Anda di halaman 1dari 23
 
Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of ModernityAuthor(s): Richard York, Eugene A. Rosa, Thomas DietzSource:
American Sociological Review,
Vol. 68, No. 2 (Apr., 2003), pp. 279-300Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL:
Accessed: 19/04/2010 23:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay 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 athttp://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 printedpage 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 formsof 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 University of Oregon EUGENE A. ROSA Washington State University THOMAS DIETZ Michigan State University Growing evidence demonstrating clear threats to the sustainability of the ecosystems supporting human societies has given rise to a variety of sociological theories of human-environment interactions. These environmental impact theories fall into three general perspectives: human ecology, modernization, and political economy. These theories, however, have not been empirically tested in a common analytic frame- work. Here, a framework that relies on ecological principles is adopted and modi- fied. Using a revised stochastic formulation of that framework and the most compre- hensive measure of environmental impact to date-the ecological footprint-the factors driving the environmental impacts of societies are assessed. The overall findings support the claims of human ecologists, partially support the claims of political economists, and contradict the claims of modernization theorists. Basic material conditions, such as population, economic production, urbanization, and geographicalfactors all affect the environment and explain the vast majority of cross-national variation in environmental impact. Factors derived from neo-liberal modernization theory, such as politicalfreedom, civil liberties, and state environ- mentalism have no effect on impacts. Taken together, these findings suggest societies cannot be sanguine about achieving sustainability via a continuation of current trends in economic growth and institutional change. HE
HISTORY of sociology is punctu- ated with the presupposition that the en- vironmental sustainability of societies is un- problematic (Buttel 1987; Dunlap 1997; Goldman and Schurman 2000). Ecological limits and threats to sustainability, principal lessons of the twentieth century, have seri- ously challenged that presupposition.' Sub- Direct all correspondence o Richard York, Department f Sociology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1291 (rfyork@darkwing. uoregon.edu). We thank Kenneth Bollen, Brett Clark, Michael Dreiling, Riley Dunlap, John Bellamy Foster, David John Frank, Theresa Koford, Timmons Roberts, Thomas Rotolo, Alexis Vasquez, and the ASR Editors, a deputy editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their important ontributions.
1
Nisbet (1982), reflecting on the rise of the twentieth century's awareness of environmental limits and anticipating he judgments of future historians, wrote: When he history of the twen- stantial human impacts to ecosystems pre- date the modem era by thousands of years (Turner et al. 1991). However, the scale of those impacts has increased extraordinarily in the modern era, dramatically altering the global environment, ncluding the land cover over vast areas of the earth (e.g., desertifica- tion and deforestation), the number and dis- tribution of species (e.g., extinction of flora and fauna), the chemical composition of the atmosphere (e.g., ozone depletion and accu- mulation of greenhouse gases), and the availability of resources (Harrison and Pearce 2000; Turner et al. 1991; Vitousek et al. 1997). The recognition that the ecological sustain- ability of human societies is now in serious question has given rise to sociological theo- tieth century s finally written, he single most important ocial movement f the period will be judged o be environmentalism p. 101).
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2003, VOL. 68 (APRIL:279-300) 279
 
280 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
rizing addressing the role of the environment in societies (Dunlap et al. 2002). One version of this theorizing is the greening of classi- cal theory, a revisit to the mine of classic thought to excavate its previously overlooked environmental insights (e.g., see Dickens 1992; Foster 1999). Another version-from the perspectives of human ecology, modern- ization, and political economy, which is our focus here-is devoted to understanding how human societies impact the physical environ- ment. Taken together, we refer to these as environmental impact theories. These environmental impact theories, however, have not yet been empirically tested in a common framework. Although these theories share important common ground, on several key points they make strikingly different predictions of how hu- mans affect the environment. Adopting a framework from ecological science that re- lies upon ecological principles, the IPAT model-a well-known model in the natural sciences and in the emerging field of indus- trial ecology (Graedel and Allenby 1995)- we assess the predictive capability of the en- vironmental impact theories. We use as our indicator of environmental impact the eco- logical footprint, the most comprehensive measure of environmental mpacts available. This measure allows comparison across types of impacts by estimating the quantity of land that would be required to support the material consumption of a nation. We assess the relative explanatory power of the leading environmental mpact theories in five steps. First, we outline the IPAT framework, demonstrate its amenability to sociological analyses, and develop a model appropriate or empirical testing. Second, we describe our measure of environmental im- pact, the ecological footprint. Third, we pro- vide a synopsis of each impact theory to be tested. Fourth, we enter the key theoretical variables into our analytic framework. Fifth, we use the analytic framework o assess each of the theory's predictions. THE ECOLOGICAL ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK What are the driving forces that produce the environmental impacts threatening sustain- ability? Decades of debate over this question have taken place in ecological science within the framework of the IPAT formulation (Harrison and Pearce 2000; Ster, Young, and Druckman 1992).2 IPAT specifies that environmental Impacts are the multiplicative product of Population, Affluence (per capita consumption or production), and Technology (impact per unit of consumption or produc- tion), hence:
I =PAT.
(1) IPAT analyses typically take the following form (using carbon dioxide emissions as an example): CO2 emissions = (Population) x (GDP per capita) x (C02 emissions per unit of GDP). This type of specification allows for assess- ing the potential effect on an impact of changes in any of the independent variables. However, the validity of the specification is assumed a priori. Owing to its accounting formulation and to its simple conceptualization (e.g., it omits many factors of interest to social scientists or subsumes them in the T term), IPAT has not received widespread attention in sociol- ogy. But, because the IPAT framework cap- tures fundamental features of ecological principles, our approach is to reformulate IPAT in stochastic form and to refine it so that it is amenable to the testing of sociologi- cal theory. The modified IPAT-called STIRPAT-can serve as a common analytic framework or assessing the empirical expec- tations of a variety of sociological theories.
THE REFORMULATION OF IPAT
In its original form IPAT s inappropriate or hypothesis testing because it is an account- ing equation or identity (i.e., it specifies the relationship between I and P, A, and T as proportional a priori and assumes no error term). To overcome the limitations of the IPAT model, Dietz and Rosa (1994) reformu- lated the basic model in stochastic terms.
2
Ehrlich and Holdren 1970, 1972) were first with the idea of IPAT, while Commoner 1971)
and Commoner, Corr, and Stamler (1971) were first with its algebraic formulation and its appli- cation to data analysis.

Puaskan Keingintahuan Anda

Segala yang ingin Anda baca.
Kapan pun. Di mana pun. Perangkat apa pun.
Tanpa Komitmen. Batalkan kapan saja.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505