incorporate more of the human impacts on the environment, nevertheless, by
considering the environmental quality of managed ecosystems (e.g., Erb 2004).
More specifically, the case study in the corridor has helped to ascertain the issues
currently confronting farmers in the area. For example, many expressed the need for
further education in recycling and waste management – to supplement what the Blue
Flag Ecological Program is already doing in the area to raise awareness of environmental issues (refer to Sect. 5.4.5). Education is also needed in the academic sector to
improve the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting, especially to assist in
understanding its limitations (this has been recently tackled by the Footprint Data
Foundation by way of its recently formed SAC). This could also form part of future
research and outreach associated with such endeavours. The current study has
already solicited issues from farmers through commentary provided at the end of
the interviews. It is suggested here that the recommendations in this study are
presented to CoopeAgri to give back to the community by helping them to fulfil
their requests for further education in waste management (relevant to the Blue Flag
Ecological Program) and to provide more financial support for organic farming and
reduced taxes (e.g., down from 8%) in attempts to bring them out of poverty.
Moreover, it is possible to give back to the participating communities (corridor
towns) in the case study through a presentation that relays the study findings while
contributing to outreach and education.
Although an interesting exercise, the investigation has not been able to change the
survey and only make recommendations (in Sect. 7.4) on what needs to be altered.
To make the necessary changes, the survey would no longer be comparable to
existing results (cf. Jóhannesson et al. 2020), and would prohibit any cross-temporal
comparison based on past results. As it is, cross-temporal comparisons based on the
National Footprint Accounts are necessarily edition-specific because of the constraints emplaced by changing equivalence factors. It is, therefore, problematic to
instigate the changes needed for the Footprint Calculator to become less development biased. This is also a problem that exists in the National Footprint Accounts –
on which the Footprint Calculator is calibrated for national scores – that cannot be
corrected, but needs to be understood as part of the applicability of the instrument
and its interpretative error. For instance, developed nations are usually the ones with
better quality scores or the ability to improve their data through available government agencies, as indicated on the quality scores website (www.footprintnetwork.
org/data-quality-scores) and addressed in Chap. 1 (see Sect. 1.4.4.1).
7.2 Limitations
It is noteworthy that as the selected research instrument, the Footprint Calculator is
not perfectly tailored to the corridor, and limitations of deploying this tool to
measure the Ecological Footprint of farming households in the Alexander Skutch
Biological Corridor is an important consideration. As detailed in Chap. 1 (see Sect.
1.4.1), the questions are not equally distributed among the three categories (of food,
98
7 Conclusion
considering the environmental quality of managed ecosystems (e.g., Erb 2004).
More specifically, the case study in the corridor has helped to ascertain the issues
currently confronting farmers in the area. For example, many expressed the need for
further education in recycling and waste management – to supplement what the Blue
Flag Ecological Program is already doing in the area to raise awareness of environmental issues (refer to Sect. 5.4.5). Education is also needed in the academic sector to
improve the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting, especially to assist in
understanding its limitations (this has been recently tackled by the Footprint Data
Foundation by way of its recently formed SAC). This could also form part of future
research and outreach associated with such endeavours. The current study has
already solicited issues from farmers through commentary provided at the end of
the interviews. It is suggested here that the recommendations in this study are
presented to CoopeAgri to give back to the community by helping them to fulfil
their requests for further education in waste management (relevant to the Blue Flag
Ecological Program) and to provide more financial support for organic farming and
reduced taxes (e.g., down from 8%) in attempts to bring them out of poverty.
Moreover, it is possible to give back to the participating communities (corridor
towns) in the case study through a presentation that relays the study findings while
contributing to outreach and education.
Although an interesting exercise, the investigation has not been able to change the
survey and only make recommendations (in Sect. 7.4) on what needs to be altered.
To make the necessary changes, the survey would no longer be comparable to
existing results (cf. Jóhannesson et al. 2020), and would prohibit any cross-temporal
comparison based on past results. As it is, cross-temporal comparisons based on the
National Footprint Accounts are necessarily edition-specific because of the constraints emplaced by changing equivalence factors. It is, therefore, problematic to
instigate the changes needed for the Footprint Calculator to become less development biased. This is also a problem that exists in the National Footprint Accounts –
on which the Footprint Calculator is calibrated for national scores – that cannot be
corrected, but needs to be understood as part of the applicability of the instrument
and its interpretative error. For instance, developed nations are usually the ones with
better quality scores or the ability to improve their data through available government agencies, as indicated on the quality scores website (www.footprintnetwork.
org/data-quality-scores) and addressed in Chap. 1 (see Sect. 1.4.4.1).
7.2 Limitations
It is noteworthy that as the selected research instrument, the Footprint Calculator is
not perfectly tailored to the corridor, and limitations of deploying this tool to
measure the Ecological Footprint of farming households in the Alexander Skutch
Biological Corridor is an important consideration. As detailed in Chap. 1 (see Sect.
1.4.1), the questions are not equally distributed among the three categories (of food,
98
7 Conclusion