↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the Relative Environmental Impact of Countries

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
38 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
127 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
486 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating the Relative Environmental Impact of Countries
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0010440
Pubmed ID
Authors

Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Xingli Giam, Navjot S. Sodhi

Abstract

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 486 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 15 3%
Mexico 8 2%
Brazil 7 1%
United Kingdom 6 1%
Australia 4 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Sweden 3 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Other 16 3%
Unknown 419 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 101 21%
Researcher 96 20%
Student > Master 75 15%
Student > Bachelor 47 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 6%
Other 112 23%
Unknown 28 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 152 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 121 25%
Social Sciences 45 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 25 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 16 3%
Other 77 16%
Unknown 50 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 155. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2020.
All research outputs
#157,121
of 18,346,324 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#2,628
of 169,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#572
of 105,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#21
of 1,684 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,346,324 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 169,063 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 105,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,684 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.