early 1990s. In this way, the literature review presented in this chapter provides a
context for its conceptualisation (in the conceptual framework) and methodology,
including equations and data sources.
1.1 Overview
The Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting can be deployed to inform
human consumption or demand set against the world’s bioproductivity or supply of
natural resources. It seeks to answer the question: ‘How much of the regenerative
capacity of the biosphere is being occupied by human activities?’ (Wackernagel
et al. 2007). Advocated in the early 1990s by William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel
at the University of British Columbia, Canada (e.g., Rees 1992, 1996; Rees and
Wackernagel 1996; Wackernagel and Rees 1996), the Ecological Footprint is
considered to wholly represent the environmental dimension of sustainability.
In this brief, the author advocates that the Ecological Footprint does more than
represent just the environmental dimension, even though it is a land-based composite
indicator encompassing six land-type categories (crop land, grazing land, forest land,
fishing grounds, built-up land, and carbon). As a consumption-based metric, the
Ecological Footprint conveys information regarding consumer choices that impact
trade and food security. As such, it has socioeconomic ramifications that need consideration additionally as part of the socioeconomic dimension of sustainability.
Researchers have already, for instance, calibrated it against the Human Development
Index (Lin et al. 2018), as a socioeconomic indicator of sustainable development, so that
it can already reach these dimensions rather than just representing biophysical aspects.
Furthermore, this work contributes a case study application in the Alexander
Skutch Biological Corridor of Costa Rica by considering the country’s National
Footprint Accounts in a time series since 1961. It is possible to track the overarching
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity as well as individual land-based categories to
augment understanding specific land types, such as crop land and carbon, influencing the country’s overall Footprint. Finally, a critical examination of the methodology (both the National Footprint Accounts and the Footprint Calculator) appears last
to clarify caveats in its application and the findings.
1.2 Theoretical Framework
Three main areas of concentration convey the theoretical frameworks that are most
relevant to this study. Driving the Ecological Footprint as a sustainability metric is a
‘full-world’ model affecting the global carrying capacity as conveyed by Daly
(1991, 2005, 2015). It is stipulated, for instance, that a world where resources are
finite (according to a closed-loop or one-world model), is limited by its resource
availability and constrained by planetary boundaries (Čuček et al. 2015; Fang et al.
2
1 Introduction
context for its conceptualisation (in the conceptual framework) and methodology,
including equations and data sources.
1.1 Overview
The Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting can be deployed to inform
human consumption or demand set against the world’s bioproductivity or supply of
natural resources. It seeks to answer the question: ‘How much of the regenerative
capacity of the biosphere is being occupied by human activities?’ (Wackernagel
et al. 2007). Advocated in the early 1990s by William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel
at the University of British Columbia, Canada (e.g., Rees 1992, 1996; Rees and
Wackernagel 1996; Wackernagel and Rees 1996), the Ecological Footprint is
considered to wholly represent the environmental dimension of sustainability.
In this brief, the author advocates that the Ecological Footprint does more than
represent just the environmental dimension, even though it is a land-based composite
indicator encompassing six land-type categories (crop land, grazing land, forest land,
fishing grounds, built-up land, and carbon). As a consumption-based metric, the
Ecological Footprint conveys information regarding consumer choices that impact
trade and food security. As such, it has socioeconomic ramifications that need consideration additionally as part of the socioeconomic dimension of sustainability.
Researchers have already, for instance, calibrated it against the Human Development
Index (Lin et al. 2018), as a socioeconomic indicator of sustainable development, so that
it can already reach these dimensions rather than just representing biophysical aspects.
Furthermore, this work contributes a case study application in the Alexander
Skutch Biological Corridor of Costa Rica by considering the country’s National
Footprint Accounts in a time series since 1961. It is possible to track the overarching
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity as well as individual land-based categories to
augment understanding specific land types, such as crop land and carbon, influencing the country’s overall Footprint. Finally, a critical examination of the methodology (both the National Footprint Accounts and the Footprint Calculator) appears last
to clarify caveats in its application and the findings.
1.2 Theoretical Framework
Three main areas of concentration convey the theoretical frameworks that are most
relevant to this study. Driving the Ecological Footprint as a sustainability metric is a
‘full-world’ model affecting the global carrying capacity as conveyed by Daly
(1991, 2005, 2015). It is stipulated, for instance, that a world where resources are
finite (according to a closed-loop or one-world model), is limited by its resource
availability and constrained by planetary boundaries (Čuček et al. 2015; Fang et al.
2
1 Introduction