Table 3: Environmental Quality Scores and Ranks of the States: 1990-1996

EQI SCORE (9)		0.544 (7)	O co O	0.545 (6)	0.475 (12)	0.607 (2)	0.617 (1)		0.493 (10)	0.605 (3)	co L∩ O	0.456 (13)	0.577 (5)	0.525 (8)	0.443 (14)	0.508 (9)
NPSP (8)		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∩ L∩ O	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∩ O	0.612 (4)	0.620 (3)	0.611 (5)
	WAI EK (6)	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 co O	0.447 (11)	0 0 LÏ C
LAND (5)		0.592 (5)	o’ O L∩ 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 (4)		0.524 (8)	L∩ L∩ in O	0.282 (13)	O L∩ O	0.673 (5)		τ> ɔ ɔ	0.468 (10)	0.473 (9)	0.771 (1)	0.274 (14)	0.622 (6)	co L∩ O	0.682 (4)	co L∩ O
GHGS (3)		0.685 (5)	0.467 (11)	0.617 (7)	0.494 (9)	0.901 (1)	S O co о		0.355 (13)	0.697 (4)	0.350 (14)	0.427 (12)	co co O	0.656 (6)	0.600 (8)	0.473 (10)
INDOOR (2)		O co о	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 (1)		LD co о	0.647 (8)	0.432 (12)	0.783 (6)	0.912 (1)	S co O		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).

23

More intriguing information

1. Does Market Concentration Promote or Reduce New Product Introductions? Evidence from US Food Industry
2. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE ECONOMETRIC PACKAGES: AN APPLICATION TO ITALIAN DEPOSIT INTEREST RATES
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. EU Preferential Partners in Search of New Policy Strategies for Agriculture: The Case of Citrus Sector in Trinidad and Tobago
6. Effects of red light and loud noise on the rate at which monkeys sample the sensory environment
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Sectoral specialisation in the EU a macroeconomic perspective
10. Activation of s28-dependent transcription in Escherichia coli by the cyclic AMP receptor protein requires an unusual promoter organization