My ecological footprint as given by the Apollo calculator was 2.2. In our tutorial group, I think the range was generally from 1-point-something to 4-point-something. Anyway, we were trying to determine which factors would result in a higher rating, but in the end no one could reach a conclusion since we found that not everyone was given the same questions. Apparently, your earlier responses will affect what questions you are given later.
Someone made the point that this calculator underemphasizes electricity usage compared to other calculators she’s done. Maybe Singaporeans will get a lower score then, since we use air-conditioning so much. Personally, I find that there’s a very strong emphasis on transport, so those who fly regularly e.g. exchange students, got a really high score compared to the rest. Therefore, the weighting of each factor can be very subjective, leading to variations in the calculated result.
Another problem raised was that the footprint calculator only asks about people’s homes, but how about their footprint at work/leisure? For instance, I don’t have air-conditioning at home but lately, I’ve been spending more time in school than I do at home, and using the school’s air-conditioning, so my actual footprint might be higher if that’s factored in.
Oops, it seems that this post has turned into a critique of the footprint calculator but really, I wonder just how useful and meaningful it is to arbitrarily combine so many different variables into a single score.
Si En