7.3 Future Research
More research is needed to decipher the impact that income has on answering
questions in the Footprint Calculator survey, as poverty has been shown to affect
how questions are approached and answered. Similarly, more work is needed to
study the impact of industrial development (as it affects income) on the Footprint
Calculator. Moreover, it would also be interesting to test the survey on urbanites in
countries with different levels of development to see whether city-dwellers are any
closer to the ‘target audience’ than those participants in the current study, who were
rural-dwellers (townspeople) in a developing country. This study has already contributed to doing this by examining rural communities. Importantly, although some
authors (e.g., Strezov et al. 2017) have classified the Ecological Footprint as wholly
in the environmental dimension of sustainable development (see their Table 2 and
Fig. 2, p 248), the social and economic dimensions are also indirectly represented
through the Footprint Calculator, as responses are influenced by the socioeconomic
situation (including poverty) as well as cultural aspects of participants. Language is
not the only factor that restrains participation, as poverty could impose illiteracy –
including computer illiteracy – and limited access to the Internet could also impact
who uses the Footprint Calculator online. Lastly, this study did not execute
ANOVA, but this statistical analysis could be incorporated into future studies
deploying the Footprint Calculator through its components and categories. More
studies are needed to examine the Ecological Footprint (and biocapacity) in Costa
Rica to add to the published literature (e.g., Adams and Ghaly 2006 for
agroindustries in its coffee industry; Kissinger and Rees 2010 regarding trade; van
Vuuren and Smeets 2000). In particular, it would be interesting to continue to
develop more improvement scenarios, as presented in Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.3.1).
7.4 Recommendations
There are some implications of this study. For one, it is evident based on the case
study that more government intervention is needed to support rural farmers in the
corridor, as poverty is clearly evident in this study area. The major buyer of produce
from these rural farmers is CoopeAgri (and VolCafe in Montecarlo, as well as other
organisations listed in Fig. 5.7). There is an impetus for government to work with the
cooperatives more closely and oversee their business with the local farmers. For
example, one of the farmers (QA19) suggested that there are existing funds that
farmers cannot access, even if they may quality for them, because forms need to be
completed and the cooperative is not helping them with administrative outreach.
As regards the Ecological Footprint, their high scores on the crop land component
and food consumption category, in particular, convey their reliance on the land for
food production and consumption. On the other hand, grazing land and fishing
grounds were generally not high scores among the participants. They are similar to
100
7 Conclusion
More research is needed to decipher the impact that income has on answering
questions in the Footprint Calculator survey, as poverty has been shown to affect
how questions are approached and answered. Similarly, more work is needed to
study the impact of industrial development (as it affects income) on the Footprint
Calculator. Moreover, it would also be interesting to test the survey on urbanites in
countries with different levels of development to see whether city-dwellers are any
closer to the ‘target audience’ than those participants in the current study, who were
rural-dwellers (townspeople) in a developing country. This study has already contributed to doing this by examining rural communities. Importantly, although some
authors (e.g., Strezov et al. 2017) have classified the Ecological Footprint as wholly
in the environmental dimension of sustainable development (see their Table 2 and
Fig. 2, p 248), the social and economic dimensions are also indirectly represented
through the Footprint Calculator, as responses are influenced by the socioeconomic
situation (including poverty) as well as cultural aspects of participants. Language is
not the only factor that restrains participation, as poverty could impose illiteracy –
including computer illiteracy – and limited access to the Internet could also impact
who uses the Footprint Calculator online. Lastly, this study did not execute
ANOVA, but this statistical analysis could be incorporated into future studies
deploying the Footprint Calculator through its components and categories. More
studies are needed to examine the Ecological Footprint (and biocapacity) in Costa
Rica to add to the published literature (e.g., Adams and Ghaly 2006 for
agroindustries in its coffee industry; Kissinger and Rees 2010 regarding trade; van
Vuuren and Smeets 2000). In particular, it would be interesting to continue to
develop more improvement scenarios, as presented in Chap. 6 (Sect. 6.3.1).
7.4 Recommendations
There are some implications of this study. For one, it is evident based on the case
study that more government intervention is needed to support rural farmers in the
corridor, as poverty is clearly evident in this study area. The major buyer of produce
from these rural farmers is CoopeAgri (and VolCafe in Montecarlo, as well as other
organisations listed in Fig. 5.7). There is an impetus for government to work with the
cooperatives more closely and oversee their business with the local farmers. For
example, one of the farmers (QA19) suggested that there are existing funds that
farmers cannot access, even if they may quality for them, because forms need to be
completed and the cooperative is not helping them with administrative outreach.
As regards the Ecological Footprint, their high scores on the crop land component
and food consumption category, in particular, convey their reliance on the land for
food production and consumption. On the other hand, grazing land and fishing
grounds were generally not high scores among the participants. They are similar to
100
7 Conclusion