Which Of The Following Statements Reflects The Environmental Impact Of Culture

AP Human Geography Chapter 4 Free Essay Example from StudyTiger

Folk traditions, which serve as components of group identification and cultural learning, are most often derived from everyday events that are familiar to the participants. Popular culture, in contrast to folk culture, is more prone to change through time. From time to time, at a specific location, Gas stations, supermarkets, and hotels, among other things, are examples of American material culture. Encourage a consistent landscape. The dispersion of topics of art in the Himalayas demonstrates how folk culturesAre impacted by varied vegetation, climate, and religion in different parts of the world.

Tell a story about a life-cycle event, your job, or a natural calamity to get people talking.

When it comes to popular culture, consider the geographic diffusion of soccer during the twentieth century.

Based on the examination of other sports in this chapter, we may infer that the present distribution of bowling is another example of this phenomenon.

  • As a result, the cultural environment becomes more homogenous.
  • The preferences of Americans for drinks and snacks Varieties are available depending on what is grown locally.
  • The reason why China produces a disproportionately high amount of pork in comparison to the countries of Southwestern Asia is largely due to Muslim prohibition on pork eating.
  • Asia produces very little wine, largely because the people do not have a long-standing tradition of wine production.
  • Clothing from UtahJeans serves as an excellent example of material culture that has been embraced by a variety of different civilizations.
  • Terroir is defined as the total of the impacts of a food item’s immediate surroundings on the food item.
  • They can still be split into three main groupings, as previously stated.

Chesapeake Bay’s Lower Chesapeake Women in less developed nations are more likely than their counterparts in more developed countries to get more opportunities outside the house as a result of more exposure to popular culture.

The diffusion of Internet service is following the same trends as the diffusion of television service, except that the diffusion of Internet service is considerably faster.

Many less developed countries are concerned about the erosion of traditional culture as a result of Western viewpoints becoming more prevalent.

Folk culture, rather than mainstream culture, is more important.

People keep their folk culture despite acquaintance with mainstream culture, partly because of a strong desire to preserve distinctive rituals and traditions.

According to which of the following claims does culture have an influence on the environment?

Folk cultures have the same origins of origin as popular cultures, but their method of dispersion is more more limited than popular cultures. False The sunbelt region of the United States has the largest concentration of golf courses in the country. False

I = PAT – Wikipedia

The impact of mining on the environment and the local community is being investigated. I = (PAT) is the mathematical notation for a formula that has been proposed to represent the influence of human activities on the natural environment. I=P×AxT Affluence (A), population (P), and technology (T) are all elements that influence human effect on the environment, according to the phrase (T). Its shape is comparable to that of theKaya identification, which is used to identify emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Some have specifically called attention to the potential interrelationships between the three factors, while others have wished to draw attention to other factors not included in the formula, such as political and social structures, as well as the potential for both beneficial and harmful environmental actions.


It was developed in 1970 following an argument betweenBarry Commoner, Paul R. Ehrlich, and John Holdren, during which the equation was devised. Commoner stated that environmental repercussions in the United States were mostly driven by changes in the country’s manufacturing technology following World War II, and he focused his attention on the country’s deteriorating environmental problems now. Ehrlich and Holdren maintained that all three causes were essential, but that the function of human population expansion was particularly crucial, concentrating on a larger scale and being less detailed in terms of location and time than their predecessors.

The equation can aid in understanding some of the factors affecting human impacts on the environment.

The dependent variable: Impact

The environmental effect is represented by the variable “I” in the “I=PAT” equation. The environment may be considered as a self-regenerating system that is capable of withstanding a certain amount of human interference and effect. The carrying capacity is defined as the highest amount of impact that may be tolerated. While the linked population, income, and technology that make up “I” are less than the carrying capacity of the planet, they may be tolerated indefinitely. If the value of “I” exceeds the system’s carrying capacity, the system is said to be in overshoot, which may only be a transitory condition.

Ecological footprint analysis, which measures impact in terms of global hectares, may be used to measure it (gha).

Impact is represented mathematically as the product of three components, with the resultant value gha. Because population is stated in terms of human beings, wealth is assessed in terms of gha per capita. Technology is a factor of efficiency that has no unit of measurement.

The three factors

Population estimates range from 10,000 BC to 2000 BC. The variablePrepresents the population of a geographical region, such as the world, in the I=PAT equation. Since the advent of industrial society, the world’s population has grown at an exponentially growing rate. This has led many thinkers, like Thomas Malthus, Paul Ehrlich, and others, to predict that population increase would continue unless it is curtailed by widespread starvation and famine (seeMalthusian growth model). According to United Nations projections, the world population will grow from 7.7 billion people now (2019) to 9.8 billion in 2050 and around 11.2 billion in 2100, with the fastest growth occurring in Asia.

You might be interested:  What Does Culture Means To You

This problem is the outcome of a global demographic change that has affected people all over the planet.

Environmental impacts of population

Humans’ environmental effect is increased in a variety of ways as a result of increased population, including, but not limited to:

  • An increase in land usage results in the loss of habitat for other species. Increased resource usage results in changes in land cover
  • Increased resource use results in increased resource use Increased pollution has the potential to cause illness and destroy ecosystems. Climate change is becoming more severe
  • Biodiversity is becoming more endangered.


This is a variable. Affluence is represented by the letter A in the I=PAT equation. It indicates the average amount of food consumed by each individual in the population. As the consumption of each individual grows, so does the cumulative environmental effect of all of those individuals. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is a typical proxy for gauging consumption. While GDP per capita is a measure of productivity, it is commonly thought that consumption rises in tandem with increases in production.

Environmental impacts of affluence

The increased consumption of goods and services has a considerable influence on human environmental impact. This is due to the fact that each product ingested has a wide range of consequences for the ecosystem. In the case of an automobile, for example, the following environmental effects are caused by its construction:

  • Water consumption for components and tires was 605,664 gallons
  • Pollution at a mine for the lead battery was 682 lbs.
  • And discharge into the water supply for the 22 lbs. of copper contained in the automobile was 2178 lbs.
  • And pollution at a mine for the lead battery was 682 lbs.

The bigger the number of automobiles per population, the greater the impact. The ecological consequences of each product are extensive; increases in consumption have a rapid impact on the environment, both directly and indirectly, as a result of increased consumption.


It is the Tvariable in the I=PAT equation that reflects how resource intensive the production of affluence is; it represents how much environmental impact is involved in the creation, transportation, and disposal of the commodities, services, and facilities that are consumed in society. T multipliers are reduced as a result of improvements in efficiency, which reduces resource intensiveness. In order to account for the fact that technology may have a variety of effects on environmental impact, the unit forT is frequently customized to the circumstance to which I=PAT is being used.

An relevant unit forTm may be greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP in a context where the human influence on climate change is being assessed, for example.

Environmental impacts of technology

Even if technological advancements can lessen particular environmental consequences, the increased wealth that these advancements bring to the individuals and companies who use them results in a bigger overall expansion in the resources that support us.


Native American fishing techniques (which use low-tech equipment) have a far less environmental effect than industrialized fishing. Criticisms of the I=PAT formula include the following:

  • The solution is overly basic for a difficult situation. Variables’ interdependencies with one another
  • General sweeping assumptions about the effect of factors on environmental impact are made
  • Due to cultural variations, there is a great deal of diversity in the influence. Technology cannot be adequately described in a single unit. Because the conclusion of the computation is dependent on one’s perspective of the circumstance, altering the unit will result in erroneous results.


Several people have expressed concern that the I=PAT equation is oversimplified since it assumes that the variables P, A, and T are all independent of one another. In actuality, there might be at least seven interdependencies between P, A, and T, suggesting that it is more accurate to rewrite the equation as I = f instead of I = f. (P,A,T). It is possible that a doubling of technological efficiency, or an equivalent reduction of the T-factor by 50%, does not necessarily result in a 50% reduction of environmental impact (I) if efficiency induced price reductions stimulate additional consumption of the resource that was supposed to be conserved, a phenomenon known as the bound effect (conservation) or the Jevons Paradox.


Neglect of beneficial human impacts

There have also been criticisms that this paradigm portrays people as totally harmful to the environment, completely disregarding any conservation or restoration efforts that communities have undertaken in recent years.

Neglect of political and social contexts

It is also said that the I=PAT model fails to take into account the political environment and decision-making mechanisms of countries and organizations, which is another key complaint. This implies that the equation does not take into account the fact that people have various degrees of power, influence, and responsibility when it comes to environmental effect. Furthermore, because the P factor does not take into consideration the complexity of social systems or actions, the responsibility is shifted to the global poor as a result.

As a result, these populations are unfairly stereotyped as having low-impact cultures.

Human population, prosperity (i.e., the amount of resources used per capita), and technological advancement all have an influence on the environment.

In reality, small-scale societies have a relatively minor influence when compared to state societies, which can be attributed to a combination of their tiny numbers and low-level technology.

You might be interested:  Which Of The Following Is Not A Typical Characteristic Of A Weak Company Culture

That all types of societies are subject to I=PAT was actually made clear in Ehrlich and Holdren’s 1972 dialogue with Commoner in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in which they examine the impact of human beings on the environment prior to the Industrial Revolution (and indeed prior to the Prehistoric Period).

Holdren’s 1993 publication, A Brief History of “IPAT,” provides more clarification of their perspective.

Policy implications

A consequence of the interactions of P, A and T as well as the possibility of rebound effects, policies aimed at mitigating environmental impacts through reductions in P, A and T may not only be difficult to implement (e.g., population control and material sufficiency movements have been controversial), but they are also likely to be ineffective when compared to other approaches such as quotas or Pigouvian taxation of resource use and pollution.

See also

  • Eco-economic decoupling
  • Ecological footprint
  • Ecological indicator
  • Affluence
  • Carbon footprint
  • Embodied energy Identification of Kaya
  • Life cycle assessment
  • Increase in the number of people on the planet
  • Measuring the long-term viability
  • Metrics and measures of long-term sustainability
  • Technology
  • The environmental impact of water


  1. O’Neill, B.C., MacKellar, F.L., and Lutz, W. (2001). (2004). “Population, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change” are three of the most important factors to consider. In Lutz, W., Sanderson, W.C., and Scherbov, S. (eds. ), (eds.). Sustainable Development and the End of World Population Growth in the Twenty-First Century: New Challenges for Human Capital Formation pp. 283–314
  2. Ehrlich, Paul R., and Holdren, John P., eds., London: Earthscan Press (1971). “The Implications of Population Growth.” 1212–1217 in Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (171(3977): 1212–1217. Bibcode: 1971Sci.171.1212E.doi: 10.1126/science.171.3977.1212.JSTOR1731166.PMID5545198
  3. Chertow, Marian 1971
  4. Science 171.1212E. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3977.1212.JSTOR1731166.PMID5545198 (2001). “The IPAT Equation and Its Variants” is a mathematical formula. AbBarry Commoner’s Changing Views of Technology and Environmental Impact
  5. (May 1972). “A Bulletin Dialogue: on “The Closing Circle” – Response.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.28(5):17, 42–56.doi: 10.1080/00963402.1972.11457931. “A Bulletin Dialogue: on “The Closing Circle” – Response.” – P.R. Ehrlich and J.P. Holdren are co-authors of this paper (May 1972). In “A Bulletin Dialogue: on “The Closing Circle” – A Critique,” by M. R. Chertow, published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, 4(4): 13–29.doi: 10.1162/10881980052541927
  6. R Bailey(2000)Earth Day Then and Now, Reason32 (1), 18–28
  7. N Koblitz(1981) “Mathematics as Propaganda,” in “Mathematics Tomorrow,” edited by Lynn Steen “Evaluating strategies for sustainable development: Fuzzy logic reasoning and sensitivity analysis”, by L. A. Andriantsaholiniaina, V. S. Kouikoglou, and Y. A. Phillis, in Environmental Economics, vol. 48, no. 2, 2004, pp. 149–158.doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.08.009
  8. AbcAlcott, B. (2010). “Impact caps: Why population (2011). Technofix: Why Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment, Chapter 5, “In Search of Solutions II: Efficiency Improvements,” New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, ISBN 0865717044, 464 pages
  9. Cleveland, C. J., and Ruth, M. (1998). “Indicators of Dematerialization and the Materials Intensity of Use.” Indicators of Dematerialization and the Materials Intensity of Use. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island In 1998, the Journal of Industrial Ecology published a third issue with the number 15 (doi: 10.1162/jiec.1998.02.3.15). William Moseley, Eric Perramond, Holly Hapke, and Paul Laris are among others who have contributed to this work (2014). An Introduction to Human-Environment Geography: Local Dynamics and Global Processes (also known as Human-Environment Geography I). pp. 241–242, ISBN 9781405189316
  10. Rambo, A. Terry, ed., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 241–242, ISBN 9781405189316
  11. (1985). Semang’s influence on the Malaysian tropical rain forest ecology is a prime example of primitive pollution. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.ISBN0915703041.OCLC13516436
  12. Krech, Shepard, III, Shepard, III (1999). The myth and history of the ecological Indian (1st ed.). ISBN 0393321002
  13. OCLC40762824
  14. New York: W.W. Norton & Company
  15. The authors, Eric Alden Smith and Mark Wishnie, discuss their work (2000). “Conservation and Subsistence in Small-Scale Societies” is the title of this paper. Annual Review of Anthropology, Volume 29, Number 1, Pages 493–524, doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.493.S2CID7165162
  16. Hames, Raymond (2007). “The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate,” as the title suggests. The Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 177–190, doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.0081705.123321.S2CID13982607
  17. Holdren, John
  18. Holdren, John (30 May 2018). An introduction to “IPAT” (impact = population multiplied by wealth multiplied by technology). The Journal of Population and Sustainability is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the study of population and sustainability. On the 16th of April, 2018, I was able to retrieve

A Simple Explanation of the Triple Bottom Line

Elkington, an author and entrepreneur, developed the triple bottom line (TBL) concept in 1994 with the goal of transforming the current financial accounting-focused business system into one that takes a more comprehensive approach to measuring impact and success. Prior to the Internet, businesses worked primarily for the benefit of their financial bottom line. However, as a result of the triple bottom line theory and its application, some businesses have begun to recognize the link between environmental health, social well-being, and the financial success and resilience of the organization in which they operate.

  1. In order to obtain an accurate and comprehensive picture of their operations and relationships with the environment, community, and economy, organizations must fully account for all costs associated with doing business by going above and beyond the requirements of the law and regulations.
  2. B Corporations are a relatively new type of business that is legally required to consider the impacts on all stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, the community, and the environment.
  3. Their vision is to develop into a global community of leaders who will propel a global movement of people who will use business as a force for good.
  4. This set of bottom-line categories is commonly referred to as the three “P’s,” which stand for “people, planet, and progress.” Here are some brief facts about the triple bottom line:
  • As a transformation framework for businesses and other organizations, the triple bottom line aims to assist them in their efforts to move toward a more regenerative and sustainable future. Using tools associated with the triple bottom line may assist in measuring, benchmarking, establishing objectives, improving, and ultimately evolving toward more sustainable systems and models. The triple bottom line demonstrates that if a company is just concerned with profit while disregarding the needs of people and the environment, it will be unable to account for the complete cost of doing business and will thus fail in the long run.
You might be interested:  What Is The Culture Of Pakistan

“The triple bottom line was not intended to be used just as an accounting tool,” says the author. It was intended to elicit more in-depth consideration of capitalism and its future.” —John Elkington, in an essay published in the Harvard Business Review While the triple bottom line theory is divided into three categories, it is vital to recognize that each category is not isolated from the others. People, the environment, and economic success are all intertwined when viewed through the perspective of systems theory.


When it comes to people, rather than simply shareholders, all stakeholders are taken into consideration. This includes workers, communities in which a company works, persons along the supply chain, future generations and consumers, to mention a few. The relationships between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the triple bottom line are critical to understanding this section of the triple bottom line. As stated by the United Nations, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is described as a responsibility shared by corporations to satisfy the requirements of their stakeholders, as well as a responsibility shared by stakeholders to hold organizations accountable for their activities.

Not only are corporate social responsibility efforts valuable to stakeholders, but adopting this business approach is also necessary for the success of a company.

For example, Evolution Marketing has developed materials that are available to anybody who want to promote social sustainability projects inside their firm. These resources are available free of charge.


Because of public opinion, consumer purchasing power, the speed and openness of information sharing on social media platforms, and even industry-led activism (see Patagonia 1 percent for the Planet), stakeholders are finding it simpler to hold corporations responsible for their activities. This may be evident in the way that good impacts are rewarded while bad consequences are reprimanded. When such feeling is expressed by the general public in the United States, it is likely to have an influence on who customers buy from and who they eventually support.

The results of a 2020 study, “Climate Change in the American Mind,” reveal that about 6 out of 10 Americans (around 58 percent) have become “alarmed” or “concerned” about global warming.

Leading companies such as AT T, DELL, EASTON, Hewlett Packard, Kohler Company, Levi Strauss Company, and Target have moved a step farther down the sustainability road by achieving a net-positive or regenerative impact on the environment and society in the recent past.


The triple bottom line idea is systemic in nature because it takes a holistic approach to people, the environment, and wealth. As a result of this interconnectedness, the United Nations (UN) established Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which aim to “guarantee that all human beings may live successful and full lives and that economic, social, and technical growth happens in harmony with the natural environment.” Many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to improve a wide range of topics relating to the environment, people, and economic prospects.

One of the many prosperity-focused objectives is to offer decent employment (safe working conditions, living wages, compassionate leadership, and economic growth) and economic growth for persons living in particular areas.

  • In order to remove forced labor, modern slavery, and human trafficking by the year 2025, quick and effective steps must be implemented. Additional measures should be taken to restrict and abolish all types of child labor, including the recruitment and deployment of child soldiers
  • Developing and putting into effect strategies to encourage sustainable tourism that provides jobs while also promoting local culture and goods by 2030

Some businesses, such as Kohler Co., have adopted a systematic approach to incorporating prosperity into their operations: “As a worldwide company, we recognize that how we conduct business has an influence on the communities in which we live and work.

As a responsible corporation, we think that in order to expand responsibly, we must have initiatives in place that have a good influence on the environment and society on a large scale.” Laura Kohler, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, Stewardship & Sustainability, says:

The definition of “business success” is evolving

“Business as usual” has taken on a new significance in recent years. To just satisfy compliance rules is no longer adequate in the perspective of consumers, workers, and other stakeholders, and it is no longer acceptable. A triple bottom line paradigm provides chances for optimization, innovation, and improvement across businesses and sectors when it is understood and implemented. A business model that takes into account people, the environment, and prosperity will result in increased resilience and cost savings for all stakeholders, decreased organizational risk (e.g., in the supply chain and public relations), a reduction in unforeseen costs, and overall success for all parties involved.

Sustainability changemakers have the chance to strategically engage colleagues and upper-level management by applying the triple bottom line theory to their work.

What’s next?

Discover Learn more about sustainable management practices. Explore Are you interested in pursuing a career in the field of sustainability? The University of Wisconsin offers online bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Sustainable Management, as well as certifications in the field. Begin your trip right now. Ask Questions about the University of Wisconsin’s Sustainable Management program? Contact us. To speak with an adviser, call 608-262-2011 or email [email protected]

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *