housing, and transportation), with food (and to some extent transportation) not
receiving enough attention. Some other questions that could be asked in the food
category, for example, could address organic food production and consumption,
quantities of food produced and consumed, types of processed foods consumed, and
how exactly food is being acquired for consumption if not produced by the consumer. It should also be noted that the Footprint Calculator, in its current form, does
not account for any geographical or cultural anomalies in the data – specific to the
study area and perhaps Costa Rica at large, as for instance that fans are used but not
heaters or air conditioners. Furthermore, poverty is a socioeconomic issue that may
not manifest in the outputs but, nevertheless, is an underlying issue affecting the
responses – as to why people do not fly every year, have inefficient vehicles and
houses, eat meat and fish once per week and consume more beans, rice, and eggs
(although this is also cultural), and are not purchasing much clothing and consuming
many items (like newspapers, etc.), although this could be attributable to environmental ethics in the corridor.
This study has been limited in ways already noted by criticisms posed towards the
National Footprint Accounts and Footprint Calculator (see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.1).
However, there are also limitations posed by the case study. For one, as a case study
it does not reflect all places in the world and can only truly represent itself – as part of
a rural environment in a developing country, where peasant farmers or ‘campesinos’
were asked to complete the survey-interviews. It is also questionable how
generalisable the findings can be to other tropical countries (and other developing
countries), as this was not an explicit study ambition. Participants in the study area
were sampled according to where they resided in the corridor, as along the main
roads in towns. Snowballing was also deployed, to some extent at the sampling
locations, and this has its own issues – as for example people will tend to recommend
people they know, who could be more like them and, therefore, reduce diversity in
the sampled population. On the other hand, neighbours are also not always aware of
who their neighbours are and their information may be misleading – or they could
not easily answer questions that compare them to other neighbours contained in the
Footprint Calculator survey (e.g., Question 10). This conveys the urban-centricity of
the instrument because it assumes that neighbours are within a close proximity to
each other, which is not normally the case in a rural setting.
Importantly, there were limitations imposed by time and funding, so that it was
not possible to sample more corridor households, as in the towns of Santa Marta, San
Ignacio, and Montecarlo (see Table 6.4). In hindsight, it would have been more
prudent to reduce the number of samples in Santa Elena and sample more of the
households in these towns (Santa Marta, San Ignacio, Montecarlo). Trinidad is a
‘barrio’ or neighbourhood in Santa Elena, so was treated as part of this town in the
case analysis. To reduce error between researchers or surveyors doing the fieldwork,
the number of people who executed the survey-interviews were kept to a minimum
so that the same people could, as consistently as possible, deliver the surveyinterviews. However, this inadvertently limited the number of people that could be
included in the study – both as surveyors and participants – and impacted
the sample size.
7.2 Limitations
99
receiving enough attention. Some other questions that could be asked in the food
category, for example, could address organic food production and consumption,
quantities of food produced and consumed, types of processed foods consumed, and
how exactly food is being acquired for consumption if not produced by the consumer. It should also be noted that the Footprint Calculator, in its current form, does
not account for any geographical or cultural anomalies in the data – specific to the
study area and perhaps Costa Rica at large, as for instance that fans are used but not
heaters or air conditioners. Furthermore, poverty is a socioeconomic issue that may
not manifest in the outputs but, nevertheless, is an underlying issue affecting the
responses – as to why people do not fly every year, have inefficient vehicles and
houses, eat meat and fish once per week and consume more beans, rice, and eggs
(although this is also cultural), and are not purchasing much clothing and consuming
many items (like newspapers, etc.), although this could be attributable to environmental ethics in the corridor.
This study has been limited in ways already noted by criticisms posed towards the
National Footprint Accounts and Footprint Calculator (see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.1).
However, there are also limitations posed by the case study. For one, as a case study
it does not reflect all places in the world and can only truly represent itself – as part of
a rural environment in a developing country, where peasant farmers or ‘campesinos’
were asked to complete the survey-interviews. It is also questionable how
generalisable the findings can be to other tropical countries (and other developing
countries), as this was not an explicit study ambition. Participants in the study area
were sampled according to where they resided in the corridor, as along the main
roads in towns. Snowballing was also deployed, to some extent at the sampling
locations, and this has its own issues – as for example people will tend to recommend
people they know, who could be more like them and, therefore, reduce diversity in
the sampled population. On the other hand, neighbours are also not always aware of
who their neighbours are and their information may be misleading – or they could
not easily answer questions that compare them to other neighbours contained in the
Footprint Calculator survey (e.g., Question 10). This conveys the urban-centricity of
the instrument because it assumes that neighbours are within a close proximity to
each other, which is not normally the case in a rural setting.
Importantly, there were limitations imposed by time and funding, so that it was
not possible to sample more corridor households, as in the towns of Santa Marta, San
Ignacio, and Montecarlo (see Table 6.4). In hindsight, it would have been more
prudent to reduce the number of samples in Santa Elena and sample more of the
households in these towns (Santa Marta, San Ignacio, Montecarlo). Trinidad is a
‘barrio’ or neighbourhood in Santa Elena, so was treated as part of this town in the
case analysis. To reduce error between researchers or surveyors doing the fieldwork,
the number of people who executed the survey-interviews were kept to a minimum
so that the same people could, as consistently as possible, deliver the surveyinterviews. However, this inadvertently limited the number of people that could be
included in the study – both as surveyors and participants – and impacted
the sample size.
7.2 Limitations
99