very special thank you to the man who made all of this a possibility, thank you Bill Durham! Thank you for offering me the journey of a lifetime! Elahkwa!

Works Cited & Resources

Arkive (Galapagos penguin [Spheniscus mendiculus])

< http://www.arkive.org/galapagos-penguin/spheniscus-mendiculus/#ref4>.

Barney, Erin C., Joel J. Mintzes, and Chiung-Fen Yen. "Assessing Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior toward Charismatic

Megafauna: The Case of Dolphins." The Journal of Environmental Education (2005): 41-55. Web.

BirdLife International 2012. Spheniscus mendiculus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1.

<www.iucnredlist.org>.

Boersma, P. Dee. "Population Trends of the Galapagos Penguin: Impacts of El Niño and La Niña." The Condor (1998): 245-

53. The Cooper Ornithological Society. Web.

Encyclopedia of Earth: Galapagos Penguin

<http://www.eoearth.org/article/Galapagos_penguin>.

Gold, Zachery. Penguin Photos.

International Penguin Conservation Work Group: Galapagos Penguin

<http://www.penguins.cl/galapagos-penguins.htm>.

Delena 12

Levin, Iris I., Diana C. Outlaw, Hernan F. Vargas, and Patricia G. Parker. "Plasmodium Blood Parasite Found in Endangered

Galapagos Penguins (Spheniscus Mendiculus)." Biological Conservation 142.12 (2009): 3191-195. ScienceDirect.

Web.

Schänzel, Heike “Educational Entertainment: the Emotive and Personal Context of Environmental Interpretation.” In

Proceedings of the New Zealand Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference. 2004

Stewart, Paul D., and Richard Dawkins. Galápagos: The Islands That Changed the World. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2006.

Print.

Vargas, Hernan. "Penguins on the Equator: Hanging On By a Thread." Galápagos: Preserving Darwin's Legacy. Ed. Tui De

Roy. Richmond Hill, Ont.: Firefly, 2009. 154-61. Print.

Zeppel, Heather, and Sue Muloin. "Marine Wildlife Tours: Benefits for Participants." Marine Wildlife and Tours: Benefits for

Participants. CAB International, 2008. 19-48. Web.