1
The aim of this factsheet is to give an overview of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity within each country to give both some facts and figures and to help to explain why the results and country rankings in the LPR 2012 may be different from LPR 2010. Costa Rica Trends in the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity in 2010 and 2012 Comparing LPR 2010 and LPR 2012 LPR 2010 LPR 2012 Ecological Footprint per person 2.69 2.52 Ecological Footprint ranking 63 69 Biocapacity per person 1.90 1.60 Biocapacity ranking 62 69 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 Global hectares per capita Why are there differences in LPR 2010 compared to LPR 2012? Per capita gha Percentage change Explanation Total Ecological Footprint: 2.52 -6% Carbon: 0.93 1% Source data revision; Grassland: 0.24 -24% Source data revision; Cropland: 0.37 -28% Source data change;Template improvement; Fishing grounds: 0.05 -8% Source data change;Template improvement; Forests: 0.81 8% Built-up land: 0.11 -11% Per capita gha Percentage change Explanation Total biocapacity: 1.60 -16% Methodology changes Grassland: 0.33 1 Data changes Cropland: 0.43 -12% Fishing grounds: 0.10 -1% Forests: 0.62 4% Built-up land: 0.11 -11% If everyone in the world consumed like Costa Rica then the Ecological Footprint would be 1.42 Planets. Ecological Footprint 2012 Ecological Footprint 2010 Biocapacity 2012 Biocapacity 2010 2008 * * All countries carbon Footprint decreased 27 percent due to a revision in oceanic carbon sequestration
