My point about hunter gatherers was that there are ways of living that don't exactly fit into 'number of people supported per hectare.' Hunter gatherers live in a stasis with their environment. Their population generally remains constant, and there is always ample food. In addition, the land they live on is multipurpose. It is wildlife habitat, carbon sink, water filter, and food, clothing and shelter for humans all in one.

I don't have facts and figures about land usage per cultural/economic area. If you really want me to I will research it and get back to you. My point is that different ways of producing food have different impacts on the land. In some areas, herding causes desertification. In others it is well adapted to the local environment. Industrial meat production is very land intensive. Industrial farming is slightly less so, but with other side effects.

I am beginning to think you are sidestepping my question to you: Is it or isn't it true that when you assess ecological footprint per GDP you are only assessing how efficiently a nation produces wealth when they consume resources, and totally ignores the question of how much resources they consume, which is the focus of the WWF report?