between 1961 and 2016. Built-up land is problematic, as there is zero-change
evident – which is questionable for the country. Also, the carbon Footprint is mostly
represented in the EF C because of the negative values conveyed by the carbon
component. Actually, if one examines the country spreadsheet (Country_Trends),
the column for the carbon component is zero for biocapacity (production). This is
unrealistic because of the relationships evident between biocapacity and the carbon
cycle, as for instance including carbon sequestration by plants. However, as noted in
Chap. 1, a sequestration rate (constant) is deployed in the accounts to correct for this
at the global level. Arguably, this represents the greatest challenge to precision in
encapsulating actual biocapacity. It has been advocated (e.g., Hertwich 2011;
Hertwich and Peters 2009) that household consumption is the greatest contributor
to national carbon Footprints. Household income and householder age have been
investigated among demographic variables as well as socioeconomic factors that
influence the lifestyles of households (e.g., Jones and Kammen 2011; Shigetomi
et al. 2014, 2015).
Since most countries are in ecological deficit (Rees and Wackernagel 2013),
where their consumption exceeds their biocapacity (EF > BC), it is perhaps not
surprising that Costa Rica has maintained a slight deficit, since most countries have.
Wackernagel and Rees (1996) noted that a technological fix can have a major
influence on sustainability through resource efficiency, allowing people not to
have to reduce their material standards of living (as set in the framework by Haberl
et al. 2004, Fig. 5, p 209). According to Wackernagel et al. (2006), ecological
deficits can be reduced through various actions, including:
• by reducing the demand for natural capital with resource-efficient technology;
• reducing human consumption, but not necessarily the quality of life;
• reducing population size; and
• through investments in natural capital, such as by implementing methods of
resource extraction that enhance bioproductivity.
These authors have espoused that, “. . .a Footprint smaller than the available
biocapacity is a necessary condition for ‘strong sustainability’, a stance which asserts
securing people’s well-being” (p 108). We will now turn to examine this as it relates
to the case study for Costa Rica.
4.1 Research Question
The research question driving this case study is:
• What is the Ecological Footprint of farming households located in the Alexander
Skutch Biological Corridor of Costa Rica?
It was not possible to include an assessment of biocapacity in this investigation
because of the use of the Footprint Calculator, which does not output biocapacity
information. For this reason, as stated already, determining ecological overshoot at
54
4 Case Study – Methods
evident – which is questionable for the country. Also, the carbon Footprint is mostly
represented in the EF C because of the negative values conveyed by the carbon
component. Actually, if one examines the country spreadsheet (Country_Trends),
the column for the carbon component is zero for biocapacity (production). This is
unrealistic because of the relationships evident between biocapacity and the carbon
cycle, as for instance including carbon sequestration by plants. However, as noted in
Chap. 1, a sequestration rate (constant) is deployed in the accounts to correct for this
at the global level. Arguably, this represents the greatest challenge to precision in
encapsulating actual biocapacity. It has been advocated (e.g., Hertwich 2011;
Hertwich and Peters 2009) that household consumption is the greatest contributor
to national carbon Footprints. Household income and householder age have been
investigated among demographic variables as well as socioeconomic factors that
influence the lifestyles of households (e.g., Jones and Kammen 2011; Shigetomi
et al. 2014, 2015).
Since most countries are in ecological deficit (Rees and Wackernagel 2013),
where their consumption exceeds their biocapacity (EF > BC), it is perhaps not
surprising that Costa Rica has maintained a slight deficit, since most countries have.
Wackernagel and Rees (1996) noted that a technological fix can have a major
influence on sustainability through resource efficiency, allowing people not to
have to reduce their material standards of living (as set in the framework by Haberl
et al. 2004, Fig. 5, p 209). According to Wackernagel et al. (2006), ecological
deficits can be reduced through various actions, including:
• by reducing the demand for natural capital with resource-efficient technology;
• reducing human consumption, but not necessarily the quality of life;
• reducing population size; and
• through investments in natural capital, such as by implementing methods of
resource extraction that enhance bioproductivity.
These authors have espoused that, “. . .a Footprint smaller than the available
biocapacity is a necessary condition for ‘strong sustainability’, a stance which asserts
securing people’s well-being” (p 108). We will now turn to examine this as it relates
to the case study for Costa Rica.
4.1 Research Question
The research question driving this case study is:
• What is the Ecological Footprint of farming households located in the Alexander
Skutch Biological Corridor of Costa Rica?
It was not possible to include an assessment of biocapacity in this investigation
because of the use of the Footprint Calculator, which does not output biocapacity
information. For this reason, as stated already, determining ecological overshoot at
54
4 Case Study – Methods