Investigating the Relationship between Poverty and Environmental Performance Index (EPI) in Countries with Different Incomes

Introduction Environmental sustainability is an essential element of sustainable development. Poverty and environmental degradation are perhaps the two main obstacles to achieving sustainable development. In addition to having a negative impact on obtaining sustainable development, poverty and environmental degradation have complex relationships. Therefore, during the last few decades, the role of people, especially poor people, and consequently poor countries in environmental degradation has become one of the most challenging issues among economists, biologists, and environmental experts. However, the relationship between poverty and environmental degradation is still unclear and is often challenged by various researchers. It should be noted that environmental degradation is a complex issue and other factors such as new technologies, customs, national programs, and strategies are also involved in this process. Most classical hypotheses and paradigms consider poverty to be the driving force of environmental degradation. This approach can be clearly seen in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which regards sustainable development to be dependent on eradicating poverty. In contrast, new approaches and theories have maintained that the negative roles of the poor and poor countries in environmental degradation are less than those of the rich and rich countries. Ecological Footprint (EF) index in accordance with the Treadmill of Production theory is the most important approach that emphasizes this belief. The differences in the views and results, as well as various indicators, have made it necessary to study the relationship between poverty and environmental degradation. Therefore, in this study, the relationship between poverty, income, and Environmental Performance Index (EPI) was quantitatively examined at the country level by reviewing the literature and research background.  Materials & Methods In the present research, EPI (EPI) and the Percentage of Population below national Poverty (PPP) lines were used to examine the relationship between poverty and environmental degradation. The EPI data for 155 countries were obtained from a report issued by Yale University in 2020. Their national PPP data were also obtained from the World Bank website. Pearson correlation and linear regression were applied in SPSS software to analyze the relationship between the two parameters. Then, using World Bank income grouping, the study countries were divided into the 4 groups of low-income, lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income countries. Correlation analysis was separately utilized for each group. The Ecological Footprint (EF) of each group was also taken from the Global Footprint Network (GFN) site and analyzed.  Discussion of Results & ConclusionsThe findings showed that the overall correlation between the EPI and PPP was -0.505. Thus, reduction of poverty could improve the EPIs of the countries. The regression analysis between the two variables also revealed that about 25% of the changes in the dependent variable could be explained by the independent variable. In addition, correlation analysis with respect to the income group of the countries demonstrated that there was a negative and significant relationship between poverty in the low-income countries and their EPI scores. Therefore, the poor countries could increase their EPI scores by eradicating poverty. In the other groups, this relationship was weak and not significant. The findings also indicated that the average EF of the low-income countries was a little more than 1 in global hectare (1.06 gha/person), but they had a higher biocapacity (5.63 gha/person). The lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income groups had a footprint of 1.85, 2.75, and 4.98 global hectare, respectively. Therefore, the average EF of the groups increased with an increase in the incomes. The high- compared to the low-income countries put 5 times more pressure on ecological resources. Thus, the high-income and rich countries had a more negative effect on global environmental degradation in comparison with the low-income and poor countries.