To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01207.x Byline: TIM G. HOLLAND (*s.), GARRY D. PETERSON ([dagger]**), ANDREW GONZALEZ ([double dagger]) Keywords: biodiversity loss; economy; income distribution; IUCN Red List; social-ecological systems Abstract: Abstract: We used socioeconomic models that included economic inequality to predict biodiversity loss, measured as the proportion of threatened plant and vertebrate species, across 50 countries. Our main goal was to evaluate whether economic inequality, measured as the Gini index of income distribution, improved the explanatory power of our statistical models. We compared four models that included the following: only population density, economic footprint (i.e., the size of the economy relative to the country area), economic footprint and income inequality (Gini index), and an index of environmental governance. We also tested the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis, but it was not supported by the data. Statistical comparisons of the models revealed that the model including both economic footprint and inequality was the best predictor of threatened species. It significantly outperformed population density alone and the environmental governance model according to the Akaike information criterion. Inequality was a significant predictor of biodiversity loss and significantly improved the fit of our models. These results confirm that socioeconomic inequality is an important factor to consider when predicting rates of anthropogenic biodiversity loss. Abstract (Spanish): Analisis Transnacional de Como la Inequidad Economica Predice la Perdida de Biodiversidad Resumen: Utilizamos modelos socioeconomicos que incluyeron la inequidad economica para predecir la perdida de biodiversidad, medida como la proporcion de especies amenazadas de plantas y vertebrados, en 50 paises. Nuestra principal meta fue evaluar si la inequidad economica, medida como el indice Gini de distribucion del ingreso, mejoraba el poder predictivo de nuestros modelos estadisticos. Comparamos cuatro modelos que incluyeron lo siguiente: solo densidad poblacional, huella economica (i.e., el tamano de la economia en relacion con la superficie del pais); huella economica e inequidad de ingresos (indice Gini) y un indice de gobernabilidad ambiental. Tambien probamos la hipotesis de la curva ambiental de Kuznets, pero no fue sustentada por los datos. Las comparaciones estadisticas de los modelos revelaron que el modelo que incluyo la huella ecologica y la inequidad fue el mejor pronosticador de especies amenazadas. Supero significativamente el funcionamiento de la densidad poblacional sola y la gobernabilidad ambiental de acuerdo con el criterio de informacion de Akaike. La inequidad fue un pronosticador significativo de la perdida de biodiversidad y mejoro significativamente el ajuste de nuestros modelos. Los resultados confirman que la inequidad socioeconomica es un factor importante a considerar cuando se pronostican tasas de perdida antropogenica de biodiversidad. Author Affiliation: (*)Department of Geography, McGill University, 805 Sherbrooke Street W., Montreal, Quebec H3A 2K6, Canada ([dagger])Department of Geography and McGill School of the Environment, McGill University, 805 Sherbrooke Street W., Montreal, Quebec H3A 2K6, Canada ([double dagger])Department of Biology, McGill University, 1205 Docteur Penfield Avenue, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1B1, Canada Article History: Paper submitted August 31, 2008; revised manuscript accepted December 16, 2008. Article note: (s.) Current address: IUCN Vietnam, Villa 44/4 Van Bao Street, Ba Dinh District, Hanoi, Vietnam, email tim.holland@mail.mcgill.ca (**) Current address: Stockholm Resilience Centre and Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-106 91, Sweden