University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Entrance Exam Set

The question probes the understanding of sustainable tourism practices, a key area of focus for institutions like the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, given its location and reliance on tourism. The scenario involves a hypothetical island community aiming to balance economic growth with environmental preservation. The core concept being tested is the identification of a tourism strategy that prioritizes long-term ecological health and local community well-being over short-term economic gains. A sustainable tourism model emphasizes minimal environmental impact, cultural respect, and equitable distribution of benefits. This involves managing visitor numbers, promoting eco-friendly infrastructure, supporting local businesses, and preserving natural and cultural heritage. The island’s objective is to avoid the pitfalls of mass tourism, such as resource depletion, cultural commodification, and environmental degradation, which are often consequences of unchecked development. The correct approach would involve a strategy that integrates environmental stewardship with economic viability, ensuring that the island’s natural capital is preserved for future generations. This typically entails diversification of tourism offerings beyond traditional sun-and-sand, focusing on niche markets like ecotourism, cultural tourism, and adventure tourism, which often have lower environmental footprints and higher economic multipliers for local communities. Furthermore, robust visitor management systems, community involvement in decision-making, and strict environmental regulations are crucial components. The University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s commitment to research in areas like marine biology, environmental science, and cultural heritage makes understanding these principles essential for its students.

The question probes the understanding of how the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC) might approach the integration of emerging digital technologies into its pedagogical framework, specifically focusing on the ethical and practical considerations. The core of the ULPGC’s educational philosophy, as suggested by its location and potential research strengths in marine biology, renewable energy, and cultural heritage, would likely emphasize responsible innovation and student-centric learning. Therefore, a strategy that prioritizes ethical data governance, faculty development in digital pedagogy, and equitable access to resources would align best with these principles. This involves a multi-faceted approach: first, establishing clear ethical guidelines for the use of AI and other digital tools in assessment and learning, ensuring transparency and fairness. Second, investing in comprehensive training programs for faculty to equip them with the skills to effectively leverage these technologies in their teaching, fostering innovative pedagogical approaches. Third, ensuring that all students, regardless of their background or access to personal technology, can benefit from these advancements, perhaps through enhanced campus infrastructure or subsidized access to necessary tools. The other options, while potentially containing elements of digital integration, either overemphasize a single aspect without addressing the broader ethical and developmental needs, or propose approaches that might be less aligned with a holistic, responsible, and inclusive educational mission characteristic of a public university like ULPGC. For instance, a purely technology-driven adoption without adequate faculty training or ethical oversight could lead to unintended consequences, while a slow, reactive approach might miss opportunities for enhancing the learning experience. The chosen approach balances innovation with a strong commitment to academic integrity and student welfare, reflecting a mature and forward-thinking institutional strategy.

The question probes the understanding of the ethical considerations in scientific research, particularly concerning the dissemination of findings. In the context of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s commitment to academic integrity and responsible scholarship, understanding the nuances of peer review and pre-publication communication is crucial. The scenario involves a researcher at the university who has made a significant discovery related to marine biodiversity in the Canary Islands, a key area of research for ULPGC. The researcher is faced with the dilemma of sharing this information before formal peer review. Option A is correct because the primary ethical obligation in scientific communication is to ensure the accuracy and validity of findings before widespread dissemination. Prematurely sharing unverified results, even with good intentions, can lead to misinformation, misinterpretation by the public or other scientists, and potentially damage the credibility of the research and the institution. The process of peer review is designed to rigorously vet scientific work, identify flaws, and ensure that published research meets established standards. While rapid dissemination of important findings is desirable, it must be balanced with the imperative of scientific accuracy and responsible communication. The university’s emphasis on rigorous methodology and ethical conduct supports this approach. Option B is incorrect because while acknowledging the potential impact of the discovery on local conservation efforts is important, it does not override the ethical imperative of peer review. Prioritizing immediate public awareness over scientific validation can be detrimental. Option C is incorrect because seeking advice from colleagues within the university is a good practice, but it does not substitute for the formal peer review process required for robust scientific publication. Informal consultation does not carry the same weight or scrutiny. Option D is incorrect because presenting the findings at an international conference before peer review, while a common practice for preliminary results, still carries the risk of premature dissemination of unverified data. The ethical consideration remains the same: ensuring the findings are robust and have undergone scrutiny before being presented as definitive.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principles of sustainable coastal management, a key area of research and academic focus at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, given its unique geographical context. The scenario describes a situation where a proposed development on the coast of Gran Canaria faces potential ecological impacts. The question asks to identify the most appropriate mitigation strategy. The calculation is conceptual, not numerical. We are evaluating the effectiveness of different approaches to environmental impact mitigation. 1. **Identify the core problem:** Coastal development threatening a sensitive marine ecosystem (Posidonia meadows). 2. **Analyze the options based on ecological principles and best practices in environmental management:** * **Option 1 (Relocation of infrastructure):** While sometimes necessary, relocating significant infrastructure is often prohibitively expensive and may not fully address the root cause of impact if the development itself is inherently disruptive. It’s a last resort. * **Option 2 (Habitat restoration/enhancement):** This is a common mitigation strategy, but its effectiveness is highly dependent on the specific techniques used and the resilience of the ecosystem. Simply planting seagrass might not compensate for the loss of an established, complex meadow. It’s reactive. * **Option 3 (Adaptive management with strict monitoring and phased implementation):** This approach acknowledges the inherent uncertainties in predicting ecological impacts. It involves setting clear environmental thresholds, monitoring the ecosystem’s response to the development, and adjusting mitigation measures or even halting/modifying the development if thresholds are breached. This aligns with the precautionary principle and the dynamic nature of coastal environments, making it the most robust and scientifically sound approach for complex ecosystems like Posidonia meadows. It is proactive and responsive. * **Option 4 (Compensation through off-site conservation):** While off-site conservation can be a component of broader environmental strategies, it does not directly mitigate the damage to the specific Posidonia meadows in question. The primary goal should be to minimize or avoid impact at the site itself. 3. **Evaluate against ULPGC’s likely academic standards:** ULPGC, with its strong marine science and environmental engineering programs, would emphasize approaches that are scientifically rigorous, adaptive, and prioritize in-situ impact reduction. Adaptive management, with its emphasis on continuous learning and adjustment based on real-world data, is a cornerstone of modern environmental stewardship, particularly in dynamic coastal zones. Therefore, the strategy that best balances development needs with ecological protection, by incorporating continuous learning and responsiveness to environmental feedback, is adaptive management.

The question probes the understanding of sustainable tourism practices in coastal environments, a key area of study at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, given its location and focus on marine sciences and tourism. The scenario describes a common challenge faced by popular beach destinations: balancing economic benefits with ecological preservation. The core concept being tested is the identification of a strategy that most effectively addresses the negative externalities of mass tourism on a fragile coastal ecosystem. The calculation here is conceptual, not numerical. We are evaluating the *impact* of different management strategies. 1. **Identify the core problem:** Overcrowding, resource depletion (water, energy), waste generation, and habitat degradation due to high tourist volume in a sensitive coastal zone. 2. **Analyze each potential solution:** * **Increasing marketing efforts:** This would likely exacerbate the problem by attracting *more* tourists, thus increasing the negative impacts. * **Implementing stricter waste management protocols:** While important, this addresses a symptom rather than the root cause of over-tourism and its cumulative effects on the ecosystem’s carrying capacity. It’s a mitigation strategy, not a primary solution to limit impact. * **Developing a tiered pricing structure for beach access based on peak season demand:** This directly addresses the *volume* of visitors. By making access more expensive during periods of highest demand, it discourages casual or less committed visitors, thereby reducing overall numbers and spreading demand more evenly. This aligns with principles of demand management and carrying capacity, aiming to keep visitor numbers within the ecological limits of the destination. It also has the potential to generate revenue that can be reinvested in conservation efforts. * **Expanding hotel infrastructure:** This would further increase the tourist carrying capacity and likely lead to greater environmental pressure, directly contradicting sustainability goals. 3. **Determine the most effective strategy:** The tiered pricing structure directly targets the reduction of visitor numbers during peak times, which is the most impactful way to mitigate the environmental strain on a fragile coastal ecosystem. It’s a proactive measure to manage demand and align it with the destination’s ecological capacity, a fundamental principle in sustainable tourism management taught at institutions like the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.

The question probes the understanding of the interconnectedness of ecological factors and sustainable resource management, a core principle at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, particularly within its marine biology and environmental science programs. The scenario presented involves a coastal ecosystem with a specific trophic structure and the introduction of a non-native species. To determine the most likely long-term impact, one must analyze the potential disruptions to the existing food web and the carrying capacity of the environment. The native herbivore population, feeding on specific algae, is a key component. The introduction of a new, highly efficient herbivore that also consumes the same algae, but at a faster rate and with less predation pressure, will inevitably lead to increased competition. This intensified competition will likely reduce the food availability for the native herbivore. A reduced native herbivore population, in turn, will impact its primary predator, a small fish species. If the small fish relies heavily on the native herbivore, its population will also decline due to food scarcity. This cascading effect can destabilize the entire ecosystem. The proposed solution focuses on the direct impact on the primary producers (algae) and the subsequent effects on higher trophic levels. The new herbivore’s efficiency and lack of natural predators in the new environment suggest a rapid increase in its population, leading to overgrazing of the algae. This overgrazing directly diminishes the food source for the native herbivore. The subsequent decline in the native herbivore population directly affects the small fish that preys upon it. Therefore, the most significant long-term consequence is the disruption of the food web, leading to a potential collapse of populations at higher trophic levels, specifically the small fish. This aligns with ecological principles of trophic cascades and competitive exclusion. The University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria emphasizes understanding these complex interactions for effective conservation and management strategies in its coastal and marine environments.

The question probes the understanding of the ethical considerations and practical challenges in marine conservation research, particularly relevant to the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s strengths in marine sciences and sustainability. The scenario involves a researcher studying the migratory patterns of a vulnerable marine species in the waters surrounding the Canary Islands. The core ethical dilemma revolves around minimizing disturbance to the study subjects while ensuring data integrity. The researcher employs acoustic telemetry to track the animals. This method involves attaching small, battery-powered transmitters to the animals, which emit unique sound pulses. These pulses are then detected by a network of underwater receivers. The ethical principle at play is the minimization of harm and disturbance to wildlife. Attaching devices, even if designed to be minimally invasive, inherently introduces an element of stress and potential physiological impact on the animals. Furthermore, the presence of research vessels and equipment can alter natural behaviors, such as foraging or breeding. The question asks to identify the most appropriate ethical consideration for this research. Let’s analyze the options in relation to the ethical principles of animal research, often guided by the “3Rs” (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) and broader welfare considerations. Option a) focuses on ensuring the research design minimizes the duration and intensity of any physical contact with the animals and that the attached devices are designed for minimal drag and biofouling. This directly addresses the “Refinement” principle, aiming to improve the welfare of animals involved in research by minimizing pain, suffering, and distress. It also considers the practical aspect of device design to reduce impact. This aligns with the rigorous ethical standards expected in marine biology research at institutions like the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, which often conduct fieldwork in sensitive marine environments. Option b) suggests prioritizing the collection of the largest possible dataset, even if it means slightly increasing the number of animals tagged or the duration of observation. While data quantity is important, this approach potentially conflicts with the principle of “Reduction” (using the minimum number of animals necessary) and could lead to excessive disturbance, violating ethical guidelines for animal welfare. Option c) proposes focusing solely on the scientific novelty of the findings, with ethical considerations being secondary to achieving groundbreaking results. This is a fundamentally unethical stance in scientific research, as scientific merit should never supersede animal welfare or environmental responsibility. Option d) advocates for using the most advanced and expensive tracking technology available, regardless of its invasiveness, to ensure the highest possible data resolution. While advanced technology is valuable, its application must be balanced with ethical considerations. The most advanced technology might not always be the least invasive, and the cost-effectiveness of the technology in relation to the ethical impact needs careful evaluation. Therefore, the most ethically sound approach, and the one that best reflects responsible scientific practice in marine conservation research, is to prioritize minimizing physical contact and ensuring the design of the tracking equipment is as unobtrusive as possible. This directly supports the ethical imperative to refine research methods for the welfare of the study subjects.

The question probes the understanding of the ecological impact of invasive species, specifically focusing on the Canary Islands’ unique biodiversity, a key area of study at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. The scenario describes the introduction of a non-native insect predator that targets a specific endemic plant. The core concept to evaluate is how such an introduction disrupts the established food web and ecosystem balance. The invasive predator, by consuming the endemic plant, directly reduces its population. This reduction has cascading effects: herbivores that rely on this plant for sustenance will face food scarcity, potentially leading to their decline or migration. Furthermore, the plant’s role in soil stabilization or as a habitat for other small organisms is compromised. The predator’s own population might initially boom due to abundant food, but it could eventually face limitations if its primary food source dwindles or if it lacks natural predators in the new environment. The most significant and direct consequence, however, is the impact on the endemic plant itself, which is often highly specialized and vulnerable to novel threats. The question requires identifying the most immediate and profound ecological consequence. The decline of the endemic plant population is the primary and most direct impact, setting off a chain reaction. The predator’s population increase is a secondary effect, and the impact on other trophic levels is a consequence of the plant’s decline. The long-term genetic adaptation of the plant is a potential outcome, but not the immediate ecological disruption. Therefore, the most accurate and encompassing answer focuses on the direct threat to the endemic flora.

The question probes the understanding of the ethical considerations in scientific research, particularly concerning the responsible dissemination of findings. The University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, with its strong emphasis on research integrity and societal impact, would expect its students to grasp these nuances. The scenario involves a researcher, Dr. Elara Vance, who has discovered a novel bio-agent with potential therapeutic applications but also significant risks if misused. The core ethical dilemma lies in how to communicate these findings. Option (a) suggests publishing the complete, unredacted findings immediately in a peer-reviewed journal. While transparency is a cornerstone of scientific practice, the immediate and unrestricted release of information about a potentially dangerous bio-agent without any safeguard considerations would be ethically problematic. This could lead to accidental or intentional misuse, posing a threat to public safety. This aligns with the principles of responsible conduct of research, which includes considering the potential dual-use nature of scientific discoveries. Option (b) proposes withholding the publication entirely until further safety protocols are developed and universally adopted. While prioritizing safety is crucial, complete suppression of knowledge can hinder legitimate scientific progress and prevent the development of beneficial applications. It also raises questions about the researcher’s obligation to share knowledge with the scientific community. Option (c) advocates for publishing a summary of the findings in a general scientific forum, highlighting the potential benefits while omitting specific details about the agent’s synthesis and properties, and simultaneously initiating discussions with international regulatory bodies and security agencies. This approach balances the need for scientific transparency and progress with the imperative of public safety. By summarizing the potential benefits, the scientific community can be alerted to the discovery and its implications, fostering further research in controlled environments. Simultaneously, engaging with regulatory bodies and security agencies allows for the development of appropriate safeguards and protocols before wider dissemination of sensitive information. This proactive engagement is vital for responsible innovation and aligns with the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s commitment to ethical research practices that benefit society. Option (d) suggests presenting the findings at a private conference for invited experts only, without any public record. This approach limits the dissemination of information too narrowly, potentially stifling broader scientific inquiry and oversight. While it offers a degree of control, it lacks the transparency expected in scientific endeavors and does not adequately involve the necessary governmental and international bodies for comprehensive risk management. Therefore, the most ethically sound and responsible approach, reflecting the values of rigorous and conscientious research expected at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, is to communicate the findings in a manner that informs the scientific community about the potential benefits while actively engaging with relevant authorities to mitigate risks.

The question probes understanding of the socio-economic and environmental implications of sustainable tourism development, a key area of focus for programs at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, particularly those related to tourism management and environmental science. The scenario describes a coastal community in Gran Canaria grappling with the dual pressures of economic reliance on tourism and the ecological fragility of its marine ecosystems. The core of the problem lies in balancing increased visitor numbers with the preservation of biodiversity and local cultural heritage. The correct answer, “Implementing a diversified tourism model that integrates ecotourism principles with community-based cultural experiences, alongside strict carrying capacity regulations for sensitive marine areas,” directly addresses these competing demands. Diversification moves away from mass tourism, reducing pressure on any single resource. Ecotourism inherently emphasizes conservation and minimal impact. Community-based cultural experiences ensure that economic benefits are distributed locally and that heritage is valued, not exploited. Crucially, carrying capacity regulations are essential for protecting fragile ecosystems from over-tourism, a direct response to the environmental degradation mentioned. Plausible incorrect options fail to comprehensively address the multifaceted challenges. An option focusing solely on infrastructure development (e.g., expanding hotels and transport) would likely exacerbate environmental pressures and potentially dilute cultural authenticity. Another option that prioritizes marketing campaigns without addressing the underlying sustainability issues would be superficial. Finally, an option suggesting a complete moratorium on tourism, while environmentally sound in the short term, is economically unviable for a community heavily dependent on the sector and ignores the potential for responsible tourism to be a force for good. The chosen answer represents a nuanced, integrated approach that aligns with the principles of sustainable development, a cornerstone of modern academic inquiry in fields relevant to the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.

The question probes the understanding of sustainable tourism practices in coastal environments, a key area of study at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, given its location and research focus on marine and environmental sciences. The scenario involves a hypothetical coastal community, “Puerto Dorado,” aiming to balance economic growth from tourism with ecological preservation. The core concept being tested is the identification of a strategy that most effectively integrates economic benefits with the long-term health of the marine ecosystem and local culture. Option a) focuses on diversifying the tourism product to include cultural heritage and local gastronomy, alongside marine activities. This approach directly addresses the need to spread economic benefits beyond solely resource-intensive activities, fostering a deeper connection with the local identity and reducing pressure on specific natural attractions. By promoting cultural immersion and supporting local producers, it inherently encourages the preservation of traditional practices and the environment that sustains them. This aligns with principles of community-based tourism and responsible destination management, which are crucial for the sustainability of places like Gran Canaria. Option b) suggests a significant expansion of large-scale resort infrastructure. While this might boost short-term economic indicators, it typically leads to increased environmental degradation (e.g., habitat loss, pollution, water consumption) and can dilute the unique cultural character of a destination, potentially alienating the local community. This is often counterproductive to long-term sustainability. Option c) proposes a focus solely on attracting high-spending, low-volume eco-tourists. While eco-tourism is valuable, a singular focus might limit the broader economic benefits for the entire community and may not fully leverage the diverse appeal of a coastal region. Furthermore, “high-spending” doesn’t automatically equate to “sustainable” if the activities themselves are ecologically damaging. Option d) advocates for strict, top-down regulations on all tourist activities without significant community involvement or alternative economic opportunities. While regulation is necessary, an overly restrictive approach without providing viable alternatives or engaging the local population can lead to resentment, economic hardship, and a lack of buy-in, ultimately hindering the successful implementation of sustainable practices. Therefore, diversifying the tourism offering to encompass cultural and gastronomic elements, thereby distributing economic benefits and fostering local engagement, represents the most holistic and sustainable strategy for Puerto Dorado, reflecting the interdisciplinary approach valued at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.

The question assesses understanding of the principles of sustainable tourism development, particularly in the context of island environments like Gran Canaria, which is a core focus for the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. The calculation involves identifying the primary driver of negative externalities in a tourism-dependent economy that relies heavily on natural resources. Consider the economic model of tourism. Tourism generates revenue but also consumes resources and can create pollution. The cost of this consumption and pollution is often borne by the local community or the environment, not fully by the tourist or the tourism provider. This is known as a negative externality. In an island ecosystem like Gran Canaria, which has limited natural resources and a fragile environment, the impact of these externalities can be amplified. Let’s analyze the options in terms of their direct impact on the island’s carrying capacity and resource depletion: 1. **Over-reliance on imported goods for the hospitality sector:** While this has economic implications (balance of payments, local job creation), its direct environmental externality is less pronounced than resource depletion. It’s more of an economic vulnerability. 2. **Seasonal fluctuations in tourist arrivals leading to underutilized infrastructure:** This is primarily an economic efficiency problem, leading to potential financial losses for businesses, but not a direct environmental externality in the same vein as resource depletion. 3. **Intensified demand on finite freshwater resources and waste management systems due to high tourist volumes:** This directly represents a negative externality. The increased demand strains limited natural resources (water) and public services (waste management), leading to costs (e.g., water scarcity, pollution, increased treatment costs) that are not fully internalized by the tourist or the industry. This impacts the local population and the environment. 4. **Diversification of tourism offerings to include cultural and adventure tourism:** This is generally considered a strategy to mitigate negative impacts by spreading demand and potentially reducing pressure on specific resources. It’s a solution, not a problem causing negative externalities. Therefore, the most significant negative externality, directly impacting the island’s sustainability and aligning with the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s research into environmental management and sustainable development, is the strain on finite resources. Calculation: Identify the core concept: Negative externalities in tourism. Define negative externality: A cost imposed on a third party not directly involved in the transaction. Analyze each option for its externality impact on an island environment: – Imported goods: Economic externality (balance of trade). – Seasonal fluctuations: Economic efficiency externality. – Resource strain (water, waste): Direct environmental externality, impacting carrying capacity. – Diversification: Mitigation strategy. The option representing the most direct and significant negative externality impacting the island’s carrying capacity and resource base is the intensified demand on finite freshwater resources and waste management systems. Final Answer Derivation: The question asks for the primary negative externality. Option 3 directly describes a cost imposed on the environment and local infrastructure due to increased tourism activity, which is the definition of a negative externality in this context.

The question probes the understanding of how different research methodologies align with the specific research strengths and educational philosophy of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC). ULPGC has a strong focus on marine sciences, sustainable development, and interdisciplinary approaches, particularly in its Canary Islands context. Therefore, a methodology that emphasizes empirical data collection in dynamic environments, collaborative problem-solving, and the integration of diverse scientific perspectives would be most aligned. Consider a scenario where a research project at ULPGC aims to investigate the impact of microplastic pollution on marine ecosystems in the Atlantic waters surrounding the Canary Islands. This requires not just laboratory analysis but also extensive fieldwork, data collection from diverse marine species, and potentially collaboration with oceanographers, biologists, and environmental chemists. A purely theoretical or solely qualitative approach would be insufficient. Similarly, a methodology that is highly siloed and does not encourage cross-disciplinary dialogue would not leverage ULPGC’s strengths. The most effective approach would integrate quantitative field data with qualitative observations and potentially socio-economic impacts, fostering a holistic understanding. This aligns with the university’s commitment to addressing real-world challenges through robust, evidence-based, and collaborative research. The emphasis on empirical observation and data-driven conclusions, coupled with the need to synthesize findings across different scientific domains, points towards a mixed-methods approach that prioritizes fieldwork and interdisciplinary integration. This reflects the university’s dedication to applied research that benefits the local and global community.

The question probes the understanding of sustainable tourism principles in the context of a coastal university like the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, which is situated in a region heavily reliant on tourism and sensitive to environmental changes. The core concept here is the balance between economic benefits, socio-cultural preservation, and environmental protection. Option (a) directly addresses this by emphasizing community involvement, resource management, and cultural authenticity, which are cornerstones of sustainable tourism. Option (b) focuses solely on economic growth without considering the environmental and social impacts, which is characteristic of mass tourism, not sustainable tourism. Option (c) highlights environmental conservation but neglects the crucial socio-cultural and economic dimensions, making it incomplete. Option (d) prioritizes visitor experience and infrastructure development but overlooks the long-term sustainability and local community benefits, potentially leading to over-tourism and cultural dilution. Therefore, the most comprehensive and aligned approach with the principles of sustainable tourism, as relevant to a university in a popular tourist destination like Gran Canaria, is the one that integrates all three pillars of sustainability.

The question probes the understanding of the ethical considerations in marine biology research, particularly in the context of the Canary Islands’ unique biodiversity and the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s commitment to sustainable practices. The scenario involves a research project on endemic marine species in the Canary Islands, a region known for its rich and fragile marine ecosystems. The core ethical dilemma revolves around balancing scientific advancement with the imperative to minimize ecological impact. The principle of “do no harm” (non-maleficence) is paramount in ecological research. This translates to employing methods that cause the least disturbance to the study subjects and their habitat. For endemic species, which often have limited populations and specific habitat requirements, even minor disruptions can have significant consequences. Therefore, non-invasive sampling techniques, such as visual surveys, acoustic monitoring, or the collection of shed biological material (e.g., moulted exoskeletons, fecal samples), are ethically preferred over methods that involve direct capture, handling, or tissue extraction, unless absolutely necessary and rigorously justified. The research proposal’s reliance on direct tissue sampling from a vulnerable, endemic species of sea cucumber, without a clear and compelling justification for its necessity over less intrusive methods, raises significant ethical concerns. While scientific curiosity is important, it must be weighed against the potential for irreversible harm to a species that is already part of a delicate ecological balance. The University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, with its strong focus on marine sciences and conservation, would expect its researchers to prioritize methodologies that demonstrate a profound respect for the natural environment and adhere to the highest standards of ecological ethics. This includes a thorough risk assessment and the exploration of all possible non-invasive alternatives before resorting to potentially harmful interventions. The justification for tissue sampling must be exceptionally strong, demonstrating that the knowledge gained is critical for the species’ conservation and cannot be obtained through other means.

The question probes the understanding of the ethical considerations in scientific research, particularly concerning data integrity and the dissemination of findings. In the context of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s commitment to rigorous academic standards and the responsible conduct of research, a scenario involving potential data manipulation requires careful ethical evaluation. The core issue is the conflict between the desire to present a strong, positive outcome and the imperative to report findings accurately, even if they are less favorable or inconclusive. When a researcher discovers that a minor adjustment in data processing, while not fundamentally altering the overall trend, does lead to a statistically significant result that was previously absent, the ethical obligation is to disclose this adjustment and its impact. This transparency is paramount in maintaining scientific credibility and allowing other researchers to scrutinize and replicate the work. Failing to disclose such an adjustment, or presenting the adjusted data as if it were the raw, unprocessed outcome, constitutes scientific misconduct. The principle of honesty and integrity in research dictates that all methodological decisions and their consequences on the results must be clearly communicated. Therefore, the most ethically sound course of action is to report the findings with the disclosed adjustment, acknowledging its influence on the statistical significance. This upholds the trust placed in researchers by the scientific community and the public, aligning with the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s emphasis on scholarly integrity and the pursuit of knowledge through transparent and ethical practices.

The question probes the understanding of the interconnectedness of ecological systems, specifically focusing on the impact of invasive species on native biodiversity and ecosystem services, a core concern in environmental science programs at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, given its location and research focus on island ecosystems. The scenario describes the introduction of a fast-growing, nitrogen-fixing vine into a coastal ecosystem. This vine outcompetes native flora for light, water, and nutrients. Its nitrogen-fixing capability enriches the soil, further favoring its own growth and that of other nitrogen-tolerant species, while potentially harming plants adapted to lower nutrient levels. This shift in plant community composition directly impacts herbivores that rely on specific native plants for food and shelter. Furthermore, the dense mat of the invasive vine can alter soil moisture retention and increase erosion, particularly on slopes. The question asks to identify the most likely cascading effect on the local insect population. A direct consequence of the decline in native plant species, which serve as food sources and habitats for specific insects (e.g., pollinators, herbivores), is a reduction in the diversity and abundance of these insects. The invasive vine, while providing biomass, may not offer the same specialized food resources or microhabitats required by many native insects. For instance, if native flowering plants that are crucial for specific bee species are displaced, those bee populations will decline. Similarly, if the larval food plants for certain butterfly species are replaced, those butterflies will suffer. The altered soil conditions and reduced structural complexity of the vegetation also contribute to habitat loss for ground-dwelling insects and those relying on leaf litter from specific native plants. Therefore, the most probable cascading effect is a significant decrease in the diversity and abundance of native insect species due to habitat and food source loss.

The question probes the understanding of sustainable tourism principles within the context of Gran Canaria’s unique environmental and socio-economic landscape, a key area of focus for the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s tourism and environmental studies programs. The core concept is the balance between economic benefits and the preservation of natural and cultural heritage. The calculation, though conceptual, involves weighing the impact of different tourism strategies. Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the principle: Assume a tourism development project aims to increase visitor numbers by 20% annually. Initial visitor impact score (environmental degradation + cultural strain): \(I_0 = 100\) units. Economic benefit multiplier for a 20% increase: \(B_1 = 1.20\). Environmental/cultural cost multiplier for a 20% increase: \(C_1 = 1.15\). If the project proceeds without mitigation, the new impact score would be \(I_1 = I_0 \times C_1 = 100 \times 1.15 = 115\). The net benefit would be \(B_1 – C_1 = 1.20 – 1.15 = 0.05\). Now consider a sustainable approach: a 10% increase in visitors, coupled with investments in eco-friendly infrastructure and cultural preservation programs. New visitor increase: 10%. Economic benefit multiplier: \(B_2 = 1.10\). Environmental/cultural cost multiplier with mitigation: \(C_2 = 1.05\). The new impact score would be \(I_2 = I_0 \times C_2 = 100 \times 1.05 = 105\). The net benefit would be \(B_2 – C_2 = 1.10 – 1.05 = 0.05\). In this simplified model, both approaches yield the same net benefit (0.05). However, the sustainable approach results in a significantly lower environmental and cultural impact score (105 vs. 115). This demonstrates that while short-term economic gains might be comparable, the long-term viability and the preservation of the very assets that attract tourists are compromised by less sustainable practices. The University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria emphasizes research into such balanced approaches, recognizing that the island’s natural beauty and cultural identity are its most valuable, yet fragile, resources. Therefore, prioritizing strategies that minimize ecological footprint and maximize community engagement, even if they involve slightly slower growth rates, aligns with the institution’s commitment to responsible development and the long-term prosperity of the Canary Islands. This involves understanding complex interdependencies between economic activity, environmental health, and social well-being, crucial for students pursuing studies in tourism management, environmental science, and regional development at ULPGC.

The question assesses understanding of the principles of sustainable tourism development, a key area of focus for programs at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, given its location and economic reliance on tourism. The scenario describes a coastal town experiencing increased visitor numbers. The core challenge is to balance economic benefits with environmental and socio-cultural preservation. Option a) focuses on diversifying the local economy beyond tourism, investing in renewable energy infrastructure, and implementing strict waste management protocols. This approach directly addresses the triple bottom line of sustainability: economic (diversification), environmental (renewable energy, waste management), and social (reduced strain on local resources, potentially leading to better quality of life for residents). This aligns with the university’s commitment to fostering research and education in sustainable development practices, particularly relevant to island economies. Option b) suggests increasing marketing efforts to attract even more tourists and developing larger-scale hotel complexes. This is a classic example of unsustainable mass tourism, which often leads to environmental degradation, strain on infrastructure, and displacement of local culture, directly contradicting the principles of sustainable development that the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria champions. Option c) proposes focusing solely on preserving natural landscapes without considering the economic needs of the local population or the potential for responsible tourism activities. While conservation is crucial, an approach that ignores economic viability and community involvement is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term and doesn’t reflect the integrated approach to development emphasized at the university. Option d) advocates for a complete moratorium on tourism development, which, while environmentally protective, fails to acknowledge the economic realities and potential for responsible growth that can benefit the local community. A balanced approach is typically preferred in sustainable development frameworks. Therefore, the strategy that best embodies the principles of sustainable tourism development, as would be expected in an academic context at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, is the one that integrates economic diversification, environmental stewardship, and community well-being.

The question probes the understanding of sustainable tourism principles in the context of a coastal university like the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, which is situated in an archipelago with significant reliance on tourism. The core concept being tested is the balance between economic benefits, socio-cultural preservation, and environmental protection. The scenario involves a hypothetical initiative to boost tourism by developing new coastal infrastructure. To arrive at the correct answer, one must evaluate each option against the principles of sustainable tourism. Option A: Focusing on community involvement and local economic benefits, while also emphasizing the preservation of natural and cultural heritage, directly aligns with the triple bottom line of sustainability (economic, social, environmental). This approach seeks to integrate tourism development with the well-being of the host community and the long-term health of the destination’s resources. Option B: Prioritizing rapid economic growth through large-scale infrastructure projects without explicit mention of environmental safeguards or community benefit sharing can lead to over-tourism, environmental degradation, and social displacement, which are antithetical to sustainable tourism. Option C: Concentrating solely on environmental conservation without considering the economic viability for local communities or the social impact of tourism can lead to a lack of support for conservation efforts and missed opportunities for local development. While environmental protection is crucial, it must be integrated with other pillars of sustainability. Option D: Emphasizing cultural authenticity through curated experiences, while important for socio-cultural sustainability, might overlook the critical environmental impacts of increased visitor numbers and the need for equitable economic distribution among the local population. A holistic approach is required. Therefore, the most comprehensive and sustainable approach, reflecting the ethos of a university committed to responsible development in a sensitive environment, is the one that balances economic prosperity, social equity, and environmental integrity.

The question probes the understanding of the ethical considerations in marine research, particularly relevant to the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s strengths in marine sciences and oceanography. The scenario involves a research team from the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria studying the impact of microplastics on a specific cetacean population in the Canary Islands’ waters. The core ethical dilemma revolves around the potential harm to the animals versus the scientific imperative to gather data. The principle of “do no harm” (non-maleficence) is paramount in animal research. While collecting samples (e.g., blubber biopsies, fecal samples) is necessary for analysis, the methodology must minimize stress and risk to the individual animals and the population. This involves employing minimally invasive techniques, ensuring trained personnel conduct procedures, and adhering to strict ethical review board approvals. Furthermore, the research must demonstrate a clear benefit that outweighs the potential harm, contributing to conservation efforts or a deeper understanding of ecological impacts, which aligns with the University’s commitment to sustainable ocean management. Considering the options: Option a) focuses on the necessity of obtaining permits and adhering to established ethical guidelines, which is a foundational requirement for any research involving protected species. This directly addresses the ethical framework governing such studies. Option b) suggests prioritizing immediate data collection over animal welfare, which is contrary to ethical research principles. Option c) proposes a purely observational approach without any sample collection, which might severely limit the scientific rigor and the ability to answer the research questions about microplastic ingestion. While observation is part of research, it’s often insufficient for detailed physiological or dietary analysis. Option d) advocates for the cessation of research if any minimal risk is identified, which would paralyze scientific progress and prevent the gathering of crucial data for conservation. Therefore, the most ethically sound and scientifically justifiable approach, aligning with the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s commitment to responsible scientific inquiry in marine environments, is to ensure all necessary ethical approvals and permits are secured and that the research protocols are designed to minimize harm.

The question probes the understanding of sustainable tourism practices, particularly in the context of island environments like Gran Canaria, which is a key focus for the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. The scenario involves a hypothetical tourism development project aiming to balance economic growth with environmental preservation and local community well-being. The core concept being tested is the integration of the three pillars of sustainable development: economic viability, social equity, and environmental protection. To arrive at the correct answer, one must evaluate each proposed strategy against these pillars. * **Strategy 1: Large-scale hotel construction with minimal local hiring.** This strategy prioritizes economic growth (construction jobs, hotel revenue) but likely fails on social equity (limited local employment benefits) and potentially environmental protection (large footprint, resource strain). * **Strategy 2: Development of eco-lodges powered by renewable energy, employing local artisans and guides, and investing in marine conservation initiatives.** This strategy directly addresses all three pillars: economic viability (eco-tourism revenue, local employment), social equity (support for local artisans and guides), and environmental protection (renewable energy, marine conservation). * **Strategy 3: Focus solely on attracting high-spending tourists with no emphasis on local integration or environmental impact assessments.** This strategy might yield high economic returns per tourist but neglects social equity and environmental sustainability, potentially leading to resource depletion and cultural commodification. * **Strategy 4: Implementing strict visitor quotas without developing alternative economic opportunities for the local population.** While this addresses environmental protection by limiting impact, it severely compromises economic viability and social equity by not providing alternative livelihoods, potentially leading to resentment and economic hardship. Therefore, Strategy 2 represents the most holistic and sustainable approach, aligning with the principles of responsible tourism that the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria would champion in its academic programs related to tourism management and environmental studies. The calculation isn’t numerical but rather a qualitative assessment of how each strategy aligns with the established framework of sustainable development. The optimal strategy is the one that demonstrably integrates and balances economic, social, and environmental considerations.

The question probes the understanding of sustainable tourism principles in the context of a coastal university like the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, which is situated in an archipelago with a significant reliance on tourism. The core concept tested is the balance between economic benefits, socio-cultural preservation, and environmental protection. The correct answer emphasizes a holistic approach that integrates local community well-being and ecological carrying capacity, aligning with the university’s potential research in marine biology, environmental science, and cultural heritage. The scenario involves a hypothetical initiative to enhance tourism in Gran Canaria. Option A correctly identifies the need for a multi-faceted strategy that considers the long-term viability of the destination. This includes diversifying tourism offerings beyond traditional sun-and-sand models to include ecotourism and cultural experiences, thereby reducing pressure on specific resources and engaging local communities more deeply. It also highlights the importance of robust environmental impact assessments and community consultation, which are crucial for responsible development. This approach directly reflects the principles of sustainable development, a key area of study and research at institutions with a strong connection to their natural and cultural environments. The emphasis on adaptive management and continuous monitoring further underscores a commitment to long-term sustainability, a hallmark of advanced academic inquiry.

The question assesses understanding of the principles of sustainable tourism development, particularly in the context of island environments like Gran Canaria, a key focus for the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. The core concept is balancing economic benefits with environmental and socio-cultural preservation. A sustainable tourism model for an island destination like Gran Canaria must prioritize strategies that minimize negative impacts and maximize positive contributions. This involves careful management of natural resources, such as water and coastal ecosystems, which are particularly vulnerable on islands. It also requires engaging local communities in the tourism value chain, ensuring they benefit economically and culturally, and preserving their heritage. Furthermore, it necessitates diversification of the tourism product beyond mass-market offerings to reduce pressure on specific areas and cater to a broader range of visitor interests, potentially including ecotourism, cultural tourism, and adventure tourism. Option a) reflects this holistic approach by emphasizing resource conservation, community involvement, and product diversification. Option b) is incorrect because focusing solely on technological innovation without considering resource limitations or community impact is insufficient for true sustainability. Option c) is flawed as it prioritizes economic growth above all else, which can lead to environmental degradation and social disruption, undermining long-term viability. Option d) is also incorrect because while infrastructure development is necessary, an exclusive focus on it without integrated environmental and social planning can exacerbate sustainability challenges.

The question probes the understanding of sustainable tourism principles in the context of a coastal university like the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, which is situated in a region heavily reliant on tourism and marine resources. The core concept is to identify the strategy that best aligns with the university’s potential role in fostering responsible development. The calculation, while conceptual rather than numerical, involves weighing the impact of different approaches against the principles of sustainability, community benefit, and environmental preservation. 1. **Environmental Preservation:** This involves protecting the unique marine ecosystems and coastal landscapes surrounding Gran Canaria. 2. **Socio-cultural Authenticity:** This means respecting and enhancing the local culture and heritage, ensuring that tourism benefits the resident population without commodifying their traditions. 3. **Economic Viability:** Tourism must be economically sustainable in the long term, providing stable employment and contributing to the local economy without depleting resources. Considering these pillars, an approach that integrates local ecological knowledge with innovative, low-impact tourism models, while actively involving the community in decision-making and benefit-sharing, would be the most effective. This aligns with the university’s potential to conduct research, educate stakeholders, and promote best practices. Specifically, fostering community-led ecotourism initiatives that leverage the island’s natural and cultural assets, supported by university research on carrying capacity and conservation, directly addresses all three pillars. This approach prioritizes long-term ecological health and cultural integrity over short-term economic gains that might degrade the environment or alienate the local population. It also positions the university as a key partner in sustainable development, aligning with its academic mission.

The question probes the understanding of the ethical considerations in marine conservation research, particularly relevant to the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s strengths in marine sciences and its location in an archipelago. The scenario involves a researcher studying the impact of microplastic pollution on a specific endemic species of sea turtle found in the Canary Islands. The core ethical dilemma revolves around the potential harm caused by sampling methods versus the imperative to gather data for conservation. The researcher needs to balance the scientific necessity of collecting samples (e.g., tissue biopsies, gut content analysis) with the principle of minimizing harm to the individual animals and the population. This involves considering the invasiveness of the procedures, the potential for stress or injury, and the long-term effects on the species’ survival. Furthermore, the research must adhere to strict protocols for animal welfare, often mandated by national and international regulations, and approved by ethics committees. The most ethically sound approach, aligning with principles of responsible research and conservation biology, would be to employ non-lethal, minimally invasive techniques whenever possible. This includes using advanced imaging technologies, analyzing fecal samples, or collecting small, easily regenerated tissue samples (like scutes or blood from a flipper). The researcher must also ensure that any handling of the animals is brief, conducted by trained personnel, and during periods of lower stress for the animals. The justification for any invasive procedure must be exceptionally strong, demonstrating that the potential benefits to the species’ conservation outweigh the risks to the individual. The research design should also incorporate a robust monitoring plan to assess the impact of the sampling itself. This meticulous attention to ethical detail is paramount in marine biology research, especially when dealing with endangered or vulnerable species, and reflects the high academic standards expected at institutions like the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.

The question probes understanding of the principles of sustainable coastal management, a key area of study at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, given its location and research focus. The scenario describes a common challenge: balancing economic development with ecological preservation in a coastal zone. The core concept tested is the identification of the most comprehensive and ethically sound approach to such a conflict. The calculation is conceptual, not numerical. We are evaluating the *effectiveness* and *appropriateness* of different management strategies. 1. **Analyze the scenario:** A coastal community in Gran Canaria faces pressure for new tourism infrastructure development that could impact sensitive marine ecosystems and traditional fishing grounds. 2. **Evaluate Option A (Integrated Coastal Zone Management – ICZM):** ICZM inherently involves a holistic, multi-stakeholder approach that considers environmental, social, and economic factors. It emphasizes coordination across different sectors and levels of governance. This aligns with the need to balance competing interests and ensure long-term sustainability, a core tenet of environmental science and policy taught at ULPGC. It seeks to prevent conflicts by proactively planning and managing activities. 3. **Evaluate Option B (Sectoral Development Focus):** Prioritizing only tourism development without considering other impacts is inherently unsustainable and likely to create conflict, as it ignores ecological and social consequences. This is a narrow approach. 4. **Evaluate Option C (Strict Preservation with No Development):** While environmentally sound in isolation, this approach fails to address the economic needs of the community and may not be politically or socially feasible, potentially leading to resentment and unregulated activities. It lacks the integrated aspect. 5. **Evaluate Option D (Market-Driven Solutions Only):** Relying solely on market forces might not adequately protect public goods like marine ecosystems or ensure equitable distribution of benefits, especially for traditional livelihoods. Environmental externalities are often not fully captured by market prices. Therefore, the approach that best addresses the multifaceted challenges of sustainable development in a sensitive coastal environment, as would be emphasized in a university like ULPGC with strong marine and environmental programs, is the integrated, multi-stakeholder management framework.

The question probes the understanding of the ethical considerations and methodological rigor expected in scientific research, particularly within disciplines relevant to the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s strengths, such as marine biology or environmental science. The scenario involves a researcher observing a novel behavior in a protected marine species. The core ethical principle at play is the minimization of harm and disturbance to the study subjects and their habitat. Option A, “Documenting the behavior from a distance using non-invasive observation techniques and seeking ethical approval for any subsequent, minimally intrusive interaction,” directly addresses this by prioritizing observation without interference and adhering to established ethical protocols. This aligns with the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s commitment to responsible research practices and the conservation of the rich biodiversity of the Canary Islands. Option B, while seemingly proactive, involves direct intervention which could alter the natural behavior or cause stress, violating the principle of non-maleficence. Option C, focusing solely on immediate publication without considering the ethical implications of the observation method, overlooks the responsibility to the subjects and the scientific community’s standards. Option D, while acknowledging the need for data, prioritizes quantity over the quality of ethical conduct, potentially leading to biased or misleading results due to the stress induced by intrusive methods. Therefore, the most appropriate and ethically sound approach, reflecting the academic standards of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, is to observe cautiously and seek formal ethical clearance for any further steps.

The question probes the understanding of the interconnectedness between marine ecosystem health and coastal community resilience, a core theme in environmental studies and sustainable development programs at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. The scenario highlights the impact of declining fish stocks, directly linked to overfishing and pollution, on the livelihoods of local fishing communities. The concept of “ecosystem services” is central here; healthy marine ecosystems provide vital services like food provision (fish), coastal protection (mangroves/reefs), and tourism opportunities. When these services degrade, the economic and social fabric of coastal communities is threatened. The proposed solution focuses on a multi-pronged approach: implementing stricter fishing quotas and marine protected areas to allow fish populations to recover (addressing the direct cause of stock decline), investing in wastewater treatment to reduce marine pollution (addressing another key stressor), and promoting ecotourism and sustainable aquaculture to diversify local economies and create alternative livelihoods. This integrated strategy acknowledges that ecological restoration and socio-economic development are not mutually exclusive but rather interdependent for long-term resilience. The other options, while potentially having some merit, fail to address the root causes of the ecosystem degradation or offer a holistic solution. For instance, focusing solely on economic aid without ecological recovery is unsustainable, and promoting traditional fishing practices without addressing overfishing would exacerbate the problem. Similarly, a singular focus on tourism without ecological safeguards could lead to further environmental strain. The chosen answer represents a comprehensive, ecosystem-based approach that aligns with the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’s commitment to interdisciplinary research and sustainable solutions for coastal regions.

The question probes understanding of the socio-economic and environmental interplay within island ecosystems, a core area of study at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, particularly for programs related to environmental science, sustainable development, and marine biology. The scenario focuses on the impact of tourism on a coastal community, a relevant issue for Gran Canaria. The calculation involves assessing the net impact of increased economic activity versus resource depletion. Let’s assume a simplified model where the initial economic benefit from tourism is \(B_0\) and the environmental cost is \(C_0\). With increased tourism, the benefit grows by a factor of \(1.2\) annually, and the environmental cost grows by a factor of \(1.1\) annually. We are looking for the point where the *marginal* increase in environmental cost begins to outweigh the *marginal* increase in economic benefit. This isn’t a simple calculation of total benefit vs. total cost, but rather the rate of change. Consider the annual change in benefit: \(\Delta B = B_{n+1} – B_n = 1.2 B_n – B_n = 0.2 B_n\). Consider the annual change in cost: \(\Delta C = C_{n+1} – C_n = 1.1 C_n – C_n = 0.1 C_n\). The question asks about the point where the *rate* of environmental degradation *outpaces* the *rate* of economic growth. This implies comparing the *percentage* increase in cost versus the *percentage* increase in benefit. The economic benefit increases by \(20\%\) annually (\(1.2 – 1\)), and the environmental cost increases by \(10\%\) annually (\(1.1 – 1\)). The critical point is not when the total cost exceeds total benefit, but when the *rate* at which costs are increasing becomes proportionally larger than the *rate* at which benefits are increasing, relative to their current values. This is a subtle but important distinction. If we consider the ratio of marginal benefit to marginal cost, \(\frac{\Delta B}{\Delta C} = \frac{0.2 B_n}{0.1 C_n} = 2 \frac{B_n}{C_n}\). The question is framed around the *impact* of tourism. The most significant impact occurs when the *rate of increase* of the negative externalities (environmental costs) begins to dominate the *rate of increase* of the positive externalities (economic benefits). The core concept here is the sustainability of growth. When the *percentage increase* in environmental cost (10%) is less than the *percentage increase* in economic benefit (20%), the economic growth is, in a sense, “outpacing” the environmental cost *in terms of growth rate*. However, the question is about the *impact* and when it becomes detrimental. A more nuanced interpretation, aligning with advanced environmental economics and policy, is to consider the point where the *marginal cost of an additional unit of tourism* exceeds the *marginal benefit*. Without specific functions for B and C, we infer from the growth rates. The most appropriate answer relates to the point where the *rate of increase* of environmental degradation becomes a more significant concern than the *rate of increase* of economic gains. This occurs when the environmental cost, even if growing slower in absolute terms initially, starts to erode the net gains more rapidly due to compounding effects or exceeding a critical threshold. The phrasing “detrimental impact on the long-term viability of the ecosystem” points towards this. Let’s re-evaluate the core concept. The question is about the *impact* of tourism. The economic benefit grows by 20% annually, and the environmental cost grows by 10% annually. The critical point is when the *rate of increase* of the environmental cost becomes a more dominant factor in the overall sustainability assessment. This is not about a simple numerical calculation of total values, but about the *dynamics* of growth and impact. The most insightful answer will reflect an understanding of ecological carrying capacity and the principle that unchecked growth, even if initially beneficial, can lead to irreversible damage. The key is that the environmental cost is a *degradation* of a finite resource. While economic benefits might grow at a higher percentage, if the environmental cost reaches a point where it cannot recover, the long-term viability is compromised. The question is designed to test the understanding that environmental costs, especially those related to ecosystem health, can have non-linear impacts and tipping points. Therefore, the point where the *rate of increase* of environmental cost becomes a significant concern, even if lower than the economic growth rate, is when the sustainability of the ecosystem is most threatened. This is when the cumulative effect of environmental degradation starts to outweigh the perceived economic gains, leading to a decline in the overall quality of life and resource availability for future generations. This aligns with the concept of ecological overshoot and the precautionary principle. The specific percentage growth rates are illustrative of the dynamic, but the underlying principle is about the sustainability of resource-dependent economies. The most critical juncture is when the environmental cost’s growth rate, while potentially lower than economic growth, starts to significantly impact the ecosystem’s ability to regenerate, thus threatening long-term viability. This is often a qualitative assessment rather than a precise numerical crossover point, but it represents a shift in the balance of impact. The correct answer focuses on the point where the *rate of increase* of environmental degradation becomes a more significant factor than the *rate of increase* of economic benefits, considering the finite nature of island ecosystems. This is when the cumulative environmental damage begins to undermine the long-term sustainability of the island’s resources and overall well-being, even if economic indicators continue to show positive growth. It’s about recognizing that environmental costs can have non-linear and irreversible effects.