The systematic developed here may serve as proposal for further analyses and
discussion. E.g. the use of the term responsibility of a country may also be
interpreted and defined in different other ways.
6 Discussion
Several analyses of the relationship between economic growth, income and/or
inequality and biodiversity loss, effectiveness of nature conservation programmes,
area or nature reserves and/or endangered species are published (cf. e.g. Dietz and
Adger 2003; Hoffmann 2004; Mikkelson et al. 2007; Clausen and York 2008; Mills
and Waite 2009; Fuentes 2011; Polaina et al. 2015; Gosselin and Callois 2018; Kaur
lngdp
20,00
15,00
10,00
5,00
,00
lnces
6,00
4,00
2,00
,00
South Africa
Haiti
Bahrain
Namibia
Suriname
Puerto Rico
Central African Republic
Brunei
Mozambique
Lesotho
Brazil
Botswana
Belize
Eswatini
Palau
Honduras
Guinea-Bissau
Panama
Equatorial Guinea
Colombia
Paraguay
Congo Republic of the
Mexico
Guatemala
Costa Rica
Venezuela
Singapore
Seychelles
Chile
Cameroon
Cabo Verde
Bahamas The
Saudi Arabia
Nicaragua
Jamaica
Rwanda
Malawi
Ecuador
Philippines
Ghana
Dominica
Bolivia
Uganda
Togo
Peru
Madagascar
Hong Kong
Angola
United States (without Hawaiian Islands)
Turkey
Papua New Guinea
Djibouti
Congo Democratic Republic of the
Malaysia
Kenya
Argentina
Trinidad and Tobago
Sri Lanka
Somalia
Serbia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Micronesia Federated States of
Israel
Iran
Burkina Faso
Tuvalu
Samoa
Mauritius
China
Burundi
Vanuatu
United Arab Emirates
Tonga
Tanzania
Russia
Maldives
Indonesia
Gabon
Burma (Myanmar)
Turks and Caicos Islands
Thailand
Solomon Islands
New Zealand
Lithuania
Kiribati
Grenada
Fiji
Bulgaria
Bhutan
Syria
Spain
Portugal
North Macedonia
Laos
India
Greece
Gambia The
Australia
Vietnam
Italy
Greenland
Ethiopia
Tajikistan
Niger
Luxembourg
Latvia
Jordan
Canada
Armenia
United Kingdom
Tunisia
Nepal
France
Estonia
Switzerland
Mongolia
Kuwait
Korea South
Japan
Ireland
Germany
Sao Tome and Principe
Poland
Oman
Cambodia
Austria
Iraq
Hungary
Sweden
Malta
San Marino
Norway
Netherlands
Iceland
Denmark (excl. Faroe and Greenl.)
Algeria
Slovakia
Finland
Moldova
Czech Republic
Ukraine
Belarus
Niue
New Caledonia
Nauru
Montserrat
Monaco
Marshall Islands
Macau
Korea North
Jersey
Guernsey
French Polynesia
Cayman Islands
Aruba
Anguilla
Fig. 4 Number of critically endangered species (lnces) according to the IUCN Red List of
188 countries as function of economic power (lngdp)
Economy on Top, Nature on the Brink? A Closer Look on the Relationship Between. . .
213
discussion. E.g. the use of the term responsibility of a country may also be
interpreted and defined in different other ways.
6 Discussion
Several analyses of the relationship between economic growth, income and/or
inequality and biodiversity loss, effectiveness of nature conservation programmes,
area or nature reserves and/or endangered species are published (cf. e.g. Dietz and
Adger 2003; Hoffmann 2004; Mikkelson et al. 2007; Clausen and York 2008; Mills
and Waite 2009; Fuentes 2011; Polaina et al. 2015; Gosselin and Callois 2018; Kaur
lngdp
20,00
15,00
10,00
5,00
,00
lnces
6,00
4,00
2,00
,00
South Africa
Haiti
Bahrain
Namibia
Suriname
Puerto Rico
Central African Republic
Brunei
Mozambique
Lesotho
Brazil
Botswana
Belize
Eswatini
Palau
Honduras
Guinea-Bissau
Panama
Equatorial Guinea
Colombia
Paraguay
Congo Republic of the
Mexico
Guatemala
Costa Rica
Venezuela
Singapore
Seychelles
Chile
Cameroon
Cabo Verde
Bahamas The
Saudi Arabia
Nicaragua
Jamaica
Rwanda
Malawi
Ecuador
Philippines
Ghana
Dominica
Bolivia
Uganda
Togo
Peru
Madagascar
Hong Kong
Angola
United States (without Hawaiian Islands)
Turkey
Papua New Guinea
Djibouti
Congo Democratic Republic of the
Malaysia
Kenya
Argentina
Trinidad and Tobago
Sri Lanka
Somalia
Serbia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Micronesia Federated States of
Israel
Iran
Burkina Faso
Tuvalu
Samoa
Mauritius
China
Burundi
Vanuatu
United Arab Emirates
Tonga
Tanzania
Russia
Maldives
Indonesia
Gabon
Burma (Myanmar)
Turks and Caicos Islands
Thailand
Solomon Islands
New Zealand
Lithuania
Kiribati
Grenada
Fiji
Bulgaria
Bhutan
Syria
Spain
Portugal
North Macedonia
Laos
India
Greece
Gambia The
Australia
Vietnam
Italy
Greenland
Ethiopia
Tajikistan
Niger
Luxembourg
Latvia
Jordan
Canada
Armenia
United Kingdom
Tunisia
Nepal
France
Estonia
Switzerland
Mongolia
Kuwait
Korea South
Japan
Ireland
Germany
Sao Tome and Principe
Poland
Oman
Cambodia
Austria
Iraq
Hungary
Sweden
Malta
San Marino
Norway
Netherlands
Iceland
Denmark (excl. Faroe and Greenl.)
Algeria
Slovakia
Finland
Moldova
Czech Republic
Ukraine
Belarus
Niue
New Caledonia
Nauru
Montserrat
Monaco
Marshall Islands
Macau
Korea North
Jersey
Guernsey
French Polynesia
Cayman Islands
Aruba
Anguilla
Fig. 4 Number of critically endangered species (lnces) according to the IUCN Red List of
188 countries as function of economic power (lngdp)
Economy on Top, Nature on the Brink? A Closer Look on the Relationship Between. . .
213