Environmental protection is critical to maintain ecosystem services essential for human well-being. It is important to be able to rank countries by their environmental impact so that poor performers as well as policy 'models' can be identified. We provide novel metrics of country-specific environmental impact ranks - one proportional to total resource availability per country and an absolute (total) measure of impact - that explicitly avoid incorporating confounding human health or economic indicators. Our rankings are based on natural forest loss, habitat conversion, marine captures, fertilizer use, water pollution, carbon emissions and species threat, although many other variables were excluded due to a lack of country-specific data. Of 228 countries considered, 179 (proportional) and 171 (absolute) had sufficient data for correlations. The proportional index ranked Singapore, Korea, Qatar, Kuwait, Japan, Thailand, Bahrain, Malaysia, Philippines and Netherlands as having the highest proportional environmental impact, whereas Brazil, USA, China, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, India, Russia, Australia and Peru had the highest absolute impact (i.e., total resource use, emissions and species threatened). Proportional and absolute environmental impact ranks were correlated, with mainly Asian countries having both high proportional and absolute impact. Despite weak concordance among the drivers of environmental impact, countries often perform poorly for different reasons. We found no evidence to support the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis of a non-linear relationship between impact and per capita wealth, although there was a weak reduction in environmental impact as per capita wealth increases. Using structural equation models to account for cross-correlation, we found that increasing wealth was the most important driver of environmental impact. Our results show that the global community not only has to encourage better environmental performance in less-developed countries, especially those in Asia, there is also a requirement to focus on the development of environmentally friendly practices in wealthier countries.
As tropical landscapes become increasingly human-dominated, conflicts between people and wildlife threaten ecological processes. Old World fruit bats such as flying foxes are especially susceptible to extinction risk because there is low interest in their conservation, particularly when they are considered pests. In order to arrest fruit bat declines, there is an urgent need to understand human-bat conflict and its implications. On a tropical island in Peninsular Malaysia, we conducted a questionnaire survey to investigate coexistence between people and the island flying fox (Pteropus hypomelanus). Among 119 respondents, knowledge of ecosystem services provided by flying foxes was extremely low. Most respondents held negative attitudes towards the bats, and older male locals were more likely to support killing them. This was also true for older owners of fruit trees who derived income from selling fruit, and experienced flying fox raids. Our results can be used to design appropriate interventions to support conservation efforts, and has important implications for managing conflicts between humans and synanthropic wildlife.
There is an urgent need for reliable data on the impacts of deforestation on tropical biodiversity. The city-state of Singapore has one of the most detailed biodiversity records in the tropics, dating back to the turn of the 19th century. In 1819, Singapore was almost entirely covered in primary forest, but this has since been largely cleared. We compiled more than 200 y of records for 10 major taxonomic groups in Singapore (>50,000 individual records; >3,000 species), and we estimated extinction rates using recently developed and novel statistical models that account for "dark extinctions," i.e., extinctions of undiscovered species. The estimated overall extinction rate was 37% (95% CI [31 to 42%]). Extrapolating our Singapore observations to a future business-as-usual deforestation scenario for Southeast Asia suggests that 18% (95% CI [16 to 22%]) of species will be lost regionally by 2100. Our extinction estimates for Singapore and Southeast Asia are a factor of two lower than previous estimates that also attempted to account for dark extinctions. However, we caution that particular groups such as large mammals, forest-dependent birds, orchids, and butterflies are disproportionately vulnerable.