Table 4: Environmental Quality Scores and Ranks of the States: 1997-2004
Note: figures in the parenthesis show the ranks
24
We can compare the relative performance of the States on EQ
scale during the two time periods looking at their ranks. It is observed
that although the overall position of the better performing States
remained unchanged, there had been some interesting movements of
their ranking within the sub-categories. For instance, Maharashtra's
rank declined in LAND and FOREST,17 while it improved its performance
in WATER. Karnataka had been subjected to greater variations - while
its ranking improved in ENERGY and FOREST, but declined for AIRPOL,
INDOOR and WATER. Kerala on the other hand improved its relative
performance in a number of sub-categories (notably FOREST).18
Nonetheless, its score got affected by the decline in its ranking in
categories like WATER.19 Looking across categories, it is observed that
Punjab and Uttar Pradesh experienced a sharp decline in their ranking
in case of FOREST, indicating degradation on that front.
17 Rithe and Fernandes (2002) argued that Maharashtra has achieved the current
level of industrialization at the cost of the loss of much of its forests. However, the
findings of Kadekodi and Venkatachalam (2005) do not support this.
18 Apart from the Government regulations, exporter firms increasingly adopted
environment-friendly processes to comply with strict norms in export markets
(e.g. - marine industries in Kochi), which had a significant positive influence on the
environment of the State.
19 Nair (2006) noted that depletion of the groundwater table due to indiscriminate
sand mining, shrinkage in natural forest cover and reclamation of wetland and
paddy fields are major environmental challenges that Kerala is facing today.