Search results

Sustainable development is a policy approach that has gained quite a lot of popularity in recent years, especially in international circles. By attaching a specific interpretation to sustainability, population control policies have become the overriding approach to development, thus becoming the primary tool used to “promote” economic development in developing countries and to protect the environment. These policies, however, have failed to achieve either goal. By analyzing the theoretical underpinning of such policies as well as the available scientific research, this paper aims at bringing some light to these results. The findings suggest that, while the focus on population is not necessarily incorrect, the policies implemented are mistaken since they hamper the growth of a key element of economic development: human capital, and thus render it unsustainable.

Ecosystem-based approaches to human health, also known as Ecohealth approaches, fall in an emerging field of study that focuses on understanding how social, political and economic factors shape people–environment interactions and consequently influence human health. The approach integrates scientific and local perspectives to develop interventions aimed at improving human health through sustainable ecosystem management.

Three principles are central to traditional ecohealth approaches: (1) transdisciplinarity which integrates the expertise of professionals from the natural, health and social sciences with those of other stakeholders; (2) community participation; and (3) social equity and gender relations.

However, the extent to which these concepts benefit from rigorous theoretical analysis is still very limited. As an emerging field of study, the use of poststructuralist, feminist, postcolonial, and political ecology perspectives is still limited. This chapter illustrates the application of critical theory to the conceptual and methodological tools used in ecohealth research and practice.

Critical theory is used to examine people–environment interactions, transdisciplinarity, community participation, and social equity and gender relations. The discussion is informed by an ecohealth project conducted in the Upper West region of Ghana.

As an emerging field of study, ecohealth is yet to benefit from rigorous critical theoretical frameworks that are used to examine health and environment issues in other subdisciplines. This chapter illustrates the application of these perspectives to ecohealth.

This is the first chapter that outlines a critically informed approach to ecohealth research and practice.

The purpose of this paper is to take up and contribute to understanding an important emerging theme in recent literature on global environmental change and socio‐ecological issues (including Slaughter's The Biggest Wake‐up Call in History): “positive reframing”. The paper also aims to deepen consideration of the potential for “overshoot and collapse” futures and related concerns by foresight practitioners.

The paper is based on, and presents, a thematic analytical literature review.

In total, four underlying drivers of increased reframing and four central themes in positive reframes are identified; mental “frames” informing and limiting foresight work need to be openly communicated and reflected on – such practitioner reflexivity is often missing in foresight work, such as in The Biggest Wake‐up Call in History by Richard Slaughter.

The paper includes discussion of the implications for futures practice, including the role of mental frames and reframing. The author suggests futures practitioners can play important new roles in challenging the recent re‐emergence of influential forms of environmental determinism and foresight practitioners need to be more wary of the potential for “narrative bias”.

Futures assessment is increasingly needed to guide policy and action in improving human‐environment relations. Barriers and opportunities to fulfilling this societal need must be understood.

The paper helps to deepen the consideration of “re‐framing” and environmental limits by foresight practitioners and theorists. In doing so, the paper also brings in new concepts from other fields (such as cognitive psychology and Science and Technology Studies) into the foresight/futures field.

This study examines whether unemployment affects the relationship between income inequality and food security in 143 advanced and developing economies from 2000 to 2019. The authors specifically explore whether unemployment can weaken the negative impact of income inequality on food security.

The authors estimate a new and robust index of food security using a generalized least squares approach. The authors then employ the system generalized method of moments to estimate the model as it allows the authors to control for endogeneity and simultaneity. The authors estimate an interaction term to account for the moderating impact of unemployment.

The authors consistently find that income inequality has a negative and significant association with food security. However, the results differ between advance and developing economies. The authors find that unemployment rates have a negative relationship with food security in the sample of developing countries, where high levels of unemployment exacerbate the adverse effects of income inequality on food security. This is insignificant for advanced economies.

The major limitation lies in the use of aggregated data, which overlooks the issue of food security at the household or individual level.

Policymakers in developing economies can ensure job security in order to lessen the adverse effects of income inequality on food security.

This study provides new empirical evidence on whether unemployment can potentially moderate and alleviate the impact of income inequality in advanced and developing economies.

This paper aims to explore how the argument of “eco-reproductive” concerns was mobilized in climate change trials in Switzerland. Looking at social movements' advantages and constraints when having recourse to the law, the authors interrogate why the symbolism of reproduction and kinship represented a political opportunity to defend the activists in a judicial system where judging is seen as an apolitical act.

This paper is grounded in legal research and research on social movements. While legal research focuses mainly on the study of legal and written sources, the authors used ethnography and conducted interviews to cross the perspectives of activists, their lawyers and judges.

In a context where positivist legal tradition remains strong, the “eco-reproductive” argument represented the advantage of being “apolitical,” thus audible in court. Used as socio-political tools, “eco-reproductive” concerns translated the activists' political claims into the legal arena. However, judges' conservative beliefs on family reinforced the depoliticization of activists' claims.

While research on “eco-reproductive” concerns has been significantly quantitative and exploratory, the authors look in depth at one case of application and highlight the limits of “eco-reproductive” concerns to appeal to decision-makers.

Economists are divided about population growth: the pessimism of neo‐Malthusians contrasts strongly with the optimism of cornucopians. Despite their differences, however, both schools of thought reject economic orthodoxy and prefer evolutionary forms of theory. Their interpretations of evolution are different: the neo‐Malthusians appeal to the entropy law, whereas the cornucopians emphasize human creativity expressed through markets. Argues that both schools are right to adopt an evolutionary outlook, but that they are too restrictive in their conception of evolution. A more complete evolutionary view, which allows properly for social institutions, could give a more balanced account of population growth.

Use of the Malthusian Paradigm for Justification of Compulsory Family Planning One of the most important issues in the contemporary debate concerning population policy has been the question of compulsion in family planning (or more specifically, compulsory sterilisation) for the quantitative control of population. The present‐day demographic scene in the Third World is characterised as one of “population explosion”. It is argued that despite the spread of family planning and the recent trends towards decline in fertility among two‐thirds of the populations of the developing countries, the burden of the population problem in terms of the requirements on the eve of the 21st century is not going to be light, considering the limited and fast depleting resources of this slender globe. Hence, pressures have been mounting from various quarters towards more and more stringent measures converging on coercion to control the family size and population growth in the low‐income countries. For example, during the Emergency in India (1975–77), it was felt by the then Government (under the prime ministership of Mrs Indira Gandhi), the ruling Congress Party and some groups and individuals that the time had come to put the population problems of the country on a war footing and adopt drastic measures such as compulsory sterilisation to meet the hydra‐headed scourge of over‐population. In fact, the Government of Maharashtra, a state within the Union of India, went a step further and pioneered for the first time in history a bill on the compulsory sterilisation of eligible persons, for introduction in the State Legislative Assembly which passed a revised version of this bill (1976). To support and justify compulsion in family planning, various arguments — scientific and pseudo‐scientific — are usually made. At the head of all the arguments is most distinctly the Malthusian — or rather the neo‐Malthusian — argument. The novelty of the Malthusian argument made is that it is advanced this time to present a justification, not for the mere control of population by some voluntary means, but for a strict regulation of the size of each family in society through the instrumentality of physical force having the sanction of the law of the land and having penal provisions for the defaulters. It is the major concern of this essay to examine whether and how far the Malthusian paradigm is relevant, adequate and correct, vis‐à‐vis the issue of compulsion in family planning. What exactly is the basis of the neo‐Malthusian position on compulsion? Would Malthus, if he were amongst us, have supported compulsory family planning for the reasons which generally go under the caption of Malthusianism? Is the issue of compulsion in family planning so narrow as to be capable of being fully tackled by the Malthusian paradigm? These are some of the important questions which are sought to be explored in the short space available for this article.

This paper aims to investigate different ways in which faculty members of sustainability-related departments in universities across the world perceive, understand and define sustainability and how these definitions are linked to their demographics and epistemological beliefs.

Scholars from different disciplines investigate the sustainability of social-ecological systems from different perspectives. Such differences in the understanding of, and approaches to, sustainability have created ambiguity within the field and may weaken its effectiveness, impact and reputation as a field of research. To contribute to the discussion about sustainability definition, a survey was conducted involving university faculty members working in sustainability-related academic departments around the world. Participants’ responses were analyzed using SPSS 24.0 involving descriptive and inferential statistics and principle component analysis. Additionally, responses to open-ended questions were qualitatively analyzed.

Factor analysis on sustainability definition items reveal four emergent universal definitions of sustainability, labeled as Environmentalism concerns, Common understanding, neo-Malthusian environmentalism and Sustainability as well-being. Statistical analyses indicate that individuals from developed countries are more likely to define sustainability as Environmentalism and Common understanding; however, individuals from developing countries tend to define sustainability as well-being. Also, more heavily engaged scholars in interdisciplinary research of sustainability are more likely to perceive sustainability as Common understanding. Logistic Regression models demonstrate a connection between epistemological perspectives of researchers and sustainability definitions. Qualitative content analysis indicates that interdisciplinarity and collaboration are the most common challenges to sustainability research.

The findings of this study demonstrate disconnects between scholars from developing and developed countries in understanding and defining sustainability, and these disconnects may present further challenges for global sustainability scholarship.