Date post: | 02-Dec-2014 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | conservation-bytes |
View: | 2,813 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Ranking countries by their environmental
impact
Corey J. A. Bradshaw1,2, Xingli Giam3, Navjot S. Sodhi3
1THE ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE, University of Adelaide; 2South Australian Research & Development Institute3Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore
•> 4 million protists
•16600 protozoa
•75000-300000 helminth parasites
•1.5 million fungi
•320000 plants
•4-6 million arthropods
•> 6500 amphibians
•> 30000 fishes
•10000 birds
•> 5000 mammals
99 % of ALL species that have ever existed...
EXTINCTspecies lifespan = 1-10 M years
Ordovician (490-443 MYA)
Devonian (417-354 MYA)
Permian (299-250 MYA)
Triassic (251-200 MYA)
Cretaceous (146-64 MYA)
Anthropoceneextinction rate 100-10000× background
Crutzen 2002 Nature 415:23; Bradshaw & Brook 2009 J Cosmol 2:221-229© T
ianti
an Z
hang
, Goo
d50x
70.o
rg
Brad
shaw
et a
l. 20
09 F
ront
Eco
l Env
iron
7:79
-87
Brad
shaw
et a
l. 20
09 T
rend
s Ec
ol E
vol 2
4:54
1-54
8
Han
sen
et a
l. 20
10 P
NAS
doi:1
0.10
73/p
nas.
0912
6681
07
Bars
on e
t al.
2000
Lan
d Co
ver
Chan
ge in
Aus
tral
ia, B
ur R
ur S
ci
© A. Prokopec
•1,011,000 km2 lost 2000-2005 (3.1 %; 0.6 %/year)•highest in boreal biome (60 %)•humid tropics next (Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia)•dry tropics next highest (Australia, Brazil,
Argentina)•N.A. greatest proportional lost by continent•Nationally, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, DR Congo
•21 % of all known mammals•30 % of all known
amphibians•12 % of all known birds•35 % of conifers & cycads•17 % of sharks•27 % of reef-building corals
threatened with extinction
IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES www.iucnredlist.org
range (number of FAO Fishing Areas),• risk for sharks with small range size•similar for teleosts with slightly larger ranges
habitat • threat risk for reef sharks• and for pelagic teleosts
environmental temperature regime• risk for deepwater sharks• risk deepwater teleosts
Ecology-Life History
Field et al. 2009 Advances in Marine Biology 56:275-363
Human threats
fisheries interest• no influence for sharks or teleosts
game-fished • no influence for sharks or teleosts
dangerous to humans• decreased threat for dangerous sharks
Field et al. 2009 Advances in Marine Biology 56:275-363
Mesopredator Release• ecosystems unbalanced by reduction of higher
trophic-level predators exerting ‘top-down’ control on abundance of species occupying lower trophic levels
• based on earlier theory (in 1980s)
Soulé et al. 1988 Conserv Biol 2:75; Soulé & Crooks 1999 Nature 400:563
• dingo-cat-marsupial
• lynx-fox-hare
• shark-ray-scallop
Johnson et al. 2007 Proc R Soc B 274:341; Elmhagen et al. 2010 J Anim Ecol; Myers et al. 2007 Science 315:1846
Sodhi et al. 2008 PLoS One 3:e1636
Bradshaw et al. 2008 J Ecol 96:869-883
log human population density (km-2)
log
% fo
rest
rem
aini
ng (k
m-2
)Sodhi, Brook & Bradshaw 2007 Tropical Conservation Biology Wiley-Blackwell
© C. Sekerçioglu
Halpern et al. 2008 Science 319:948-952
deforestation, soil erosion, sediment & nutrient loading
destructive fishing practices
overfishing
invasive species and starfish outbreaks
bleaching
Pelagic
thre
sher
shar
k
Sliver
tip sh
ark
Grey r
eef s
hark
Tiger s
hark
Snagg
letoo
th sh
ark
Sicklef
in ho
und
shar
k
Tawny
nur
se sh
ark
Zebra
shar
k
Scallo
ped
ham
mer
head
Great
er h
amm
erhe
ad
Whit
etip
reef
shar
k
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5Fished reefsUnfished reefs
Shark species
Abu
ndan
ce (
shar
ks h
r-1)
Field et al. 2009 Fish & Fisheries 10:323-328
1. habitat destruction
2. over-exploitation
3. introduced species
4. extinction cascades
Diamond 1984 Extinctions Chicago University Press
Evil quartet
Broo
k et
al.
2008
Tre
nds
Ecol
Evo
l 25
:453
-460
1. habitat destruction
2. over-exploitation
3. introduced species
4. extinction cascades
5. climate change
Evil quintet
6. synergies
Evil sextet
Brook et al. 2008 Trends Ecol Evol 25:453-460
© Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
justification to maintain healthy ecosystems is intangible because it seems unrelated to personal well-being
• reduce desertification• maintain soils• crop pollination• seed dispersal• food provision• water purification• fuel provision• fibre provision• climate regulation• flood regulation• disease regulation• waste decomposition/detoxification• nutrient cycling• soil formation• primary production• pharmaceutical sources• cultural appreciation (aesthetic, spiritual, educational, recreational…)
• €50 billion lost/year• land-based ecosystem loss €545 billion by 2010
• > €14 trillion/year lost by 2050
Cost of Policy Inaction (COPI):The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target.
European Commission
€153 billion/year
fisheries: €50 billion/year
Bradshaw et al. 2007 Glob Change Biol 13:2379-2395
1990-2000• ~100,000 people killed• 320 million people displaced• total reported damages > US$1151 billion
•decades of warning
•human population 6.8 B; 9-10 B by 2050
•competition for resources – famine, wars
•loss of basic ecosystem services
•fundamental worldwide shifts in policy required
•identifying relative country degradation
–highlight nations needing assistance
–better-performing nations as model governance structures
City Development Index www.unchs.org
Ecological Footprint www.footprintnetwork.org
Environmental Performance Index epi.yale.edu
Environmental Sustainability Index sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu
Genuine Savings Index worldbank.org
Human Development Index hdr.undp.org
Living Planet Index www.panda.org
Well-Being Index www.well-beingindex.com
Environmental Impact Rank
Böhringer & Joachim 2007 Ecol Econ 63:1-8
•inability to describe complexity of ‘sustainability’
•not comprehensive
•mix environmental, economic and health data
•often subjective combinations, weightings, normalisation
•not available for large sample of nations
•not consistent
Environmental Performance Index epi.yale.edu
1.provide rank of proportional environmental impact
2.provide rank of total (absolute) resource use
3.examine concordance among measures of environmental impact within composite indices
4.determine correlation between ranks and existing indices of environmental performance;
5.test for correlations between ranks and population size, governance quality and wealth
6.test EKC hypothesis (impact nonlinearly related to per-capita wealth)
Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440
per capita prosperity
envir
onm
en
tal d
am
ageENVIRONMENTAL
KUZNETS CURVE
•natural forest loss2005-1990 D/ha
•natural habitat conversionhuman-modified landcover/total landcover
•marine captures1990-2005 fish, whales, seals/EEZ km
•fertiliser useNPK/ha arable land
•water pollutionbiochemical oxygen demand/total renewable water resources
•carbon emissionsforestry, land-use change, fossil fuels/km2
•biodiversity threatRed List threatened birds, mammals, amphibians/listed species
Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440
NFL NHC MC FU WP BT CE RANK
128 5 91 1 4 63 1 10.6
23 61 20 17 21 29 5 20.4
- 198 112 20 3 - 7 24.8
128 197 114 11 1 - 8 25.1
87 87 18 21 29 13 6 25.2
128 5 91 1 4 63 1 10.6
CONCORDANCE: Kendall’s W = 0.26
ENV EPI HDI
ENV -
EPI -0.210 -
HDI -0.220 0.698 -
GSI -0.250 - -
EF 0.090 - -0.670
CONCORDANCE: Kendall’s W = 0.25
Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440
1 Singapore 179 Cape Verde
2 Rep Korea 178 Cent Afr Rep
3 Qatar 177 Swaziland
4 Kuwait 176 Antig & Barb5 Japan 175 Niger6 Thailand 174 Grenada7 Bahrain 173 Samoa8 Malaysia 172 Tonga9 Philippines 171 Djibouti
10 Netherlands 170 Tajikistan11 Denmark 169 Bhutan12 Sri Lanka 168 Chad13 Indonesia 167 Vanuatu14 Israel 166 Mali15 Bangladesh 165 Kazakhstan16 Malta 164 Gabon17 China 163 Turkmenistan18 New Zealand 162 Lesotho19 Iceland 161 Suriname20 Honduras 160 Eritrea
“I anticipate that the anti-science crowd will be screeching and howling with indignation when they read this one.”
“This is such BS, China is WAY worse then the U.S.”
“This researcher is a waste ...”
“This article is crap.”
“Can we really depend on some study when the Chinese could have funded this or maybe some group who was angry at the US and Brazil for whatever? I highly doubt the accuracy of the findings. Looks like the Treehuggers are at it again.”
“Shame on you Australia !!! I guess your dying great Barrior [sic] reef is America's fault too!!!!”
“here we go again. I'm so frickin' sick of these watermelons (green on the outside, red (communist) on the inside) treehuggers. The only f*^king green I care about is made of paper and folds.”
1 Brazil
2 USA
3 China
4 Indonesia
5 Japan6 Mexico
7 India8 Russia9 Australia
10 Peru
11 Argentina12 Canada13 Malaysia14 Myanmar15 Ukraine
16 Thailand17 Philippines
18 France19 South Africa
20 Colombia
POPULATION
WEALTH
GOVERNANCE
+
impa
ct
0 50 100 150 200
0
50
100
150
Governance quality rank
Pro
po
rtio
nal
en
viro
nm
enta
lim
pac
t ra
nk
0 50 100 150
0
50
100
150
Gross National Income rank
Ab
solu
te e
nvi
ron
men
tal
imp
act
ran
k
0 50 100 150 200
0
50
100
150
Total population rank
Pro
po
rtio
nal
en
viro
nm
enta
lim
pac
t ra
nk
0 50 100 150 200
0
50
100
150
Population density rank
0 50 100 150 200
0
50
100
150
Population growth rank
Pro
po
rtio
nal
en
viro
nm
enta
lim
pac
t ra
nk
0 50 100 150
0
50
100
150
Gross National Income rank
A B
C D
- im
pact
+ im
pact
+ people - people
+ growth - growth
- im
pact
poorer wealthier
- quality + quality poorer wealthier
+ density - density
- im
pact
+ im
pact
E F
Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440
POP POPD PGR GNI GOV
POP - 0.7159 0.5601 <0.0001 0.0054
POPD 0.019 - 0.0125 0.1075 0.0086
PGR 0.030 -0.130 - 0.0003 <0.0001
GNI 0.622 0.084 -0.187 - 0.0020
GOV -0.145 0.137 -0.358 0.161 -
Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440
per capita prosperity
envi
ronm
enta
l dam
age
ENVIRONMENTAL
KUZNETS CURVE
Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440
1 10 100
0
50
100
150
l inear
quadratic
intercept
per capita PPP-adjusted GNI
Pro
po
rtio
nal
en
viro
nm
enta
lim
pac
t ra
nk*
1 10 100
0
50
100
150
per capita PPP-adjusted GNI
Ab
solu
te e
nvi
ron
men
tal
imp
act
ran
k*
- im
pact
+ im
pact
- im
pact
+ im
pact
poorer wealthier
poorer wealthier
A
B
Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440
© Moronail.net
1.more direct measure of environmental impact than ‘sustainability’
2.purpose of index depends on its ultimate application–proportional better reflects performance relative to economic opportunity
–absolute better reflects country’s contribution to global environmental degradation
3.proportional-absolute correlation: citizens’ attitude reflected globally
4.Asian countries dominate for high impact
5.minor gains with increasing wealth overwhelmed (no EKC)
6.No leakage considered – wealth effects likely much larger
© WWF
www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/corey.bradshaw
ConservationBytes.com
• Xingli GiamPrinceton University, USA
• Navjot S. SodhiNational University of Singapore