Evaluating the relative environmental impact of countries.
Environmental protection is critical to maintain ecosystem services essential for human well-being. It is important to be able to rank countries by their environmental impact so that poor performers as well as policy 'models' can be identified. We provide novel metrics of country-specific environmental impact ranks - one proportional to total resource availability per country and an absolute (total) measure of impact - that explicitly avoid incorporating confounding human health or economic indicators. Our rankings are based on natural forest loss, habitat conversion, marine captures, fertilizer use, water pollution, carbon emissions and species threat, although many other variables were excluded due to a lack of country-specific data. Of 228 countries considered, 179 (proportional) and 171 (absolute) had sufficient data for correlations. The proportional index ranked Singapore, Korea, Qatar, Kuwait, Japan, Thailand, Bahrain, Malaysia, Philippines and Netherlands as having the highest proportional environmental impact, whereas Brazil, USA, China, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, India, Russia, Australia and Peru had the highest absolute impact (i.e., total resource use, emissions and species threatened). Proportional and absolute environmental impact ranks were correlated, with mainly Asian countries having both high proportional and absolute impact. Despite weak concordance among the drivers of environmental impact, countries often perform poorly for different reasons. We found no evidence to support the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis of a non-linear relationship between impact and per capita wealth, although there was a weak reduction in environmental impact as per capita wealth increases. Using structural equation models to account for cross-correlation, we found that increasing wealth was the most important driver of environmental impact. Our results show that the global community not only has to encourage better environmental performance in less-developed countries, especially those in Asia, there is also a requirement to focus on the development of environmentally friendly practices in wealthier countries.
Bradshaw
Corey J A
CJ
The Environment Institute and School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. corey.bradshaw@adelaide.edu.au
Giam
Xingli
X
Sodhi
Navjot S
NS
D017753:Ecosystem; D004777:Environment; D005843:Geography; D038622:Internationality; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors
Science. 2004 Dec 3;306(5702):1686
15576594
Science. 2008 Oct 10;322(5899):225-30
18845749
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005 Feb 28;360(1454):443-55
15814356
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Nov 14;103(46):17574-9
17101996
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2006 May;81(2):163-82
16336747
Science. 2001 May 4;292(5518):859-61
11341279
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 12;105 Suppl 1:11579-86
18695214
Nature. 2006 Mar 16;440(7082):337-40
16541073
Nature. 2004 Jun 24;429(6994):827-33
15215854
Science. 2008 Feb 15;319(5865):948-52
18276889
PLoS One. 2009;4(2):e4570
19240812
Ecology. 2006 Oct;87(10):2626-35
17089670
Nature. 2003 Nov 6;426(6962):67-70
14603318
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005 Feb 28;360(1454):255-68
15814344
Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Aug;15(8):332-337
10884705
Ambio. 2007 Dec;36(8):614-21
18240674