Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBradshaw, Corey J. A.
dc.contributor.authorGiam, Xingli
dc.contributor.authorSodhi, Navjot Singh
dc.date.accessioned2013-10-25T12:24:55Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifier.citationBradshaw, Corey J. A., Xingli Giam, and Navjot S. Sodhi. 2010. Evaluating the Relative Environmental Impact of Countries. PLoS ONE 5(5): e10440.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11213324
dc.description.abstractEnvironmental 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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipOrganismic and Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceen_US
dc.relation.isversionofdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010440en_US
dc.relation.hasversionhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862718/pdf/en_US
dash.licenseLAA
dc.subjectscience policyen_US
dc.subjectecologyen_US
dc.subjectcommunity ecology and biodiversityen_US
dc.subjectconservation and restoration ecologyen_US
dc.titleEvaluating the Relative Environmental Impact of Countriesen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.description.versionVersion of Recorden_US
dc.relation.journalPLoS ONEen_US
dash.depositing.authorSodhi, Navjot Singh
dc.date.available2013-10-25T12:24:55Z
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0010440*
dash.contributor.affiliatedSodhi, Navjot Singh


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record