6.5 Conclusions
This chapter has revisited the general findings from the case study in the corridor. It
has drawn from these results to present tailored suggestions to reduce the Ecological
Footprint, especially as regards the crop land component and food consumption
category – although not exclusively. Notably, it is important to consume food that is
locally grown and encourage organic farming in the study area. As observed in the
previous chapter (see Chap. 5), there is already an interest among these small-scale
farmers to use organic fertilisers and reduce the amount or frequency of pesticide
application. Organisations such as CoopeAgri can encourage this transition by either
reducing taxes and/or subsidising farmers wanting to make the switch. It is also
important to educate these farmers on organic methods as well as waste management. Charging for garbage, but not recycling, combined with farm-based
composting works well. However, there are still misconceptions about burying
garbage and/or burning it (especially paper) that need to be addressed.
References
Delahaye J (2019) Costa Rica named UN Champion of the Earth in fight against climate change.
Mirror (24 September 2019). https://www.mirror.co.uk/travel/central-south-america/costa-ricanamed-un-champion-20166387
Galli A, Wiedmann T, Ercin E, Knoblauch D, Ewing B, Giljum S (2012) Integrating ecological,
carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking
human pressure on the planet. Ecol Indic 16:100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.
06.017
Global Footprint Network (2020) National Footprint Accounts. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
Holmberg J, Lundqvist U, Robèrt K-H, Wackernagel M (1999) The ecological footprint from a
systems perspective of sustainability. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 6(1):17–33. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13504509.1999.9728469
Kitzes J, Moran D, Galli A, Wada Y, Wackernagel M (2009) Interpretation and application of the
ecological footprint: a reply to Fiala (2008). Ecol Econ 68(4):929–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2008.11.001
Levett R (1998) Footprinting: a great step forward, but tread carefully — a response to Mathis
Wackernagel. Local Environ 3(1):67–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839808725545
Lin D, Hanscom L, Murthy A, Galli A, Evans M, Neill E, Mancini MS, Martindill J, Medouar F-Z,
Huang S, Wackernagel M (2018) Ecological footprint accounting for countries: updates and
results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources 7(3):58. https://doi.org/10.
3390/resources7030058
Wackernagel M (1998) The ecological footprint of Santiago de Chile. Local Environ 3(1):7–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839808725541
Wiedmann T, Minx J (2008) A Definition of ‘Carbon Footprint.’ In: Ecological economics research
trends. Nova Science Publishers. https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?
products_id¼5999
Wright LA, Kemp S, Williams I (2011) ‘Carbon footprinting’: towards a universally accepted
definition. Carbon Manage 2(1):61–72. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.10.39
96
6 Implications
This chapter has revisited the general findings from the case study in the corridor. It
has drawn from these results to present tailored suggestions to reduce the Ecological
Footprint, especially as regards the crop land component and food consumption
category – although not exclusively. Notably, it is important to consume food that is
locally grown and encourage organic farming in the study area. As observed in the
previous chapter (see Chap. 5), there is already an interest among these small-scale
farmers to use organic fertilisers and reduce the amount or frequency of pesticide
application. Organisations such as CoopeAgri can encourage this transition by either
reducing taxes and/or subsidising farmers wanting to make the switch. It is also
important to educate these farmers on organic methods as well as waste management. Charging for garbage, but not recycling, combined with farm-based
composting works well. However, there are still misconceptions about burying
garbage and/or burning it (especially paper) that need to be addressed.
References
Delahaye J (2019) Costa Rica named UN Champion of the Earth in fight against climate change.
Mirror (24 September 2019). https://www.mirror.co.uk/travel/central-south-america/costa-ricanamed-un-champion-20166387
Galli A, Wiedmann T, Ercin E, Knoblauch D, Ewing B, Giljum S (2012) Integrating ecological,
carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking
human pressure on the planet. Ecol Indic 16:100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.
06.017
Global Footprint Network (2020) National Footprint Accounts. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
Holmberg J, Lundqvist U, Robèrt K-H, Wackernagel M (1999) The ecological footprint from a
systems perspective of sustainability. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 6(1):17–33. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13504509.1999.9728469
Kitzes J, Moran D, Galli A, Wada Y, Wackernagel M (2009) Interpretation and application of the
ecological footprint: a reply to Fiala (2008). Ecol Econ 68(4):929–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2008.11.001
Levett R (1998) Footprinting: a great step forward, but tread carefully — a response to Mathis
Wackernagel. Local Environ 3(1):67–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839808725545
Lin D, Hanscom L, Murthy A, Galli A, Evans M, Neill E, Mancini MS, Martindill J, Medouar F-Z,
Huang S, Wackernagel M (2018) Ecological footprint accounting for countries: updates and
results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources 7(3):58. https://doi.org/10.
3390/resources7030058
Wackernagel M (1998) The ecological footprint of Santiago de Chile. Local Environ 3(1):7–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839808725541
Wiedmann T, Minx J (2008) A Definition of ‘Carbon Footprint.’ In: Ecological economics research
trends. Nova Science Publishers. https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?
products_id¼5999
Wright LA, Kemp S, Williams I (2011) ‘Carbon footprinting’: towards a universally accepted
definition. Carbon Manage 2(1):61–72. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.10.39
96
6 Implications