The data since 1961 convey a biocapacity that was initially around 6 global
hectares per person and has since been gradually diminishing – to 1.6 global hectares
per person in 2016 (see green line in Fig. 4.1). The Ecological Footprint was over
2 global hectares per person in 1961 and has since oscillated, but has not exceeded
3 global hectares per person (1996) – it reached 2.8 global hectares per person in
1979 and is currently approximately the same as before the 2008 financial crisis,
being 2.7 global hectares per person in 2007 (see Fig. 4.1). This conveys some
recovery in the country’s economy that can be tracked through spending (consumption). The lines (of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity) crossed in 1991 – a
couple of decades later than 1970 for the world (as conveyed in previous chapters) –
at 2.4 global hectares per person – see Fig. 4.1. As demonstrative of the level of
consumption in the country, the Ecological Footprint is influenced by local demand,
but is also sensitive to global events – such as the global financial crisis and most
recently COVID-19. A reason for this is Costa Rica’s link to global markets, as for
instance in terms of food exports.
When the Ecological Footprint of consumption (EF C ) is subtracted from
biocapacity (BC), as ‘net’ graphs (Fig. 4.2, based on 2016 data from the Global
Footprint Network 2020), there is evidence of a steep drop in forest land that
stabilised around 1986. There is also a decline evident since 1993 for grazing land
and a steady decline in the fishing grounds component. Crop land remained stable
1 9 6 1
1 9 6 3
1 9 6 5
1 9 6 7
1 9 6 9
1 9 7 1
1 9 7 3
1 9 7 5
1 9 7 7
1 9 7 9
1 9 8 1
1 9 8 3
1 9 8 5
1 9 8 7
1 9 8 9
1 9 9 1
1 9 9 3
1 9 9 5
1 9 9 7
1 9 9 9
2 0 0 1
2 0 0 3
2 0 0 5
2 0 0 7
2 0 0 9
2 0 1 1
2 0 1 3
2 0 1 5
4
3
2
1
-1
-2
0
Year
Net Per Capita BC (1961-2016)
BC-EFc (gha/capita)
Cropland
Grazing Land
Forest Products
Fishing Grounds
Built-up Land
Carbon
Fig. 4.2 Net per person biocapacity (BC – EF C ) for Costa Rica, 1961–2016. (Source: Global
Footprint Network 2020)
4 Case Study – Methods
53
hectares per person and has since been gradually diminishing – to 1.6 global hectares
per person in 2016 (see green line in Fig. 4.1). The Ecological Footprint was over
2 global hectares per person in 1961 and has since oscillated, but has not exceeded
3 global hectares per person (1996) – it reached 2.8 global hectares per person in
1979 and is currently approximately the same as before the 2008 financial crisis,
being 2.7 global hectares per person in 2007 (see Fig. 4.1). This conveys some
recovery in the country’s economy that can be tracked through spending (consumption). The lines (of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity) crossed in 1991 – a
couple of decades later than 1970 for the world (as conveyed in previous chapters) –
at 2.4 global hectares per person – see Fig. 4.1. As demonstrative of the level of
consumption in the country, the Ecological Footprint is influenced by local demand,
but is also sensitive to global events – such as the global financial crisis and most
recently COVID-19. A reason for this is Costa Rica’s link to global markets, as for
instance in terms of food exports.
When the Ecological Footprint of consumption (EF C ) is subtracted from
biocapacity (BC), as ‘net’ graphs (Fig. 4.2, based on 2016 data from the Global
Footprint Network 2020), there is evidence of a steep drop in forest land that
stabilised around 1986. There is also a decline evident since 1993 for grazing land
and a steady decline in the fishing grounds component. Crop land remained stable
1 9 6 1
1 9 6 3
1 9 6 5
1 9 6 7
1 9 6 9
1 9 7 1
1 9 7 3
1 9 7 5
1 9 7 7
1 9 7 9
1 9 8 1
1 9 8 3
1 9 8 5
1 9 8 7
1 9 8 9
1 9 9 1
1 9 9 3
1 9 9 5
1 9 9 7
1 9 9 9
2 0 0 1
2 0 0 3
2 0 0 5
2 0 0 7
2 0 0 9
2 0 1 1
2 0 1 3
2 0 1 5
4
3
2
1
-1
-2
0
Year
Net Per Capita BC (1961-2016)
BC-EFc (gha/capita)
Cropland
Grazing Land
Forest Products
Fishing Grounds
Built-up Land
Carbon
Fig. 4.2 Net per person biocapacity (BC – EF C ) for Costa Rica, 1961–2016. (Source: Global
Footprint Network 2020)
4 Case Study – Methods
53