Research in Population-Environment: Review Paper Prepared by Robin Marsh, with Tania Barham1, for the Population- Environment Initiative, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, December 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 3. Research Themes 4. Conceptual Framework 5. Future Research Needs 6. New Research in Population-Environment (2000-2002) 1 Dr. Robin Marsh, agricultural economist, is the Academic Coordinator of the Center for Sustainable Resource Development, College of Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley, and Tania Barham is a doctoral candidate in Agricultural and Resource Economics, UCB, with research interests in health-population-economic development linkages. Executive Summary Population-environment analysis may be considered an academic inter-disciplinary sub- field that is closely linked with population policy analysis (Lutz, Prskawetz and Sanderson, eds., 2002). Nevertheless, this review of university-based population-environment and related programs in the United States shows that population-environment has yet to become a “major” or “concentration” in either undergraduate or graduate programs, nor are degrees offered – anywhere (to our knowledge) in the sub-field of population-environment. The sub-field consists of research faculty and graduate students from several key disciplines that are pursuing theoretical and applied research in population-environment topics. The main disciplines are sociology, anthropology, and public health, often in collaboration with economics, demography, geography and ecology, Only the fellowship and certificate programs for mid-career professionals are explicitly training people in the sub-field of population- environment (e.g. University of Michigan, University of Washington, U.C. Berkeley/ Beahrs ELP). Non-academic, policy-oriented research and advocacy centers and think tanks – such as RAND, Center for Environment and Population, Population Action International, and Population Reference Bureau, provide science-based reports, fact sheets and briefings to policymakers – primarily on the natural resource and environmental impacts of population growth, and create forums for dialogue. The primary obstacle for developing sustainable academic programs and degrees in population-environment analysis is the basic departmental structure within U.S. universities that rewards specialization and provides few incentives for exploratory, interdisciplinary teaching and research collaboration. Core funding, particularly for public universities, is allocated to support basic departmental teaching and research. Extramural funding, from government agencies and private foundations, has been crucial for the creation and functioning of a number of university-based innovative programs and centers in population-environment teaching, research and policy that draw on faculty and students campus-wide (see Tables 1 and 2). It is not surprising, therefore, that this review has identified the main research need in population environment analysis as: “the development of interdisciplinary methodologies and approaches for jointly collecting and analyzing demographic, socio-economic and environmental data at different geographic scales.” There is both a need to improve and update theoretical approaches and models to understanding population-environment interactions (e.g. building and improving on the Ehrlich/Holdren I=PAT model), and, perhaps more importantly, for rigorous empirical research to test the environmental and natural resource impacts of changing demographic conditions, particularly in areas identified as “hot spots” for biodiversity. The review has identified six main areas of current population-environment research in U.S. universities: 1. human dimensions of global environmental change, particularly the impact of human settlements on forest cover, fresh water, biodiversity and coastal resources in the tropics; 2. property rights, common property regimes and the role of social capital in natural resource management; 2 3. internal and international migration, the related field of urbanization, and impacts on consumption, natural resources, environmental quality and the spread of HIV-AIDs; 4. population growth/ fertility rates and economic growth (found recently to be inversely related in several studies), with environment considered implicitly; 5. global environment and health, with major programs on indoor and outdoor air pollution, and emerging research on the potential health impacts of climate change; and 6. demographic, socio-economic and environmental impacts of the HIV/AIDs pandemic worldwide. The last section of the review on “recent literature” provides 24 citations and abstracts of an interdisciplinary cross-section of articles, book chapters and reports in population- environment analysis, published between 2000 and 2002. This section shows that the sub-field is “alive and well”, despite the abovementioned academic obstacles. There exists in the United States, and around the world, a critical mass of scholars with expertise in population- environment analysis, that will continue to conduct research and provide science-based information and policy advice on the impacts of population growth on natural resources and the environment. However, it remains critical, perhaps more so than ever, that extramural funding from government agencies such as NIH, NICHD, NASA and USAID, and private foundations such as Packard, Hewlett, MacArthur, and Rockefeller, continue to support existing university- based programs and centers on population-environment, and to support university efforts to develop interdisciplinary majors and degree programs in pop-environment analysis, as well as short-term certificate training for professionals from developing countries. There is a real danger that if the extramural funding were to disappear, the traditional disciplinary structure of U.S. universities would result in a sharp decline in innovative population-environment teaching, research, policy advice, and training. “Assessing the connections among population, resources, and environment is a complex and frustrating exercise, marred by differences in approach, the biases of different methodologies, and the complexity of the linkages. There is a basic philosophical division in the study of population and environment that is often characterized, or perhaps caricatured, as a debate between optimists and pessimists. …… A second major division in the debate involves the frame of reference for investigating population- environment linkages. Some investigators seek to manage Earth's resources and ecosystems to benefit humans, while others strive to minimize human impact on the Earth……Finally, these differences in philosophies and frames of reference influence the debate about how best to reduce the stress of human activity on the environment. Are better policies, different political or economic systems, new technologies, or changes in lifestyles the best way to protect the environment?” “Population Change, Resources, and the Environment”, by Robert Livernash and Eric Rodenburg (Population Bulletin, Vol. 53 No. 1, 3/98, 2001). 3 Introduction Through the guidance of population-environment faculty at U.C. Berkeley, senior staff at the Population-Environment Research Network (PERN), and additional website research, it was possible to identify the major universities and policy-oriented research centers in the United States with programs in population-environment interactions. These programs are listed and briefly described in Table 1 (see Annex 1). The related sub-field of health-environment interactions (directly or indirectly related to population), concentrated in Schools of Public Health and Medicine, is covered separately in Table 2 (see Annex 1), with some overlap between the two tables. It is important to mention that there is considerable research in this and related fields taking place outside of the United States, particularly in Europe, that is not covered in any depth in this review paper. In the 2002 book, Population and Environment: Methods of Analysis (Lutz, Prskawetz and Sanderson, eds.), the editors state, “the book is built on the premise that P-E analysis is indeed an emerging and distinct field of scientific analysis.” They base this claim on evidence from three criteria: (a) a critical mass of people that work on P-E; (b) a set of joint research questions; and (c) a set of common methodologies (albeit heterogeneous, with no “standard methodology”). Nevertheless, whereas P-E analysis may be considered a distinct field or sub- field of study, a review of university-based P-E and related programs in the United States shows that population-environment has yet to become a “major” or “concentration” in either undergraduate or graduate programs, nor are degrees offered – anywhere (to our knowledge) in population-environment. Rather, research faculty and graduate students from a few departments – notably sociology, anthropology, and public health, with input from economists, demographers and ecologists, are pursuing interdisciplinary research in population-environment topics. Only the fellowship programs for mid-career professionals are explicitly training people to work in population-environment (e.g. University of Michigan, University of Washington, U.C. Berkeley/Beahrs ELP). Research Themes Tables 1 and 2 summarize the principal research themes, courses and training in population-environment (and health) taking place at U.S.-based universities and policy-oriented research