264-268 Introduction.p65

DILEMMAS OF POPULATION, ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT In the 1980s and 1990s, there was widespread belief among environmentalists and lay people that uncontrolled population growth was responsible for environmental degradation of all types. This neo-Malthusian belief originally surfaced in the publication of The Population Bomb by Ehrlich and Ehrlich in the late 1960s, which interpreted the unprecedented high growth rate experienced in that decade in an alarmist tone (1–3). In ensuing years this belief, combined with work on carrying capacity and a growing environmental movement, led to the seemingly commonsense conclusion that high growth, and high fertility in particular, are destructive for the environment. The rhetoric often is shrill (see various Worldwatch Institute publications in the 1990s), and extends beyond academia and the NGO sectors (4). Scientific research, however, has not shown a definitive link between population growth or size and environmental decline. A growing body of work indicates that neo-Malthusian assumptions about environmental change may be misleading (5). Numerous critics have pointed out that consumption of resources by citizens of the global North is at least as important in explaining environmental degradation as population growth (6, 7). On the other hand, growing consumer demand in developing countries also portends threats to the environment (e.g. the growing middle class in China and India), and does not contradict statements about how high population growth is a cause of environmental degradation (8, 9). In other words, the sheer number of people does not on its own explain the dire state that many ecosystems are in—how people and institutions use those resources, or consume them, is as important (10). The organization of consumption then becomes a key mediating factor. The issue of consumption, how to measure it, and its relationship to resource use is poorly understood (11) and has many different definitions, some of which are culturally subjective and depend on the social and economic aspirations of the consumer (12, 13). Considering consumption of the Earth’s natural resources, the concept needs to be evaluated in terms of its rate versus the regenerative rate of the resource being consumed. In addition, there are very few studies that link population change, environmental change, and resource consumption in a meaningful manner. The dearth of good research on this topic is not surprising. For one thing, the topic spans at least three major disciplines (demography, ecology, and economics) and requires an integrated approach to theory, data collection, and analysis. Since much of the interest has concerned the loss of tropical resources and growing populations in the global South, the knowledge generated needs to be useful for governments and citizens there. Yet, the consumption of those resources is often for markets in the global North, making it necessary for northern institutions and citizens to be aware of the consequences of their actions and for policy solutions that overcome free-rider costs (e.g. citizens of the global North free riding on the resources of the global South (7) ). Finally, there must be a strong connection to policy in order to make the research useful in conserving the environment and improving the quality of life of the people who depend on it. One strategy to overcome the complexities of understanding links among human population systems, ecosystems, and consumption is to focus on one set of dynamics on each end of the equation, and vary some of the mediating factors and the contexts within which they interact. It is to this end that The MacArthur Foundation’s 6-year funding program was directed. Through funding a variety of case studies that focused on migration (as one key component of population dynamics), and coastal or marine ecosystems, the program planned an approach to understanding the dilemmas of population, environment, and consumption and enable future research and policy directions. Coastal ecosystems were selected for a variety of reasons. The Rio Conference in 1992 drew special attention to them. They are of particular interest because a growing proportion of the world’s population lives near a coast (14–16), although mostly in cities. Over the next century global warming threatens to impose dramatic constraints on land use as world sea levels rise (14, 17). Coastal ecosystems are among the most rich and diverse in the world, providing important global functions (ecosystem services) for marine ecosystems and atmospheric composition. Finally, coastal ecosystems have proven more difficult to manage through privatization or market relations. Coastal waters, beaches, and tidal plains can be organized either as openaccess systems, or more likely, some form of common property relations (18), increasing their vulnerability to disruption as a result of human migration in or out of the ecosystem. Besides providing ecosystem services, coastal ecosystems as sites for human economic development put in sharp relief competing human demands for multiple, and not always compatible, uses, such as water for industrial purposes, space for shipping and ports, fishing, tourism, and salt, sand or coral for consumption and building. Thus, they represent a particular challenge for understanding how changing human population structure affects ecosystem sustenance, and consequently human well-being.