Species Imperilment on the Global Scale: Empirical evidences of economic causes
Economic factors contribute to biodiversity directly through activities such as pollution and land use, and indirectly by affecting preferences and institutional capabilities of implementing mitigation measures. This paper tests the explanatory power of these different mechanisms on threats to biodiversity on a global scale. Econometric analyses are performed with invasive species, land use, climate, economic prosperity, corruption, and spatial autocorrelation as explanatory variables. This is carried out for all taxonomic groups and separately for mammals, birds, plants, amphibians, and reptiles. Different models are tested and robust results appear for detrimental effects of invasive species, pollution, and high average temperature. Results also indicate that economic prosperity and institutional capacity do not act as curbing factors in isolation, but instead together which points out the need for sufficient levels of both prosperity and institutional capability in order to preserve biodiversity. These impacts are significant for all taxonomic groups but of different magnitude. Plants show the highest relative response to several factors and mammals the lowest.
|Date of creation:||19 Jun 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Department of Economics, Box 7013, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden|
Phone: 018-67 1724
Fax: 018-67 3502
Web page: http://www.slu.se/ekonomi
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Pandit, Ram & Laband, David N., 2007. "Spatial autocorrelation in country-level models of species imperilment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 526-532, January.
- Toke Aidt & Jayasri Dutta & Vania Sena, 2006.
"Governance Regimes, Corruption and Growth: Theory and Evidence,"
15_2006, D.E.S. (Department of Economic Studies), University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.
- Aidt, Toke & Dutta, Jayasri & Sena, Vania, 2008. "Governance regimes, corruption and growth: Theory and evidence," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-220, June.
- Justin Tevie & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Robert P. Berrens, 2011. "Testing the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis for Biodiversity Risk in the US: A Spatial Econometric Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(11), pages 2182, November.
- Pandit, Ram & Laband, David N., 2007. "General and specific spatial autocorrelation: Insights from country-level analysis of species imperilment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 75-80, February.
- Mills, Julianne H. & Waite, Thomas A., 2009. "Economic prosperity, biodiversity conservation, and the environmental Kuznets curve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2087-2095, May.
- Gren, Ing-Marie & Thierfelder, Tomas & Berglund, Helena, 2011. "Country characteristics and non-indigenous species," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(01), pages 51-70, February.
- Halkos, George & Tzeremes, Nickolaos, 2009. "Exploring the effect of countries’ economic prosperity on their biodiversity performance," MPRA Paper 32102, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- McPherson, Michael A. & Nieswiadomy, Michael L., 2005. "Environmental Kuznets curve: threatened species and spatial effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 395-407, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:slueko:2013_007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Elizabeth Hillerius)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.