Relationship between Population welfare and

Environmental resource base

By
Preetam Pandey
HNRS 09s

Submitted to Keshab Pd. Adhikari, Instructor Population, Development and Natural Resource
Linkage, Department of Human and Natural Resource Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of II Semester

MASTER OF ARTS
in Human and Natural Resources Studies
at the

KATHMANDU UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARTS

December 2009

Page 1 of 10
Relationship between Population welfare and
Environmental resource base

By Preetam Pandey

Background

Between 1960 and 2000, Earth’s population doubled from three billion to six billion

people. In many ways this reflected good news for humanity: child mortality rates plummeted,

life expectancy increased, and peole were on average healthier and better nourished that at

any time in history. However, during the same period, changes in the global environment began

to accelerate: pollution heightened, resource depletion continued, and the threat of rising sea

levels increased. Turning the tide on rapid population growth, declining agricultural

productivity, and natural resource degradation are three portentous and immediate challenges

in developing communities/countries. These challenges are not isolated from one another; they

are intimately related. What happens to agriculture, affects the environment on and off the

farm. What happens to forests, affects the food security strategies of farmers and biodiversity

of the ecosystem. What happens in the off-farm rural economy, affects the options farmers

have to farming, as well as their capacity to sustainably intensify farming. And what happens to

rural households' food security and incomes, affects their health and childbearing decisions.

In most part of the world especially in developing countries like Nepal, the strategic

planning and development programs, however, tend to focus on individual sectors such as the

environment, agriculture, and population; they do not explicitly take into account the

Page 2 of 10
compatibilities and inconsistencies among them. Sectoral solutions of the past are no longer

adequate. The downward spiral of population pressure, poverty, and degradation have created

new complexities and we must be prepared to adjust our approach in ways that will capture

and respond to this complexity.

Linkages between Population and Environment

Calling human population growth and its impacts the most pressing social and scientific

issue of all time, Pulliam and Haddad (1994) observed that the lack of study of human

ecological relationships was puzzling for several reasons, including the following:

 Carrying capacity is inherently an ecological concept and was developed by ecologists.

 Many ecologists have used the concept of carrying capacity in their studies of the

dynamics and regulation of animal and plant populations.

 Many, if not most, ecologists are also environmentalists and see human population size

and overexploitation of natural resources as the root cause of most environmental

problems.

 Virtually all ecologists are familiar with the basic concepts of demography and most are

already trained in the theoretical approaches used by demographers.

 Detailed data bases on human demography and the physical, social, and economic

conditions contributing to demographic patterns are readily available and easy to use.

Page 3 of 10
 Most scientists agree that the overall human pressure on the environment is a product

of three factors: population, consumption, and technology (Harrison and Pearce 2001).

Population is the total number of people, consumption is the amount of resources each person

consumes, and technology is how these resources are used and how much waste is produced

for each unit of consumption. In the population-environment debate, a single one of these

factors is often emphasized as the dominant cause of our rising environmental impact. For

some, this is inexorable population growth. For others, it is polluting technology. Still others

stress excessive consumption, policy and market failures, or common ownership of key

environmental resources. The bottom line is that all of these viewpoints are correct some of the

time; none of them is correct all of the time. A comprehensive approach to understanding the

population-environment linkage must include all three.

Impacts of Population and Consumption

Human impact on Earth has reached a truly massive scale. We have transformed

approximately half of its land surface for our own uses, with concomitant widespread impacts

on the planet's forests, oceans, freshwater, and atmosphere (Harrison and Pearce 2001). Most

scientists agree that human activities are contributing to global warming, raising global

temperatures and sea levels. These impacts affect the habitats and environmental pressures

under which all species exist. As a result, humans have had an incalculable effect on the Earth's

biodiversity, with 484 animal and 654 plant species recorded as extinct since 1600. The scale of

our activities depends on our population numbers, our consumption, and the resource or

pollution impact of our technologies - and all three of these factors are still on the increase. In

Page 4 of 10
this unprecedented situation, we need to understand the way in which population,

consumption, and technology create their impact. Ehrlich and Holdren (1971) formulated the

'PAT equation to integrate the three primary factors in human interaction with the

environment:

I = P x A x T, or Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology

More explicitly, environmental impact is the product of population, multiplied by

consumption per person, multiplied by the amount of resources needed or waste created by

technology to produce the amount of consumption. This simple formula recognizes that since a

citizen of a rich nation consumes 10-20 times as much fossil fuel and other nonrenewable

resources as a typical citizen of one of the world's developing nations, the over consumption of

resources in the more affluent nations poses at least as great a threat to the welfare of future

generations as does the sheer size of the human population.

Obviously, the 'PAT formula represents a simplification, but it provides a way to begin to

understand the complex population-environment linkage. The human demand for resources at

any given level of technology is always the result of population multiplied by consumption, and

consumption has generally grown more rapidly than population (Harrison and Pearce 2001). As

population growth is slowing, consumption growth is emerging as the dominant factor

increasing our pressure on the environment. According to the World Bank (1999), average

world income per person is rising at an average of 1.4 percent a year, whereas world population

is rising at around 1.2 percent per year. If economic growth continues this long-term trend,

then consumption growth will become a larger factor than population growth in our rising

Page 5 of 10
resource demand and impact on the environment. Moreover, consumption is not just pursued

for need or convenience in living and lifestyles. It is also an arena where people express social

status and power, and for these purposes, consumption appears to have no practical upper

limit (Harrison and Pearce 2001).

Costanza et al. (1997) observed that the economic subsystem has already reached or

exceeded important limits. They cited five major areas where we have already exceeded

localized limits to global limits: (1) Human biomass appropriation, i.e., since we are already

using more than 40 percent of the net primary productivity of terrestrial ecosystems, a single

doubling of the world's population in 40-50 years will use more than 80 percent; (2) Climate

change, i.e., the scale of today's fossil fuel-based economy is the dominant cause of greenhouse

gas accumulation, which is implicated as the cause of global climate change; (3) Ozone shield

rupture, i.e., the global ozone layer is thinning faster than predicted and is now evident over

both the North and South Poles; (4) Land degradation, i.e., 35 percent of the Earth's land

already is degraded, and this figure is increasing and irreversible in any time scale of interest to

society; (5) Biodiversity loss, i.e., the human economy has grown so large that there is no longer

room for all species and the extinction rate is 10,000 times as fast as pre-human extinction

rates.

The population-environment debate is strongly polarized (Simon 1998). On the one side

is the "Malthusian Crisis" position in which human populations result in pressures of resources

demands and pollution loads to build up to levels causing a catastrophe resulting in collapse of

the economy and society along with an increase in the death rate and a decline in the

Page 6 of 10
population. In this scenario, we do not achieve sustainability through choice or plan - it is forced

upon us by nature. Malthusian advocates usually suggest that catastrophe can be avoided as

long as humanity heeds the warning signals and takes the necessary steps in time.

On the opposing side is the "Economic Adaptation" approaches, in this scenario,

humans adapt to the problems that our development produces without grave setbacks. In the

process, we gain increased productivity and efficiency, as well as improved human welfare.

Simon and other economists consider population growth as an asset, producing more

brainpower to deal with any specific problem. According to this view, increased population

stimulates economic growth by increasing labor, markets; and the rate of innovation;

technology will solve all global problems, including environmental ones.

Environmental Carrying Capcity and Human

The concept of carrying capacity of earth is related to human populations. Carrying

capacity is a term derived from ecology, where it means the maximum number of animals of a

species that a habitat can support indefinitely without degrading the resources base. The

concept of carrying capacity must be extended beyond its biophysical components to include

social and cultural features when applied to human populations (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992). While

carrying capacity may change through time due to changes in extrinsic environmental

conditions, human carrying capacity may change through time due to human innovation and

technology. Given the complex reality of human population-environment interactions,

Page 7 of 10
estimating the Earth's carrying capacity for human populations is a forlorn task at our present

state of knowledge and understanding (Harrison and Pearce 2001).

Where do we stand in our efforts to achieve a sustainable world? Although it is difficult

to view the relevant facts clearly and without favoritism, it is evident that no relationships are

more important for us to understand as we strive to create a sustainable world in the 21st

Century and beyond. Clearly, an increasing body of knowledge collected over the past 50 years

clearly demonstrates that the collective impact of human numbers, per capita consumption,

and technology is exploiting an increasing proportion of the world's resources at an

unsustainable rate. Historically, the recognition by humans of their impact upon the Earth has

consistently lagged behind the magnitude of the damage they have imposed, thus seriously

weakening efforts to control the damage (Costanza et at. 1997). According to Raven (2001), we

have lost a quarter of the world's topsoil and a fifth of its agricultural land, altered the

composition of the atmosphere and destroyed a major proportion of our forests and other

natural habitats without replacing them. Worst of all, in his view, we have driven the rate of

biological extinction up several hundred times beyond historical levels and face the loss of a

majority of all species by the end of the 21st Century.

As the new millennium begins, the world's 6 billion human beings are estimated to be

consuming, wasting, or diverting more than 40 percent of the total net terrestrial

photosynthetic productivity and to be using 55 percent of the world's renewable supplies of

fresh water (Raven 2001). Global human populations are expected to grow another 50 percent

over the next half century, before leveling off at perhaps 10 billion people by 2100. In addition,

Page 8 of 10
the world is becoming increasingly urbanized (Harrison and Pearce 2001). Before 2010, more

people will be living in urban areas than in rural areas, placing huge demands for the

development of infrastructure to support delivery of potable water, treatment of sewage and

other wastes, transportation of people and goods, as well as for food, shelter, jobs, education,

health care. At the same time, rates of consumption are rising throughout the world. It has

been estimated that if everyone in the world were to live in the way we do in the United States,

it would require three more planets comparable to Earth to support them (Raven 2001).

Conclusion

Although it has long seemed obvious that there is an important linkage between the

density of human population and the state of the environment, quantitative analysis of such

relationships has not been adequately pursued and they are often poorly understood.

Literatures concluds that general statements, speculation, and intuitive deductions about the

impacts of various aspects of human population on the environment are no longer sufficient as

a basis for effective action, and additional empirical evidence and analyses are badly needed.

Human populations will attain sustainability at some point in the future. The issue is will

this sustainable population exist as dull, monotonous lifestyles in dangerous, unhealthy

landscapes, or enjoy biological and cultural diversity with healthy and nurturing opportunities

for everyone? In the meantime, current national and global trends in land development and

population growth necessitate a substantial increase in research about the population-

environment linkage (Pulliam and Haddad 1994) and accelerated protection of critical areas for

Page 9 of 10
conservation of biological diversity. Nevertheless, we are modifying ecosystems and global

systems faster than we can understand the changes and prepare responses to them.

References

Costanza, R.,I; Cumberland, H. Daly, R. Goodland, and R. Norgaard. 1997. An introduction to

ecological economics. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 275 pp.

Daily, G.C. and P.R. Ehrlich. 1992. Population, sustainability, and the earth's carrying capacity.
Bioscience 42: 761-771.

Ehrlich, P.R. and J.P. Holdren. 1971. Impact of population growth.

Harrison, P. and F. Pearce. 2001. AAAS atlas of population & environment. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 204 pp.

Pulliam, H.R. and N.M. Haddad. 1994. Human Population Growth and The Carrying Capacity
Concept. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 75 (3): 141 - 157.

Raven, P.H. 2001. Foreword. AAAS atlas of population & environment. University of California
Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 204 pp.

Simon, J.L. Ed.1998. The economics of population. Classic writings. Transaction Publishers. New
Brunswick, New Jersey. 225 pp

World Bank. 1999. World Development Report, 1998/1999. Washington, DC.

Class Lectures and Hands out Provided by Mr. Keshab Pd. Adhikari, Instructor of Population,
Development and Natural Resource Linkage, Kathmandu University

Page 10 of 10