Population and Environment

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 381–406 | Cite as

Natural resource collection and desired family size: a longitudinal test of environment-population theories

  • Sarah R. Brauner-OttoEmail author
  • William G. Axinn
Original Paper


Theories relating the changing environment to human fertility predict that declining natural resources may actually increase the demand for children. Unfortunately, most previous empirical studies have been limited to cross-sectional designs that limit our ability to understand links between processes that change over time. We take advantage of longitudinal measurement spanning more than a decade of change in the natural environment, household agricultural behaviors, and individual fertility preferences to reexamine this question. Using fixed effect models, we find that women experiencing increasing time required to collect firewood to heat and cook or fodder to feed animals (the dominant needs for natural resources in this setting) increased their desired family size, even as many other macro-level changes have reduced desired family size. In contrast to previous, cross-sectional studies, we find no evidence of such a relationship for men. Our findings regarding time spent collecting firewood are also new. These results support the “vicious circle” perspective and economic theories of fertility pointing to the value of children for household labor. This feedback from natural resource constraint to increased fertility is an important mechanism for understanding long-term environmental change.


Fertility Natural resource use Fodder Firewood Nepal Intentions Family size 


  1. Agarwal, B. (1994). The gender and environment debate: lessons from India. In L. Arizpe, M. P. Stone, & D. C. Major (Eds.), Population and environment: rethinking the debate (pp. 87–124). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aggarwal, R., Netanyahu, S., & Romano, C. (2001). Access to natural resources and the fertility decision of women: the case of South Africa. Environ Dev Econ, 6, 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Axinn, W. G. (1992). Family organization and fertility limitation in Nepal. Demography, 29(4), 503–521.Google Scholar
  4. Axinn, G. H. & Axinn, N. W. (1984). Energy and food relationships in developing countries: a perspective from the social sciences. Chapter 6. In W. Carl, Hall, & D. Pimental (Eds.), Food and energy relationships (pp. 121–146). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Axinn, W. G., & Barber, J. S. (2001). Mass education and fertility transition. Am Sociol Rev, 66(4), 481–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Axinn, W. G., & Ghimire, D. J. (2011). Social organization, population, and land use. Am J Sociol, 117(1), 209–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Axinn, W. G., & Yabiku, S. T. (2001). Social change, the social organization of families, and fertility limitation. Am J Sociol, 106(5), 1219–1261. doi: 10.1086/320818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Axinn, W. G., Barber, J. S., & Ghimire, D. J. (1997). The neighborhood history calendar: a data collection method designed for dynamic multilevel modeling. Sociol Methodol, 27, 355–392. doi: 10.1111/1467-9531.271031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Axinn, W. G., Ghimire, D. J., & Williams, N. (2012). Collecting survey data during armed conflict. Journal of Official Statistics, 28(2), 153–171.Google Scholar
  10. Behrman, J. A. (2015). Does schooling affect women’s desired fertility? Evidence from Malawi, Uganda, and Ethiopia. Demography, 52(3), 787–809. doi: 10.1007/s13524-015-0392-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennett, L. (1983). Dangerous wives and sacred sisters: social and symbolic roles of high caste women in Nepal. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bhattacharya, H., & Innes, R. (2008). An empirical exploration of the population-environment nexus in India. Am J Agric Econ, 90(4), 883–901. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01156.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Biddlecom, A. E., Axinn, W. G., & Barber, J. S. (2005). Environmental effects on family size preferences and subsequent reproductive behavior in Nepal. Popul Environ, 26(3), 183–206. doi: 10.1007/s11111-005-1874-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bilsborrow, R. E., & Ogendo, H. W. O. O. (1992). Population-driven changes in land-use in developing-countries. Ambio, 21(1), 37–45.Google Scholar
  15. Brander, J. A. (2007). Viewpoint: sustainability: Malthus revisited? Canadian Journal of Economics-Revue Canadienne D Economique, 40(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brauner-Otto, S. R. (2014). Environmental quality and fertility: the effects of plant density, species richness, and plant diversity on fertility limitation. Popul Environ, 36(1), 1–31. doi: 10.1007/s11111-013-0199-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brauner-Otto, S. R., Axinn, W. G., & Ghimire, D. J. (2007). The spread of health services and fertility transition. Demography, 44(4), 747–770. doi: 10.1353/dem.2007.0041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cain, M. (1977). The economic activities of children in a village in Bangladesh. Popul Dev Rev, 3(3), 201–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Caldwell, J. C. (1982). Theory of fertility decline. London; New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Chiarucci, A., Wilson, J. B., Anderson, B. J., & De Dominicis, V. (1999). Cover versus biomass as an estimate of species abundance: does it make a difference to the conclusions? J Veg Sci, 10(1), 35–42. doi: 10.2307/3237158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coombs, L. C. (1974). The measurement of family size preferences and subsequent fertility. Demography, 11(4), 587–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coombs, L. C. (1977). Preferences for sex of children among U.S. couples. Fam Plan Perspect, 9(6), 259–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coombs, L. C. (1979). Reproductive goals and achieved fertility: a fifteen-year perspective. Demography, 16(4), 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coombs, L. C., & Sun, T. H. (1978). Family composition preferences in a developing culture - case of Taiwan, 1973. Population Studies-a Journal of Demography, 32(1), 43–64. doi: 10.2307/2173840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dangol, D. R., & Maharjan, K. L. (2012). Spatial and temporal dynamics of flora in forest, grassland, and common land ecosystems of western Chitwan, Nepal. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 18(4), 77–92.Google Scholar
  26. Davis, K. (1963). The theory of change and response in modern demographic history. Population Index, 29(4), 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. de Sherbinin, A., Carr, D., Cassels, S., & Jiang, L. (2007). Population and environment. Annu Rev Environ Resour, 32, 345–373. doi: 10.1146/ Scholar
  28. de Sherbinin, A., VanWey, L. K., McSweeney, K., Aggarwal, R., Barbieri, A., Henry, S., & Walker, R. (2008). Rural household demographics, livelihoods and the environment. Glob Environ Chang, 18(1), 38–53. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Easterlin, R. A., & Crimmins, E. M. (1985). Theoretical framework. In R. A. Easterlin & E. M. Crimmins (Eds.), The fertility revolution: a supply–demand analysis (pp. 12–31). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ehrlich, P. R. (1968). The population bomb. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  31. Entwisle, B., Rindfuss, R. R., Guilkey, D. K., Chamratrithirong, A., Curran, S. R., & Sawangdee, Y. (1996). Community and contraceptive choice in rural Thailand: a case study of Nang Rong. Demography, 33(1), 1–11. doi: 10.2307/2061709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Filmer, D., & Pritchett, L. H. (2002). Environmental degradation and the demand for children: searching for the vicious circle in Pakistan. Environ Dev Econ, 7, 123–146. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X02000074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ghimire, D. J. (2003). The social context of first birth timing in Nepal. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  34. Ghimire, D. J., & Axinn, W. G. (2010). Community context, land use, and first birth. Rural Sociol, 75(3), 478–513. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2010.00019.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ghimire, D. J., & Hoelter, L. F. (2007). Land use and first birth timing in an agricultural setting. Popul Environ, 28(6), 289–320. doi: 10.1007/s11111-007-0056-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grace, K., & Nagle, N. N. (2015). Using high-resolution remotely sensed data to examine the relationship between agriculture and fertility in Mali. Professional Geographer, 67(4), 641–654. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2015.1032899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grimm, M., Sparrow, R., & Tasciotti, L. (2015). Does electrification spur the fertility transition? Evidence from Indonesia. Demography, 52(5), 1773–1796. doi: 10.1007/s13524-015-0420-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hunter, L. M., Nawrotzki, R., Leyk, S., Maclaurin, G. J., Twine, W., Collinson, M., & Erasmus, B. (2014). Rural outmigration, natural capital, and livelihoods in South Africa. Population Space and Place, 20(5), 402–420.Google Scholar
  39. Johnson, D. (1995). Alternative methods for the quantitative analysis of panel data in family research: pooled time-series models. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(4), 1065–1077.Google Scholar
  40. Johnson, D. (2005). Two-wave panel analysis: comparing statistical methods for studying the effects of transitions. J Marriage Fam, 67(4), 1061–1075. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00194.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson-Hanks, J. A., Bachrach, C. A., Morgan, S. P., & Kohler, H. (2011). Understanding family change and variation: toward a theory of conjunctural action. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kertzer, & David, I. (1995). Political-economic and cultural explanations of demographic behavior. In S. Greenhalgh (Ed.), Situating fertility (pp. 29–52). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lam, D. (2011). How the world survived the population bomb: lessons from 50 Years of extraordinary demographic history. Demography, 48(4), 1231–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lehmkuhl, J. F. (1994). A classification of subtropical riverine grassland and forest in Chitwan-National-Park, Nepal. Vegetatio, 111, 29–43.Google Scholar
  45. Link, C. F., Axinn, W. G., & Ghimire, D. J. (2012). Household energy consumption: community context and the fuelwood transition. Soc Sci Res, 41(3), 598–611. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matthews, S., Shivakoti, G., & Chhetri, N. (2000). Population forces and environmental change: observations from western Chitwan, Nepal. Soc Nat Resour, 13(8), 763–775. doi: 10.1080/089419200750035610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McNicoll, G. (1980). Institutional determinants of fertility change. Popul Dev Rev, 6(3), 441–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller, G., & Babiarz, K. S. (2016). Family planning program effects: evidence from microdata. Popul Dev Rev, 42(1), 7. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2016.00109.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ministry of Health and Population (MOHP) [Nepal], New ERA, and Macro International Inc. (2007). Nepal demographic and health survey 2006. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health and Population, New ERA, and Macro International Inc..Google Scholar
  50. O’Neill, B. C., Landis MacKellar, F., & Lutz, W. (2001). Population and climate change. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Patil, G. P., & Taillie, C. (1982). Diversity as a concept and its measurement. J Am Stat Assoc, 77(379), 548–561. doi: 10.2307/2287709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peet, N. B., Watkinson, A. R., Bell, D. J., & Kattel, B. J. (1999). Plant diversity in the threatened sub-tropical grasslands of Nepal. Biol Conserv, 88(2), 193–206. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00104-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Piotrowski, M., Ghimire, D., & Rindfuss, R. (2013). Farming systems and rural out-migration in Nang Rong, Thailand, and Chitwan Valley, Nepal. Rural Sociology, 78(1), 75–108.Google Scholar
  54. Poudel, A., Baral, H. S., Ellison, C., Subedi, K., Thomas, S., & Murphy, S. (2005). Mikania micrantha weed invasion in Nepal. A summary report of the first national workshop for stakeholders, held on 25 November 2004 in Kathmandu, Nepal. Himalayan Nature, IUCN-Nepal, and CAB International, UK.Google Scholar
  55. Pradhan, A., Aryal, R. H., Regmi, G., Ban, B., & Govindasamy, P. (1997). Nepal family health survey 1996. Kathmandu, Nepal and Calverton, Maryland: Ministry of Health [Nepal], New ERA, and Macro International Inc.Google Scholar
  56. Shivakoti, G., Axinn, W., Bhandari, P., & Chhetri, N. (1999). The impact of community context on land use in an agricultural society. Population and Environment, 20(3), 191–213.Google Scholar
  57. Thornton, A., & Lin, H. (1994). Social change and the family in Taiwan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Vaisey, S., & Miles, A. (2014). What you can—and Can’t—do with three-wave panel data. Sociol Methods Res. doi: 10.1177/0049124114547769.Google Scholar
  59. Watkins, S. C. (1993). If all we know about women was what we read in demography, what would we know? Demography, 30(4), 551–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yabiku, S. T. (2006). Land use and marriage timing in Nepal. Popul Environ, 27(5–6), 445–461. doi: 10.1007/s11111-006-0030-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zvoleff, A., & An, L. (2014). The effect of reciprocal connections between demographic decision making and land use on decadal dynamics of population and land-use change. Ecol Soc, 19(2), 31. doi: 10.5751/ES-06243-190231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Survey Research Center and Population Studies Center, Sociology and Public PolicyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations