Abstract
With this contribution we want to take part in the analysis of the relationship between economy and environment/ecology. We analysed the relationship between indicators of economic power, affluence, inequality, and pressure to the biological diversity of countries.
Furthermore, we ask the question about the responsibility of national governments for the nature inside and outside of countries with respect to their economic potential. The systematic developed here may contribute to the discussion about the relationship between economy and ecology.
Main questions are:
Are the threats to nature related to or independent of economic factors?
Is the pressure to nature related to economic richness or poorness?
How strong is the relationship between inequality and threats to biodiversity?
Is the number of threatened species related to the natural richness or other geographical factors?
How could a scheme of economic responsibility for nature look like?
We proposed various hypotheses: the hypothesis that pressure to the biodiversity is related to the economic power of a country (Richness or Poorness Hypothesis, Inequality Hypothesis, Environmental Kuznets Curve), that pressure to nature is linked to the overall natural richness (Biogeography Hypothesis), or to other social or geographic factors such as population density, and alternative hypotheses.
We used correlation and multiple linear regression (MLR) analyses, and tried to disentangle the relationships between (1) economic power, (2) geographical factors including natural species richness, and (3) endangerment of the biota as response variable, based on data of 188 countries.
Different regression analyses show a significant relationships between the number of threatened species, natural richness, and economic power (GDP).
We used GDP, GDP per sector, GDP per capita, Gini and Palma as economic indicators. In every case the contribution of GDP was highest. Also inequality showed a significant relationship to the pressure on biodiversity. Many other relationships were weak and/or not significant.
Countries with high natural species diversity normally represent high numbers of endemic species as well. The amount of endemics on the other hand, shows a strong relation to the number of threatened species even if endemic and threatened does not mean the same. Endemics in our selection are restricted to a country, but must not be threatened. Threatened species often occur in more than one country, and thus, must not be country-endemics. We found that the amount of threatened species mirrors endemism and the overall species richness.
Economic power and inequality, natural species richness and endemism, and population density seem to be key factors for the understanding of pressure to nature and the amount of threatened species. Thus, we confirm both the meaning of economies (Richness Hypothesis and Inequality Hypothesis), and biogeographical factors (Biogeography Hypothesis). Furthermore, we promote the hypothesis that population density is also relevant (Population Density Hypothesis).
In a second step, we identified different groups of countries with respect to their potential to invest in the development of environmental initiatives and support for nature conservation programmes and measures.
We used the number of threatened species in combination with economic power (GDP and GDP per capita) as proxy for the potential and responsibility. Economically powerful countries with high numbers of threatened species can be characterized as countries with high responsibility. According to the same systematic, economically weak countries with low biodiversity and low numbers of threatened species can be classified as less responsible.
Economic powerful countries with low numbers of threatened species are identified as countries with a great potential to support biodiversity conservation initiatives at global scales. These countries might effectively support direct investments in species and habitat protection in their own political region and other parts of the world as well.
In contrary, economically less powerful countries with high numbers of threatened species normally do not have the possibility to protect their landscapes and biodiversity effectively.
Sorry, did I say nature? We don’t call it that any more. It is now called natural capital. Ecological processes are called ecosystem services because, of course, they exist only to serve us. Hills, forests, rivers: these are terribly out-dated terms. They are now called green infrastructure. Biodiversity and habitats? Not at all à la mode my dear. We now call them asset classes in an ecosystems market. I am not making any of this up. These are the names we now give to the natural world.
George Monbiot 24 July 2014
Put a price on nature? We must stop this neoliberal road to ruin. The failure of the markets hasn’t stopped the rise of the gobbledygook-filled Nature Capital Agenda. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot; accessed 3/1/2020)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adeola FO (1998) Cross-national environmentalism differentials: empirical evidence from core and noncore nations. Soc Nat Resour 11(4):339–364
Anyanwu JC (2014) Factors affecting economic growth in Africa: are there any lessons from China. Afr Dev Rev 26(3):468–493
Asafu-Adjaye J (2003) Biodiversity loss and economic growth: a cross country analysis. Contemp Econ Policy 21(2):173–185
Aşıcı AA (2011) Economic growth and its impact on environment: a panel data analysis. MPRA Paper No. 30238. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/30238. Accessed 22/11/2019
Beckerman W (1992) Economic growth and the environment. Whose growth? Whose environment? World Dev 20(4):481–496
Boldeanu FT, Constantinescu L (2015) The main determinants affecting economic growth. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov 8(57):329–338
Bollen KA, Pearl J (2013) Eight myths about causality and structural equation models. In: Morgan SL (ed) Handbooks of sociology and social research. Springer, New York, pp 301–328
Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, CA
Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Hannahs N, Jax K, Klain S, Luck GW, Martín-López B, Muraca B, Norton B, Ott K, Pascual U, Satterfield T, Tadaki M, Taggart J, Turner N (2016) Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. PNAS 113(6):1462–1465
CIA (ed) (2018) The CIA world factbook 2018–2019. Skyhorse Publishing
CIA (ed) (2019) The CIA World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook. Assessed 7/2019
CIA (ed) (2020) The CIA World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook. Assessed 3/1/2020
Clausen R, York R (2008) Global biodiversity decline of marine and freshwater fish: a cross-national analysis of economic, demographic, and ecological influences. Social Sci Res 37:1310–1320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.10.002
Costanza R, DÁrge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van der Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260
Darwin C (1839) Journal of researches into the geology and natural history of the various countries visited by H. M. S. Beagle, under the command of Captain Fitzroy, R.N. from 1832 to 1836. Colburn, London, 582p
Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or, The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. John Murray, London, 558p
Desjardins J (2017) All of the world’s money and markets in one visualization. https://money.visualcapitalist.com. Accessed 3/1/2020
Dietz S, Adger WN (2003) Economic growth, biodiversity loss and conservation effort. J Environ Manag 68(1):23–35
Erickson JD (2000) Endangering the economics of extinction. Wildl Soc Bull 28(1):34–41
European Union (2018) Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics, 2018 edition. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/9455154. Accessed 3/1/2020
FAO (2020) Global production and trade of forest products in 2018. http://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80938. Accessed 5/1/2020
Foster JB (2002) Ecology against capitalism. Monthly Review Press, New York
Frickel S, Davidson DJ (2004) Building environmental states. Int Sociol 19(1):89–110
Fuentes M (2011) Economic growth and biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 20(14):3453–3458
Gleich M, Maxeiner D, Miersch M, Nicolay F (2000) Life counts. Eine globale Bilanz des Lebens. Berlin-Verl, Berlin
Gosselin F, Callois J-M (2018) Relationships between human activity and biodiversity in Europe at the national scale: spatial density of human activity as a core driver of biodiversity erosion. Ecol Indic 90:356–365
Groombridge B, Jenkins MD (2002) World Atlas of Biodiversity. Prepared by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. University of California Press, Berkeley
Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377
Hobohm C (ed) (2014) Endemism in vascular plants, Plant and vegetation, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht
Hobohm C, Müller-Benedict V (2018) Vergleich der Biodiversität insularer und kontinentaler Regionen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Endemitenvielfalt. Ber RTG 30:57–71
Hobohm C, Janišová M, Steinbauer M, Landi S, Field R, Vanderplank S, Beierkuhnlein C, Grytnes J-A, Vetaas OR, Fildelis A, De Nascimento L, Clark VR, Fernández-Palacios JM, Franklin S, Guarino R, Huang J, Krestov P, Ma K, Onipchenko V, Palmer MW, Fragomeni SM, Stolz C, Chiarucci A (2019) Global endemics-area relationships of vascular plants. Perspect Ecol Conserv 17:41–49
Hoffmann JP (2004) Social and environmental influences on endagered species: a cross-national study. Soc Perspect 47(1):79–107
IUCN (2019) IUCN Red List. iucnredlist.org. Assessed 12/2019
Jetzkowitz J, van Koppen K, Lidskog R, Ott K, Voget-Kleschin L, Mei Ling Wong C (2017) The significance of meaning. Why IPBES needs the social sciences and humanities. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 31(1):S38–S60
Kato M (ed) (2000) The biology of biodiversity. Springer, Tokyo
Kaur H, Habibullah MS, Nagaratnam S (2019) Impact of natural disasters on biodiversity: evidence using quantile regression approach. Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia 53(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.17576/JEM-2019-5302-6. Accessed 6/1/2020
Kennedy EH, Krahn H, Krogman NT (2015) Are we counting what counts? A closer look at environmental concern, pro-environmental behaviour, and carbon footprint. Local Environ 20(2):220–236
Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45:1–28
Lomborg B (2014) Biodiversity: what’s worth saving? Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biodiversity-whats-worth-_b_6081462. Accessed 5/1/2020
May C (2017) Transnational crime and the developing world. Global financial integrity https://secureservercdn.net/45.40.149.159/34n.8bd.myftpupload.com. Accessed 3/1/2020
Mikkelson GM (2013) Growth is the problem; equality is the solution. Sustainability 2013(5):432–439
Mikkelson GM, Gonzalez A, Peterson GD (2007) Economic inequality predicts biodiversity loss. PLoS One 2(5):e444, 1–5
Mills JH, Waite TA (2009) Economic prosperity, biodiversity conservation, and the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 68(2009):2087–2095
Mol APJ (1995) The refinement of production. Ecological modernization theory and the chemical industry. Van Arkel, Utrecht
Newig J (2007) Symbolic environmental legislation and societal self-deception. Environ Polit 16(2):276–296
Ott K, Hendlin Y (2016) Habermas on nature: a postnormal reading between moral intuitions and theoretical restrictiveness. Environ Ethics 38(2):183–208
Polaina E, Gonzalez-Suárez M, Revilla E (2015) Socioeconomic correlates of global mammalian conservation status. Ecosphere 6(9):1–34
Roberts JT, Grimes PE (2002) World system theory and the environment. Toward a new synthesis. In: Dunlap RE, Buttel FH, Dickens P, Gijswijt A (eds) Sociological theory and the environment: classical foundations, contemporary insights. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp 167–194
Russi D, ten Brink P, Farmer A, Badura T, Coates D, Förster J, Kumar R, Davidson N (2013) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for water and wetlands. IEEP, London and Brussels; Ramsar Secretariat, Gland.
Schnaiberg A, Gould KA (1994) Environment and society: the enduring conflict. St. Martin’s Press, New York
Schnaiberg A, Pellow DN, Weinberg A (2000) The treadmill of production and the environmental state. https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/papers/urban-policy-and-community-development/docs/schnaiberg/treadmill-of-production.pdf
Schofer E, Hironaka A (2005) The effects of world society on environmental protection outcomes. Soc Forces 84(1):25–47
Shogren JF, Tschirhart J, Anderson T, Ando AW, Beissinger SR, Brookshire D, Brown GM, Coursey D, Innes R, Meyer SM, Polasky S (1999) Why economics matters for endangered species protection. Conserv Biol 13(6):1257–1261
Stern DI (2017) The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. J Bioecon 19(1):7–28
Tabachnick B, Fidell L (2006) Using multivariate statistics, 5. Auflage. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, 980 S
Vlek C, Steg L (2007) Human behaviour and environmental sustainability: problems, driving forces, and research topics. J Soc Issues 63(1):1–19
Wallerstein I (1974) The modern world system. Academic Press, New York
Wooldridge JM (2003) Introductory econometrics. A modern approach. Thomson South-Western, Mason, 863 S
WWF (2020) Sustainable agriculture. https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/sustainable-agriculture. Accessed 5/1/2020
York R (2004) The treadmill of (diversifying) production. Organ Environ 17(3):355–362
York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T (2003) Footprints on the earth: the environmental consequences of modernity. Am Soc Rev 68(2):279–300
Acknowledgements
We are thankful to Gerd Grözinger for recommendations and remarks on a former version of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gaens, T., Müller-Benedict, V., Hobohm, C. (2021). Economy on Top, Nature on the Brink? A Closer Look on the Relationship Between Economic Power and Threatened Nature. In: Hobohm, C. (eds) Perspectives for Biodiversity and Ecosystems. Environmental Challenges and Solutions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57710-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57710-0_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57709-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57710-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)