6.3 Lessons Learned
Households that were living ‘in harmony’ with the environment had Ecological
Footprints of 1 Earth (or 1.7 gha), but there were no cases observed to have less than
this value. These cases, where participants were living at 1 Earth, can be construed as
exemplary, therefore, where lessons can be learned based on the fieldwork results.
The data include information on Earth Overshoot Day for 2020 (EOD 20) as well as
components of the Ecological Footprint (crop land ¼ CL, grazing land ¼ GL, forest
land ¼ FL, fishing grounds ¼ FG, build-up land ¼ BL, and carbon ¼ cF) and
consumption categories (food ¼ F, shelter or housing ¼ H, mobility ¼ M, goods ¼ G,
and services ¼ S) in addition to the Ecological Footprint (EF, gha) and carbon
Footprint (CF, CO 2 emissions, tonnes/year), including its proportion (%) of the
Ecological Footprint (Table 6.5a). Three cases in Santa Elena (namely, SE39,
SE40, and SE47) are noteworthy, and Quizarrá had two (namely, QA09 and
QA19). These five exemplary cases will be taken in turn and analysed so that lessons
can be learned based on this information.
These cases (at 1 Earth) had Earth Overshoot Days later in the year, in December
or January 2021 of the following year, meaning that resources are available throughout the entire year and even into the next one. Crop land is within 0.6 global hectares
and forest land within 0.4. Both grazing land and built-up land are consistently zero
and 0.1, respectively; and fishing grounds are also low at 0.1 global hectares. The
carbon Footprint based on global hectares (cF) is kept within 0.9 (<1 gha), with CO 2
emissions kept within 2.6 tonnes per year (CF). The proportion of the Ecological
Footprint attributable to the carbon Footprint (cF) is within 51%, so constitutes
approximately half of the Ecological Footprint. Consumption categories pertaining
to food, housing, mobility, goods, and services are respectively within 0.8, 0,7, 0.4,
0.1, and 0.5 global hectares. The household Ecological Footprint itself is within 1.8
global hectares. This suggests that a household Ecological Footprint of 1.8 global
hectares can still be considered as living within 1 Earth. However, because in 2016
there were 1.6 global hectares of biocapacity on the planet (see Table 3.1, based on
the National Footprint Accounts, 2020 Edition; Global Footprint Network 2020),
our Ecological Footprint should be constrained to within that amount of
biocapacity – to sustainably support our activities.
By comparison, six cases with a worse Ecological Footprint of 2 Earths appear in
Table 6.5b. These cases represent an Ecological Footprint that is exactly one
magnitude higher than those in the previous table (see Table 6.5b). It is evident for
these cases that the carbon and Ecological Footprints have the most inflated results
(the greatest difference), and for the consumption categories it is goods (see
Table 6.5).
Doubling the Ecological Footprint to 2 Earths increases the impact evident with
1 Earth, which indicates small-scale farmers in the corridor who have a low
Ecological Footprint but are living in poverty. This means that having a low
Ecological Footprint is environmentally beneficial, but has consequences for the
standard of living (refer to discussion on the quality of life in, e.g., Holmberg et al.
90
6 Implications
Households that were living ‘in harmony’ with the environment had Ecological
Footprints of 1 Earth (or 1.7 gha), but there were no cases observed to have less than
this value. These cases, where participants were living at 1 Earth, can be construed as
exemplary, therefore, where lessons can be learned based on the fieldwork results.
The data include information on Earth Overshoot Day for 2020 (EOD 20) as well as
components of the Ecological Footprint (crop land ¼ CL, grazing land ¼ GL, forest
land ¼ FL, fishing grounds ¼ FG, build-up land ¼ BL, and carbon ¼ cF) and
consumption categories (food ¼ F, shelter or housing ¼ H, mobility ¼ M, goods ¼ G,
and services ¼ S) in addition to the Ecological Footprint (EF, gha) and carbon
Footprint (CF, CO 2 emissions, tonnes/year), including its proportion (%) of the
Ecological Footprint (Table 6.5a). Three cases in Santa Elena (namely, SE39,
SE40, and SE47) are noteworthy, and Quizarrá had two (namely, QA09 and
QA19). These five exemplary cases will be taken in turn and analysed so that lessons
can be learned based on this information.
These cases (at 1 Earth) had Earth Overshoot Days later in the year, in December
or January 2021 of the following year, meaning that resources are available throughout the entire year and even into the next one. Crop land is within 0.6 global hectares
and forest land within 0.4. Both grazing land and built-up land are consistently zero
and 0.1, respectively; and fishing grounds are also low at 0.1 global hectares. The
carbon Footprint based on global hectares (cF) is kept within 0.9 (<1 gha), with CO 2
emissions kept within 2.6 tonnes per year (CF). The proportion of the Ecological
Footprint attributable to the carbon Footprint (cF) is within 51%, so constitutes
approximately half of the Ecological Footprint. Consumption categories pertaining
to food, housing, mobility, goods, and services are respectively within 0.8, 0,7, 0.4,
0.1, and 0.5 global hectares. The household Ecological Footprint itself is within 1.8
global hectares. This suggests that a household Ecological Footprint of 1.8 global
hectares can still be considered as living within 1 Earth. However, because in 2016
there were 1.6 global hectares of biocapacity on the planet (see Table 3.1, based on
the National Footprint Accounts, 2020 Edition; Global Footprint Network 2020),
our Ecological Footprint should be constrained to within that amount of
biocapacity – to sustainably support our activities.
By comparison, six cases with a worse Ecological Footprint of 2 Earths appear in
Table 6.5b. These cases represent an Ecological Footprint that is exactly one
magnitude higher than those in the previous table (see Table 6.5b). It is evident for
these cases that the carbon and Ecological Footprints have the most inflated results
(the greatest difference), and for the consumption categories it is goods (see
Table 6.5).
Doubling the Ecological Footprint to 2 Earths increases the impact evident with
1 Earth, which indicates small-scale farmers in the corridor who have a low
Ecological Footprint but are living in poverty. This means that having a low
Ecological Footprint is environmentally beneficial, but has consequences for the
standard of living (refer to discussion on the quality of life in, e.g., Holmberg et al.
90
6 Implications