Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to population–environment research for sustainability aims: a review and appraisal

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Population and Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The causes and consequences of demographic changes for the environment, and the possible ways of influencing population dynamics to achieve ‘sustainability’, have been the subject of many debates in science and policy in recent decades. However, the body of knowledge concerning relationships between population dynamics and sustainability is quite fragmented, dispersed over many disciplines, and encompasses diverse theories, paradigms and methodologies. This paper reviews four selected frameworks: linear, multiplicative, mediated, and system-theoretical approaches and perspectives. We represent how population–environment relationships are conceptualized, provide examples of research questions and accepted approaches, and critically assess their utility for different sorts of research for sustainable development. We note the growing recognition of the value of embracing complexity in population–environment research, and how this is consistent with normative aims of development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper, we refer to the background paper of this seminar (Hummel et al. 2009), the expert statements of the invited panelists (Aggarwal 2009; Knight 2009; Liu 2009; Murphy 2009a, b; Zulu 2009) as well as individual contributions of other participants of the cyberseminar to the discussion. The full discussion of the cyberseminar including the several panel contributions is documented at http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/seminars022009.jsp. We wish to acknowledge IUSSP and IHDP as co-sponsors of PERN and the support of the Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE) for the support of this seminar and CIESIN’s SEDAC project for hosting the network.

  2. Today, population–environment research comprises a multitude of themes, for example, population, poverty and environment (Bremner et al. 2010), migration and the environment (Adamo and Izazola 2010), or population dynamics and tropical deforestation (Carr et al. 2006)—to mention only some of the diverse subjects. Since our focus is on theory and conceptual approaches of P–E research, a review on the different research topics would go beyond the scope of this paper.

  3. Thus, one of the questions a political ecologist might ask is ‘Under what conditions does rapid population growth lead to environmental degradation or recovery?’

  4. For instance, a nexus of high (urban) population, poverty, and strong market forces can set limits to the success and suitability of the all ascendant and ubiquitously adopted community-based natural resources management approaches in the developing South by providing ‘irresistible incentives’ for natural resource (e.g., forest) ‘mining’ and raise ‘transaction costs’ of collective action ‘too high to sustain’ community resource management intuitions and sustainable resource utilization (Zulu 2006: 248).

  5. The SL approach is in this way also similar to the environmental entitlements approach (Leach et al. 1999), except that institutions play the major mediating role in livelihoods related environment–society relationships in the latter approach.

  6. So far, several universities offer such programs in the area of ‘sustainability science’ or non-disciplinary programs (i.e., IDS, Stockholm/Sweden; Leuphana University, Lueneburg/Germany; ASU School of Sustainability/USA).

References

  • Adamo, S. (2007). Reflexiones sobre la complejidad: Investigación y formación en el área de estudios de población y medio ambiente. Paper presented at the 1º Taller sobre Dimensiones Humanas del Cambio Ambiental en Argentina, Luján, Argentina, August 8–10 August, 2007.

  • Adamo, S. B., & Guzmán, B. (2001). Influence of environmental, demographic and structural factors on water strategies in the Great Plains. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Washington, DC.

  • Adamo, S., & Izazola, H. (2010). Human migration and the environment. Population and Environment, 32(2–3), 105–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, R. M. (2006). Globalization, local ecosystems, and the rural poor. World Development, 34(8), 1405–1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, R. (2009). Understanding Population Environment Interactions: Sustainable Livelihoods. Framework and the Social Ecological Approach. Expert Statement for the PERN-Cyberseminar. Theoretical and methodological issues in the Analysis of Population Dynamics and the Environment. http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/papers/Aggarwal_1and2.pdf. Retrieved 30 April 2012.

  • Aggarwal, R. M., Netanyahu, S., & Romano, C. (2001). Access to natural resources and the fertility decision of women: The case of South Africa. Environment and Development Economics, 6, 209–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkire, S. (2002). Dimensions of human development. World Development, 30(2), 181–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An, L., Linderman, M. A., Shortridge, A., Qi, J., & Liu, J. (2005). Exploring complexity in a human-environment system: An agent-based spatial model for multidisciplinary and multiscale integration. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95, 54–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An, L., Liu, J., Ouyang, Z., Linderman, M. A., Zhou, S., & Zhang, H. (2001). Simulating demographic and socioeconomic processes on household level and implications for giant panda habitats. Ecological Modelling, 140, 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An, L., Lupi, F., Liu, J., Linderman, M. A., & Huang, J. (2002). Modeling the choice to switch from fuelwood to electricity. Ecological Economics, 42, 445–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, A. (2003). Global networks and local developments: Agendas for development geography. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 94(3), 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, E., Jahn, T., & Hummel, D. (2006). Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse. In E. Becker & T. Jahn (Eds.), Soziale Ökologie. Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen (pp.174–197). Frankfurt, NY: Campus.

  • Bergmann, M., & Schramm, E. (Eds.). (2008). Transdisziplinäre Forschung. Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. Frankfurt, NY: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems. Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddlecom, A. E., Axinn, W., & Barber, J. S. (2005). Environmental effects on family size preferences and subsequent reproductive behavior in Nepal. Population and Environment, 26(3), 583–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, B. (1987). Land degradation and society. London, NY: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boserup, E. (1965). The conditions of agricultural progress. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boserup, E. (1981). Population and technological change: A study of long-term trends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremner, J., et al. (2010). Population, poverty, environment, and climate dynamics in the developing world. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, 11(2–3), 127–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. C., & Purcell, M. (2005). There’s nothing inherent about scale: Political ecology, the local trap, and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum, 36, 607–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. E. W., & Keil, F. (2010). How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? In R. J. in’t Veld (Ed.), Knowledge democracy. Consequences for science, politics, and Media (pp. 125–152). Berlin: Springer.

  • Caldas, M., Walker, R., Arima, E., Perz, S., Aldrich, S., & Simmons, C. (2007). Theorizing land cover and land use change: The Peasant economy of amazonian deforestation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(1), 86–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, D. (Ed.). (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods. What contribution can we make? London: Department for International Development (DFID).

  • Carr, D. L., Suter, L., & Barbieri, A. (2006). Population dynamics and tropical deforestation: State of the debate and conceptual challenges. Population and Environment, 25(6), 585–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., & Conway, G. R. (1991). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296.

  • Chen, X., Lupi, F., An, L., Sheely, R., Viña, A., & Liu, J. (2011). Agent-based modeling of the effects of social norms on enrollment in payments for ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling (in press). doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.06.007.

  • Chen, X., Lupi, F., He, G., & Liu, J. (2009). Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 11812–11817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., Lupi, F., Viña, A., He, G., & Liu, J. (2010). Integrating household characteristics into targeting of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services. Conservation Biology, 24, 1469–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. E. (1995). How many people can the earth support?. New York: Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran, S. R., & de Sherbinin, A. (2004). Completing the picture: The challenges of bringing ‘consumption’ into the population-environment equation. Population and Environment, 26(2), 107–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P. (2000). Population and resources: An exploration of reproductive and environmental externalities. Population and Development Review, 26, 643–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Sherbinin, A. (1995). World population growth and U.S. national security. Environmental Change and Security Project Report, Issue 1.

  • de Sherbinin, A., Carr, D., Cassels, S., & Jiang, L. (2007). Population and environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 345–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Sherbinin, A., VanWey, L. K., McSweeney, K., Aggarwal, R., Barbieri, A., Henry, S., et al. (2008). Rural household demographics, livelihood and the environment. Global Environmental Change, 18, 38–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Souza, R.-M., Williams, J. S., & Meyerson, F. A. B. (2003). Critical links: Population, health, and the environment. Population Bulletin (Vol. 58(3)). Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.

  • Dietz, T., & Rosa, E. A. (1994). Rethinking the environmental impacts of population, affluence, and technology. Human Ecology Review, 1, 277–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Rosa, E. A., & York, R. (2007). Driving the human ecological footprint. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(1), 13–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domingo, A. (2008). Demodystopias: Prospects of demographic hell. Population and Development Review, 34(4), 725–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donner, W. R. (2007). The political ecology of disaster: an analysis of factors influencing U.S. tornado fatalities and injuries, 1998–2000. Demography, 44(3), 669–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O. D. (1966). Human ecology and population studies. In P. M. Hauser & O. D. Duncan (Eds.), The study of population (pp. 678–716). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, P. R. (1968). The population bomb. New York: Ballantine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of population growth. Science, 171, 1212–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development. The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1996). Rethinking the forest-savanna mosaic. In M. Leach & R. Mearns (Eds.), The lie of the land—Challenging the received wisdom on the African environment (Vol. 2, pp. 105–121). London: The International African Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fearnside, P. M. (1986). Human carrying capacity of the Brazilian rainforest. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J. (1990). The anti-politics machine: Development, depolitization and bureautization in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke, Carl. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective of social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallopín, G., Funktowicz, S., O’Connor, M., & Ravez, J. (2001). Science for the 21st century: From social contract to the scientific core. International Social Science Journal, 168, 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzmann, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, M., Krause, G., Halliday, A., & Glaeser, B. (2012). Towards global sustainability analysis in the anthropocene. In M. Glaser, G. Krause, B. Ratter, & M. Welp (Eds.), Human nature interactions in the anthropocene (pp. 193–222). London: Routledge (in print).

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy. Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, M. P., Parton, W. J., Bohren, L., Burke, I., Galvin, K., Riebsame, W. et al. (1996). Demographic responses to climate change in the U.S. Great Plains, 1930–1980. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, New Orleans.

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 152, 1243–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, B. (1995). Reproductive rights and wrongs. The global politics of population control. Boston: South End Press (2nd Ed.).

  • He, G., Chen, X., Liu, W., Bearer, S., Zhou, S., Cheng, L., et al. (2008). Distribution of economic benefits from ecotourism. Environmental Management, 42, 1017–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffman-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, Ch., et al. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, D. (2008). Population changes, water conflicts, and governance in the Middle East. In D. Hummel (Ed.), Population dynamics and supply systems. A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 181–210). Frankfurt, NY: Campus.

  • Hummel, D. (2012). Population dynamics and adaptive capacity of supply systems. In M. Glaser, G. Krause, B. Ratter, & M. Welp (Eds.), Human nature interactions in the anthropocene (pp. 123–138). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, D., & Lux, A. (2006). Bevölkerungsentwicklung. In E. Becker & T. Jahn. (Eds.), Soziale Ökologie. Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen (pp. 409–422). Frankfurt, NY: Campus.

  • Hummel, D., Lux, A., de Sherbinin, A., & Adamo, S. (2009). Theoretical and methodlogical issues in the analysis of population dynamics and supply systems. Background Paper for the Population-Environment Research Network (PERN) Cyberseminar on Theoretical and Methological Issues in the Analysis of Population Dynamics and the Environment, 2–13 February 2009. www.populationenvironmentresearch.org. Retrieved 30 April 2012.

  • Hummel, D., Hertler, Ch., Niemann, S., Lux, A., & Janowicz, C. (2008). The analytical framework. In D. Hummel (Ed.), Population dynamics and supply systems. A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 11–69). Frankfurt, NY: Campus.

  • Hunter, L. M. (2000). The environmental implications of population dynamics. Santa Monica: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, L. M., Twine, W., & Johnson, A., (2005). Population dynamics and the environment: Examining the natural resource context of the African HIV/AIDS Pandemic. Paper presented at the XXV International Population Conference, Tours, France, July 18–23, 2005.

  • Jahn, T. (2008). Transdisziplinarität in der Forschungspraxis. In M. Bergmann & E. Schramm (Eds.), Transdisziplinäre Forschung. Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten (pp. 21–37). Frankfurt, NY: Campus.

  • Janowicz, C. (2008). The world goes urban: Food supply systems and urbanization processes in Africa. In D. Hummel (Ed.), Population dynamics and supply systems. A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 129–160). Frankfurt, NY: Campus.

  • Jolly, C. L. (1994). Four theories of population change and the environment. Population and Environment, 16(1), 61–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (2004). Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving relationship. E:CO Special Double Issue, 6(1–2), 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, K. W. (2009). Structural human ecology and STIRPAT: Theory and method. Expert statement for the PERN-Cyberseminar Theoretical and methodological issues in the Analysis of Population Dynamics and the Environment. http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/papers/Knight_STIRPAT_statement.pdf. Retrieved 30 April 2012.

  • Leach, M., & Mearns, R. (1996). The lie of the land: Challenging received wisdom on the African environment. London: James Currey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, M., Mearns, R., & Scoones, I. (1999). Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development, 27(2), 225–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2007). Pathways to sustainability: An overview of the STEPS centre approach. STEPS Approach Paper, Brighton: STEPS Centre.

  • Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2010). Dynamic sustainabilities. Technology, environment, social justice. London: Earthscan.

  • Linderman, M. A., An, L., Bearer, S., He, G., Ouyang, Z., & Liu, J. (2005). Modeling the spatio-temporal dynamics and interactions of households, landscape, and giant panda habitat. Ecological Modelling, 183(1), 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, P. D. (1994). The social context of land degradation (‘Desertification’). In dry regions. In L. Arizpe, P. M. Stone & D. Major (Eds.), Population and environment. Rethinking the debate (pp. 209–251). Boulder: Westview Press.

  • Liu, J. (1993). ECOLECON: A spatially-explicit model for ECOLogical-ECONomics of species conservation in complex forest landscapes. Ecological Modelling, 70, 63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J. (2009). A systems approach to population-environment studies. Expert statement for the PERN-Cyberseminar Theoretical and methodological issues in the Analysis of Population Dynamics and the Environment. http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/papers/Liu_Systems_approach_statement.pdf. Retrieved 30 April 2012.

  • Liu, J., Cubbage, F., & Pulliam, H. R. (1994). Ecological and economic effects of forest structure and rotation lengths: Simulation studies using ECOLECON. Ecological Economics, 10, 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., & Luck, G. W. (2003). Effects of household dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity. Nature, 421, 530–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Dietz, Th., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., et al. (2007a). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317, 1513–1516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Dietz, Th., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Alberti, M., Redman, C. L., et al. (2007b). Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio, 36, 639–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Li, S., Ouyang, Z., Tam, C., & Chen, X. (2008). Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 9477–9482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Linderman, M., Ouyang, Z., An, L., Yang, J., & Zhang, H. (2001). Ecological degradation in protected areas: The case of Wolong nature reserve for giant pandas. Science, 292, 98–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Ouyang, Z., Tan, Y., Yang, J., & Zhou, S. (1999a). Changes in human population structure and implications for biodiversity conservation. Population and Environment, 21, 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Ouyang, Z., Taylor, W., Groop, R., Tan, Y., & Zhang, H. (1999b). A framework for evaluating effects of human factors on wildlife habitat: The case of the giant pandas. Conservation Biology, 13(6), 1360–1370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, W., Prskawetz, A., & Sanderson, W. C. (2002a). Introduction. In W. Lutz, A. Prskawetz & W. C. Sanderson (Eds.), Population and environment: Methods of analysis (pp. 1–21). Special Supplement to the Population and Development Review, 28. New York: The Population Council.

  • Lutz, W., & Scherbov, S. (2000). Quantifying vicious circle dynamics: The PEDA model for population, environment, development and agriculture in African countries. In E. J. Dockner, R. F. Hartl, M. Luptacik, & G. Sorger (Eds.), Optimization, dynamics, and economic analysis. Essays in Honor of Gustav Feichtinger (pp. 311–322). Heidelberg: Physica.

  • Lutz, W., Scherbov, S., Makinwa-Adebusoye, P. K., & Reniers, G. (2004). Population-environment-development-agriculture interactions in Africa: A case study in Ethiopia. In W. Lutz, W. C. Sanderson, & S. Scherbov (Eds.), The end of world population growth in the 21st century (pp. 187–225). London: IIASA and Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, W., Scherbov, S., Prskawetz, A., Dworak, M., & Feichtinger, G. (2002b). Population, natural resources, and food security: Lessons from comparing full and reduced-form models. In W. Lutz, A. Prskawetz, & W. C. Sanderson (Eds.), Population and environment: Methods of analysis. (pp. 199–224). Special Supplement to the Population and Development Review, 28. New York: The Population Council.

  • Lux, A. (2008): Shrinking cities and water supply. In D. Hummel (Ed.), Population dynamics and supply systems. A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 161–179). Frankfurt, NY: Campus.

  • Malthus, T. R. (1826) [1986]. An essay on the principle of population; or, a view of its past and present effects on human happiness; with an inquiry into our prospects respecting the future removal or mitigation of the evils which it occasions. 6th Ed. London: William Pickering.

  • Marquette, C. M., & Bilsborrow, R. E. (1999). Population and Environment Relationships in Developing Countries: Recent Approaches and Methods. In B. Sundberg Baudot, & W. R. Moomaw (Eds.), People and their planet. Searching for balance (pp. 29–44). Wiltshire: Antony Rowe Ltd.

  • McConnell, W. J., Millington, J. D. A., Reo, N. J., Alberti, M., Asbjornsen, H., Baker, L. A., et al. (2011). Research on coupled human and natural systems (CHANS): Approach, challenges and strategies. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 92, 218–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKellar, L. F., Lutz, W., Prinz, Ch., & Goujon, A. (1995). Population, households, and CO2 emissions. Population and Development Review, 21(4), 849–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—MEA (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being. Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating development. An ethnography of development aid policy and practice. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, L. (2009a). Development paradigms and P-E research. Expert statement for the PERN-Cyberseminar Theoretical and methodological issues in the Analysis of Population Dynamics and the Environment. http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/papers/PERNstatementMurphy_1.pdf. Retrieved 30 April 2012.

  • Murphy, L. (2009b). A clear CHANS? Expert statement for the PERN-Cyberseminar “Theoretical and methodological issues in the Analysis of Population Dynamics and the Environment”. http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/papers/PERNstatementMurphy_2.pdf. Retrieved 30 April 2012 .

  • Niemann, S. (2008). Spatial aspects of supply: Migration, water transfer, and IWRM. In D. Hummel (Ed.), Population dynamics and supply systems. A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 99–128). Frankfurt, NY: Campus.

  • Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities. The human development approach. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. (Eds.). (1993). The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, B. C., Dalton, M., Fuchs, R., Jiang, L. W., Pachauri, S., & Zigova, K. (2010). Global demographic trends and future carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(41), 17521–17526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(39), 15181–15187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peet, R., & Watts, M. (1996). Liberation ecology. Development, sustainability, and environment in an age of market triumphalism. In R. Peet, & M. Watts (Eds.), Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements (pp. 1–45). New York: Routledge.

  • Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Oekom: Proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. Muenchen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, S. (1996). The effect of population growth on environmental quality. Population Research and Policy Review, 15, 101–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, P. (2012). Political ecology: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., I. I. I., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, E., Dieckmann, A., Dietz, Th., & Jaeger, C. C. (Eds.). (2010). Human footprints on the global environment: Threats to sustainability. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, E., & Dietz, T. (2010). Human dimensions of coupled human and natural systems: A look backward and forward. In E. Rosa, A. Dieckmann, T. Dietz, & C. C. Jaeger (Eds.), Human footprints on the global environment: Threats to sustainability (pp. 295–314). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, W. (2010). The development dictionary. A guide to knowledge as power (2nd ed.). London: ZED Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmink, M. (1994). The socioeconomic matrix of deforestation. In L. Arizpe, P.M. Stone, & D. Major (Eds.), Population and environment. Rethinking the debate (pp. 253–275). Boulder: Westview Press.

  • Scoones, I., Leach, M., Smith, A., Stagle, S., Stirling, A., & Thompson, J. (2007). Dynamic systems and the challenge of sustainability. STEPS Working Paper 1, Brighton, UK: STEPS Center.

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2007). The idea of justice. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. (1986). Theory of population and economic growth. New York: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stonich, S. C. (1989). The dynamics of social processes and environmental destruction: A Central American case study. Population and Development Review, 15(2), 269–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society. (2010). People and the planet: The role of global population in sustainable development. http://royalsociety.org/people-and-the-planet/. Retrieved 30 September 2011.

  • Thompson-Klein, J., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Häberli, R., Bill, A., Schoz, R., & Welti, M. (Eds.). (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology and socitey. An effective way for managing complexity. Basel: Birkhäuser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M., & Gichuki, F. (1994). More people less erosion: Environmental recovery in Kenya. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B. L. II, Matson, P. A., McCarthy, J. J., Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N. et al. (2003). Illustrating the coupled human-environment system for vulnerability analysis: three case studies. Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8080–8085.

  • United Nations Population Fund—UNFPA. (2011). Population dynamics in the least developed countries: Challenges and opportunities for development and poverty reduction. New York: UNFPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanWey, L., Ostrom, E., & Meretsky, V. (2005). Theories underlying the study of human-environment interactions. In E. Moran, & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Seeing the forest and the trees. Human-environment interactions in forest ecosystems (pp. 25–56). Cambridge: MIT-Press.

  • Viña, A., Bearer, S., Chen, X., He, G., Linderman, M., An, L., et al. (2007). Temporal changes in connectivity of GiantPanda Habitat across the boundaries of Wolong Nature Reserve (China). Ecological Applications, 17, 1019–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viña, A., Bearer, S., Zhang, H., Ouyang, Z., & Liu, J. (2008). Evaluating MODIS data for mapping wildlife habitat distribution. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112, 2160–2169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, P. A. (2005). Political ecology: Where is the ecology? Progress in Human Geography, 29(1), 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, P. A. (2006). Political ecology: Where is the policy? Progress in Human Geography, 30(3), 382–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, P. A. (2007). Political ecology: Where is the politics? Progress in Human Geography, 31(3), 363–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, M., & Peet, R. (2004). Liberating political ecology. In R. Peet, & M. Watts (Eds.), Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements (pp. 1–45). 2nd edn. London, NY: Routledge.

  • World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks.

    Google Scholar 

  • York, R. (2007). Demographic trends and energy consumption in European Union Nations, 1960–2025. Social Science Research, 36, 855–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaba, B., & Clarke, J. (1994). Introduction: Current directions in population-environment research. In B. Zaba & J. Clarke (Eds.), Environment and population change (pp. 9–43). Liege: Derouaux Ordina Editors.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerer, K. S., & Bassett, T. J. (2003). Future directions in political ecology. In K. S. Zimmerer & T. J. Bassett (Eds.), Political ecology: An integrative approach to geography and environment-development studies (pp. 274–296). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zulu, L. C. (2006). Politics of scale: The political ecology of community-based forest management in Sounthern Malawi. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

  • Zulu, L. (2009). Political ecology and the population dynamics and supply systems model. Expert statement for the PERN-Cyberseminar. Theoretical and methodological issues in the Analysis of Population Dynamics and the Environment. http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/papers/Zulu_PDDS.pdf. Retrieved 30 April 2012.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our thanks go to the anonymous reviewers and the editor of POEN, Lori Hunter, for their constructive, thought-provoking comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), Hamburger Allee 45, 60486, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Diana Hummel

  2. The Earth Institute at Columbia University, CIESIN, P.O. Box 1000, Palisades, NY, 10964, USA

    Susana Adamo & Alex de Sherbinin

  3. Department of International Health and Development, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA

    Laura Murphy

  4. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, PO Box 875502, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    Rimjhim Aggarwal

  5. Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48823, USA

    Leo Zulu

  6. Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48823, USA

    Jianguo Liu

  7. Department of Sociology, University of Alabama, 301 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, Al, 35899, USA

    Kyle Knight

Authors
  1. Diana Hummel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susana Adamo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alex de Sherbinin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rimjhim Aggarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Leo Zulu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jianguo Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kyle Knight
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Hummel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hummel, D., Adamo, S., de Sherbinin, A. et al. Inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to population–environment research for sustainability aims: a review and appraisal. Popul Environ 34, 481–509 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-012-0176-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-012-0176-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation