Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Sociological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
FOOTPRINTS ON THE EARTH:
THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
OF MODERNITY
RICHARD YORK EUGENE A. ROSA THOMAS DIETZ
University of Oregon Washington State University Michigan State University
rizing addressingthe role of the environment have taken place in ecological science within
in societies (Dunlap et al. 2002). One version the framework of the IPAT formulation
of this theorizing is the "greening"of classi- (Harrison and Pearce 2000; Ster, Young,
cal theory, a revisit to the mine of classic and Druckman 1992).2 IPAT specifies that
thoughtto excavate its previously overlooked environmentalImpacts are the multiplicative
environmental insights (e.g., see Dickens product of Population, Affluence (per capita
1992; Foster 1999). Another version-from consumptionor production),and Technology
the perspectives of human ecology, modern- (impact per unit of consumption or produc-
ization, and political economy, which is our tion), hence:
focus here-is devoted to understandinghow
I =PAT. (1)
humansocieties impact the physical environ-
ment. Taken together, we refer to these as IPAT analyses typically take the following
environmental impact theories. form (using carbon dioxide emissions as an
These environmental impact theories, example):
however, have not yet been empirically
tested in a common framework. Although CO2emissions = (Population)
x (GDP per capita)
these theories share important common x (C02 emissions per unit of GDP).
ground, on several key points they make
strikingly different predictions of how hu- This type of specification allows for assess-
mans affect the environment. Adopting a ing the potential effect on an impact of
framework from ecological science that re- changes in any of the independentvariables.
lies upon ecological principles, the IPAT However, the validity of the specification is
model-a well-known model in the natural assumed a priori.
sciences and in the emerging field of indus- Owing to its accounting formulation and
trial ecology (Graedel and Allenby 1995)- to its simple conceptualization (e.g., it omits
we assess the predictive capability of the en- many factors of interest to social scientists
vironmental impact theories. We use as our or subsumes them in the T term), IPAThas
indicator of environmental impact the "eco- not received widespread attention in sociol-
logical footprint," the most comprehensive ogy. But, because the IPATframework cap-
measure of environmentalimpacts available. tures fundamental features of ecological
This measure allows comparison across principles, our approach is to reformulate
types of impacts by estimating the quantity IPAT in stochastic form and to refine it so
of land that would be requiredto supportthe that it is amenable to the testing of sociologi-
material consumption of a nation. cal theory. The modified IPAT-called
We assess the relative explanatory power STIRPAT-can serve as a common analytic
of the leading environmentalimpact theories frameworkfor assessing the empiricalexpec-
in five steps. First, we outline the IPAT tations of a variety of sociological theories.
framework, demonstrate its amenability to
sociological analyses, and develop a model THE REFORMULATIONOF IPAT
appropriatefor empirical testing. Second, we
describe our measure of environmental im- In its original form IPATis inappropriatefor
pact, the ecological footprint. Third, we pro- hypothesis testing because it is an account-
vide a synopsis of each impact theory to be ing equation or identity (i.e., it specifies the
tested. Fourth, we enter the key theoretical relationship between I and P, A, and T as
variables into our analytic framework.Fifth, proportional a priori and assumes no error
we use the analytic frameworkto assess each term). To overcome the limitations of the
of the theory's predictions. IPATmodel, Dietz and Rosa (1994) reformu-
lated the basic model in stochastic terms.
THE ECOLOGICAL ANALYTIC
2 EhrlichandHoldren
FRAMEWORK (1970, 1972) were first
with the idea of IPAT,while Commoner(1971)
What are the driving forces that produce the and Commoner, Corr, and Stamler (1971) were
environmental impacts threatening sustain- first with its algebraic formulation and its appli-
ability? Decades of debate over this question cation to data analysis.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY 281
The resulting model, named STIRPAT (for 1.0 (but greater than 0) indicate that impact
STochastic Impacts by Regression on Popu- increases less rapidly than the driving force.
lation, Affluence, and Technology [Rosa and Negative coefficients are mathematically
Dietz 1998]), has been used successfully to possible, and some theories imply them.
estimate national CO2 emissions (Dietz and The inclusion of quadratic or other poly-
Rosa 1997) and the emission of other pollut- nomial versions of the logarithms of the
ants (Rosa, York, and Dietz 2001). Unlike driving forces in the model, when it is theo-
IPAT,the STIRPATmodel is not an account- retically appropriate, can complicate the
ing equation, but can be used to test hypoth- straightforwardinterpretation of the STIR-
eses and develop a more sophisticated and PAT coefficients (Dietz and Rosa 1997).
subtle analysis than can be done with the Nevertheless, a quadratic version of some
original I = PATformulation. The specifica- variables is appropriate for testing the ex-
tion of the STIRPATmodel is: pectations of certain environmental impact
theories, specifically those that predict a
Ii = a PibAiCTidei. (2) nonmonotonic relationship between impact
The constant a scales the model; b, c, and d and indicators of modernization.
are the exponents of P, A, and T; and e is the
error term (the IPATmodel in equation 1 as-
MEASURING SUSTAINABILITY
sumes a = b = c = d = e = 1). The subscripti
indicates that these quantities (I, P, A, and T) Pivotal to assessing the sustainability of so-
vary across observational units. For hypoth- cieties (nations in our analysis), whether by
esis testing in an additive regression model, STIRPATor any other means, is a measure
all factors are converted to natural loga- that provides a comprehensive indication of
rithms. T is typically included in the error environmental impacts. There are two key
term, ratherthan being estimated separately, considerations in the selection of a proper
as there is no clear consensus on valid tech- measure. First, because nations may import
nology indicators (below, we disaggregate T resources and export wastes (i.e., resources
by including additional factors in the model and wastes, and therefore ecological im-
that can be conceptualized as influencing pacts, flow between borders) we must look
impact per unit of consumption). These beyond national borders for impacts. There-
modifications yield the following model: fore, focusing only on impacts within a na-
tion (e.g., deforestation, air pollution) con-
ln(l) = a + b[ln(P)] + c[ln(A)] + e. (3) founds two processes: the location of envi-
In this model, a and e are the natural loga- ronmentalimpacts, and the decisions and ac-
rithms of a and e in equation 2 above. In log tions that generate environmental impacts.
form, the driving force coefficients (b and c) Second, we must look at the total environ-
indicate the percentage change in I in re- mental impact of a society or nation, not
sponse to a 1-percent change in the driving simply one type of impact (e.g., forest ex-
force, with other factors held constant. This ploitation), as one type of impact may de-
is similar to elasticity models commonly crease because another increases (e.g., a
used in economics (York, Rosa, and Dietz shift from wood to fossil fuel as a primary
2001). Also, this model allows the addition energy source may decrease impacts to for-
of sociological or other control factors by ests but can increase emissions of pollutants)
entering them into the basic formula (equa- (York, Rosa, and Dietz 2002).
tion 3), although care should be taken to en- One measure that addresses these consid-
sure that additional factors are conceptually erations is the "ecological footprint"3
consistent with the multiplicative specifica- (Wackernageland Rees 1996). The ecologi-
tion of the model. Similar to the interpreta- cal footprint is an aggregate measure that re-
tion of elasticity coefficients in economics, flects the fact that land is a basis for the
if STIRPATcoefficients (b and c) equal 1.0,
impact has a proportionalrelationship to the 3 For a complete descriptionof the method
driving force (P or A). Values greater than used to calculate ecological footprints, see
1.0 indicate that impact increases more rap- Wackernagel,Onistoet al. (1999) andChambers,
idly than the driving force; values less than Simmons,andWackernagel(2000).
282 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
three functional benefits provided to humans graphically. Another strength is that it pro-
by the environment: living space, source of vides a common unit of measurement (pro-
resources, and sink for wastes. Productive ductive land area) for comparing diverse
land is, therefore, a reasonable proxy for the types of impacts. There are six types of pro-
natural capital and services provided by the ductive areas that are aggregated to arrive at
environment. Calculation of the ecological the total ecological footprint: (1) cropland,
footprint is based on the fact that it is pos- (2) grazing land, (3) forest, (4) fishing
sible to track most resource flows, resources ground,5 (5) built-up land, and (6) the land
consumed, and waste flows. These flow and area requiredto absorb carbon dioxide emis-
consumption patterns can be converted into sions from the use of fossil fuel.6 By com-
the biologically productive land areas nec- bining diverse impacts into a single indica-
essary to provide these survival benefits. tor, the ecological footprint does not ignore
The ecological footprint is calculated by trades-offs between different types of im-
"adding up the areas (adjusted for their bio- pacts.7
logical productivity) that are necessary to Although it includes many types of im-
provide us with all the ecological services we pacts, the ecological footprint does not in-
consume" (Wackernagel, Onisto et al. clude all impacts. For example, pollution
1999:377). It represents the amount of bio- from hazardous substances and waste from
logically productive space at world average 5 It may strikesome readersas odd to include
productivity,typically measured in hectares, waterareain theecologicalfootprintbecausewa-
to support the average individual in a given
ter volume may seem to be a more appropriate
society. For example, a recent estimate of indicatorof biological productivity.However,
global productive land per capita is 2.1 hect- solarenergyis thebasicsourceof biologicalpro-
ares, while the global footprintper capita (the ductivity,and the amountof solar energyinput
amountof land necessary to sustainably sup- dependson surfacearea,not volume(Chambers
port an average global citizen) is approxi- et al. 2000; Wackernagel and Rees 1996;
mately 2.8 hectares (Wackernagel,Onisto et Wackernagel,Onistoet al. 1999).
al. 1999).4 These calculations can be used as 6 The componentsof the ecological footprint
a benchmarkfor assessing the sustainability includea weightingsystemto take into account
of all nation-states; nations with ecological the fact thatdifferenttypes of land varyin pro-
ductivity. The ecological footprint for each type
footprints at or below 2.1 hectares per capita of land is scaled to its productivity relative to the
have a global impact that could be replicated worldwide average productivity of all land (in-
by all other nations without threateninglong- cluding water). For example, arable land is more
term sustainabilityif populationgrowth were productive than other types of land, therefore, an
halted. Examples of recent per capita eco- amount of consumption requiring one hectare of
logical footprints are 12.2 for the United arable land would have an ecological footprint
States, 6.3 for Germany, 1.8 for China, and larger than one hectare, reflecting the productiv-
.6 (the lowest) for Bangladesh (Wackernagel, ity of arable land relative to the average produc-
Linares et al. 2000). tivity of all land on earth. Built-up land is treated
as arable land because cities have historically de-
One strength of using the ecological foot-
veloped in agriculturallyrich areas.
print as a measure of impact is that it ac- 7 The ecological footprint is well-regarded in
counts for impacts wherever they occur geo- scientific and environmental circles, but it is not
without criticism. Van den Bergh and
4 It is possiblefor the total global footprintto Verbruggen (1999) have questioned whether dif-
temporarilyexceed the availableproductiveland ferent types of resource consumption, and par-
areabecausesome resourcesarebeing extracted ticularly land needed to absorb CO2, can be ap-
fasterthantheyarebeingreplenished(e.g., forest propriately combined into a single indicator
products).Furthermore, the footprintincludesthe based on estimates of the productive land area
amountof landnecessaryto absorbcarbondiox- (weighted by biological productivity) requiredto
ide emissions. Currently,carbondioxide emis- produce the resources consumed. Nevertheless,
sions are in excess of biological sequestration, many researchers from a variety of fields defend
thereforecarbondioxide is accumulatingin the the methodology and usefulness of the ecologi-
atmosphere,andourtotalfootprint(includingour cal footprint, and it remains widely regarded as
fossil fuel footprint)exceeds the availablepro- the best available comprehensive indicator of en-
ductivecapacityof the earth. vironmental impact (Ferguson 2002).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY 283
nuclear energy generation are not included mans from other species, this unique capac-
in the ecological footprint. Furthermore,the ity is always bounded by the limits imposed
ecological footprintis an indicatorof anthro- by ecological conditions. Hence, human
pogenic pressure on the environment,not the ecologists emphasize an ecological founda-
actual consequences of that pressure (i.e., it tion for understandingthe driving forces of
does not directly measure deforestation, spe- anthropogenic environmental impacts, with
cies extinction, climate change, etc., but the expectation that key social and political
rather the factors that generate these prob- variables may mediate, and perhaps partially
lems, such as the consumption of wood and counteract, those impacts but will not fun-
crops and the combustion of fossil fuel). The damentally overcome them.
validity of the ecological footprint is sup- Consistent with a neo-Malthusianperspec-
portable on empirical grounds. The national tive, human ecologists stress the importance
ecological footprint is highly correlatedwith of population size, growth, density, and
other key environmental impacts, such as structure for explaining environmental im-
national emissions of ozone depleting sub- pacts (Catton 1980; Dietz and Rosa 1994;
stances (r = .78) and nuclear power genera- Duncan 1959, 1961, 1964; Harrison 1993).
tion (r = .74).8 Human ecology also incorporates biophysi-
cal factors, such as climate and biogeogra-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT phy, as contexts in which social factors drive
environmental impacts (Diamond 1997;
THEORIES: THREE PERSPECTIVES
Dietz and Rosa 1994; Duncan 1959, 1961,
We now have a robust analytic framework 1964; Freese 1997a, 1997b; Harris 1971,
(STIRPAT) and a comprehensive impact 1979; Harrison 1993; Hawley 1950, 1986;
measure (the ecological footprint) for assess- Richerson and Boyd 2000; Rosa and Dietz
ing the variety of environmental impact 1998). Human ecology suggests that climate
theories. We begin that assessment with a may play an important role in influencing
synopsis of three major theoretical perspec- patterns of geographic and economic devel-
tives: human ecology, modernization, and opment in ways that are consequential for
political economy. understandingenvironmental impacts.
E \
0
'U / \
Economic Development
Figure1. The TheoreticalEffectof EconomicDevelopmenton Environmental
Impact
suggests that substantial changes in the hu- structural version of environmental impact
theory, the "reflexivemodernization"of Euro-
peantheoristsUlrichBeck ([1986] 1992, [1991]
ll Germantheorist 1995, 1997) and AnthonyGiddens(1990, 1991,
JosephHuberis generally
considered the founder of ecological moderniza- [1999] 2000) that makes argumentssimilar to
tion theory (Mol and Spaargaren 2000). How- ecological modernizationtheory regardingthe
ever, the theory has grown and changed substan- potential for political freedom and individual
tially because of the input of other theorists. rights to spur ecological reforms.
286 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
(Ehrlich and Holdren 1971). Similar to ables are in a form conceptually appropriate
Rothman's (1998) argument, world-system for the multiplicative specification of the
theory argues that core nations have the STIRPAT model. All continuous variables
power to distance themselves from the im- are in natural logarithmic form. Variables
pacts they generate, and it is, therefore, that are difficult to interpret in logarithmic
misleading to focus only on the impacts a form or otherwise do not fit the multiplica-
society generates within its national bor- tive model in their original units are coded
ders. to a series of dummy variables. Dummy
The general logic of world-system theory variables are easy to interpret in the STIR-
argues that a focus on total impacts, those PAT model-the antilog (ex) of the coeffi-
generated within and beyond national bor- cient for the dummy variable is the multi-
ders, is essential to a theoretical understand- plier when the variable is coded 1, relative
ing of threats to sustainability. The political to when the variable is coded 0.
economy perspective anticipates that envi- HUMAN ECOLOGY VARIABLES. We use
ronmental impacts will continually increase population size and the percentage of the
with economic growth, but will not occur population aged 15 to 65 (i.e., the non-
entirely within the borders of the nations dependentpopulation) to assess neo-Malthu-
generating the economic growth. The dotted sian and human ecological predictions. We
curve in Figure 1 illustrates this expecta- use the predominantlatitude of a nation and
tion-a clear contrast with the environmen- land area per capita (the inverse of density)
tal Kuznets curve hypothesis. to control for basic climate and biogeogra-
SUMMARY OF THE POLITICAL ECONOMY phy.
PERSPECTIVE. The political economy per- MODERNIZATION VARIABLES. We use
spective identifies economic growth as the GDP per capita as the indicator of eco-
key driving force behind environmental im- nomic development, and the quadratic of
pacts. Although this traditionemphasizes the GDP per capita (centered before squaring)
inherent anti-ecological nature of capitalis- to allow for a nonmonotonic relationship
tic growth, the argumentscan be generalized between development and impacts. As an
to include all moder growth-dependentpro- indicator of economic structure,we include
duction economies. The fundamentalpoint is the percentage of GDP not in the service
that technological development and reform- sector to test for predictions regarding the
oriented policy will not solve the problem of purportedameliorating effect on impacts of
environmental degradation. The fundamen- a shift to a service economy. We use the
tal solution rests on a restructuringof soci- percentage of the population living in urban
eties away from economic expansion and to- areas as a general indicator of moderniza-
ward ecological sustainability. tion, and the quadratic of the percentage of
the population living in urban areas (cen-
tered before squaring) to allow for a non-
DATA AND ANALYSIS
monotonic relationship as predicted by
We are now in a position to assess our se- some modernization theorists (Ehrhardt-
lected environmental impact theories by Martinez 1998; Ehrhardt-Martinez et al.
mapping their variables into the STIRPAT 2002).
framework. To assess predictions from ecological
modernization theory regarding the effects
of neoliberal political freedoms, we use in-
VARIABLES
dicators for both political rights and civil
For our independentand dependentvariables liberties, each of which we code into three
we use 1996 data (see Table 1 for data dummy variables, because it is not necessar-
sources and variable descriptions) where ily reasonable to assume that impacts are a
available-as it is for most variables, includ- straightforwardmultiplicative function of a
ing the ecological footprint, for most na- variable measured on an ordinal scale. To
tions-and substitute earlier data or interpo- assess expectations about the effects of state
late values by averaging values for other commitment to environmental protection,
years where necessary. Note that all vari- we use an indicator of state environmental-
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY 289
DependentVariable
Ecological Landarea in hectares Logged. For five cases, one or two Wackernagel,
footprint requiredto support of the six componentsof the total Linares,et al.
consumptionof nation- ecological footprintwere imputed (2000)
state (1996). (becausethey were missing).
IndependentVariables
Population 1996 population(1000s). Logged. United Nations
Population
Division (1998)
Nondependent Percentageof popula- Logged. WRI (1996)
population tion aged 15-65 (1995).
Landareaper Landareain hectares Logged. WRI (1998)
capita per capita.
Latitude Distance from equator Dummyvariablescoded into three Espenshade
as indicatorof climate. categories based on the predominant (1993)
latitudeof nation:arctic (> 55 de-
grees), temperate(30-55 degrees),
and tropical(<30 degrees). Tropical
is the referencecategory.
GDP per capita Per capita gross domes- Logged. Interpolatedfrom 1995 WRI (1998,
tic productin purchas- and 1997 values. 2000)
ing power parity(1996).
Quadraticof GDP [log (GDP per capita) The log of GDP per capitacentered WRI (1998,
per capita - Mean]2 by subtractingthe mean of the log 2000)
of GDP per capitaand then squared
to reducecollinearitywith GDP
per capita.
Percentagenon- Percentageof GDP not Logged. Interpolatedfrom 1995 and WRI (1998,
service GDP in service sector (1996). 1997 values. The values for three 2000)
cases were imputedbased on values
of other independentvariables.
(Continuedon nextpage)
290 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
(Table1 continuedfrompreviouspage)
Variable Description Transformation Data Source
IndependentVariables(Continued)
Political rights Reflects whethera Dummyvariablescoded into three FreedomHouse
nationis governedby categoriesbased on original7-point (1997)
democraticallyelected scale: free (1-2), partiallyfree (3-5),
representativesand or not free (6-7). Not free is the
has fair, open, and referencecategory.
inclusive elections
(1996).
Civil liberties Reflects whether Dummyvariablescoded into three FreedomHouse
within a nationthere categoriesbased on original7-point (1997)
is freedomof the press, scale: free (1-2), partiallyfree (3-5),
freedomof assembly or not free (6-7). Not free is the
and demonstration, referencecategory.
generalpersonalfree-
doms, freedomof
privateorganizations
(includingbusinesses),
and propertyrights
(1996).
State environ- Index based on state's Dummyvariablescoded on dividing Robertsand
mentalism participationin 16 the index into equal thirdsreflecting Vasquez (2002)
environmentaltreaties. degree of environmentalism:high,
medium,and low (referencecategory).
Table 2. Nations in the Sample (N = 142), Including the Antilog of Residuals for Model 4 (Table 3)
the modernization model, which excludes centage of the economy not in the service
world-system position indicators, latitude, sector; Model 4, the human ecology model,
and land area per capita; Model 3, the politi- which includes only the basic material con-
cal economy model, which excludes latitude, ditions variables; Model 5, the quadratic
land area per capita, political rights, civil lib- STIRPATmodel; and Model 6, the two-fac-
erties, state environmentalism, and the per- tor basic STIRPATmodel.
292 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
variable (percentage nondependent popula- Also counter to the claims of the modern-
tion) is also positive and significant, indicat- ization perspective, urbanization increases
ing that the larger the proportion of a impacts. The coefficients for urbanization
nation's population between the ages of 15 and the quadratic of urbanization are both
and 65 (the most productive ages), the larger positive, indicating that, to the degree urban-
a nation's ecological footprint. These find- ization is an indicator of modernization,
ings support neo-Malthusian and human modernization increases, rather than de-
ecological claims regarding the importance creases, impacts.21This finding is fully con-
of population for explaining environmental sistent with the work of Foster (1999, 2000),
impacts. who, drawingon Marx ([1867] 1967), argues
The other ecological variables (latitude that modernization, because of the separa-
and land area per capita) also have signifi- tion it generates between country and city,
cant effects. Impacts are higher in nations creates a metabolic rift between ecological
with more land area per capita, suggesting processes and economic processes.
that resource availability and/or density in- The political economy perspective re-
fluence resource demand. Impacts increase ceives supportfor one of its key premises-
the further a nation is from the tropics. Na- the conflict between the economy and the
tions in temperate regions have 30 percent environment-but other important political
greater ecological footprints (the antilog of economy variables do not have significant
.260 is 1.30), and nations in arctic regions effects on impacts. The results suggest that
have 40 percent greaterecological footprints impacts are not directly the result of capital-
(the antilog of .339 is 1.40) than do nations ism or world-system position per se, but
in the tropics. This finding reinforces the rather are generated by more basic material
obvious: More resources are requiredto sus- conditions, which in turn may be mediated
tain societies in colder climates. by capitalism and world-system position.
The coefficients for both GDP per capita The expectations of the modernization
and the quadraticof GDP per capita are posi- perspective are clearly contradicted-no en-
tive and significant. The positive coefficient vironmental Kuznets curve exists for either
for the quadratic of GDP per capita is the GDP per capita or urbanization,and the size
opposite of what is necessary to generate an of the service sector, the presence of a capi-
environmental Kuznets curve. The effect of talist system, political rights, civil liberties,
GDP per capita, then, on the ecological foot- and state environmentalism have no signifi-
print is monotonically positive within the cant effects on the ecological footprint.
range of observations-an increase in per Table 2 presents the antilog of the residu-
capita GDP consistently leads to an increase als from Model 4 for each nation in the
in the ecological footprint, contradicting the
expectation of the modernization perspec- cedurementionedabovefor the modelincluding
tive.20 the quadraticterm.This meansthat a 1-percent
increasein per capitaGDP roughlycorresponds
20Due to the inclusionof the
quadratictermin to a .412 percentincreasein the ecologicalfoot-
the model, the coefficient for per capita GDP print.
cannot be interpreteddirectly as an elasticity co- 21 Note that, becausethe quadraticterm was
efficient (i.e., the percentage change in the de- centeredbeforesquaring,the coefficientfor the
pendent variable for a 1-percent change in the in- quadraticterm is large enough (just barely)to
dependent variable). However, as York et al. generatea U-shapedrelationship(theoppositeof
(2001) show, the instantaneous elasticity coeffi- an environmentalKuznetscurve) with the eco-
cient can be calculated by taking the first partial logical footprint,within the range of observa-
derivative of the regression equation with respect tions.Theminimumof the curveis reachedwhen
to ln(A). Because the coefficient for the quadratic urbanization 16.5percent.As
is at approximately
term is close to zero, the elasticity coefficient urbanization increasesabovethis value,the eco-
does not vary dramatically over the range of ob- logicalfootprintincreasesmonotonicallywithur-
servations. Running Model 4 excluding the qua- banization.In oursample,only ninenationshave
dratic term yields a coefficient for GDP per valuesbelow this minimum,therefore,in almost
capita of .412, which is roughly the coefficient all cases we wouldexpect an increasein urban-
that would be obtained for any value of ln(A) izationto correspondwithan increasein the eco-
within the range of observations, using the pro- logical footprint.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY 295
study. These can be interpreted as nation- curve, increases in GDP per capita consis-
specific multipliers of the ecological foot- tently lead to increases in impacts, but the
print. These coefficients, in a sense, repre- increases are not proportional.Furthermore,
sent the eco-efficiency of a nation-the en- urbanizationalso increases impacts, contrary
vironmental impact of a nation when con- to the expectation of the modernization per-
trolling for basic material conditions. The spective. Factors identified by ecological
mean residual is 0 and its antilog is 1; there- modernization theorists as potentially miti-
fore, nations with values below 1 are more gating human impacts on the environment,
efficient than expected based on the factors such as state environmentalism, political
in Model 4, and those with values greater rights, civil liberties, service sector develop-
than 1 are less efficient than expected based ment, and the presence of a capitalist system
on the model. The residuals occupy a fairly have no significant effects on impacts. Taken
narrow range, from a low value of .52 for together, these results suggest that basic eco-
Iceland to a high value of 2.76 for the United nomic and ecological factors largely deter-
Arab Emirates. This suggests that the most mine human impact on the environment.
efficient nation is only slightly more than Our results do not argue that institutional
five times (2.76/.52 = 5.3) more efficient and technological changes are irrelevant to
than the least efficient nation, and only twice environmental impacts. Given the slow pace
as efficient as the typical nation. Therefore, of population change over the span of a gen-
given currentcross-national variability in ef- eration and the political pressure for eco-
ficiency, there is some room for reducing nomic growth, strategies for making a tran-
impacts holding basic material conditions sition to sustainability should emphasize
constant. However, there appears to be no- technologies with more benign environmen-
where near the dramatic potential that some tal impacts. However, the sobering note from
scholars suggest (e.g., Hawken, Lovins, and this analysis is our failure to detect the ame-
Lovins 1999) for reducing impacts without liorating processes postulated by neoclassi-
altering the primary driving forces (particu- cal economics and ecological modernization
larly population and affluence). theorists. This suggests we cannot be san-
guine about ecological sustainability via
CONCLUSION emergent institutional change.
It is importantto bear in mind that our es-
We have extracted from a variety of leading timated coefficients are exponents in a mul-
social theories-human ecology, moderniza- tiplicative function. Hence, whenever these
tion, and political economy-key factors coefficients are positive, any increase in an
identified as driving anthropogenic (human- independent variable increases impacts in
induced) environmental impact. From ecol- combination with the other factors. A key
ogy we adopted and modified an analytic consequence is that because of high levels
framework and methodological technique, of consumption in affluent nations, even a
the STIRPATmodel, for assessing the effects slow rate of population growth in these na-
of driving forces on environmental impact. tions is at least as great a threat to the envi-
We used a comprehensive measure, the eco- ronment as is a rapid rate of population
logical footprint, as an indicator of environ- growth in less developed nations. After all,
mental impact. the footprint of the typical American is
We have found that impact changes pro- nearly 25 times greater than that of the typi-
portionately with population, consistent with cal Bangladeshi.
neo-Malthusian and human ecological argu- So to bring complementarity to Chase-
ments, and that the age structureof popula- Dunn's (1998) vivid description of threatsto
tion influences impacts. Also consistent with sustainability-"[I]f the Chinese try to eat as
the arguments of human ecologists, latitude much meat and eggs and drive as many cars
(an indicator of climate) and per capita land (per capita) as the Americans the biosphere
area affect impacts. Consistent with argu- will fry" (p. xxi)-we can point out that a
ments from political economy, and contrary slow, but steady, growth in the American
to the expectations of neo-classical econo- population, at current consumption levels,
mists regarding an environmental Kuznets may equally challenge the biosphere. Recog-
296 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
nizing the primacy of population, modern- the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and
ization, and eco-geographic factors as driv- with the latter focus connected to his service on
ers of environmental impacts is essential if a National Academy of Sciences/National Re-
search Council Committeeon high-level nuclear
appropriateaction is to be taken to address waste. Recent publications include Risk, Uncer-
the problems of global sustainability. Cur-
tainty, and Rational Action (2001, Earthscan
rent trends, rather than ameliorating prob-
Press).
lems, exacerbate them and make more ur-
gent the search for new institutional and Thomas Dietz is Professor of Sociology and
technological forms that can countervail or Crop and Soil Science and Director of the Envi-
even reduce the impacts associated with ronmental Science and Policy Program at Michi-
growth. gan State University. He chairs the U.S. National
Research Council Committee on Human Dimen-
At the outset, we identified two orienta-
sions of Global Environmental Change. His re-
tions in sociological theorizing about the en- search interests include the human dimensions of
vironment: a revival of classical thinking, global change and the interplay between science
and a variety of environmental impact theo- and democracy. Recent publications include The
ries. Our results showing sizable and persis- Drama of the Commons (2002, National Acad-
tent effects from population and economic emy Press) and New Tools for Environmental
production, although derived from contem- Protection: Education, Information, and Volun-
porary environmental impact theories, pro- tary Measures (2002, National Academy Press).
vide a link to classical theories. Marx
([1867] 1967) argued that the material con- REFERENCES
ditions of production are the basic determi-
nant of the structure of society. Durkheim Anderson, Charles H. 1976. The Sociology of
Survival: Social Problems of Growth.
([1893] 1964) argued that unrestrained Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
population growth, by increasing competi- Beck, Ulrich. [1986] 1992. Risk Society: Toward
tion over ecological resources, resulted in a a New Modernity. Reprint, London, England:
specialized division of labor. What Sage.
Durkheim and Marx apparently could not . [1991] 1995. Ecological Enlightenment:
fully see was the second-order consequence Essays on the Politics of the Risk Society.
of these evolutionary processes, revealed in Translated by M. Ritter. Reprint, New York:
our results, that environmental threats to Humanities Press.
.1997. "Subpolitics and the Disintegration
sustainability are also principally due to of Institutional Power." Organization and En-
population growth and economic growth. vironment 10:52-65.
Bollen, Kenneth. 1983. "World System Position,
Richard York recently completed his Ph.D. at Dependency, and Democracy: The Cross-Na-
WashingtonState University. He is now Assistant tional Evidence." American Sociological Re-
Professor of Sociology at the University of Or- view 48:468-79.
egon. His research concentrates on the relation- Bunker, Stephen G. 1984. "Modes of Extraction,
ship between population, development, capital- Unequal Exchange, and the Progressive Un-
ism, and the environment. He has an article derdevelopment of an Extreme Periphery:The
forthcoming in Human Ecology Review and is Brazilian Amazon, 1600-1980." American
coauthor of "Bridging Environmental Science Journal of Sociology 89:1017-64.
with Environmental Policy" (Social Science . 1985. Underdeveloping the Amazon: Ex-
Quarterly,2002, vol. 83, pp. 18-34). traction, Unequal Exchange, and the Failure
of the Modern State. Urbana, IL: University of
Eugene A. Rosa is Professor of Sociology, the Illinois Press.
Edward R. Meyer Professor of Natural Resource . 1996. "Raw Material and the Global
& Environmental Policy, an Affiliated Professor
Economy: Oversights and Distortions in Indus-
of EnvironmentalScience, and an Affiliated Pro- trial Ecology." Society and Natural Resources
fessor of Fine Arts at Washington State Univer- 9:419-29.
sity. His current research concentrates on global Burns, Thomas J., Edward I. Kick, David A.
environmental change and on the democratiza-
Murray, and Dixie Murray. 1994. "Demogra-
tion of environmental and technological decision
phy, Development and Deforestation in a
making, with the former focus connected to his World-System Perspective." International
service on the National Academy of Sciences/Na- Journal of Comparative Sociology 35:221-39.
tional Research Council Committee reviewing
Buttel, Frederick H. 1987. "New Directions in
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY 297
Schofer. 2000. "The Nation-State and the geles, CA: University of California Press.
Natural Environment over the Twentieth Cen- Hawken, Paul, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter
tury." American Sociological Review 65:96- Lovins. 1999. Natural Capitalism: Creating
116. the Next Industrial Revolution. New York:
Freedom House. 1997. Freedom in the World: Little Brown.
1996-1997. New York: Freedom House. Hawley, Amos. 1950. Human Ecology: A Theory
Freese, Lee. 1997a. Evolutionary Connections. of Community Structure. New York: Ronald
London, England: JAI Press. Press.
. 1997b. Environmental Connections. . 1986. Human Ecology: A Theoretical
London, England: JAI Press. Essay. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Frey, R. Scott. 1994. "The International Traffic Press.
in Hazardous Wastes." Journal of Environ- Jevons, William Stanley. [1865] 2001. "Of the
mental Systems 23:165-77. Economy of Fuel." Organization and Environ-
. 1995. "The InternationalTraffic in Pes- ment 14:99-104.
ticides." Technological Forecasting and Social Kasarda, John D. and Edward Crenshaw. 1991.
Change 50:151-69. "Third World Urbanization: Dimensions,
.1998a. "The Export of HazardousIndus- Theories, and Determinants." Annual Review
tries to the PeripheralZones of the World-Sys- of Sociology 17:467-501.
tem." Journal of Developing Societies 14:66- Kick, Edward, Thomas Burns, Byron Davis,
81. David Murray, and Dixie Murray. 1996. "Im-
.1998b. "The Hazardous Waste Flow in pacts of Domestic Population Dynamics and
the World-System." Pp. 84-103 in Space and Foreign Wood Trade on Deforestation." Jour-
Transport in the World System, edited by P. nal of Developing Societies 12:68-87.
Ciccantell and S.G. Bunker. Westport, CT: Kuznets, Simon. 1955. "Economic Growth and
Greenwood. Income Inequality." American Economic Re-
Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of view 45:1-28.
Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Marx, Karl. [1867] 1967. Capital: A Critique of
Press. Politcal Economy. New York: International
. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self Publishers.
and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, Mol, Arthur P. J. 1995. The Refinement of Pro-
CA: Stanford University Press. duction: Ecological Modernization Theoryand
. [1999] 2000. Runaway World. Reprint, the Chemical Industry. Utrecht, The Nether-
New York: Routledge. lands: Van Arkel.
Goldman, Michael. 2001. "Constructing an En- . 2001. Globalization and Environmental
vironmental State: Eco-governmentality and Reform. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
other Transnational Prectices of a 'Green' Mol, ArthurP. J. and David A. Sonnenfeld, eds.
World Bank." Social Problems 48:499-523. 2000. Ecological Modernization around the
Goldman, Michael and Rachel A. Schurman. World: Perspectives and Critical Debates.
2000. "Closing the 'Great Divide': New Social Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
Theory on Society and Nature." Annual Re- Mol, Arthur P. J. and Gert Spaargaren. 2000.
view of Sociology 26:563-84. "Ecological Modernization Theory in Debate:
Graedel, Thomas and Braden Allenby. 1995. In- A Review." Environmental Politics 9:17-49.
dustrial Ecology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Nisbet, Robert. 1982. Prejudices: A Philosophi-
Prentice Hall. cal Dictionary. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUni-
Grossman, Gene and Alan Krueger. 1995. "Eco- versity Press.
nomic Growth and the Environment." Quar- Nordstr6m, Hakan and Scott Vaughan. 1999.
terly Journal of Economics 110:353-77. Trade and Environment.Geneva, Switzerland:
Hajer, MaartenA. 1995. The Politics of Environ- World Trade Organization.
mental Discourse: Ecological Modernization O'Connor, James. 1988. "Capitalism, Nature,
and the Policy Process. Oxford, England: Socialism: A Theoretical Introduction."Capi-
Clarendon. talism, Nature, Socialism 1:11-38.
Harris, Marvin. 1971. Culture, Man, and Nature. . 1994. "Is Sustainable Capitalism Pos-
New York: Crowell. sible?" Pp. 152-75 in Is Capitalism Sustain-
. 1979. Cultural Materialism: The able? Political Economy and the Politics of
Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York: Ecology, edited by M. O'Connor. New York:
Random House. Guilford.
Harrison,Paul. 1993. The ThirdRevolution. Lon- . 1998. Natural Causes: Essays in Eco-
don, England: Penguin. logical Marxism. New York: Guilford.
Harrison, Paul and Fred Pearce. 2000. AAASAt- Organization for Economic Co-operation and
las of Population and Environment. Los An- Development (OECD). 1998. Globalization
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY 299
and the Environment: Perspectives from Environment and Society: The Enduring Con-
OECD and Dynamic Non-MemberEconomies. flict. New York: St. Martin's.
New York: OECD. Simon, Julian L. 1981. The Ultimate Resource.
Prescott-Allen, Robert. 2001. The Wellbeing of Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Nations: A Country-by-CountryIndex of Qual- . 1996. The Ultimate Resource 2.
ity of Life and the Environment. Washington, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
DC: Island. Snyder, David and Edward L. Kick. 1979.
Richerson, Peter J. and Robert Boyd. 2000. "Cli- "StructuralPosition in the World System and
mate, Culture, and the Evolution of Cogni- Economic Growth, 1955-1970: A Multiple-
tion." Pp. 329-46 in Evolution of Cognition, Network Analysis of Transnational Interac-
edited by C. Heyes and L. Huber. Cambridge, tions." American Journal of Sociology 84:
MA: MIT Press. 1096-1126.
Roberts, J. Timmons and Peter E. Grimes. 1997. Sonnenfeld, David A. 1998. From Brown to
"CarbonIntensity and Economic Development Green? Late Industrialization, Social Conflict,
1962-1971: A Brief Exploration of the Envi- and Adoption of Environmental Technologies
ronmental Kuznets Curve." World Develop- in Thailand's Pulp Industry. Organization and
ment 25:191-8. Environment 11:59-87.
. 2002. "World-System Theory and the Spaargaren, Gert. 1997. "The Ecological Mod-
Environment: Toward a New Synthesis." Pp. ernization of Productionand Consumption:Es-
167-94 in Sociological Theory and the Envi- says in Environmental Sociology." Ph.D. dis-
ronment: Classical Foundations, Contempo- sertation. Department of Environmental Soci-
rary Insights, edited by R. E. Dunlap, F. H. ology, Wageningen University, Wageningen,
Buttel, P. Dickens, and A. Gijswijt. New York: The Netherlands.
Rowman and Littlefield. Spaargaren,Gert, ArthurP. J. Mol, and Frederick
Roberts, J. Timmons and Alexis A. Vasquez. H. Buttel. 2000. Environmentand Global Mo-
2002. "State Environmentalism Revisited: dernity. London, England: Sage.
StructuralPredictors of Nations' Propensity to Stern, David I. 1998. "Progress on the Environ-
Sign Environmental Treaties or Who Signs mental Kuznets Curve?"Environmentand De-
Environmental Treaties and Why? A World- velopment Economics 3:173-96.
System Analysis." Paper presented at the In- Stern, Paul C., Oran R. Young, and Daniel
ternational Studies Association Conference, Druckman, eds. 1992. Global Environmental
March 14, New Orleans, LA. Change. Washington, DC: National Academy.
Rosa, Eugene A. and Thomas Dietz. 1998. "Cli- Turner, B. L., II, William C. Clark, Robert W.
mate Change and Society: Speculation, Con- Kates, John F. Richards, Jessica T. Mathews,
struction, and Scientific Investigation." Inter- and William B. Meyer. 1991. The Earth as
national Sociology 13:421-55. Transformed by Human Action: Global and
Rosa, Eugene A., Richard York, and Thomas Regional Changes in the Biosperhe over the
Dietz. 2001. "Modernizationand the Environ- Past 300 Years. New York: Cambridge Uni-
ment: Modeling the Impacts of Economic De- versity Press.
velopment." Paper presented at the Interna- United Nations Population Division. 1998. An-
tional Sociological Association conference on nual Populations, 1950-2050 (1998 Revision)
"New Natures, New Cultures, New Technolo- [MRDF]. United Nations, Department of So-
gies," July 6, Cambridge, England. cial and Economic Affairs, New York [pro-
Rothman, Dale S. 1998. "EnvironmentalKuznets ducer/distributor].
Curves-Real Progress or Passing the Buck?" van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. and Harmen
Ecological Economics 25:177-94. Verbruggen. 1999. "Spatial Sustainability,
Salzman, James. 2000. "Environmental Protec- Trade and Indicators: An Evaluation of the
tion beyond the Smokestack: Addressing the 'Ecological Footprint.'"Ecological Economics
Impact of the Service Economy." Corporate 29:61-72.
Environmental Strategy 7:20-37. Vitousek, Peter M., Harold A. Mooney, Jane
Samuelson, Paul A. and William D. Nordhaus. Lubchenko, and JerryA. Melilo. 1997. Human
1992. Economics. New York: Richard D. Domination of Earth's Ecosystems." Science
Irwin. 277:494-9.
Schnaiberg, Allan. 1975. "Social Syntheses of Wackernagel, Mathis, Alejandro Callejas
the Societal-Environmental Dialectic: The Linares, Diana Deumling, Niels B. Schulz,
Role of Distributional Impacts." Social Sci- Maria Antonieta Vasquez Sanchez, and Ina
ence Quarterly 56:5-20. Susana L6pez Falfan. 2000. Living Planet Re-
1980. The Environment:From Surplus to port 2000. Produced by the World Wide Fund
Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press. for Nature International(Switzerland) together
Schnaiberg, Allan and Kenneth A. Gould. 1994. with the UNEP World Conservation Monitor-
300 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
ing Centre (United Kingdom), the Centre for velopment Programme,and World Bank. 1996.
Sustainability Studies (Mexico), and Redefin- World Resources 1996-1997: A Guide to the
ing Progress (United States). Retrieved August Global Environment:The Urban Environment.
5, 2001 (http://panda.org/livingplanet/lpr00/). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wackernagel, Mathis, Larry Onisto, Patricia . 1998. World Resources 1998-1999: A
Bello, Alejandro Callejas Linares, Ina Susana Guide to the Global Environment: Environ-
L6pez Falfdn,Jesus Mendez Garcia, Ana Isabel mental Change and Human Health. New York:
Suarez Guerrero, and Ma. Guadalupe Suarez Oxford University Press.
Guerrero. 1999. "National Natural Capital Ac- . 2000. World Resources 2000-2001:
counting with the Ecological Footprint Con- People and Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of
cept." Ecological Economics 29:375-90. Life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wackernagel, Mathis and William Rees. 1996. York, Richard, Eugene A. Rosa, and Thomas
Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Dietz. 2001. "The Population and Affluence
Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, British Elasticity of Environmental Impacts." Paper
Columbia, Canada:New Society. presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern Sociological Association, March 29, San Fran-
World-SystemI: Capitalist Agriculture and the cisco, CA.
Origins of the European WorldEconomy in the .2002. "Bridging Environmental Science
Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic. with EnvironmentalPolicy: Plasticity of Popu-
World Resources Institute (WRI), United Nations lation, Affluence, and Technology." Social
Environment Programme, United Nations De- Science Quarterly 83:18-34.