Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:1073–1086

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15702-8

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Impact of climate change on biodiversity loss: global evidence

Muzafar Shah Habibullah 1 & Badariah Haji Din 2 & Siow-Hooi Tan 3 & Hasan Zahid 4

Received: 26 August 2020 / Accepted: 25 July 2021 / Published online: 3 August 2021
# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The present study investigates the impact of climate change on biodiversity loss using global data consisting of 115 countries. In
this study, we measure biodiversity loss using data on the total number of threatened species of amphibians, birds, fishes,
mammals, mollusks, plants, and reptiles. The data were compiled from the Red List published by the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN). For climate change variables, we have included temperature, precipitation, and the number of
natural disaster occurrences. As for the control variable, we have considered governance indicator and the level of economic
development. By employing ordinary least square with robust standard error and robust regression (M-estimation), our results
suggest that all three climate change variables – temperature, precipitation, and the number of natural disasters occurrences –
increase biodiversity loss. Higher economic development also impacted biodiversity loss positively. On the other hand, good
governance such as the control of corruption, regulatory quality, and rule of law reduces biodiversity loss. Thus, practicing good
governance, promoting conservation of the environment, and the control of greenhouse gasses would able to mitigate biodiver-
sity loss.

Keywords Climate change . Biodiversity loss . Threatened species . Governance . Global evidence

Introduction interrelationships within species, between species, and of ecosys-

tem are fundamental for human health and well-being (GRI
Biological diversity or its common abbreviation, biodiversity, 2007; UNEP 2002). Biodiversity provides mankind in a variety
has been defined as “the totality (numbers) and variability of ways – economically, environmentally, and culturally (GRI
(types) of living organisms in the ecosystem, region and the 2007; UNEP 2002; European Commission 2008).
environment” (Butler 2006). The diversity and the Economically, biodiversity provides economic benefits to indus-
tries that depend on natural resources, a nation’s economic
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues growth in particular countries depending on oil and gas explora-
tions, source of food, shelters, fresh water, wood and fiber, fuel,
* Muzafar Shah Habibullah and clean air to the population. Biodiversity subscribes to various
[email protected]; [email protected] environmental services such as regulating the climate, control of
pollution and soil erosion, ecological balance, environmental
Badariah Haji Din conservation, support species diversity, and pollination of vari-
[email protected]
ous crops. In terms of culture, “biodiversity has an intrinsic value.
Siow-Hooi Tan Its support our cultural identity, offers spiritual inspiration and
[email protected] solace and plays an important role in our mental and physical
Hasan Zahid well-being” (European Commission 2008: pp. 4). It also pro-
[email protected] vides educational values, esthetic and medicinal values, ethical
1
values, and recreational values for the development of ecotour-
Putra Business School, Serdang, Malaysia
ism and conservation.
2
College of Law, Government and International Studies, Universiti The importance of biodiversity has caught the world’s at-
Utara Malaysia, Changlun, Malaysia
tention. In 1992, the leaders of 150 countries signed the
3
Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, “Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)” during the Rio
Cyberjaya, Malaysia
Earth Summit, with the commitment to the biodiversity
4
Iqra University, Karachi, Pakistan
1074 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086

conservation, biological sustainable resources, and equitable According to Tol (2009), climate change is the mother of all
sharing of benefits from biodiversity (Earthwatch Institute externalities and has a profound impact on biodiversity not
2002). However, for almost 3 decades, this effort has not been only through changes in temperature and precipitation, but
a success. In fact, none of the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets has also the ways climate change might affect ocean acidification,
been fully achieved globally (CBD, 2020). The World land use and nutrients, and also the proliferation of invasive alien
Wildlife Fund (WWF 2020) portrays an alarming picture of species into new habitats. On the other hand, Thomas et al.
the global biodiversity. According to the Living Planet Index (2004) point out that climate change could result in the extinction
2020, between 1970 and 2016, the population sizes of am- of more than a million terrestrial species in the next 50 years.
phibians, birds, fish, mammals, and reptiles have decreased The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effects of
an average of 68% as forecasted earlier by WWF (2016). climate change on biodiversity loss using worldwide data on the
Figure 1 presents an increasing trend in the number of total number of threatened species (proxy for biodiversity loss).
threatened species worldwide. The number of threatened spe- The CBD (2019) defines biodiversity loss as the loss of the
cies – plants, fishes, amphibians, mollusks, birds, mammals, components of biodiversity that includes biomes, habitats, and
insects, and reptiles – has shown an increasing trend for the ecosystem; species and populations; and genetic diversity (CBD
last two decades. For example, for the 10-year period from COP 7 Decision VII/30). In other words, biodiversity loss is a
2006 to 2015, fishes, mollusks, and reptiles experienced bio- reduction in the variety of life on Earth (Chivian and Bernstein
diversity loss at an annual average rate of 8.0%, 8.5%, and 2010). Biodiversity loss in this study is proxy by the number of
12.5%, respectively. According to WWF (2016), “the de- threatened species, namely, amphibians, birds, fishes, mammals,
clined in species is due to a variety of factors including unsus- mollusks, plants, and reptiles. On the other hand, to proxy for the
tainable agriculture, fisheries, mining, habitat loss and degra- climate change variables, we have included the number of natural
dation, overexploitation, climate change and pollution”. On disasters occurrences, temperature, and precipitation. As for the
the other hand, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA control variable, we have included real gross domestic product
2005) reported that 60% of the ecosystem has been degraded (GDP) (proxy for the level of economic development) and gov-
or used unsustainably. It was found that the world’s ecosystem ernance indicator. Our study is different from the previous works
changed more rapidly in the second half of the twentieth cen- in three aspects: (1) we have included three measures of climate
tury than at any time in human history. Over the past few change variables and hypothesize to impact biodiversity loss; (2)
hundred years, humans have increased the species extinction we have included amphibians, birds, fishes, mammals, mollusks,
rate by as much as 1000 times over the planet’s history. plants, and reptiles as proxy for biodiversity loss; and (3) we
Numerous studies have reiterated that one of the most im- employ robust regression approach (the M-estimator) in our
portant drivers of the current loss of biodiversity is climate analysis.
change (MEA 2005; Brook et al. 2008; Guo et al. 2017).
The rise of temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels has
been associated with global climate changes. These effects Literature review
give rise to several potentially major changes in hydrologic
cycles (precipitation and evaporation) and an increasing mag- Climate change is the term used to describe a gradual increase
nitude and frequency of extreme weather such as floods, cy- in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and its
clones, and droughts that will have a profound negative im- ocean. Due to global warming, the species that live in the
pact on biodiversity (Adler et al. 2009; Rinawati et al. 2013). forest will be affected, both by changing habitat and in direct

Fig. 1 Trends in the number of 12,000

threatened species 1998–2015
10,000
Numbers of threatened species
Numbers of threatened species

2,500 Plants
Fishes
8,000
2,000
Amphibians Mollusks 6,000
1,500 Birds
Mammals
1,000 4,000
Insects
500
Reptiles
0
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086 1075

response to temperature increases and changes in precipitation Wagstaff (2017) pointed out that deforestation, increased in
and extreme weather events (Sarkar 2012). During the 1990s, the frequency of wildfires, severity of tropical storms, and
climate change emerged as one of the potential threats to bio- extreme floodings (see also Chapin and Diaz 2020) have trag-
diversity (UNEP 2002). Furthermore, climate change could ically resulted in the loss of biodiversity.
lead to severe adverse impacts on ecosystems and on the Studies by Miura and Kanaya (2017), Porwal et al. (2012),
goods and services they provide (IPCC 2001). Climate change and Fattorini et al. (2018) on earthquake; Bixby et al. (2015)
is an umbrella crisis in that it has social, economic, political, on wild fire; Milner et al. (2013) on flood; Kwit et al. (2000)
and ecological impacts, including biodiversity loss (Rosales on hurricane; Fraver (2017) on tornado; and Darnaedi and
2008). Evidences have shown that climate change can affect Zulkarnaen (2017) and Lallement et al. (2016) on volcanic
biodiversity among other things, by changing life cycles and eruptions clearly indicated the devastating impact of these
developing new physical traits and by shifting habitat ranges natural events on the ecosystem, habitat, and biotic. For ex-
and species distribution, changes in abundance, changes in ample, the 2011 Japan earthquake resulted in the disappear-
migration patterns, and changes in the frequency and severity ance of vegetation and altered habitat structure through chang-
of pest and disease outbreaks (Reed 2012; Hui 2013; es in topography, bottom elevation, and sediment characteris-
Sintayehu 2018). tics which induced drastic changes in associated biotic com-
Empirical studies that have been conducted to investigate munities (Kanaya et al. 2017; Miura and Kanaya 2017).
the impact of climate change on the loss of biodiversity are Natural disasters such as earthquakes, landslides, floods,
rather lacking. For example, earlier work by Asafu-Adjaye droughts, forest fires, extreme low temperature, and freezing
(2003) by using dummy variable to account for climatic ef- rain have led to the destruction of many species in China
fects on biodiversity found that climate change has positive (Guan 2017). In Indonesia, Darnaedi and Zulkarnaen (2017)
impact of the number of threatened mammals, birds, and reported that the Krakatau volcanic eruption has affected bio-
plants. Similar work by Shandra et al. (2010) by using dummy diversity of the islands around Krakatau, the western part of
variable to measure climate change, however, found that trop- Java, and the southeastern part of Sumatra. On the other hand,
ical climate has no effects on the number of threatened species in India, the December 2004 tsunami has impacted the archi-
– mammals and birds, but when using forest loss as proxy for pelago of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The island suffered
biodiversity loss, Shandra et al. (2011) found evidence that great loss of forest and coastal biodiversity, in which the man-
tropical climate affected forest loss or deforestation. groves, littoral forest, beach forest, and low land swamp were
On the other hand, Gren et al. (2016) have investigated the most affected (Porwal et al. 2012).
effects of climate change on biodiversity loss at the global
scale by using both temperature and precipitation to proxy
for climate change. The effects of climate change such as the
increased in temperature and precipitation affect individual Methodology
organisms, populations, species distribution, and ecosystem
compositions and functions (UNU-IAS 2010; Reed 2012). To estimate the impact of climate change on biodiversity loss,
Similarly, Amano et al. (2018) also include both temperature following the work of others (Asafu-Adjaye 2003; Shandra
and precipitation in their study on global waterbird popula- et al. 2010; Gren et al. 2016), we specify the following aug-
tions. Findings from both studies show positive relationships mented biodiversity loss-climate change equation. In this
between biodiversity loss and both temperature and precipita- study, we have included the number of natural disaster occur-
tion. The increase in temperature and precipitation increases rences, temperature, and precipitation to proxy for climate
the loss of biodiversity. Villen-Perez (2020) also found that change:
climate change has affected plant species in Finland. The
temperature-sensitive species in all functional groups from biodiversityi ¼ α0 þ α1 disasteri þ α2 temperaturei þ α3 precipitationi
dwarf shrubs, herbs, and grasses to bryophytes and lichens þα4 realGDPi þ α5 governancei þ ϵi
migrate northwards to cooler climate. ð1Þ
Nevertheless, the effects of climate change through ex-
0
treme weather events such as floods, cyclones, and droughts where the parameters αs are to be estimated and ϵi indicates
also have profound negative impacts on biodiversity. Thus, the error term. The error term is assumed to well behave with
the occurrences of natural disaster would have a positive im- mean zero and constant variance. It is a priori that we expect
pact on biodiversity loss. Natural disasters could be the results α1, α2, α3, and α4> 0 and α5<0. Thus, there is a positive
of earthquakes, extreme temperature, volcanic eruptions, land- relationship between climate change (natural disaster, temper-
slides, storms, wildfire, flood, and drought. A country that ature, precipitation) and biodiversity loss, in which increase in
frequently experiences one or more of these catastrophic the frequency of natural disaster events, temperature, and pre-
events will have a devastating impact on biodiversity. cipitation will lead to an increase in the loss of biodiversity,
1076 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086

and on the other hand, the control variables such as wealth of to be produced. It is predicted that higher GDP may stimulate
the nation (realGDP) will impact biodiversity loss positively, demand for agricultural and forest-derived product and may
while good governance (governance) will affect biodiversity cause deforestation, thus increasing the number of threatened
loss negatively. The subscript “i” refers to country. In this species (Asafu-Adjaye 2003; Culas 2007; Shandra et al.
study, we employ cross-sectional data analysis for 115 coun- 2010). Furthermore, Rosales (2008) reiterates that “economic
tries. The list of countries included in the study is presented in growth is a prime catalyst of biodiversity loss because people
Table 1. desire economic growth for dissimilar reasons – some for the
For the dependent variable, we follow the works of Naidoo increased accumulation of wealth, others for basic needs”.
and Adamowicz (2001), Asafu-Adjaye (2003), Hoffmann Rosales further notes that because economic growth is the
(2004), Shandra et al. (2010), and Halkos (2011) to proxy increase of production and consumption of goods and ser-
biodiversity loss by using the number of threatened species vices, these goods and services derive from the ecosystem that
at the country level. In this study, we summed all the critically we live; thus, the impact of economic growth on the natural
endangered and vulnerable categories of amphibians, birds, world increases with the size of the economy, and achieving
fishes, mammals, mollusks, plants, and reptiles. This classifi- higher economic growth comes with a price. For example,
cation was given by the International Union for the according to Suh (2006), in the USA, a dollar’s worth of
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red goods or services produced, on average, 0.36 kg of CO2 goes
List of Threatened Animals. According to Hoffmann (2004), into the atmosphere. Thus, economic growth is said to be the
the Red List is a comprehensive listing of threatened and en- main driver in increased GHG emissions. Furthermore,
dangered species in most nations and the most widely used Wilting et al. (2017) reiterated that the GHG emissions asso-
source on threatened and endangered species (see also Ryden ciated with the production and consumption of goods and
et al. 2020; Bennun et al. 2018; Gren et al. 2016). services will result in biodiversity loss.
As for the control variable, we use real GDP to proxy for On the other hand, Eagles (2009) asserts that conservation
the wealth of a nation or level of economic development. GDP of diversity can only be attained through good governance and
can be a good indicator to operationalize “treadmill of produc- good management. In fact, Baynham-Herd et al. (2018) pos-
tion theory” of the impact of economic growth on environ- ited that governance has been shown to be an important pre-
mental degradation (York et al. 2003; Schnaiberg and Gould dictor of biodiversity loss. For example, a poorly governed
1994). For a country to strive for higher level of economic country or a corrupt government is less likely to invest in
development, it requires that higher level of economic output infrastructure for conservation; willing to allow poaching,

Table 1 List of 115 countries included in the study

Algeria Burundi Fiji Israel Mozambique Senegal

Andorra Cambodia Finland Italy Nepal Sierra Leone

Angola Cameroon France Jamaica Netherlands Singapore
Argentina Canada Gabon Japan New Zealand South Africa
Australia Carbo Verde Gambia Kenya Nicaragua Spain
Austria Central Africa Rep Germany Korea Niger Sweden
Bahamas Chad Ghana Lao Nigeria Switzerland
Bahrain Chile Greece Lebanon Oman Thailand
Bangladesh China Guatemala Lesotho Pakistan Trinidad
Barbados Colombia Guinea Liberia Panama Tonga
Belgium Congo Guinea Bissau Libya Papua New Guinea Tunisia
Belize Costa Rica Guyana Madagascar Paraguay Turkey
Benin Cote dIvoire Haiti Malawi Peru United Arab Emirate
Bhutan Cyprus Honduras Malaysia Philippines United Kingdom
Bolivia Denmark Hungary Mali Poland Uruguay
Botswana Dominic Rep Iceland Mauritania Portugal United States
Brazil Ecuador India Mexico Qatar Venezuela
Bulgaria Egypt Indonesia Mongolia Rwanda Vietnam
Burkina Faso El Salvador Ireland Morocco Saudi Arabia Zambia
Zimbabwe
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086 1077

illegal logging, and other illegal activities; and lower enforce- Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)/Centre for Research on
ment of environmental laws that can act as incentive for over- the Epidemiology of Disaster (CRED), while data on temper-
exploitation of resources (Ferraro 2005; Eklund et al. 2011), ature and precipitation were taken from the World Bank data-
ultimately resulting in environmental degradation and biodi- base on temperature and precipitation which is available at
versity loss. https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/download-
Study that link governance and the loss of biodiversity was data. On the other hand, data for real GDP were compiled
conducted by Smith et al. (2003). In their study, the gover- from the World Development Indicators available at the
nance indicator was based on the Corruption Perception Index World Bank database. It is accessible at https://data.
produced by the Transparency International and also the worldbank.org/indicator, while data on governance
International Country Risk Guide, while biodiversity loss indicators were collected from the Worldwide Governance
was proxy by using changes in forest cover and African ele- Indicators (WGI) at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/
phant and black rhinoceros populations. They found strong wgi/. Worldwide Governance Indicators published six
negative relationship between governance scores and changes governance indicators, namely, control of corruption,
in the number of African elephants and black rhinoceroses and government effectiveness, political stability and absence of
in forest cover. On the contrary, similar study by Barrett et al. violent, regulatory quality, rule of law, and voice and
(2006) found that governance has no effects on biodiversity accountability (see Kaufman et al. 2008).
loss, after taking into account other control variables such as Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for the dependent
population density, human development index, and per capita and independent variables in our analysis. More importantly,
GDP. Nevertheless, recent studies reinforce the link between it shows that, in general, most dependent and independent
good governance and the loss of biodiversity. For example, variables demonstrate substantial standard deviations, skew-
Melick et al. (2012) posited that poor governance and lack of ness, and kurtosis. In all cases, we have positive value of
political will on the part of the government of Papua New skewness (except temperature and political stability for having
Guinea that led to most of the protected areas ineffective. negative skewness) for all variables, while kurtosis with size
Lack of government support and lack of funding and greater than 3 was shown by all dependent variables and real
resources retard conservation efforts. GDP. These indicate that the series show longer or fatter tail
In another study, Amano et al. (2018) investigated the im- on the right side of the distribution. In other words, the kurto-
pact of effective governance on the global waterbird popula- sis shows a leptokurtic type of distribution for all the threat-
tions. They found that waterbirds are abundance in countries ened species as well as for real GDP. Nevertheless, the Jarque-
that are having effective governance. In countries or regions of Bera test for normality of the series was rejected for all series
western and central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and South except for political stability. In view that many of the variables
America, where governance is on average less effective, the involved in our analysis demonstrate extreme skewness and kur-
number of waterbird declines. According to Amano et al. tosis and have non-normal distribution; the common method to
(2018), ineffective governance is associated with the absence circumvent these problems is to transform all variables into log-
of positive attitudes to environmental protection, weakly arithm (McKinney et al. 2009; Naidoo and Adamowicz 2001;
enforced environmental legislation, low levels of investment Ehrhardt-Martinez et al. 2002). In this study, we employ the
h qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 i
in conservation, ineffective hunting regulations, and political formula logyt ¼ log yt þ y2t þ 1 to transform the series
instability resulted in habitat loss and degradation. On the
other hand, a study by Baynham-Herd et al. (2018) also sug- into logarithm (Busse and Hefeker 2007). By employing this
gested the importance of governance in mitigating biodiversi- method, we maintain the sign of yt.
ty loss. They found that governance was an important predic- In Table 3, we present the correlation matrix for the depen-
tor of responses to biodiversity conservation than economic dent variables and all the independent variables. Generally,
wealth. This result corroborates with earlier findings by the climate change variables – natural disaster occurrence,
McClanahan and Rankin (2016) and Rodrigues et al. (2014) temperature, and precipitation – show positive association
that wealth is unrelated to protecting threatened species. with all threatened species except for mollusks. Similarly, real
GDP shows positive association with all threatened species,
while the six governance indicators exhibit negative associa-
Empirical results tion with all the threatened species except for mollusks.
Interestingly, none of the independent variables demonstrates
In this study, we have compiled a cross-national of 115 coun- potential multicollinearity among themselves. The correlation
tries using data for the year 2011 and 2016 for the analysis. coefficients between all independent variables are no greater
Data for the number of threatened species were compiled from than 0.7. However, as expected, the governance indicators
the Red List published by IUCN. Data for the number of suggest multicollinearity among the six governance measures,
natural disaster occurrences was compiled from the Office of with association higher than 0.7. Taking this into consideration,
1078 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086

Table 2 Descriptive statistics

Variables Obs Mean Maximum Minimum Std. Dev. Skewness Kurtosis Jarque-Bera

Amphibians (number) 115 17.4 213.0 0.0 37.1 3.5 16.7 1130.4***
Birds (number) 115 21.0 122.0 0.0 24.9 2.2 7.5 188.7***
Fishes (number) 115 38.5 212.0 0.0 36.7 2.1 8.7 238.4***
Mammals (number) 115 20.2 184.0 1.0 25.1 3.3 18.6 1385.8***
Mollusks (number) 115 12.7 268.0 0.0 34.6 5.0 31.9 4490.7***
Plants (number) 115 83.1 1837.0 0.0 200.2 6.3 53.2 12841.4***
Reptiles (number) 115 9.7 134.0 0.0 17.0 4.7 31.4 4289.4***
Disaster (number) 115 2.7 36.0 0.0 4.7 4.5 27.8 3320.2***
Temperature (°C) 115 23.2 31.8 4.9 6.9 − 1.0 2.8 19.1***
Precipitation (mm) 115 27.1 52.1 7.8 12.0 0.4 1.8 9.4***
Real GDP (Bil USD) 115 4.87 × 1011 1.52 × 1013 3.92 × 108 1.6 × 1012 7.4 65.5 19743.2***
Corruption (index) 115 0.0 2.4 − 1.4 1.0 0.7 2.3 12.2***
Government effectiveness (index) 115 0.1 2.2 − 1.7 1.0 0.5 2.1 8.1**
Political stability (index) 115 − 0.1 1.4 − 2.8 0.9 − 0.3 2.4 3.2
Regulatory quality (index) 115 0.1 1.9 − 1.9 0.9 0.4 2.2 5.2*
Rule of law (index) 115 0.0 2.0 − 1.8 1.0 0.5 2.1 8.8**
Voice and accountability (index) 115 0.0 1.6 − 1.9 0.9 0.1 1.9 5.4*

Asterisks ***, **, * denote statistically significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively

we have estimated all equations for the seven threatened species reptiles; rule of law for amphibians, fishes, and mollusks; and
by incorporating the six governance indicators one at a time. regulatory quality for plants. Each of this governance measure
Despite similar work on cross-national data analysis, how- was chosen among the six measures based on three model
ever, unlike the works of Benhin and Barbier (2004), Shandra selection criteria such as the Akaike (AIC), Schwarz (SC),
(2007), McKinney et al. (2009), and Shandra et al. (2011, and Hannan-Quinn (HQ) information criterion. Estimated re-
2016) which have used ordinary least squares (OLS) to esti- gression that gives the smallest value for AIC, SC, and HQ
mate Eq. (1) above, instead in this study, we follow Asafu- will be chosen as the best fitting model. Results for OLS and
Adjaye (2003) and Barrett et al. (2006) by employing OLS all six governance indicators are available from the authors
with robust standard errors, to correct for heteroskedasticity upon request.
that may be present in the data. In order to do this, we have Our main purpose of conducting this study is to deter-
estimated Eq. (1) by using OLS with White’s autocorrelation- mine the effects of climate change on biodiversity loss
heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors estimator measured by the number of threatened species. Climate
(Newey and West 1987). change was measured by the number of natural disaster
The results of our analyses are presented in Table 4 for occurrences, temperature, and precipitation. As shown in
2011. Some explanations are needed here. First, initially all Table 4, the adjusted R2 shows that the goodness of fit is
regression equations are estimated using OLS, and the diag- satisfactory for a cross-sectional data analysis for all the
nostics tests such as Breush-Pagan-Godfrey (BPG), Glejser estimated models. In Table 4, our estimated regression
and White tests for heteroscedasticity, Ramsey Reset test for equations suggest that climate change plays an important
misspecification, and Jarque-Bera test for normality of the role in contributing to the loss of biodiversity or the in-
residuals are reported in Table 4 for reference. The diagnostic crease in the number of threatened species for cross-
tests clearly suggest that in some cases the assumption of OLS sectional countries in 2011. Generally, all three climate
was violated. Taking this into consideration, we have estimat- change indicators – frequency of natural disaster occur-
ed all regressions by employing OLS with robust standard rences, temperature, and precipitation – are statistically
error due to Newey-West procedure, and these results are significant at least at the 5% significance level. A 1% in-
reported in Table 4. And secondly, the estimated regressions crease in the number of frequency in natural disaster events
presented in Table 4 are the final estimated models for each increases biodiversity loss ranging from 0.24 (mammals
threatened species with different measures of governance in- and mollusks) to 0.52% (plants). Among these three mea-
dicator. In this study, we have selected the control of corrup- sures, it seems that rainfall (precipitation) has greater im-
tion as proxy for governance measure for birds, mammals, and pact on biodiversity loss, followed by temperature and
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086 1079

Table 3 Correlation matrix

Correlation Disaster Temperature Precipitation Real GDP Corruption Government Political Regulatory Rule of law Voice

Amphibians 0.449*** 0.288*** 0.388*** 0.193** − 0.261*** − 0.168* − 0.291*** − 0.158 − 0.280*** − 0.066
(5.343) (3.200) (4.475) (2.096) (− 2.877) (− 1.814) (− 3.235) (− 1.699) (− 3.103) (− 0.701)
Birds 0.535*** 0.368*** 0.216** 0.225** − 0.367*** − 0.287*** − 0.402*** − 0.278*** − 0.352*** − 0.265***
(6.728) (4.212) (2.353) (2.457) (− 4.193) (− 3.183) (− 4.674) (− 3.071) (− 4.003) (− 2.925)
Fishes 0.224** 0.134 0.217** 0.355*** − 0.087 0.010 − 0.150 0.007 − 0.025 − 0.021
(2.444) (1.438) (2.362) (4.034) (− 0.928) (0.108) (− 1.616) (0.072) (− 0.266) (− 0.218)
Mammals 0.481*** 0.397*** 0.298*** 0.193** − 0.433*** − 0.339*** − 0.508*** − 0.371*** − 0.419*** − 0.360***
(5.828) (4.600) (3.315) (2.094) (− 5.107) (− 3.833) (− 6.269) (− 4.250) (− 4.901) (− 4.104)
Mollusks 0.250*** − 0.272*** − 0.217** 0.541*** 0.229** 0.301*** 0.120 0.313*** 0.301*** 0.243***
(2.746) (− 3.007) (− 2.367) (6.831) (2.503) (3.361) (1.280) (3.506) (3.353) (2.668)
Plants 0.451*** 0.290*** 0.492*** 0.185** − 0.304*** − 0.218** − 0.243** − 0.207** − 0.290*** − 0.089
(5.376) (3.218) (6.015) (2.002) (− 3.396) (− 2.377) (− 2.662) (− 2.249) (− 3.224) (− 0.951)
Reptiles 0.345*** 0.398*** 0.348*** 0.183* − 0.354*** − 0.229** − 0.416*** − 0.224** − 0.332*** − 0.234**
(3.901) (4.617) (3.943) (1.983) (− 4.022) (− 2.499) (− 4.868) (− 2.438) (− 3.745) (− 2.563)
Disaster 1 0.145 0.129 0.302*** − 0.205** − 0.149 − 0.255*** − 0.117 − 0.201** − 0.092
(1.562) (1.387) (3.367) (− 2.225) (− 1.601) (− 2.807) (− 1.254) (− 2.187) (− 0.983)
Temperature 1 0.558*** − 0.415*** − 0.586*** − 0.614*** − 0.518*** − 0.614*** − 0.643*** − 0.580***
(7.150) (− 4.850) (− 7.683) (− 8.278) (− 6.442) (− 8.272) (− 8.937) (− 7.561)
Precipitation 1 − 0.293*** − 0.474*** − 0.435*** − 0.347*** − 0.400*** − 0.494*** − 0.320***
(− 3.254) (− 5.728) (− 5.133) (− 3.934) − 4.640) (− 6.044) (− 3.585)
Real GDP 1 0.426*** 0.547*** 0.167* 0.565*** 0.505*** 0.379***
(5.004) (6.949) (1.796) (7.280) (6.222) (4.356)
Corruption 1 0.942*** 0.801*** 0.884*** 0.959*** 0.764***
(29.880) (14.225) (20.074) (36.189) (12.586)
Government 1 0.725*** 0.932*** 0.960*** 0.764***
(11.191) (27.389) (36.632) (12.582)
Political 1 0.670*** 0.778*** 0.661***
(9.607) (13.148) (9.371)
Regulatory 1 0.925*** 0.779***
(25.949) (13.220)
Rule of law 1.000 0.786***
(13.529)
Voice 1.000

Asterisks ***, **, * denote statistically significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. All variables are in logarithm

natural disasters. For example, a 1% increase in rainfall, on On the other hand, real GDP that proxy for the level of
average, increases biodiversity loss for plant species by 2.04% economic development clearly suggests that, on average, an
compared to a 1.13% increase in the number of threatened increase in economic prosperity does not reduce biodiversity
reptiles as a result in the 1% increase in temperature. Our loss, thus supporting the treadmill of production theory. The
results are similar to the work done by Amano et al. (2018) effects of real GDP on biodiversity loss are positive and sta-
on waterbird populations in which they found that the impact tistically significant at 1% level in all estimated threatened
of precipitation is much larger than the impact of temperature. species equations. In other words, achieving higher economic
On the contrary, Gren et al. (2016) found that the impact of growth is at the expense of biodiversity. Higher economic
temperature is much greater than the impact of precipitation growth will drive for further economic development, urbani-
on biodiversity loss using global data. Nevertheless, our study zation, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions. Nonetheless,
seems to suggest that the impacts of precipitation and tem- uncontrolled development will result in environmental degra-
perature are more destructive on biodiversity loss com- dation and biodiversity loss as predicted by the treadmill of
pared to the occurrences of natural disaster events. production theory. Similar findings were also found by Barrett
1080 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086

Table 4 Determinants of biodiversity loss 2011, using OLS-robust

Independent variables Amphibian Birds Fishes Mammals Mollusks Plants Reptiles

Constant − 12.854*** − 5.2295** − 8.1845*** − 5.1905*** − 5.2492** − 13.553*** − 10.997***

(− 4.3512) (− 2.2496) (− 3.9664) (− 3.1675) (− 1.9905) (− 4.2353) (− 5.3348)
Disaster 0.4844*** 0.3558*** − 0.0080 0.2351*** 0.2380* 0.5171** 0.1161
(2.6970) (4.2098) (− 0.0727) (2.8167) (1.7696) (2.5588) (1.1927)
Temperature 0.5014 0.9305*** 0.5684** 0.7501*** − 0.2011 0.1440 1.1318***
(1.1305) (2.7078) (2.0182) (3.0809) (− 0.4694) (0.3459) (3.1652)
Precipitation 1.2431*** − 0.0820 0.6347*** 0.1142 − 0.1994 2.0388*** 0.4631*
(2.8904) (− 0.4174) (2.6782) (0.5740) (− 0.6187) (5.4733) (1.9010)
Real GDP 0.2905*** 0.1876*** 0.2914*** 0.1892*** 0.3216*** 0.3144*** 0.2720***
(3.6064) (3.9145) (4.7628) (4.4068) (4.4517) (3.3765) (4.7294)
Governance − 0.4213* − 0.3780*** − 0.0848 − 0.4454*** 0.1020 − 0.4326** − 0.4134***
(− 1.8681) (− 2.6244) (− 0.5198) (− 4.1252) (0.4421) (− 1.9961) (− 2.6060)
Adj R-squared 0.3522 0.4505 0.2327 0.4583 0.2802 0.4365 0.3645
BPG test, χ2(1) [0.0242] [0.3343] [0.0767] [0.9178] [0.1344] [0.0808] [0.4748]
Glejser test, χ2(1) [0.0558] [0.3839] [0.0018] [0.9524] [0.2480] [0.0473] [0.1441]
White test, χ2(1) [0.0351] [0.0470] [0.4869] [0.1330] [0.3602] [0.2655] [0.7220]
RESET test, F-stats [0.3286] [0.7288] [0.5862] [0.1147] [0.0447] [0.3513] [0.5634]
Jarque-Bera test, χ2(1) [0.5761] [0.2363] [0.0000] [0.5795] [0.1006] [0.7620] [0.0426]
Obs 115 115 115 115 115 115 115

Asterisks ***, **, * denote statistically significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. Figures in round bracket (…) are t-statistics, while figures
in square bracket […] are p-values. BPG (Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey) and Glejser and White tests are tests for heteroskedasticity. RESET is Ramsey reset
test for model misspecification and/or omitted variables. Jarque-Bera is the test for the normality of the residuals. For governance indicator, we used
corruption for birds, mammals, and reptiles; rule of law for amphibians, fishes, and mollusks; regulatory quality for plants

et al. (2006), Shandra et al. (2016), Clausen and York (2008), Lastly, our estimated regressions suggest that the relation-
Naidoo and Adamowicz (2001), McKinney et al. (2009), ships between good governance and biodiversity loss are neg-
Gren et al. (2016), and Rosales (2008). Generally, on average, ative. In other words, on average, our results suggest that the
a 1% increase in real GDP increases the number of threatened improvement in governance through low level of corruption
species ranging from 0.19 to 0.32%. practices and better enforcement of regulatory quality

Table 5 Determinants of biodiversity loss 2016, using OLS-robust

Independent variables Amphibian Birds Fishes Mammals Mollusks Plants Reptiles

Constant − 22.299*** − 6.1011*** − 10.024*** − 8.6306*** − 9.5025*** − 24.835*** − 12.994***

(− 8.0537) (− 3.0821) (− 5.2616) (− 5.5250) (− 2.9947) (− 10.416) (− 8.9221)
Disaster 0.3723** 0.2459*** 0.0133 0.1039 0.0964 0.2269* 0.2805**
(2.1001) (3.4175) (0.1127) (1.1899) (0.5534) (1.7385) (2.3488)
Temperature 1.6979*** 0.6238** 1.0701*** 0.9786*** 0.2323 1.8410*** 2.0227***
(4.7219) (2.4776) (4.2060) (3.9587) (0.4811) (5.3248) (8.9462)
Precipitation 0.8864*** 0.2115*** 0.3022*** 0.2671*** 0.2076 1.1546*** 0.2534***
(6.6144) (3.8642) (3.9436) (3.7713) (1.3187) (11.328) (3.2092)
Real GDP 0.4143*** 0.2110*** 0.3009*** 0.2351*** 0.3452*** 0.4999*** 0.2173***
(7.0679) (5.2849) (5.2913) (6.6156) (3.7600) (8.3188) (5.1542)
Governance − 0.4986*** − 0.2569** − 0.1120 − 0.5152*** 0.3306 − 0.8077*** − 0.3313**
(− 2.7293) (− 2.3884) (− 0.6314) (− 4.4639) (1.2552) (− 4.7604) (− 2.2457)
Adj R-squared 0.5477 0.5708 0.2791 0.5349 0.2553 0.6908 0.5717
BPG test, χ2(1) [0.0326] [0.3626] [0.1286] [0.3186] [0.5544] [0.7871] [0.4529]
Glejser test, χ2(1) [0.0235] [0.2446] [0.0017] [0.4042] [0.3312] [0.6435] [0.2690]
White test, χ2(1) [0.1615] [0.0628] [0.3902] [0.5969] [0.3049] [0.6924] [0.2190]
RESET test, F-stats [0.0702] [0.0479] [0.3365] [0.0294] [0.0691] [0.5089] [0.8336]
Jarque-Bera test, χ2(1) [0.5286] [0.3949] [0.0000] [0.5784] [0.1210] [0.3550] [0.9498]
Obs 109 109 109 109 109 109 109

Asterisks ***, **, * denote statistically significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. Figures in round bracket (…) are t-statistics, while figures
in square bracket […] are p-values. BPG (Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey) and Glejser and White tests are tests for heteroskedasticity. RESET is Ramsey reset
test for model misspecification and/or omitted variables. Jarque-Bera is the test for the normality of the residuals. For governance indicator, we used
corruption for birds, mammals, and reptiles; rule of law for amphibians, fishes, and mollusks; regulatory quality for plants
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086 1081

4
Robustness checks: further analysis
3

2 How robust is our results on the effects of climate change on

1
the number of threatened species presented above? To check
on the robustness of the positive impact of climate change on
0
biodiversity loss, we have endeavor to (a) extend our data
-1 point 5 years ahead to 2016 and (b) employing robust regres-
-2
sion such as using the M-estimator. The OLS robust results for
using 2016 data are presented in Table 5. Generally, on aver-
-3
age, the results indicate that the three climate change indica-
-4 tors show positive impact on biodiversity loss. For example,
-5 the frequency of natural disaster occurrences positively im-
pacted the number of threatened amphibians, birds, plants,

1
1

11

1
1

11
1

01
01
01
01

01

20

20

_2
_2
_2

_2
_2

and reptiles; temperature affects all threatened species posi-

L_

T_

LE
SH

SK
RD
N

N
IA

TI
FI

U
M

A
BI
IB

tively except for the number of threatened mollusks, while

LL

PL

P
M

RE
PH

O
M

M
M

precipitation also increases the number of threatened amphib-

A

ians, fishes, plants, and reptiles. Similarly, in support of our

4 earlier findings, increase in the level of economic develop-
3 ment increases the number of all threatened species – amphib-
2
ians, birds, fishes, mammals, mollusks, plants, and reptiles.
On the other hand, our governance indicator – the control of
1
corruption and regulatory quality – shows that biodiversity
0 loss can be mitigated by good governance practices.
-1
To our second robustness test, we employ the M-estimator
as our robust regression estimation. In Fig. 2, we demonstrate
-2
the boxplots of the residuals of all estimated regressions pre-
-3 sented in Tables 4 and 5. The boxplots give the overall infor-
-4 mation about the univariate data (the residuals) distribution.
The core data is plotted as a rectangular box, while the top and
-5
bottom are the lower and the higher quartiles of the data dis-
6
16
6

6
6

01
01
01

01

01

tribution, respectively. The horizontal line in the box denotes

20

20

_2
_2
_2

_2

_2

L_

T_

LE
SK
SH
N

RD

N
IA

the data median. The lines above and below the box are called
TI
U
FI

A
BI
IB

LL

PL

P
M

RE
PH

the whiskers. The whiskers have a length equal to 1.5 times

M

M
M
A

Fig. 2 Boxplots of regression residuals of all type of threatened species

the interquantile range, and the outliers are the objects located
for 2011 and 2016 above or below the whiskers (Daszykowski et al. 2007). As
shown in Fig. 2, the residuals of some of the estimated regres-
sions contain outliers. These outliers are located at the top and/
mitigates biodiversity loss. Our results support the earlier works or bottom of the upper and/or lower whiskers. These are in the
by Umemiya et al. (2010), Smith et al. (2003), Culas (2007), cases of birds, fishes, mammals, plants, and reptiles.
Amano et al. (2018), and Baynham-Herd et al. (2018). The stud- Barnett and Lewis (1994) have stated that the presence of
ies by Amano et al. (2018) and Baynham-Herd et al. (2018) outliers can lead to inflated error rates and substantial distor-
suggest that biodiversity conservation responses positive to good tions of parameter and statistical estimates when using either
governance. In our case, by inspecting the magnitude of the parametric or non-parametric tests. Statistically, the increase
estimated parameters that is their elasticities, the strongest effects in error variance will reduce the power of the statistical tests,
of good governance on biodiversity loss originate from control of decrease normality, and seriously bias or influence parameter
corruption, followed by regulatory quality. For example, on av- estimates (Perez et al. 2013). According to Rousseeuw (1984),
erage, a 10% increase in good governance, for example, by in- robust regression is the best method to detect outliers and
creasing the control of corruption and the number of threatened provides results that are resistant to the outliers. The most
species or biodiversity loss, reduces by 4.5%. Similar impact can common general method of robust regression is the M-
be said for the enforcement of rule of law in mitigating biodiver- estimation method introduced by Huber (1964).
sity loss. Therefore, regulatory quality and control of corruption Results of the robust regression estimations using the M-
are good policy mix that can be used to mitigate the loss of estimators are given in Table 6 for year 2011 and Table 7 for
biodiversity worldwide. year 2016. Generally, results in both tables confirm that climate
1082 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086

Table 6 Determinants of biodiversity loss 2011 using M-estimation

Independent variables Amphibian Birds Fishes Mammals Mollusks Plants Reptiles

Constant − 13.352*** − 7.6642*** − 6.6093*** − 6.5411*** − 4.8317 − 14.658*** − 12.176***

(− 4.0758) (− 4.8026) (− 3.7243) (− 4.0884) (− 1.5830) (− 4.6424) (− 5.6467)
Disaster 0.4850*** 0.4057*** 0.0533 0.2003** 0.2552 0.4634*** 0.1005
(2.7269) (4.7649) (0.5541) (2.3469) (1.5403) (2.7617) (0.8735)
Temperature 0.4273 1.2587*** 0.7122** 0.8426*** − 0.3099 0.1608 1.1914***
(0.7879) (4.9040) (2.4241) (3.2746) (− 0.6133) (0.3080) (3.4351)
Precipitation 1.3235*** 0.0243 0.4241* 0.1771 − 0.1961 2.1391*** 0.5405**
(3.3123) (0.1252) (1.9596) (0.9084) (− 0.5268) (5.6490) (2.0562)
Real GDP 0.3089*** 0.2154*** 0.2449*** 0.2199*** 0.3177*** 0.3424*** 0.2996***
(3.4093) (5.1214) (4.9907) (5.2170) (3.7643) (3.8078) (5.2727)
Governance − 0.5073* − 0.2443** − 0.1823 − 0.4916*** 0.0456 − 0.4467 − 0.4618***
(− 1.8518) (− 2.0578) (− 1.2287) (− 4.1306) (0.1788) (− 1.6189) (− 2.8790)
Adj R-squared 0.3314 0.4279 0.2068 0.4038 0.2599 0.4309 0.3869
Rw-squared 0.4411 0.6210 0.3795 0.5545 0.3399 0.5096 0.5337
Obs 115 115 115 115 115 115 115

Asterisks ***, **, * denote statistically significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. Figures in round bracket (…) are z-statistics. For
governance indicator, we used corruption for birds, mammals, and reptiles; rule of law for amphibians, fishes, and mollusks; regulatory quality for plants

change has a detrimental impact on the number of threatened increase in precipitation will also increase biodiversity
species. For instance, the frequent occurrences of natural disaster loss. For year 2011, precipitation affects positively on
positively affected biodiversity loss, in particular, the number of the number of threatened amphibians, fishes, plants, and
threatened amphibians, birds, mammals, plants, and reptiles. reptiles, while results for data 2016 indicate that in-
Similarly, rising temperature will increase the number of threat- crease in precipitation will increase the number of
ened of all species except for mollusks. On the other hand, threatened of all species except for mollusks.

Table 7 Determinants of biodiversity loss 2016, using M-estimation

Independent variables Amphibian Birds Fishes Mammals Mollusks Plants Reptiles

Constant − 22.318*** − 8.1023*** − 8.0549*** − 10.194*** − 10.455** − 24.404*** − 12.586***

(− 6.5998) (− 6.1238) (− 4.1570) (− 6.0999) (− 2.5348) (− 8.8658) (− 5.8009)
Disaster 0.4149** 0.1914*** − 0.0074 0.1062 0.0616 0.2611* 0.2756**
(2.4545) (2.8917) (− 0.0766) (1.2704) (0.2988) (1.9114) (2.5390)
Temperature 1.6494*** 0.8776*** 1.1379*** 1.1794*** 0.1906 1.5762*** 1.9967***
(3.3631) (4.6263) (4.0493) (4.9223) (0.3187) (4.0290) (6.4184)
Precipitation 0.8768*** 0.2510*** 0.2248*** 0.2537*** 0.2094 1.1740*** 0.2356***
(6.4183) (4.6985) (2.8718) (3.7600) (1.2568) (10.533) (2.6891)
Real GDP 0.4248*** 0.2416*** 0.2465*** 0.2689*** 0.3872*** 0.5172*** 0.2109***
(5.0041) (7.5964) (5.0668) (6.6936) (3.7393) (7.1711) (4.0441)
Governance − 0.5970** − 0.2747*** − 0.2418* − 0.5819*** 0.2554 − 0.8355*** − 0.3157**
(− 2.4944) (− 3.2727) (− 1.7633) (− 5.4886) (0.8749) (− 4.0539) (− 2.2940)
Adj R-squared 0.5294 0.4656 0.2602 0.4783 0.2631 0.5919 0.4864
Rw-squared 0.6366 0.7174 0.4605 0.6767 0.3407 0.7791 0.6386
Obs 109 109 109 109 109 109 109

Asterisks ***, **, * denote statistically significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. Figures in round bracket (…) are z-statistics. For
governance indicator, we used corruption for birds, mammals, and reptiles; rule of law for amphibians, fishes, and mollusks; regulatory quality for plants
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086 1083

Consistent with our earlier results, the impact of an increase in mitigate the degradation of the ecosystem, thereby contribut-
economic development has adverse effects on biodiversity. ing to climate change mitigation.
Results in both Tables 6 and 7 clearly indicate that striving for
economic growth inevitably will result in biodiversity loss.
Lastly, our robust regression results suggest that good gover- Author contributions MSH has major contribution in all sections of this
article, while BHD, SHT, and HZ assist in working over the literature
nance do mitigate biodiversity loss. The results show that the
review, data organization, resources, interpretation of results, and
control of corruption, enforcement of regulatory quality, and rule referencing.
of law can restrict activities that are detrimental to biodiversity.
Funding Research financial support was provided by the Ministry of
Higher Education (MOHE) Malaysia.
Conclusion
Data Availability The datasets used and analyzed during the current study
are available from the corresponding author upon request
In this study, we have estimated the impact of climate change
on biodiversity loss. Using a cross-national sample of 115
Declarations
countries, we are able to determine that climate change – the
occurrences of natural disaster events, temperature, and Ethics approval and consent to participate This research work does not
precipitation, play important role in affecting biodiversity involve human participants, human data, or human tissue. This research
loss. Our study suggests that the impact on biodiversity loss was based on published materials.
is more affected by the changes in precipitation and
temperature than the changes in the frequency of the natural Consent for publication This research work does not contain any indi-
vidual person’s data in the form of individual details, images, or videos.
disaster events. Nevertheless, all these effects point to global This work based on published literature.
warming, in which it was the result when nations strive for
higher economic growth. In this sense, Rosales (2008) was Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
right to infer that “economic growth is the main driver of
climate change-related biodiversity loss”.
In this study, we also found that the level of economic References
development contributes in the loss of biodiversity. Thus,
for effective biodiversity conservation, a nation should use Adler PB, Leiker J, Levine JM (2009) Direct and indirect effects of
their wealth and effort to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide climate change on a Prairie plant community. PLoS One 4(9):
e6887. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006887
emissions in order to combat global warming and natural di- Amano T, Szekely T, Sandel B, Nagy S, Mundkur T, Langendoen T,
saster mishaps. The government and the industry players in- Blanco D, Soykan CU, Sutherland WJ (2018) Successful conserva-
cluding the financial sector should be held responsible for the tion of global waterbird populations depends on effective gover-
loss in biodiversity. Their activities in pursuing the ultimate nance. Nature 553:199–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25139
Asafu-Adjaye J (2003) Biodiversity loss and economic growth: a cross-
goal of prosperity and profits are at the expense of biodiversity country analysis. Contemp Econ Anal 21(2):173–185. https://doi.
which, on the other hand, is very important to support life on org/10.1093/cep/byg003
Earth. Nevertheless, effective conservation efforts without the Barnett V, Lewis T (1994) Outliers in statistical data. New York: Wiley.
control of corruption and enforcement of rule of law will not https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Outliers+in+Statistical+Data%2C+
3rd+Edition-p-9780471930945
do much help in mitigating the loss of biodiversity.
Barrett CB, Gibson CC, Hoffman B, McCubbins MD (2006) The com-
One important policy implication of this study is that since plex links between governance and biodiversity. Conserv Biol
the ultimate goal of any nation is to maintain sustainable eco- 20(5):1358–1366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.
nomic growth and raise the standard of living, the government 00521.x
should embark on “nature friendly” investment development Baynham-Herd Z, Amano T, Sutherland WJ, Donald PF (2018)
Governance explains variation in national responses to the biodiver-
program for future development. The parties involved in the sity crisis. Environ Conserv 45(4):407–418. https://doi.org/10.1017/
development process (including the financial institutions that S037689291700056X
provide funding) should understand the risk of biodiversity Benhin JKA, Barbier EB (2004) Structural adjustment programme, de-
loss and should build certain criteria for safeguarding biodi- forestation and biodiversity loss in Ghana. Environ Resour Econ 27:
337–366. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EARE.0000017653.15107.0f
versity loss into every steps of the development process. Bennun L, Regan EC, Bird J, van Bochove JW, Katariya V, Livinstone S,
Similarly, the financial institutions and their potential bor- Mitchell R, Savy C, Starkey M, Temple H, Pilgrim JD (2018) The
rowers should be subjected to certain criteria to safeguarding value of the IUCN Red list for business decision-making. Conserv
and minimizing the risk of biodiversity loss as a result of Lett 11(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12353
Bixby RJ, Cooper SD, Gresswell RE, Brown LE, Dahm CN, Dwire KA
project development and investment. Further to this, there is (2015) Fire effects on aquatic ecosystems: an assessment of the
a need to strengthen national biodiversity strategies and action current state of the science. Freshw Sci 34(4):1340–1350. https://
plans for conservation and restoration of the carbon stocks to doi.org/10.1086/684073
1084 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086

Brook BW, Sodhi NS, Bradshaw CJA (2008) Synergies among extinc- alter species-abundance distribution patterns. Sci Rep-UK 8:1501.
tion drivers under global change. Trends Ecol Evol 23:453–460. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20011-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.03.011 Ferraro P (2005) Corruption and conservation: the need for empirical
Busse M, Hefeker C (2007) Political risk, institutions and foreign direct analyses. A response to Smith & Walpole. Oyx 39(3):1–3. https://
investment. Eur J Polit Econ 23:397–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. doi.org/10.1017/S00306053050000000
ejpoleco.2006.02.003 Fraver S, Dodds KJ, Kenefic LS, Morrill R, Seymour RS, Sypitkowski E
Butler R (2006) Rainforest diversity – origins and implications. Retrieved (2017) Forest structure following tornado damage and salvage log-
1/22/2014 from http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0301.htm. ging in northern Maine, USA. Can J Forestry 47:560–564. https://
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2019) COP 7 Decision VII/ doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2016-0395
30. https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7767 GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) (2007) Biodiversity: a GRI reporting
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2020) Global biodiversity resource. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam. https://www.
outlook 5. Secretariat of the CBD, Montreal. https://www.cbd.int/ google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=
gbo5 rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjg88uhuaPrAhV74XMBHWVa
Chapin FS III, Diaz S (2020) Interactions between changing climate and CvQQFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
biodiversity: shaping humanity’s future. PNAS 117(12):6295–6296 globalreporting.org%2Fresourcelibrary%2FBiodiversity-A-GRI-
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2001686117 Resource-Document.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2O1
Chivian E, Bernstein A (2010) How our health depends on biodiversity. TLr2khAiPnrFaOtKXt_
Center for health and the global environment, Boston https://www. Gren IM, Campos M, Gustafsson L (2016) Economic development, in-
researchgate.net/publication/265187166 stitutions and biodiversity loss at the global scale. Reg Environ
Clausen R, York R (2008) Global biodiversity decline of marine and Chang 16:445–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0754-9
freshwater fish: a cross-national analysis of economic, demographic Guan K (2017) Disaster and biodiversity in China. Biology International
and ecological influences. Soc Sci Res 37:1310–1320. https://doi. Special Issue 36:30-38. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=
org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.10.002 &esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjs
Culas RJ (2007) Deforestation and the environmental Kuznets curve: an wujjs6PrAhUK4nMBHTG5DT0QFjAAegQIARAB&url=http%3A%
institutional perspective. Ecol Econ 61:429–437. https://doi.org/10. 2F%2Fwww.iubs.org%2Ffileadmin%2Fuser_upload%2FBiology-
1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.014 International%2FBI-Specials%2FBI_Special_Issue_No-36_beta_2_
Darnaedi D, Zulkarnaen I (2017) Disasters and biodiversity in the ring of web.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0s4F7P9KnFHZ5Mn8_tmxmh
fire of the Indonesian archipelago. Biology International Special Guo D, Desmet PG, Powrie LW (2017) Impact of the future changing climate
Issue 36:39-46. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= on the Southern Africa biomes and the importance of geology. J Geosci
&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE Environ Protect 5:1–9 http://www.scirp.org/journal/gep
wjswujjs6PrAhUK4nMBHTG5DT0QFjAAegQIARAB&url= Halkos GE (2011) Nonparametric modelling of biodiversity: determi-
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iubs.org%2Ffileadmin%2Fuser_upload% nants of threatened species. J Policy Model 33:618–635. https://
2FBiology-International%2FBI-Specials%2FBI_Special_Issue_ doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2010.12.005
No-36_beta_2_web.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0s4F7P9KnFHZ5Mn8_ Hoffmann JP (2004) Social and environmental influences on endangered
tmxmh species: a cross-national study. Sociol Perspect 47(1):79–107.
Daszykowski M, Kaczmarek K, Heyden YV, Walczak B (2007) Robust https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2004.47.1.79
statistics in data analysis – a review basic concepts. Chemom Intell Huber PJ (1964) Robust estimation of a location parameter. Ann Math
Lab Syst 85:203–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemolab.2006.06. Stat 35:73–101 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-
016 4612-4380-9_35
Eagles PFJ (2009) Governance of recreation and tourism partnerships in Hui D (2013) Global climate change and biodiversity: issues and future
parks and protected areas. J Sustain Tour 17(2):231–248. https://doi. research. J Biodivers Endanger Species 1:e105. https://doi.org/10.
org/10.1080/09669580802495725 4172/2332-2543.1000e105
Earthwatch Institute (2002) Business & biodiversity: the handbook for IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001) IPCC third
corporate action. Earthwatch Institute, IUCN and World Business assessment report – climate change 2001. Working group II: im-
Council for Sustainable Development, Switzerland. https://www. pacts, adaptation and vulnerability. World Meteorological
iucn.org/content/business-and-biodiversity-handbook-corporate- Organization and United Nations Environment Programme,
action Geneva. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg2/
Ehrhardt-Martinez K, Crenshaw EM, Jenkins JC (2002) Deforestation Kanaya G, Suzuki T, Kinoshita K, Matsumasa M, Yamada K, Seike K,
and the environmental Kuznets curve: a cross-national investigation Okoshi K, et al. (2017) Disaster-induced changes in coastal wetlands
of intervening mechanisms. Soc Sci Q 83(1):226–243. https://doi. and soft-bottom habitats: an overview of the impacts of the 2011
org/10.1111/1540-6237.00080 tsunami and Great East Japan earthquake. Biology International
Eklund J, Arponen A, Visconti P, Cabeza M (2011) Governance factors Special Issue 36:62-80. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=
in the identification of global conservation priorities for mammals. j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=
Philos Trans R Soc B 366:2661–2669. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb. 2ahUKEwjswujjs6PrAhUK4nMBHTG5DT0QFjAAegQIARAB&
2011.0114 url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iubs.org%2Ffileadmin%2Fuser_
European Commission (2008) The European Union’s biodiversity action upload%2FBiology-International%2FBI-Specials%2FBI_Special_
plan: halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond. Issue_No-36_beta_2_web.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0s4F7P9Kn
European Commission, Belgium. https://www.google.com/url?sa= FHZ5Mn8_tmxmh
t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= Kaufman D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2008) Governance matters VII:
2ahUKEwjBpYbIt6PrAhXBILcAHSMBDUgQFjACeg governance indicators for 1996-2007. World Bank Policy
QIBRAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ab.gov.tr%2Ffiles% Research June 2008. The World Bank, Washington DC. https://
2Fardb%2Fevt%2F1_avrupa_birligi%2F1_6_raporlar%2F1_3_ documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/
diger%2Fenvironment%2Feu_biodiversity_action_plan___2010_ documentdetail/810501468338351727/governance-matters-vii-
and_beyond.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1m_wSdJ8BfnsjbzIiH-y5f aggregate-and-individual-governance-indicators-1996-2007
Fattorini S, Di Lorenzo T, Galassi DM (2018) Earthquake impacts on Kwit C, Platt WJ, Slater HH (2000) Post-hurricane regeneration of pio-
microcrustacean communities inhabiting groundwater-fed springs neer plant species in south Florida subtropical hardwood hammocks.
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086 1085

Biotropica 32(2):244–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429. Ryden O, Zizka A, Jagers SC, Lindberg SI, Antonelli A (2020) Linking
2000.tb00467.x democracy and biodiversity conservation: empirical evidence and
Lallement M, Macchi PJ, Vigliano P, Juarez S, Recheong M, Baker M, research gaps. Ambio 49:419–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Bouwes N, Crowl T (2016) Rising from the ashes: changes in sal- s13280-019-01210-0
monid fish assemblages after 30 months of the Puyehue-Cordon Sarkar S (2012) Impact of global warming on biodiversity. The Science
Caulle volcanic eruption. Sci Total Environ 541:1041–1051. Probe 1(2):22–33 https://www.scribd.com/document/452705683/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.156 23f0a64930cb83ab4d228460eddc2211411b
McClanahan TR, Rankin PS (2016) Geography of conservation spend- Schnaiberg A, Gould KA (1994) Environment and society: the enduring
ing, biodiversity and culture. Conserv Biol 30:1089–1101. https:// conflict. New York: St. Martin Press. https://www.amazon.com/
doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12720 Environment-Society-Enduring-Allan-Schnaiberg/dp/1930665008
McKinney LA, Fulkerson GM, Kick EL (2009) Investigating the corre- Shandra JM (2007) The world polity and deforestation: a quantitative,
lates of biodiversity loss: a cross-national quantitative analysis of cross-national analysis. Int J Comp Sociol 48(1):5–27. https://doi.
threatened bird species. Hum Ecol Rev 16(1):103–113 https:// org/10.1177/0020715207072157
www.jstor.org/stable/24707741 Shandra JM, McKinney LA, Leckband C, London B (2010) Debt, struc-
Melick DR, Kinch JP, Govan H (2012) How global biodiversity targets tural adjustment and biodiversity loss: a cross-national analysis of
risk becoming counterproductive: the case of Papua New Guinea. threatened mammals and birds. Hum Ecol Rev 17(1):18–33 https://
Conserv Soc 10(4):344–353. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923. www.jstor.org/stable/24707512
105559 Shandra JM, Rademacher H, Coburn C (2016) The World Bank and
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and hu- organized hypocrisy? A cross-national analysis of structural adjust-
man well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C. https:// ment and forest loss. Environ Soc 2(2):192–207. https://doi.org/10.
www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/1888/ 1080/23251042.2016.1160471
Milner AM, Robertson AL, McDermott MJ, Klaar MJ, Brown LE (2013) Shandra JM, Shircliff E, London B (2011) The International Monetary
Major flood disturbance alters river ecosystem evolution. Nat Clim Fund, World Bank and structural adjustment: a cross-national anal-
Chang 3:137–141. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1665 ysis of forest loss. Soc Sci Res 40:210–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssresearch.2010.08.004
Miura O, Kanaya G (2017) Impact of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake tsu-
Sintayehu DW (2018) Impact of climate change on biodiversity and as-
nami on marine and coastal organisms. Biol Int Special Issue 36:81–
sociated key ecosystem services in Africa: a systemic review.
92 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=
Ecosyst Health Sustain 4(9):225–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/
web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
20964129.2018.1530054
wjswujjs6PrAhUK4nMBHTG5DT0QFjAAegQIARAB&url=
Smith RJ, Muir RDJ, Walpole MJ, Balmford A, Leader-Williams N
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iubs.org%2Ffileadmin%2Fuser_upload%
(2003) Governance and the loss of biodiversity. Nature 426:67–
2FBiology-International%2FBI-Specials%2FBI_Special_Issue_
70. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02025
No-36_beta_2_web.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0s4F7P9KnFHZ5Mn8_
Suh S (2006) Are services better for climate change? Environ Sci Technol
tmxmh
40:6555–6560. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0609351
Naidoo R, Adamowicz WL (2001) Effects of economic prosperity on
Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ,
numbers of threatened species. Conserv Biol 15(4):1021–1029.
Collingham YC, Erasmus BFN, De Siqueira MF, Grainger A,
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.0150041021.x
Hannah L, Hughes L, Huntley B, Jaarsveld ASV, Midgley GF,
Newey WK, West KD (1987) A simple, positive semi-definite,
Miles L, Ortega-Huerta MA, Peterson AT, Phillips OL, Williams
heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix.
SE (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–
Econometrica 55:703–708. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913610
148. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02121
Perez B, Molina I, Pena D (2013) Outlier detection and robust estimation Tol RSJ (2009) The economic effects of climate change. J Econ Perspect
in linear regression models with fixed group effects. J Stat Comput 23(2):29–51 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27740523
Simul 84:2652–2669. https://doi.org/10.1080/00949655.2013. Umemiya C, Rametsteiner E, Kraxner F (2010) Quantifying the impacts
811669 of the quality of governance on deforestation. Environ Sci Pol 13:
Porwal MC, Padalia H, Roy PS (2012) Impact of tsunami on the forest 695–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.07.002
and biodiversity richness in Nicobar Islands (Andaman and Nicobar UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2002) State of the
Islands), India. Biodivers Conserv 21:1267–1287. https://doi.org/ environment and policy retrospective: 1972-2002. Earthscan,
10.1007/s10531-011-0214-x London. https://www.ircwash.org/resources/chap-2-state-
Rousseeuw PJ (1984) Least median of squares regression. J Am Stat environment-and-policy-retrospective-1972%C2%BF2002-
Assoc 79:871–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1984. freshwater
10477105 UNU-IAS (United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies)
Reed DH (2012) Impact of climate change on biodiversity. In: Chen WY, (2010) Climate and human-related drivers of biodiversity decline
Seiner J, Suzuki T, Lackner M (eds) Handbook of Climate Change in Southeast Asia. UNU-IAS Policy Report. United Nations
Mitigation. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 505-530. https://link. University Institute of Advanced Studies, Japan. https://www.
springer.com/referencework/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-7991-9 google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=
Rinawati F, Stein K, Lindner A (2013) Climate change impacts on bio- r j a & u a c t = 8 & v e d = 2 a h U K E w i t 4 J 3 Q -
diversity – the setting of a lingering global crisis. Diversity 5:114– KPrAhWRX3wKHV5JDzkQFjABegQIBBAB&url=http%3A%
123. https://doi.org/10.3390/d5010114 2F%2Farchive.unu.edu%2Fclimate%2Ffiles%2F2010_Climate-
Rodrigues ASL, Brooks TM, Butchart SHM, Chanson J, Cox N, and-Human-Related-Drivers-of-Biodiversity-Decli.pdf&usg=
Hoffmann M, Stuart SN (2014) Spatially explicit trends in the global AOvVaw0a1hMrg8wK9ihXmH8MmCcW
conservation status of vertebrates. PLoS One 10(3):e0121040. Villen-Perez S, Heikkinen J, Salemaa M, Makipaa R (2020) Global
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121040 warming will affect the maximum potential abundance of boreal
Rosales J (2008) Economic growth, climate change, biodiversity loss: plant species. Ecography 43:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.
distributive justice for the global North and South. Conserv Biol 047720
22(6):1409–1417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008. Wagstaff SJ (2017) Disaster and biodiversity in New Zealand: review and
01091.x consideration. Biology International Special Issue 36: 47-61. https://
1086 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:1073–1086

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd= &cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjSr_2X-
&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjswujjs6PrAhUK aPrAhW8IbcAHRWXDvUQFjAAegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%
4nMBHTG5DT0QFjAAegQIARAB&url=http%3A%2F% 2F%2Fawsassets.panda.org%2Fdownloads%2Flpr_2016_full_
2Fwww.iubs.org%2Ffileadmin%2Fuser_upload%2FBiology- report_low_res.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2JmRg9VlAX_cKy_Svx6Mwu
International%2FBI-Specials%2FBI_Special_Issue_No-36_beta_ WWF (World Wildlife Fund) (2020) Living planet report 2020: bending
2_web.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0s4F7P9KnFHZ5Mn8_tmxmh the curve of biodiversity loss. LPR 2020 Full report.pdf
Wilting HC, Schipper AM, Bakkenes M, Meijer JR, Huijbregts MAJ York R, Rosa EA, Diete T (2003) Footprints on the earth: the environ-
(2017) Quantifying biodiversity losses due to human consumption: mental consequences of modernity. Am Sociol Rev 68:279–300
a global-scale footprint analysis. Environ Sci Technol 51:3298– http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519769
3306. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05296
WWF (World Wildlife Fund) (2016) Living planet report 2016: risk and
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
resilience in a new era. WWF International, Switzerland. https://
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=