Ecological Footprints in Mastatal: a Study of Sustainability Across Cultures

Shannon Whitney

Ecological Footprints in Mastatal: A Study of Sustainability Across Cultures

Abstract

One method of studying the concept of sustainability is through the utilization of ecological footprint calculations, which determine how much biologically productive land on earth is required to support various lifestyles. In my comparison of the environmental impact produced by Americans and the people of Mastatal, I have drawn upon a combination of observations and interviews. In particular, I have referenced the major concepts present in the ecological footprint quiz available at to discuss the difficulties in defining sustainability, especially across cultural lines.

Introduction

In recent decades it has become clear that humans are consuming the Earth’s resources faster than they can be renewed. With consumption and population levels growing exponentially, it is only a matter of time before we as a species reach our limits to growth. Already, new sources of petroleum and arable farmland have been all but exhausted, water shortages plague many areas of the world, and the effects of climate change have flooded cities and killed thousands in heat waves across the globe.

In light of these recent developments, awareness of human environmental impact has taken shape around a concept of sustainability. Many in industrialized nations have come to realize that in order to expect the earth to sustain human (and other) life indefinitely, a balance with the planet’s natural systems must be established. But what is the right balance, and how can this be achieved? Ecological footprint calculation tools have provided one possible solution to this critical problem.

The term “ecological footprint” has been used to describe and quantify human impact on the environment. An ecological footprint is a per capita measurement of the total land area required to support an individual’s lifestyle. Generally, this land area is a reflection of the space needed to absorb the wastes, in terms of carbon emissions, produced by an individual’s actions. Individual footprint calculations take into account a variety of personal decisions regarding diet, living environments, and transportation. Online footprint surveys (such as the one available at provide multiple-choice options to reflect these decisions, and produce a final report reviewing the sustainability of a particular lifestyle. The conclusion expresses the number of ‘earths’ necessary to support a world in which everyone lived like the individual assessed. A result of more than one ‘earth’ describes an unsustainable lifestyle.

The average American footprint is somewhere on the order of 26 acres, or six earths ( If global space were distributed evenly, only 4.5 acres would be available per person ( Clearly, the average American lifestyle is grossly unsustainable. But is it possible to “shrink” an American footprint? And, if so, how?

My journey to Mastatal provided me with a unique opportunity to explore these questions through different concepts of sustainability. In particular, my research stemmed from the study of two unique lifestyles—the lifestyle of the Westerners at the Rancho, a sustainable-living and environmental learning center located within the town, and the lifestyle of the native villagers of Mastatal. Through a comparison of environmental impact in the US, at the Rancho, and within the town, I have come to a few important conclusions regarding footprint calculations, sustainability and the role of the individual in the environment.

Methodology

This project originally intended to produce a numerical comparison of footprint sizes between those in the US (including those in the University of Washington/Seattle University group), and those living in the town of Mastatal. I planned to distribute ecological footprint quizzes, translated as needed, to people within each group, and use numerical results in combination with my personal observations to provide insight toward notions of sustainability. Unfortunately or fortunately, this plan was subjected to serious revision during the first few days of my stay in Mastatal. I found that the ecological footprint quizzes I had so carefully translated and transported were virtually useless for calculating environmental impact in a setting so different from my home.

In the end, I made the decision to use the ecological footprint surveys as an example of why the achievement of sustainability is such a complex matter. Through in-depth observations, I collected examples of why my primary survey was not applicable to Tico village life. This process led me to a realization of the factors that are critical to determining environmental impact in Mastatal.

My homestay experience provided me with an opportunity to become familiar with the typical life of a family in Mastatal. Using my original survey as an outline, I recorded observations pertaining to my host family’s dietary choices, energy use, waste production, and transportation methods. I made similar observations at the Rancho, which included a lengthy conversation with Timo, the owner of the Rancho, on the topic of sustainability. The insight that he provided in this interview helped me to form conclusions around the observations I had gathered. The results have surprised, confused and inspired me all at once.

Results

The average ecological footprint for the students traveling in our group was approximately 18 acres, requiring four earths to support. Although this figure is well under the American average of 26 acres, it still represents an extravagant and unsustainable lifestyle.

My analysis of the criteria for environmental impact for Mastatal is more complex. Although my observations indicate that my homestay family “passed” the ecological footprint sustainability test (their lifestyle requires one earth to support it), an assessment of environmental stresses in Mastatal requires a much more detailed and in-depth examination.

Discussion

The ecological footprint quiz available online at consists of 13 questions divided into four categories- food, mobility, shelter, and goods and services. The ‘food’ category inquires into an individual’s diet, including how often the individual consumes animal-based products, and how much of the food consumed is packaged, processed, and not locally grown. The ‘shelter’ category asks about the size of a home, the number of people occupying it, whether or not it has running water and electricity, and if conservation and efficiency is used. ‘Mobility’ includes questions that pertain to the frequency in which the individual uses public transportation, motor vehicles, or manual power to get from place to place. The energy efficiency of motorbikes and cars is also taken into account. ‘Goods and services’ refers to the waste production of the individual. The final calculation is produced by a complex mathematical formula based upon years of research regarding the human lifestyle and the biological productivity of the earth. For those in industrialized nations and cities, such as Seattle, USA, the results can be viewed as fairly accurate. However, for the reasons I will describe below, the ecological footprint quiz cannot be accurately applied to the people of Mastatal and hundreds of other less-developed areas of the world.

Food

The first question asks the individual how often he/she eats animal-based products. This is an important criterion to be considered. Because animals occupy high seats on the food chain, large amounts of energy are lost in the process of raising animals for food. For each serving of beef, for example, 10 servings of grain (or other plants) could exist. Animal farms occupy areas of potentially productive land, and produce large amounts of waste. And meat/dairy products, like any other food which is not locally grown, require large amounts of energy to process, package and ship safely. Therefore, the less meat an individual consumes the “higher” he or she will score for this question.

This all makes sense to those of us who live in the United States. However, the issue of animal product consumption becomes much more complex in a setting such as Mastatal. In Mastatal, farms are small and family run—my host family owned a small pasture, which supported two dairy cows, four meat cows, and several chicken. Although these animals consume large amounts of energy, animal products do not have to be packaged, processed, and transported. If an animal product is desired, a family member must be responsible for collecting it. For this reason, meat and dairy products are reserved for special occasions only.

Nearly all of the food, including animal products, consumed in Mastatal is grown/raised locally. Many families have small farms or fruit trees, which supply the minimal produce in their diet, and will often trade amongst themselves to achieve more variety. They do not have access to foreign agricultural markets. According to the ecological footprint quiz, a sustainable diet consists of locally grown food. For the most part, this is true. However, farming is perhaps the most damaging human activity to the rainforests. Whenever land is cleared in the tropics, the soil is quickly depleted of its nutrients, and can only support crops for a few years. Livestock quickly consume the vegetation left in the soil, pollute water sources, and damage the delicate web of biodiversity in the forests.

Shelter

The survey questions regarding shelter are too simplified to accurately portray the differences between housing and energy use in the US versus Mastatal. My host family would score well in terms of sustainability due to the small size of their house and the fact that eight family members reside within it. However, they would lose points for the fact that the house has running water and electricity. A three-room cement dwelling with a tin roof, no indoor heating, no hot water, and few electric appliances cannot be compared to a house of a similar size almost anywhere in the US. In addition, although the quiz asks about green building techniques and energy conservation and efficiency, I don not believe that my host family or many families in Mastatal would take time to install fluorescent bulbs when they cannot even hope to own a washing machine.

Mobility

This section of the ecological impact survey was perhaps most inapplicable to the lifestyles of those in Mastatal. Virtually no one owned a car or motorbike, much less had flown in a plane. According to Timo, many villagers never venture more than a few miles outside of Mastatal their entire lives. The only transportation choices in the town include walking or animal power, if one can afford to own a horse or a donkey.

Goods and Services

The goods footprint on the ecological footprint survey is determined by one question, and one question only. This is, “Compared to other people in your neighborhood, how much waste do you generate?” Feasibly, an American or a wealthy Gringo could score the same as a villager of Mastatal, simple by both choosing the same answer. Clearly, an American or Gringo family from Manuel Antonio would produce a much greater volume of waste than my host family in Mastatal, even if the American or Gringo family produced ‘much less’ waste than people in their neighborhood, and my host family produced ‘much more’. This question simply does not provide a fair comparison.

Almost more important is how waste is disposed of. The village of Mastatal does not have the luxury of a garbage dump, a recycling center, or a sanitation system. All of the waste produced in Mastatal is burned, sending harmful chemicals into the air.

Additionally, how can we take into account the fact that my host sister Priscilla walks around in worn hand-me-downs and plays with outdated, second-hand toys, or that the only electrical appliance in my homestay was an old television? These are important things to consider, but it is easy to take for granted a certain level of affluence when one has not experienced anything else. This ecological footprint quiz has sadly overlooked the fact that few families in the world have access to goods that are new.

The Question of Sustainability

Timo and Robin, the owners and managers of Rancho Mastatal, have had the luxury of considering issues of sustainability, unlike their rural neighbors. They have had the advantage of extra time and money to formulate a way of life that is kinder to the surrounding environment. Through the combination of simple living techniques and new technologies, a groundbreaking facility responsible for minimal consumption and waste has been born in Mastatal. Rancho buildings make use of natural and local materials, such as cob (a mixture of sand, straw, clay and manure), waddle and daub, and bamboo. Electricity on the premises is limited and highly conserved. Solar panels heat water for showers, and energy-saving bulbs are utilized where possible. Human waste and food scraps are recycled through the use of composting techniques, including biodigestors. All of the food consumed at the Rancho is unprocessed, unpackaged, and locally grown.

Here we come to the crux of the issue of sustainability: how can we as Americans make change away from Mastatal? Deep in the rainforests, these methods seem convenient and feasible. However, back in Seattle, we are confronted with cultural and environmental obstacles to sustainable living. It is difficult to make due without a car, there are few places to grow food, we need indoor heating and hot water, and owning a composting toilet would require difficult negotiation with neighbors. I still do not have the magic recipe for shrinking an American footprint. Until I find it, I will compost, recycle, flush as little as possible, and turn off the lights and water. Essentially, I will do the best that I can.

One thing that I will not do is idealize rural villagers in places like Mastatal for their sustainable lifestyles and forward thinking, or patronize people in developing nations for their disinterest in environmental preservation. The issue of sustainability is much too complex. I know that most of the people in Mastatal would live like me if given the chance. And I also understand that it does not make sense for people to worry about other species of plants and animals when they have to worry about feeding their own children.

To Timo, the Rancho’s success in sustainability is proof that “both sides can win”. Because it is ridiculous to expect people to consider environmental issues if their basic needs are not met, he believes that conservation must run hand-in-hand with economic development. Rancho Mastatal employs 10 local people, and its visitors have provided countless economic opportunities for people from the area. Timo and Robin have succeeded because the local people have benefited as well.

My experience in Mastatal has taught me, most of all, that the values of people native to an area must be considered along with the values of environmentalists and conservationists. In the end, it is not me, or even Timo and Robin, who live in and use the rainforests. It is people like my host family, who practice simple living because they must, and survive day by day the only way they know how—just like the rest of us.

Appendix

Ever wondered how much "nature" your lifestyle requires? You're about to find out.This Ecological Footprint Quiz estimates how much productive land and water you need to support what you use and what you discard. After answering 15 easy questions you'll be able to compare your Ecological Footprint to what other people use and to what is available on this planet.

Ecological Footprint Survey- English

1. How old are you?

___ <12

___ 13-15

___ 16-20

___ 21-35

___ 36-50

___ 51-65

___ >65

1. How big is the city, town, or place where you live?

___ <1000

___ 1,001-10,000

___ 10,001-100,000

___ 100,001-1,000,000

___ >1,000,000

1. What city has the most similar weather to yours?

___ Atlanta

___ Chicago

___ Denver

___ Los Angeles

___ New York

___ Phoenix

___ San Francisco

___ Seattle

___ St. Louis

1. Choose One.

___ Male

___ Female

Food Footprint:

1. How often do you eat animal based products? (beef, pork, chicken, fish, eggs, dairy products)

___ Never (vegan)

___ Infrequently (no meat, and eggs/dairy a few times a week) (strict vegetarian)

___ Occasionally (no meat or occasional meat, but eggs/dairy almost daily)

___ Often (meat once or twice a week)

___ Very often (meat daily)

___ Almost always (meat and eggs/dairy in almost every meal)

1. How much of the food that you eat is processed, packaged and not locally grown (from more than 200 miles away)?

___ Most of the food I eat is processed, packaged, and from far away

___ Three quarters

___ Half

___ One-quarter

___ Very little. Most of the food that I eat is unprocessed, unpackaged, and locally grown.

Goods Footprint:

1. Compared to people in your neighborhood, how much waste do you generate?

___ Much less

___ About the same

___ Much more

Shelter Footprint:

1. How many people live in your household?

___ 1 person

___ 2 people