* The 2008 EPI deploys a proximity-to-target methodology, which quantitatively tracks national performance on a core set of environmental policy goals for which every government can be � and should be � held accountable. By identifying specific targets and measuring the distance between the target and current national achievement, the EPI provides both an empirical foundation for policy analysis and a context for evaluating performance. Issue-by-issue and aggregate rankings facilitate cross-country comparisons both globally and within relevant peer groups such as geography or economy.

The Environmental Health and Ecosystem Vitality subcategories each represent 50% of the total EPI score. This equal division of the EPI into issues related to (1) humans and (2) nature is not a matter of science but rather policy judgment. But this even weighting of the two overarching objectives of environmental policy reflects a broad-based institution � and this choice (used in the 2006 Pilot EPI) has not been generally criticized. Indeed, for every �deep ecologist� who favors more weight being placed on Ecosystem Vitality, there is a �humans first� environmental policymaker who prefers that the tilt go the other way.

These include Environmental Burden of Disease (DALY) indicator, the effects of Water and Air Pollution on human health, adequate Sanitation, drinking Water, urban particulates, indoor air pollution, ground-level local ozone, climate change, air pollution, water, biodiversity and productive natural resources.

NOTE: The information regarding the Environmental Performance Index 2008 on this page is re-published from Yale University. No claims are made regarding the accuracy of the Environmental Performance Index 208 information contained here. All suggestions for corrections of any errors about the Environmental Performance Index 2008 should be addressed to Yale University.