Abstract
It is important to consider the ramifications of the fieldwork study findings for the sampled study area in comparison to Costa Rica at the national level and globally to the world. This chapter revisits the fieldwork results from the study area in the Alexander Skutch Biological Corridor and examines the solutions presented by the Footprint Calculator for the categories of city, energy, food , and population. It is important to do this because local–regional lifestyle or cultural trends in the corridor operate to lower the Ecological Footprint (or augment biocapacity), offering lessons learned or solutions. The chapter then draws upon the lessons learned from these solutions as well as uniquely from the study area based on the fieldwork findings. As part of this assessment is a sensitivity analysis based on three scenarios stemming from questions in the Footprint Calculator. The findings reveal housing to be the most affected in the sensitivity analysis, followed by transportation, and lastly by food categories. Finally, the contributions of the field study as a case study justify the research and present the implications of the case study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Delahaye J (2019) Costa Rica named UN Champion of the Earth in fight against climate change. Mirror (24 September 2019). https://www.mirror.co.uk/travel/central-south-america/costa-rica-named-un-champion-20166387
Galli A, Wiedmann T, Ercin E, Knoblauch D, Ewing B, Giljum S (2012) Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecol Indic 16:100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.017
Global Footprint Network (2020) National Footprint Accounts. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
Holmberg J, Lundqvist U, Robèrt K-H, Wackernagel M (1999) The ecological footprint from a systems perspective of sustainability. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 6(1):17–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.1999.9728469
Kitzes J, Moran D, Galli A, Wada Y, Wackernagel M (2009) Interpretation and application of the ecological footprint: a reply to Fiala (2008). Ecol Econ 68(4):929–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.001
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
Lin D, Hanscom L, Murthy A, Galli A, Evans M, Neill E, Mancini MS, Martindill J, Medouar F-Z, Huang S, Wackernagel M (2018) Ecological footprint accounting for countries: updates and results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources 7(3):58. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030058
Wackernagel M (1998) The ecological footprint of Santiago de Chile. Local Environ 3(1):7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839808725541
Wiedmann T, Minx J (2008) A Definition of ‘Carbon Footprint.’ In: Ecological economics research trends. Nova Science Publishers. https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=5999
Wright LA, Kemp S, Williams I (2011) ‘Carbon footprinting’: towards a universally accepted definition. Carbon Manage 2(1):61–72. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.10.39
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thornbush, M.J. (2021). Implications. In: The Ecological Footprint as a Sustainability Metric. SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62666-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62666-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62665-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62666-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)