formally in place) or the amount of renewable energy used (with the national
constant of 95% deployed). Moreover, participants did not fly on a regular basis –
each year, so that the question asking how often participants fly each year
quickly became irrelevant. The same was true for the use of trains, where there is
no train service in the area. In addition, most of their vehicles are inefficient, so this
was kept as the default option because most people could not provide this information. All houses sampled in the corridor have electricity and are made from either
brick or concrete or, otherwise, wood, so this was likewise reflected in the questions
asked. Similarly, in all cases, their houses were freestanding and had running water.
Finally, when performing fieldwork based on such survey-interviews, it is important
to keep it short – and even 30 min was too long for most people. Therefore, it is
advised that the entire process be kept brief, up to 20 min. This means ascertaining
defaults for the sample and dropping some questions wherever and if possible. From
experience, people responded well when told that the entire survey-interview process would take no longer than 20 min of their time.
7.5 Concluding Remarks
The use of a detailed case study in this research greatly helped to contextualise and
test the application of the National Footprint Accounts through the Footprint Calculator. More could be done to acculturate the survey, more than translating it to
Spanish and other languages. Studies such as these help to calibrate the instrument to
socioeconomic as well as cultural factors that will undoubtedly impact responses and
performance. Such regional-scale studies also inform national results and offer a
means of differentiating the top-down approach through bottom-up testing and
verification. It is necessary that more work is executed, ultimately, to provide
confidence levels or limits – such as a confidence interval of 95%, as in this
study – as quality indicators used in conjunction to information on estimation
procedures (sampling size, measurement protocols, quality control procedures, and
so on, cf. Birigazzi et al. 2019 see Jóhannesson et al. 2020; Kitzes and Wackernagel
2009) to the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounts in order to make explicit
the error associated with the data and its application. Lastly, this brief has revealed
socioeconomic and cultural aspects of the study sample through responses provided
in the case. The case study has been instrumental to not only identify further research
and outreach activities still needed, but also to convey some existing limitations
evident even in the Spanish version of the Footprint Calculator as the instrument
deployed in the field investigation. While it is important to consider the issues with
the National Footprint Accounts as an input into the Footprint Calculator, calibrating
the instrument (as a global Footprint calculator) to measuring different cultural
perspectives is difficult. The main reason for this is that changing questions for
specific versions (e.g., Spanish) would create a disjuncture between other versions,
making any comparison inappropriate. However, it is possible to tailor it to some
extent through certain omissions and defaults understood to represent general
102
7 Conclusion
constant of 95% deployed). Moreover, participants did not fly on a regular basis –
each year, so that the question asking how often participants fly each year
quickly became irrelevant. The same was true for the use of trains, where there is
no train service in the area. In addition, most of their vehicles are inefficient, so this
was kept as the default option because most people could not provide this information. All houses sampled in the corridor have electricity and are made from either
brick or concrete or, otherwise, wood, so this was likewise reflected in the questions
asked. Similarly, in all cases, their houses were freestanding and had running water.
Finally, when performing fieldwork based on such survey-interviews, it is important
to keep it short – and even 30 min was too long for most people. Therefore, it is
advised that the entire process be kept brief, up to 20 min. This means ascertaining
defaults for the sample and dropping some questions wherever and if possible. From
experience, people responded well when told that the entire survey-interview process would take no longer than 20 min of their time.
7.5 Concluding Remarks
The use of a detailed case study in this research greatly helped to contextualise and
test the application of the National Footprint Accounts through the Footprint Calculator. More could be done to acculturate the survey, more than translating it to
Spanish and other languages. Studies such as these help to calibrate the instrument to
socioeconomic as well as cultural factors that will undoubtedly impact responses and
performance. Such regional-scale studies also inform national results and offer a
means of differentiating the top-down approach through bottom-up testing and
verification. It is necessary that more work is executed, ultimately, to provide
confidence levels or limits – such as a confidence interval of 95%, as in this
study – as quality indicators used in conjunction to information on estimation
procedures (sampling size, measurement protocols, quality control procedures, and
so on, cf. Birigazzi et al. 2019 see Jóhannesson et al. 2020; Kitzes and Wackernagel
2009) to the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounts in order to make explicit
the error associated with the data and its application. Lastly, this brief has revealed
socioeconomic and cultural aspects of the study sample through responses provided
in the case. The case study has been instrumental to not only identify further research
and outreach activities still needed, but also to convey some existing limitations
evident even in the Spanish version of the Footprint Calculator as the instrument
deployed in the field investigation. While it is important to consider the issues with
the National Footprint Accounts as an input into the Footprint Calculator, calibrating
the instrument (as a global Footprint calculator) to measuring different cultural
perspectives is difficult. The main reason for this is that changing questions for
specific versions (e.g., Spanish) would create a disjuncture between other versions,
making any comparison inappropriate. However, it is possible to tailor it to some
extent through certain omissions and defaults understood to represent general
102
7 Conclusion