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
196
T. Gaens et al.
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
196
T. Gaens et al.