Economic Prosperity, Strong Sustainability, and Global Biodiversity Conservation: Testing the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis

ECONOMIC PROSPERITY, STRONG SUSTAINABILITY, AND GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: TESTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE HYPOTHESIS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Julianne H. Mills, B.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2009 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. Elizabeth Marschall, Advisor Dr. Becky Mansfield _________________________________ Dr. Amanda Rodewald Advisor Graduate Program in Evolution, Ecology Dr. Brent Sohngen and Organismal Biology Copyright by Julianne Helene Mills 2009 ABSTRACT Ecologists tend to be wary of the effects of increasing wealth on the environment, arguing that economic growth and conservation are incompatible goals. Many economists, on the other hand, expect economic growth to be a cure for global environmental challenges; they contend that wealthier countries have the luxury of investing more heavily in efforts to conserve and protect ecosystems. The economic perspective is formalized in the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis (EKC), which suggests a u-shaped relationship between income and environmental quality. In order to test this EKC hypothesis, I use estimates of per capita income and deforestation rates (index of biodiversity threat) for 35 tropical countries. A prior analysis (Dietz and Adger 2003) using conventional regression techniques failed to provide any support for the parabolic relationship predicted by the EKC hypothesis. Here, I introduce the use of quantile regression and spatial filtering to reanalyze this data, addressing issues of heteroskedasticity and spatial autocorrelation. I note that preliminary analysis using these methods provides some initial evidence for an EKC; rich countries appear to protect a greater proportion of their forests than do poorer countries. However, a series of panel analyses with country-specific dummy variables eliminated or even reversed much of this support. A closer examination of conservation practices and environmental indicators ii within the countries, particularly those countries that drove the initial support, suggest that wealth is not a reliable indicator of improved conservation practice. Thus, the findings of my first study indicate that an EKC for biodiversity is overly simplistic and further exploration is required to fully understand the mechanisms by which income affects biodiversity. I hypothesize that illusory support for the EKC is driven by patterns of trade and consumption. I examine the relationship between per capita GDP and forest conservation for the original tropical dataset, as well as for an expanded group of 88 countries spanning all income groups and latitudes; consumption of forest products is incorporated via production, import, and export data. I perform two analyses. One incorporates all forest products (including wood used for fuel), and one excludes fuelwood. Because low income countries use more fuelwood than any other group, its inclusion reveals consumption-driven losses at both income extremes. When fuel is excluded, it becomes apparent that wealth is detrimental to conservation. Rich countries may practice preservation within their borders, but they appropriate resources from poorer countries to fuel their consumption. This suggests that, by decreasing reliance on fuelwood, increasing prosperity may play a key role in promoting conservation in poor countries. Unhindered economic growth, however, increases consumption at the expense of global conservation. iii To Mikey and Pea—for obvious reasons. To Tom and Helen—who made me a farmgirl at heart. And to T, wherever you are. You were the inspiration for my hopeful fatalism, my part-time crusading. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My greatest debt in this work is owed to Tom Waite. From the day I approached him as an undergrad and insisted that he become my advisor, Tom was always available—whether it was to respond to a worried email at midnight, invite me to participate alongside the (then very intimidating) graduate students in an ecological footprinting seminar, or welcome me back to OSU to begin my PhD. As a graduate student, Tom fostered my independence as a researcher, allowing me to stumble and err along the way, but was, at the same time, always ready to help when needed, and always, always, the greatest champion of my work. A behavioral ecologist by training, Tom’s varied interests in conservation led him to amass a wonderful group of students—some sought him out very purposefully, others, like myself, were just fortunate to find their way into his path. To the most supportive lab group any PhD could ever ask for, I offer my sincerest thanks. To Katy Greenwald and Sarah Corey, whose friendship reaches far beyond the walls of Aronoff; to Miles Spathelf and Anthony D’Orazio, my officemates; to Erin Greenlee and Jonathan Hall, whose interests stretch the limits of EEOB in fascinating ways; to Ian Hamilton and Lesley Campbell, the honorary members of the Waite Lab; and to Kristin Field, who, perhaps unbeknownst to her, was always an inspiration; thank you all. v Though Tom and his lab group were the inspiration that got me started, I would never have finished without Libby Marschall, who graciously adopted me as her own student in Tom’s absence. For your assistance and encouragement, through the dissertation process, the publication process, and the interview process; and for your endless flexibility in accommodating me into your ever-busy schedule: Thank you. To my entire dissertation committee: Libby, Becky Mansfield, Amanda Rodewald, and Brent Sohngen; my thanks go out for your support and your wonderful suggestions. Over the past year in particular, your varied viewpoints and expertise have helped shape this project into a cohesive work and have guided me in my development as a scholar. Thank you to the rest of the EEOB faculty, in particular, Lisle Gibbs, Ralph Boerner, and Roy Stein. Thank you also to Tom Grubb, who never remembered me from one meeting to the next, and upon hearing about my work always pronounced me a sociologist. Though it bothered me at the time, I have come to embrace that side of my professional persona. You were right (in part). To the Graduate School of the Ohio State University, a huge thank you for funding me my first and final years through the Distinguished University Fellowship, and for providing the Preparing Future Faculty program and other professional development opportunities along the way. Much is owed to people outside of Ohio State as well. Thank you to Simon Dietz and Neil Adger, whose 2003 study prompted my work and who willingly shared their dataset. To Brian Czech, of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, who provided, quite possibly, the world’s-most-constructive peer-review of vi my work. To Amy Downing, of Ohio Wesleyan, who mentored me in the ways of the liberal arts institution. To Stanley Wearden, of the Statistics department at WVU, who cheerfully corresponded with me to discuss the best options for handling my data, and from whom, in a few short weeks, I learned more about statistics, and had more fun doing it, than in my entire three quarter graduate stats series. Thank you all so much. Finally, to my family. To Mom and Aaron for their endless support; my dad, the number-one-most-excited-person-to-attend-graduation; to John, the first of my family to actually read my publication; Jeanie for subsidizing my grad student income with random gifts; Grandma Mills for her boundless delight in my achievements, and Grandma Knollinger, who never strays far from home but said of graduation, “I wouldn’t miss it,” as though it was the most obvious thing in the world. To Mike, for his love and encouragement, and for putting up with me through the stress of dissertating, and to Haley, who kept dragging me away from the computer to play outside. vii VITA June 14, 1981………………….……… Born – Columbus, Ohio, USA. 2003……………………………………B.A. Evolution and Ecology. The Ohio State University. 2003……………………………………B.A. International Studies. The Ohio State University. 2004 – 2005..…………………………..Distinguished University Fellow. The Ohio State University. 2005 – 2008..…………………………..Graduate Teaching Associate. The Ohio State University. 2008 – present……………………..…..Distinguished University Fellow. The Ohio State University. PUBLICATIONS 1. Mills, J.H. and T.A. Waite. 2009. Economic prosperity, biodiversity conservation, and the Environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 68:2087-2095. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………... ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………...... iv Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………… v Vita…………………………………………………………………………………. viii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….. xi List of Figures……………………………………………………………………… xii Chapters: 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………... 1 1.1 Biodiversity crisis………………………………………………………... 1 1.2 Land transformation……………………………………………………… 2 1.3 Socioeconomic drivers…………………………………………………… 5 1.3.1 Population…………………………………………………………. 6 1.3.2 Poverty, affluence, and consumption……………………………… 7 1.3.3 Efficiency, sustainability, and the laws of physics………………... 8 1.4 Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis…………………… 10 2. Economic prosperity, biodiversity conservation, and the environmental Kuznets curve………………………………………………………………... 13 2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………. 13 2.2 Methods………………………………………………………………….. 16 2.2.1 Tropical

Load more