Errata and corrigenda

2020 Human Development Report

Error / omission
Page(s)
Correction

El Salvador’s Gender Development Index Value (2019) of 1.022, Gender Development Index Group of 1, Human Development Index for Female Value (2019) of 0.694, Mean Years of Schooling for Female Value (2019) of 9.1.

2020 Human Development Report, page 358.

El Salvador’s Gender Development Index Value (2019) should be 0.975 , Gender Development Index Group should be 2, Human Development Index for Female Value (2019) should be 0.662 , Mean Years of Schooling Value for Female (2019) should be 6.6.

Latin America and the Caribbean Region’s Gender Development Index Value (2019) of 0.979, Latin America and the Caribbean Region’s Mean Years of Schooling for Female Value (2019) of 8.8.

2020 Human Development Report, page 359.

Latin America and the Caribbean Region’s Gender Development Index Value (2019) should be 0.978, Latin America and the Caribbean Region’s Mean Years of Schooling for Female Value (2019) should be 8.7.

Misprint in the vertical axis of figure S7.4.2 "Global overuse as measured by the ecological footprint is driven mostly by carbon dioxide emissions" and incorrect graph type.

2020 Human Development Report, page 260.

The correct vertical axis maximum value should be 1.8 Earths, and graph type changed to a stacked area. The corrected version of the figure is included in the updated version of the Report on 18 December 2020.

Misprint in figure S7.2.3 “The wealthiest 1 percent of individuals worldwide emit 100 times as much carbon dioxide each year as the poorest 50 percent”, the top 1% value 146,2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per capita per year.

2020 Human Development Report, page 251.

The correct value should be 146.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per capita per year. The corrected version of the figure is included in the updated version of the Report on 18 December 2020.

Misprint in figure S7.4.1 "The Human Development Index is positively associated with the Environmental Performance Index”. The horizontal axis labels missing values 0.400, 0.600 and 0.900.

2020 Human Development Report, page 258.

The correct horizontal axis labels should be 0.300, 0.400, 0.500, 0.600, 0.700, 0.800, 0.900, 1.000. The corrected version of the figure is included in the updated version of the Report on 18 December 2020.

Clarification over decomposition of biocapacity deficit, into non-carbon biocapacity deficit (previously called “net land footprint”) and carbon footprint.

2020 Human Development Report, page 73.

Revised text: “These patterns are also present in integrated ecological footprint accounts, which compare the demand for biocapacity (footprint) with its availability. The resulting biocapacity deficit (or reserve) can be decomposed into its noncarbon and carbon components: the noncarbon biocapacity deficit reflects predominantly domestic overuse when using production accounts, and the carbon component (carbon footprint) measures emissions, some of which can be absorbed domestically, but the rest becomes a planetary externality (figure 3.4).”

Redesign of figure 3.4, including adjustment in reported data, change in labels (in line with text) and correction of misprinted vertical axis label and unit.

2020 Human Development Report, page 74.

  • Adjust title “Unequal dynamics: carbon footprint and biocapacity deficit”
  • Adjust category titles (legend) in line with text: It relabels “net land footprint” as “biocapacity deficit (excluding carbon)".
  • Legend makes explicit that values are per capita.
  • Correct vertical axis label and unit: from “Gigahectares per capita.” To “Global hectares per capita”.
  • Delete information for year 2000. It reports information for a balanced panel of 104 countries.

The corrected version of the figure is included in the updated version of the Report (14 January 2021)

Revised explanation of figure 3.4

2020 Human Development Report, page 75.

Revised text: “In 2016 very high human development countries had the largest noncarbon biocapacity reserves per capita and the largest carbon footprints per capita. Lower human development countries had smaller noncarbon biocapacity reserves and even smaller carbon footprints per capita.
From 1990 to 2016 global overshoot increased susbstantially, from 29 percent to 70 percent.16 In per capita terms noncarbon biocapacity reserves decreased across all groups but decreased more in lower human development countries. In turn, carbon footprint per capita increased most in high human development countries.”

Misprint of units on page 96 “That there is only one planet for humanity to live on and that humanity is using up 1.6 planets are effective ways of illustrating the problem of unsustainability”

2020 Human Development Report, page 96.

The unit should be “Earths” Revised text: “That there is only one planet for humanity to live on and that humanity is using up 1.6 Earths are effective ways of illustrating the problem of unsustainability”

Misprint in figure s7.2.1 vertical axis label and unit.

2020 Human Development Report, page 249.

Correct unit: Gigatonnes

Misprint in figure s7.2.2 vertical axis label and unit.

2020 Human Development Report, page 250.

Correct unit: Gigatonnes

Clarification of global demand for biocapacity.

2020 Human Development Report, page 259.

Revised text: “Global demand for biocapacity, as measured by the ecological footprint, is largely explained by carbon dioxide emissions, expressed in hectares of forest needed for carbon sequestration (figure S7.4.2). These are conservative accounts: biocapacity is overestimated because it does not consider land degradation and long-term sustainability of resource extraction. In turn, the ecological footprint might be underestimated because it does not measure human demand of freshwater consumption, soil erosion or emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide. However, the aggregate magnitude of ecological footprint is sensitive to the methodology used to estimate the effect of carbon emissions.”

Misprint in the note for table S7.5.1.

2020 Human Development Report, page 263.

Revised note: “Among the top and bottom countries by Human Development Index (HDI) rank, the most unsustainable countries according to each measure are in red. Data for adjusted net savings refer to 2018 or the most recent year available since 2008. Data for ecological footprint accounts refer to 2016.”


2020 Human Development Report Overview

Error / omission
Page(s)
Correction

El Salvador’s Gender Development Index Value (2019) of 1.022, Gender Development Index Group of 1.

2020 Human Development Report Overview, page 18.

El Salvador’s Gender Development Index Value (2019) should be 0.975, its Gender Development Index Group should be 2.

Latin America and the Caribbean Region’s Gender Development Index Value (2019) of 0.979.

2020 Human Development Report Overview, page 19.

Latin America and the Caribbean Region’s Gender Development Index Value (2019) should be 0.978.