Table 3: Environmental Quality Scores and Ranks of the States: 1990-1996
|
EQI SCORE |
0.544 (7) |
O O |
0.545 (6) |
0.475 (12) |
0.607 (2) |
0.617 (1) |
0.493 (10) |
0.605 (3) |
co L∩ |
0.456 (13) |
0.577 (5) |
0.525 (8) |
0.443 (14) |
0.508 (9) | |||
|
NPSP |
0.489 (8) |
0.467 (11) |
0.630 (2) |
0.333 (13) |
0.541 (6) |
0.559 (5) |
0.597 (4) |
0.599 (3) |
0.516 (7) |
0.267 (14) |
0.642 (1) |
o' co O |
0.478 (9) |
C | |||
|
FOREST (7) |
0.506 (13) |
L∩ |
0.594 (6) |
0.671 (2) |
0.573 (9) |
0.517 (11) |
0.158 (14) |
0.581 (8) |
0.584 (7) |
0.840 (1) |
o' O L∩ |
0.612 (4) |
0.620 (3) |
0.611 (5) | |||
|
WAI EK |
0.535 (6) |
0.604 (5) |
0.482 (9) |
0.381 (13) |
0.516 (7) |
0.696 (3) |
0.695 (4) |
0.514 (8) |
0.760 (1) |
0.244 (14) |
0.465 (10) |
co O |
0.447 (11) |
0 C | |||
|
LAND |
0.592 (5) |
o’ O O |
0.616 (4) |
0.183 (13) |
0.535 (7) |
0.520 (8) |
0.719 (1) |
0.652 (2) |
0.543 (6) |
0.181 (14) |
0.637 (3) |
0.513 (9) |
0.363 (12) |
0.369 (11) | |||
|
ENERGY |
0.524 (8) |
L∩ O |
0.282 (13) |
O O |
0.673 (5) |
τ> ɔ |
0.468 (10) |
0.473 (9) |
0.771 (1) |
0.274 (14) |
0.622 (6) |
co O |
0.682 (4) |
co O | |||
|
GHGS |
0.685 (5) |
0.467 (11) |
0.617 (7) |
0.494 (9) |
0.901 (1) |
S O co |
0.355 (13) |
0.697 (4) |
0.350 (14) |
0.427 (12) |
co O |
0.656 (6) |
0.600 (8) |
0.473 (10) | |||
|
INDOOR (2) |
O co |
0.129 (14) |
0.643 (3) |
0.574 (4) |
0.435 (5) |
0.327 (10) |
0.367 (8) |
L∩ O |
0.228 (12) |
0.803 (1) |
0.397 (7) |
0.412 (6) |
0.222 (13) |
0.357 (9) | |||
|
AIRPOL |
LD co |
0.647 (8) |
0.432 (12) |
0.783 (6) |
0.912 (1) |
S co |
co O |
0.653 (7) |
0.909 (2) |
0.644 (9) |
0.631 (10) |
0.896 (3) |
0.152 (14) |
0.248 (13) | |||
|
states |
Andhra Pradesh |
Bihar |
Gujarat |
Haryana |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
Madhya Pradesh |
Maharashtra |
Orissa |
Punjab |
Rajasthan |
Tamil Nadu |
Uttar Pradesh |
West Bengal | |||
Note: figures in the parenthesis show the ranks
22
Table 4 provides the EQ scores and ranking of the States for
Period B. As in the earlier case, we see that Kerala, Karnataka and
Maharashtra retained their positions at the top (although the latter
two interchange their positions), while Haryana, Bihar and Punjab now
turned out to be the laggards. It is observed that the toppers improved
their position in certain sub-categories (Kerala in AIRPOL, INDOOR,
GHGS, FOREST; Karnataka in ENERGY, FOREST etc.). However, their
performance deteriorated in certain key areas as well. For instance,
the lower ranking of Karnataka in AIRPOL in Period B can be explained
by rapid urbanization, industrialization and vehicular pollution.16 Its
relative performance on WATERaIso raises concern. On the other hand
the laggards continued to perform poorly in several sub-categories
(e.g. - Punjab - AIRPOL, GHGS, ENERGY, LAND, WATER and NPSP;
Bihar - AIRPOL, INDOOR, GHGS, LAND, FOREST and NPSP; Haryana -
ENERGY, LAND, WATER and NPSP). Energy management and forest
conservation should be the first two priority areas for environmental
management in Maharashtra. For Karnataka, conservation of land and
water should be priority areas for environmental management.
16 In several major Karnataka cities suspended particulate matter (SPM) and respirable
suspended particulate matter (RSPM) are far above the permissible limits (The
Hindu, 2005, 2006).