swim bladders in economically weak countries or tribes, are often the result of trade
instruments conducted by rich countries or rich people.
Different theories on the relationship between economic processes and indicators
on the one hand, and pressure to the environment on the other, have been robustly
discussed during the past decades. Depending on economic and ecological indicators, the relationship has been examined as strong or weak. For example, the theory
behind the Environmental Kuznets Curve is related to the economic development of
countries during the last few centuries. According to the Environmental Kuznets
Curve, environmental degradation might be highest at intermediate levels of per
capita income. However, the way in which economic processes affect the environment is of central importance when discussing the potential efficacy of conservation
strategies.
According to our results, the number of threatened species in a country mirrors
three main factors: economic factors (GDP and inequality), natural richness (biodiversity), and human population density. These are key factors for understanding the
threats and damage to the environment. In general, more species (absolute numbers,
and a higher proportion of species) are threatened by economically powerful countries than by developing countries. A combination of (1) economic richness and
income inequality in countries with (2) high natural biodiversity plus (3) a dense
human population seems to be the most problematic combination for the natural
environment.
We additionally established a scheme for evaluating the economic potential of
promoting nature conservation programmes and investing in relatable metrics.
According to the costs-by-cause principle, countries which are most responsible
for environmental degradation should be responsible for the greatest investment
contributions to protecting the environment.
With respect to economic power (GDP and GDP per capita) and pressure on the
environment, i.e. the number of critically endangered species, economically powerful countries with low environmental pressure might have the greatest potential to
invest in biodiversity conservation programmes and mitigation measures at global
scales. These countries could be able to effectively support conservation measures in
parts of the world where payments show return on investment and conservation
measures are relatively cheap. Thus, economically powerful countries with low
biodiversity numbers and low environmental pressure might take responsibility for
nature conservation at global scales. In contrast, developing countries with rich
biodiversity and many endangered species often struggle to protect their landscapes
and biodiversity effectively.
In general, we do not see a positive future for ecosystems and protection of
species in the face of a global market guided by a profit line policy and a plethora of
competing private economical units. Thus, we recommend the financial sector be
enlarged to regulations that include the impact of business on the environment;
examples are subsidies for environmentally-friendly behaviour and responsible land
stewardship, and via environmental taxes on negative effects. Furthermore, all steps
in investment and production chains should be accompanied by ethical
considerations.
466
C. Hobohm et al.
instruments conducted by rich countries or rich people.
Different theories on the relationship between economic processes and indicators
on the one hand, and pressure to the environment on the other, have been robustly
discussed during the past decades. Depending on economic and ecological indicators, the relationship has been examined as strong or weak. For example, the theory
behind the Environmental Kuznets Curve is related to the economic development of
countries during the last few centuries. According to the Environmental Kuznets
Curve, environmental degradation might be highest at intermediate levels of per
capita income. However, the way in which economic processes affect the environment is of central importance when discussing the potential efficacy of conservation
strategies.
According to our results, the number of threatened species in a country mirrors
three main factors: economic factors (GDP and inequality), natural richness (biodiversity), and human population density. These are key factors for understanding the
threats and damage to the environment. In general, more species (absolute numbers,
and a higher proportion of species) are threatened by economically powerful countries than by developing countries. A combination of (1) economic richness and
income inequality in countries with (2) high natural biodiversity plus (3) a dense
human population seems to be the most problematic combination for the natural
environment.
We additionally established a scheme for evaluating the economic potential of
promoting nature conservation programmes and investing in relatable metrics.
According to the costs-by-cause principle, countries which are most responsible
for environmental degradation should be responsible for the greatest investment
contributions to protecting the environment.
With respect to economic power (GDP and GDP per capita) and pressure on the
environment, i.e. the number of critically endangered species, economically powerful countries with low environmental pressure might have the greatest potential to
invest in biodiversity conservation programmes and mitigation measures at global
scales. These countries could be able to effectively support conservation measures in
parts of the world where payments show return on investment and conservation
measures are relatively cheap. Thus, economically powerful countries with low
biodiversity numbers and low environmental pressure might take responsibility for
nature conservation at global scales. In contrast, developing countries with rich
biodiversity and many endangered species often struggle to protect their landscapes
and biodiversity effectively.
In general, we do not see a positive future for ecosystems and protection of
species in the face of a global market guided by a profit line policy and a plethora of
competing private economical units. Thus, we recommend the financial sector be
enlarged to regulations that include the impact of business on the environment;
examples are subsidies for environmentally-friendly behaviour and responsible land
stewardship, and via environmental taxes on negative effects. Furthermore, all steps
in investment and production chains should be accompanied by ethical
considerations.
466
C. Hobohm et al.