because of questions surrounding public transport, for instance, that may not be as
relevant to country folk.
Importantly, there is an ignorance of ‘tropical’ climates in the survey. For example,
Question 4 assumes that the type of housing material is based on preference, but may be
based more on what is locally grown and readily available (e.g., straw/bamboo) – that is
most appropriate for the climate. A country that has much clay, for instance in the UK,
would use more bricks because clay is readily available and easy to acquire cheaply.
The same can be said about using adobe in countries that deploy baked soil for building
blocks. These ‘preferences’ could be attributed to climate and what can be locally
sourced or, otherwise, to ‘culture’. In fact, the Footprint Calculator survey is not very
culturally informed – and culture constitutes more than a translation of the survey in
different languages. In Costa Rica, for instance, people use fans as the only cooling
implement and they do not heat their homes, as it is unnecessary in tropical countries.
Therefore, the survey is climatically biased (e.g., ‘temperate-centric’), and comes from
the angle of an affluent urbanite (living in a wealthy nation) who can afford to buy
things - as (net) consumers rather than producers.
1.4.4.1 Quality Scores
According to Lin et al. (2018, p 4), national results for each country are calculated
based on as many as 15,000 data points from various datasets. A quality assurance
(QA) process is used to validate these calculations. Quality scores are assigned as
part of these QA stages. Finalised National Footprint Accounts are reviewed by the
Global Footprint Network on a country-by-country basis in the last QA step, when
quality scores are assigned that denote the reliability of these results (www.
footprintnetwork.org/data-quality-scores). Accordingly, criteria for these quality
scores are determined for each country in the National Footprint and biocapacity
accounts. Each allotted quality score is made up of (1) a time series score, between
1 and 3 and (2) the latest year score, A to D (Table 1.4).
It is noteworthy from the website referring to quality scores (www.footprintnetwork.
org/data-quality-scores) that, over time, it is possible to improve the quality of the results
through collaborations with researchers, especially for those countries that have government agencies that can do so. For Costa Rica, as the national case study of focus in this
brief, a score of 3A represents the highest quality possible outcome, where ‘No component of BC or EF is unreliable or unlikely for any year’. This means that the National
Footprint Accounts are most reliable here. This is important because the accounts are
employed in the Footprint Calculator, as outlined in Chap. 4.
1.5 Brief Aims
This brief examines the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting both from a
critical approach of existing literature as well as its conceptualisation (the scientific
basis) and methodology in application. The specific brief aims are:
18
1 Introduction
relevant to country folk.
Importantly, there is an ignorance of ‘tropical’ climates in the survey. For example,
Question 4 assumes that the type of housing material is based on preference, but may be
based more on what is locally grown and readily available (e.g., straw/bamboo) – that is
most appropriate for the climate. A country that has much clay, for instance in the UK,
would use more bricks because clay is readily available and easy to acquire cheaply.
The same can be said about using adobe in countries that deploy baked soil for building
blocks. These ‘preferences’ could be attributed to climate and what can be locally
sourced or, otherwise, to ‘culture’. In fact, the Footprint Calculator survey is not very
culturally informed – and culture constitutes more than a translation of the survey in
different languages. In Costa Rica, for instance, people use fans as the only cooling
implement and they do not heat their homes, as it is unnecessary in tropical countries.
Therefore, the survey is climatically biased (e.g., ‘temperate-centric’), and comes from
the angle of an affluent urbanite (living in a wealthy nation) who can afford to buy
things - as (net) consumers rather than producers.
1.4.4.1 Quality Scores
According to Lin et al. (2018, p 4), national results for each country are calculated
based on as many as 15,000 data points from various datasets. A quality assurance
(QA) process is used to validate these calculations. Quality scores are assigned as
part of these QA stages. Finalised National Footprint Accounts are reviewed by the
Global Footprint Network on a country-by-country basis in the last QA step, when
quality scores are assigned that denote the reliability of these results (www.
footprintnetwork.org/data-quality-scores). Accordingly, criteria for these quality
scores are determined for each country in the National Footprint and biocapacity
accounts. Each allotted quality score is made up of (1) a time series score, between
1 and 3 and (2) the latest year score, A to D (Table 1.4).
It is noteworthy from the website referring to quality scores (www.footprintnetwork.
org/data-quality-scores) that, over time, it is possible to improve the quality of the results
through collaborations with researchers, especially for those countries that have government agencies that can do so. For Costa Rica, as the national case study of focus in this
brief, a score of 3A represents the highest quality possible outcome, where ‘No component of BC or EF is unreliable or unlikely for any year’. This means that the National
Footprint Accounts are most reliable here. This is important because the accounts are
employed in the Footprint Calculator, as outlined in Chap. 4.
1.5 Brief Aims
This brief examines the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting both from a
critical approach of existing literature as well as its conceptualisation (the scientific
basis) and methodology in application. The specific brief aims are:
18
1 Introduction