Family planning and reproductive health: the link to environmental preservation

Abstract

This paper seeks to refocus the attention of environmentalists on the importance of population trends to environmental sustainability and identifies prevention of unintended pregnancy as potential common ground for environmentalists and family planning advocates. The health and other welfare benefits of preventing unintended pregnancy are felt most keenly by individual women, men, and their families. At the same time, however, preventing unwanted pregnancies usually results in smaller family size, an important factor in slowing population growth and, as a result, a source of broader benefits-including environmental benefits-to society.Keywords Population Á Environment Á Family planning Á Reproductive health Á Unintended pregnancy Á HIV/AIDS Population-environment interactions: population growth, consumption, and human impact As much as half of the Earth's total biological productivity has already been diverted to human use, depleting our natural resources and impairing the capacity of life-supporting ecosystems (

Why do women have more children than they want? Understanding differences in women's ideal and actual family size in a natural fertility population

“…High fertility, despite smaller IFS, may impair maternal or child health and survival and can reduce women’s socioeconomic status and autonomy (Casterline and Mendoza, 2009; Gipson et al, 2008; Williams, 2011). The rapid population growth associated with increasing fertility—e.g., 3–5% in many Southern Amerindian populations with population doubling times of 14–23 years (Kennedy and Perz, 2000; Perz et al, 2008)—may accelerate environmental degradation of indigenous lands (Speidel et al, 2007; Williams, 2011). This is problematic as indigenous peoples face sociopolitical discrimination, and limited land rights and prospects for upward mobility (Hall and Patrinos, 2006, McNamee, 2009; Psacharopoulos and Patrinos, 1994; Speidel et al, 2007).…”

“…The rapid population growth associated with increasing fertility—e.g., 3–5% in many Southern Amerindian populations with population doubling times of 14–23 years (Kennedy and Perz, 2000; Perz et al, 2008)—may accelerate environmental degradation of indigenous lands (Speidel et al, 2007; Williams, 2011). This is problematic as indigenous peoples face sociopolitical discrimination, and limited land rights and prospects for upward mobility (Hall and Patrinos, 2006, McNamee, 2009; Psacharopoulos and Patrinos, 1994; Speidel et al, 2007). Increases in fertility during the first stage of demographic transition are not rare (Dyson and Murphy, 1985; Gibson and Mace, 2002; Hirschman, 1994).…”

Long-term effects of family planning and other determinants of fertility on population and environment: agent-based modeling evidence from Wolong Nature Reserve, China

“…How do changes in the environment feed back into the corresponding household's resource use decisions? To the best of our knowledge, little effort has been devoted to simultaneous consideration of all these questions to date, even though recognition of its importance has been noted (e.g., Entwisle 2007;Gaffikin 2007;Spiedel et al 2007).…”

Overview of developmental and reproductive toxicity research in china: History, funding mechanisms, and frontiers of the research

“…China has committed itself to three paths that are not entirely compatible: rapid economic development as a means to material prosperity, provision of family planning services as the most direct intervention to slow population growth, and environmental protection to ensure a sustainable economy (Speidel et al, 2007). Nevertheless, the central government of China has made tremendous efforts to improve the reproductive health for their rural residents in the past 30 years, mainly through its ''fewer but better babies'' family-planning program.…”