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.
Keywords GDP · GDP per capita · Inequality (Gini Palma) · Species richness ·
Endemism · Threatened species
1 Introduction
The relationship between economy and biodiversity includes benefits to humans
including immaterial values, destruction of ecosystems, biodiversity loss resulting
from resource use, and the impact and likelyhood of natural disasters as rebound
effect (Fig. 1).
According to Political Economy Theories as well as to the World System Theory
the economically richest countries in the world are destroying the nature much more
than poor countries since they are more developed, use more resources, produce
more waste, and damage whole ecosystems. Furthermore, like cuttlefish they spread
their tentacles to distant regions and developing countries to satisfy their hunger on
energy and other resources. Thus, the number of threatened species is linked to the
economic power (Richness Hypothesis). Is this true or exactly the other way around
(Fig. 1)?
People of economically weak countries and communities do not have any possibility to treat their natural surrounding with care. The people have to use resources,
to hunt, to fish and to grow food for short-term survival of the still growing tribes. It
is impossible to reduce the use of energy, material and food which is small at all.
Furthermore, “poor countries do not have the luxury of exporting their problems or
of using indigenous technology to ‘fix’ them” (Frickel and Davidson 2004: 104). In
contrary, they might even have to take care of additional waste from richer countries
because of economic dependencies. Thus, most threatened species and their endangerment are linked to economically weak countries (Poorness Hypothesis).
Furthermore, a positive relationship between economic inequality and the pressure to nature would confirm the Inequality Hypothesis (Mikkelson et al. 2007).
According to the Environmental Kuznets Curve the pressure to the nature is highest
in nations that undergo industrialization (Kuznets 1955).
However, as can be derived from Human Ecology, the endangerment of ecosystems, plants and animals could also be independent of the economic power of the
countries since the number of threatened and endemic species often simply reflects
the overall richness in the nature, i.e. the whole number of plant and animal species
of a country. The probability of a country to harbour threatened species is high if the
number of species in total is high. The biodiversity of the Tropics is much richer than
the biodiversity of the Arctic/Antarctic. The more species are living in a country the
higher is the probability to find also species that are threatened with extinction. The
Economy on Top, Nature on the Brink? A Closer Look on the Relationship Between. . .
197
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.
Keywords GDP · GDP per capita · Inequality (Gini Palma) · Species richness ·
Endemism · Threatened species
1 Introduction
The relationship between economy and biodiversity includes benefits to humans
including immaterial values, destruction of ecosystems, biodiversity loss resulting
from resource use, and the impact and likelyhood of natural disasters as rebound
effect (Fig. 1).
According to Political Economy Theories as well as to the World System Theory
the economically richest countries in the world are destroying the nature much more
than poor countries since they are more developed, use more resources, produce
more waste, and damage whole ecosystems. Furthermore, like cuttlefish they spread
their tentacles to distant regions and developing countries to satisfy their hunger on
energy and other resources. Thus, the number of threatened species is linked to the
economic power (Richness Hypothesis). Is this true or exactly the other way around
(Fig. 1)?
People of economically weak countries and communities do not have any possibility to treat their natural surrounding with care. The people have to use resources,
to hunt, to fish and to grow food for short-term survival of the still growing tribes. It
is impossible to reduce the use of energy, material and food which is small at all.
Furthermore, “poor countries do not have the luxury of exporting their problems or
of using indigenous technology to ‘fix’ them” (Frickel and Davidson 2004: 104). In
contrary, they might even have to take care of additional waste from richer countries
because of economic dependencies. Thus, most threatened species and their endangerment are linked to economically weak countries (Poorness Hypothesis).
Furthermore, a positive relationship between economic inequality and the pressure to nature would confirm the Inequality Hypothesis (Mikkelson et al. 2007).
According to the Environmental Kuznets Curve the pressure to the nature is highest
in nations that undergo industrialization (Kuznets 1955).
However, as can be derived from Human Ecology, the endangerment of ecosystems, plants and animals could also be independent of the economic power of the
countries since the number of threatened and endemic species often simply reflects
the overall richness in the nature, i.e. the whole number of plant and animal species
of a country. The probability of a country to harbour threatened species is high if the
number of species in total is high. The biodiversity of the Tropics is much richer than
the biodiversity of the Arctic/Antarctic. The more species are living in a country the
higher is the probability to find also species that are threatened with extinction. The
Economy on Top, Nature on the Brink? A Closer Look on the Relationship Between. . .
197