Box 5.1 (continued)
By land type – Built-up land, Forest products, Crop land, Grazing land,
Fishing grounds, carbon Footprint.
By consumption category – Food, Shelter (or Housing), Mobility, Goods,
Services.
E.g., *4.6 Your Ecological Footprint (global hectares or gha).
[Information: Your Ecological Footprint is the biologically productive area
required to provide everything you consume. The Ecological Footprint can be
compared to biocapacity, which is the productive area that exists on our planet,
in your country, or in your region.]
A global hectare (gha) is a biologically productive hectare with world
average productivity. A hectare is 10,000 square metres or about 2.5 acres.
Currently, our planet has about 1.7 global hectares available per person. That’s
all the Earth’s productive area divided by the number of people alive today.]
E.g., *7 Your carbon Footprint (CO 2 emissions in tonnes per year).
E.g., *53 Your carbon Footprint (% of your total Ecological Footprint).
Transcribed by Mary Thornbush, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York
University (Email: mthornbu@yorku.ca) based on: http://www.
footprintcalculator.org/.
5.2 Demographics
Table 5.1 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics (average Æ standard
deviation, sample size) for the different locations sampled during the course of the
fieldwork. Across the six towns, overall, in the corridor sample there were 36%
female participants in this study. Participants’ average age was 55 Æ 15 years
(n ¼ 117) and they had been at their farms an average of 26 Æ 18 years
(n ¼ 111). Their average farm size was 6 Æ 13 hectares (n ¼ 114) and the income
derived from that property was US$1641 Æ $2294 based on those participants that
revealed their specific income (n ¼ 55) – rather than the set ranges. San Ignacio
represented the youngest sample on average. Santa Marta had participants who were
the longest (on average) on their farms, although the sample size was very small in
these towns. The average declared farm size appeared to be largest in San Francisco,
and smallest in Montecarlo and Santa Marta – where the average self-reported
income was the lowest. The place that specified the highest average income from
their farms was Santa Elena located in the core corridor.
As evident in Fig. 5.1, there is a strong positive linear relationship between
income and the Ecological Footprint (r ¼ 0.436). This correlation is stronger than
for the positive linear correlation evident between income and the carbon Footprint
(r ¼ 0.316). This suggests that a higher income is increasing the Footprint in the
study area. This finding is supported by other studies (e.g., consumption as income
dependent, Fiala 2008; addressed by Levett 1998; Minx et al. 2009; and the
5.2 Demographics
69
By land type – Built-up land, Forest products, Crop land, Grazing land,
Fishing grounds, carbon Footprint.
By consumption category – Food, Shelter (or Housing), Mobility, Goods,
Services.
E.g., *4.6 Your Ecological Footprint (global hectares or gha).
[Information: Your Ecological Footprint is the biologically productive area
required to provide everything you consume. The Ecological Footprint can be
compared to biocapacity, which is the productive area that exists on our planet,
in your country, or in your region.]
A global hectare (gha) is a biologically productive hectare with world
average productivity. A hectare is 10,000 square metres or about 2.5 acres.
Currently, our planet has about 1.7 global hectares available per person. That’s
all the Earth’s productive area divided by the number of people alive today.]
E.g., *7 Your carbon Footprint (CO 2 emissions in tonnes per year).
E.g., *53 Your carbon Footprint (% of your total Ecological Footprint).
Transcribed by Mary Thornbush, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York
University (Email: mthornbu@yorku.ca) based on: http://www.
footprintcalculator.org/.
5.2 Demographics
Table 5.1 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics (average Æ standard
deviation, sample size) for the different locations sampled during the course of the
fieldwork. Across the six towns, overall, in the corridor sample there were 36%
female participants in this study. Participants’ average age was 55 Æ 15 years
(n ¼ 117) and they had been at their farms an average of 26 Æ 18 years
(n ¼ 111). Their average farm size was 6 Æ 13 hectares (n ¼ 114) and the income
derived from that property was US$1641 Æ $2294 based on those participants that
revealed their specific income (n ¼ 55) – rather than the set ranges. San Ignacio
represented the youngest sample on average. Santa Marta had participants who were
the longest (on average) on their farms, although the sample size was very small in
these towns. The average declared farm size appeared to be largest in San Francisco,
and smallest in Montecarlo and Santa Marta – where the average self-reported
income was the lowest. The place that specified the highest average income from
their farms was Santa Elena located in the core corridor.
As evident in Fig. 5.1, there is a strong positive linear relationship between
income and the Ecological Footprint (r ¼ 0.436). This correlation is stronger than
for the positive linear correlation evident between income and the carbon Footprint
(r ¼ 0.316). This suggests that a higher income is increasing the Footprint in the
study area. This finding is supported by other studies (e.g., consumption as income
dependent, Fiala 2008; addressed by Levett 1998; Minx et al. 2009; and the
5.2 Demographics
69