To sum up, the models presented here underline the meaning of national economies for the pressure to the biodiversity of a country. The influence of the economic
growth (GDP) is higher than e.g. inequality indicated by Gini or Palma. Thus, we
confirm the Richness and Inequality Hypothesis. Furthermore, also the natural
richness of a country is relevant. The more species in a country the higher the
number of critically endangered species, confirming the Biogeography Hypothesis.
The proxies area and GDP per capita together show that the population density of a
country also contributes to the pressure to nature. As a consequence we establish a
further hypothesis: Population Density Hypothesis.
With respect to economic factors as threats to biodiversity, we did not find
evidence for the Environmental Kuznets Curve.
5 Scope of Contribution for Biodiversity Conservation
To identify the economic potential for the development and support of biodiversity
conservation programmes and measures, we compared the properties as classified in
Table 1. We assume that economic richness in general facilitates a stronger contribution to the development of environmental measures and nature conservation. This
view is getting further support since economic productivity (GDP) has been identified as one of the main drivers of threats to nature.
Extreme positions of the four quarters in Fig. 4 correspond to the four categories
of Table 3. Table 7 represents related examples.
Most countries belong to the group of intermediate GDP and/or intermediate
numbers of critically endangered species. However, we here focus on countries that
are either poor or rich in terms of both gross domestic product (and GDP per capita)
and number of species characterized as critically endangered by the IUCN Red
List (2019).
Countries with both a relatively high GDP and high GDP per capita may easier
support investments for nature conservation within or outside of their territory than
other countries.
For example, Australia, Japan, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and USA belong to the
countries with high GDP and high GDP per capita, in combination with high number
or level (as percentage value) of critically endangered species.
On the other hand, Belgium, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) belong to the countries with relatively
high GDP and GDP per capita which harbour only small numbers of critically
endangered species.
We want to pronounce that our deliberations about potential and responsibility of
countries represent inferences which are established on a frame of axioms and
international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
We want to promote the discussion about national responsibility and investments in
the environment and nature conservation. However, we do not want to dispute
anyone’s integrity.
212
T. Gaens et al.
growth (GDP) is higher than e.g. inequality indicated by Gini or Palma. Thus, we
confirm the Richness and Inequality Hypothesis. Furthermore, also the natural
richness of a country is relevant. The more species in a country the higher the
number of critically endangered species, confirming the Biogeography Hypothesis.
The proxies area and GDP per capita together show that the population density of a
country also contributes to the pressure to nature. As a consequence we establish a
further hypothesis: Population Density Hypothesis.
With respect to economic factors as threats to biodiversity, we did not find
evidence for the Environmental Kuznets Curve.
5 Scope of Contribution for Biodiversity Conservation
To identify the economic potential for the development and support of biodiversity
conservation programmes and measures, we compared the properties as classified in
Table 1. We assume that economic richness in general facilitates a stronger contribution to the development of environmental measures and nature conservation. This
view is getting further support since economic productivity (GDP) has been identified as one of the main drivers of threats to nature.
Extreme positions of the four quarters in Fig. 4 correspond to the four categories
of Table 3. Table 7 represents related examples.
Most countries belong to the group of intermediate GDP and/or intermediate
numbers of critically endangered species. However, we here focus on countries that
are either poor or rich in terms of both gross domestic product (and GDP per capita)
and number of species characterized as critically endangered by the IUCN Red
List (2019).
Countries with both a relatively high GDP and high GDP per capita may easier
support investments for nature conservation within or outside of their territory than
other countries.
For example, Australia, Japan, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and USA belong to the
countries with high GDP and high GDP per capita, in combination with high number
or level (as percentage value) of critically endangered species.
On the other hand, Belgium, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) belong to the countries with relatively
high GDP and GDP per capita which harbour only small numbers of critically
endangered species.
We want to pronounce that our deliberations about potential and responsibility of
countries represent inferences which are established on a frame of axioms and
international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
We want to promote the discussion about national responsibility and investments in
the environment and nature conservation. However, we do not want to dispute
anyone’s integrity.
212
T. Gaens et al.