of policymakers and (educated) town officials. The local context is extremely
important here, as most participants in the case study were uneducated and reliant
on outreach from experts from places such as York University, Los Cusingos,
CoopeAgri, and so on.
Although some of the main findings have been presented in this chapter, the next
chapter includes other materials derived from the survey-interviews that have not
been addressed so far in this brief. Furthermore, a discussion of the implications of
the findings and consideration of the potential solutions will ensue (Chap. 6). As
revealed in the current chapter, though, the Ecological Footprint of study area
households comprising small-scale peasant (campesino) farmers was on average
greater than the national value published in the 2020 Edition of the National
Footprint Accounts. This implies that aspects of their lifestyles need to be scrutinised
and suggestions made for (behavioural) change, assuming that the results are
revealing of their lifestyles and not attributable to error (which will be
considered next).
References
Fiala N (2008) Measuring sustainability: why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad
environmental science. Ecol Econ 67(4):519–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.
023
Galli A, Iha K, Moreno Pires S, Mancini MS, Alves A, Zokai G, Lin D, Murthy A, Wackernagel M
(2020) Assessing the ecological footprint and biocapacity of Portuguese cities: critical results
for environmental awareness and local management. Cities 96:102442. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cities.2019.102442
Global Footprint Network (2020) National Footprint Accounts. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
Lenzen M, Murray SA (2001) A modified ecological footprint method and its application to
Australia. Ecol Econ 37(2):229–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00275-5
Levett R (1998) Footprinting: a great step forward, but tread carefully — a response to Mathis
Wackernagel. Local Environ 3(1):67–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839808725545
Minx JC, Wiedmann T, Wood R, Peters GP, Lenzen M, Owen A, Scott K, Barrett J, Hubacek K,
Baiocchi G, Paul A, Dawkins E, Briggs J, Guan D, Suh S, Ackerman F (2009) Input-output
analysis and carbon footprinting: an overview of applications. Econ Syst Res 21(3):187–216.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09535310903541298
Van den Bergh JCJM, Verbruggen H (1999) Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an
evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint. Ecol Econ 29(1):61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0921-8009(99)00032-4
Wackernagel M (1998) The ecological footprint of Santiago de Chile. Local Environ 3(1):7–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839808725541
80
5 Case Study – Findings
important here, as most participants in the case study were uneducated and reliant
on outreach from experts from places such as York University, Los Cusingos,
CoopeAgri, and so on.
Although some of the main findings have been presented in this chapter, the next
chapter includes other materials derived from the survey-interviews that have not
been addressed so far in this brief. Furthermore, a discussion of the implications of
the findings and consideration of the potential solutions will ensue (Chap. 6). As
revealed in the current chapter, though, the Ecological Footprint of study area
households comprising small-scale peasant (campesino) farmers was on average
greater than the national value published in the 2020 Edition of the National
Footprint Accounts. This implies that aspects of their lifestyles need to be scrutinised
and suggestions made for (behavioural) change, assuming that the results are
revealing of their lifestyles and not attributable to error (which will be
considered next).
References
Fiala N (2008) Measuring sustainability: why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad
environmental science. Ecol Econ 67(4):519–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.
023
Galli A, Iha K, Moreno Pires S, Mancini MS, Alves A, Zokai G, Lin D, Murthy A, Wackernagel M
(2020) Assessing the ecological footprint and biocapacity of Portuguese cities: critical results
for environmental awareness and local management. Cities 96:102442. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cities.2019.102442
Global Footprint Network (2020) National Footprint Accounts. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
Lenzen M, Murray SA (2001) A modified ecological footprint method and its application to
Australia. Ecol Econ 37(2):229–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00275-5
Levett R (1998) Footprinting: a great step forward, but tread carefully — a response to Mathis
Wackernagel. Local Environ 3(1):67–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839808725545
Minx JC, Wiedmann T, Wood R, Peters GP, Lenzen M, Owen A, Scott K, Barrett J, Hubacek K,
Baiocchi G, Paul A, Dawkins E, Briggs J, Guan D, Suh S, Ackerman F (2009) Input-output
analysis and carbon footprinting: an overview of applications. Econ Syst Res 21(3):187–216.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09535310903541298
Van den Bergh JCJM, Verbruggen H (1999) Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an
evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint. Ecol Econ 29(1):61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0921-8009(99)00032-4
Wackernagel M (1998) The ecological footprint of Santiago de Chile. Local Environ 3(1):7–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839808725541
80
5 Case Study – Findings