Ecological footprints
As highlighted by Dasgupta et al. [15], the demand for biosphere products and services dramatically surpasses the environmental capacity to deliver these things sustainably. It has also been suggested that far exceeds the sustainable capacity of the environment to provide them [15]. It has been widely observed that as prosperity and development levels increase, so does the demand for these resources [15,16,17,18]. The ecological footprint serves as a measure of a population’s sustainability by quantifying the biologically productive land or natural resources required to support its lifestyle needs. This includes factors such as land for agriculture, fiber production, wood regeneration, carbon dioxide absorption from fossil fuel use, infrastructure for producing goods and services, and waste management [19]. Ecological footprint assessments typically encompass six primary categories of productive land use: grazing, forest, arable land, ocean, carbon footprint, and built-up land.
Ecological footprint is widely recognized as a comprehensive tool for quantitatively monitoring and assessing primary environmental impacts [20, 21]. It provides an accounting system that quantifies society’s demands on the natural environment by enumerating all the natural resources necessary to sustain an economy. A prime example of this resource demand can be observed in the five major growing economies collectively known as the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), where activities such as agriculture, mining, and deforestation significantly contribute to their ecological footprint [22]. The overall ecological footprints of these countries grow due to this consumption to levels showing that they have expanded substantially, signaling an unsustainable reliance on natural resources.
It is important to note that changes in ecological footprint assessments are not uniform or linear; they tend to vary and exhibit asymmetry due to fluctuations in population, per capita GDP in agriculture, resource utilization, and environmental shifts [23, 24]. Both short-term and long-term changes in per capita income, renewable energy use, life expectancy, and population density have been identified as factors influencing ecological footprint estimations [3, 4, 8]. An integrated system for environmental sustainability and ecological footprint calculations has been employed to determine a population’s combined usage of energy, carbon, and water resources [6, 25]. A high ecological footprint reflects significant resource consumption and the resulting adverse environmental impact on society.
The relationship between ecological footprints and fertility rate
Human behavior plays a crucial role in shaping ecological footprint indicators. Factors such as cultural beliefs, orientations, patterns, consumer responsibility, respect for nature, appreciation of nature’s intrinsic values, and environmental education have all been identified as influential factors in affecting energy consumption and economic growth [19]. These elements arguably impact the sustainability of a given population. For instance, Verhofstadt et al. (2016) [26] explored the link between ecological footprints and subjective well-being to understand sociodemographic factors at play. Their findings suggested that cohabitation and homeownership were associated with higher subjective well-being and reduced ecological impact. They also noted that larger families tended to have a lower ecological footprint per person than smaller ones, highlighting the complex dynamics influencing individuals’ global ecological footprints.
Human actions contribute to environmental degradation through ongoing population growth, increasing settlement density, and inefficient management of land, water, and marine resources [12, 27,28,29]. Zambrano-Monserrate et al. (2020) emphasized that a high ecological footprint index reflects significant natural resource consumption [3]. In developed economies, the way populations consume resources has been identified as a primary driver of environmental degradation within those populations [23]. They also noted that population growth was no longer the sole driver of environmental deterioration.
Türe [30] conducted a comprehensive study examining the relationships among ecological footprints, the HDI, and fertility rates across 102 countries. His analysis revealed a strong negative association between ecological footprints and HDI, indicating that nations with larger ecological footprints tend to have lower levels of human development. This suggests that higher fertility rates can hinder sustainable development due to the increased resource consumption associated with larger populations. In another European study, Alola et al. [5] presented statistically significant evidence of a positive association between fertility rates and ecological footprints over an extended period. This points to a connection between higher fertility rates and larger ecological footprints, implying a more substantial environmental impact resulting from population growth. The study also highlighted trade policy as a significant factor influencing ecological footprints, revealing a positive link between ecological footprints and trade policy openness. This suggests that countries with more open trade policies tend to have larger environmental footprints. However, it’s important to note that the relationship between fertility rates and ecological footprints can be nuanced, especially in regions characterized by high inequality and poverty [31].
Various factors, such as the overuse of natural resources, reduced capacity to absorb environmental pollutants, loss of biodiversity, increased national production, resource and energy consumption, amplified trade, urbanization, population growth, aging, and population density, exhibit both direct and indirect effects on the calculation of the ecological footprint [32]. Consumption patterns are also significantly shaped by socioeconomic factors. For example, nations with the highest fuel consumption rates, such as the US, China, Russia, Germany, and the UK, are influenced by their increased export/import capacity for fuel. This factor often results in more extensive ecological footprint measurements, especially in terms of carbon intensity [33]. The rate of industrial output also plays a crucial role in consumption patterns and environmental impact. Emerging economies like the BRICS nations tend to engage in substantial exports, which can lead to increased environmental pollution as they often prioritize global market competitiveness over environmental protection [33]. Consequently, the ecological footprints of such nations continue to expand.
Moreover, research indicates that consumer behavior, influenced by socioeconomic characteristics, along with fertility rates, significantly impacts the environment [31]. The relationship between high per capita resource consumption and low fertility rates in certain countries underscores the role of cultural and policy factors in shaping this connection [34].
The relationship between ecological footprint consumption and fertility rates is complex, influenced by variables including economic, cultural, and societal factors. Despite some studies suggesting a negative link [35], others show a positive correlation between fertility rates and ecological footprints [36]. Alola et al. [5] emphasizes the need to increase the use of renewable energy to reduce ecological impact. A greater reliance on renewable energy sources is essential to mitigate environmental effects and promote sustainable development. Conversely, higher consumption of non-renewable energy sources is associated with larger ecological footprints.
In India, significant disparities have been observed in carbon footprints among people residing in different districts and within various economic groups. These disparities not only relate to the size of the carbon footprint but also its composition based on consumption activities [14]. Charfeddine and Mrabet (2017) explored the impact of economic development and social-political factors on the ecological footprints of 15 Middle East and North African countries. They found that sociodemographic variables, such as urbanization, life expectancy at birth, and fertility rates, were associated with lower ecological footprints [37]. Danish et al. (2020) reported that natural resource rents, increased use of renewable energy, and urbanization contributed to reductions in ecological footprints, suggesting a positive impact on environmental quality [38].
The complex relationship between fertility rates and environmental degradation is influenced by multiple factors, including agricultural practices, land tenure systems, and consumer behaviors [37]. High fertility rates can exacerbate resource depletion in areas where a significant portion of the population relies on natural resources for agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry, fishing, and inhabits less productive natural ecosystems in marginal areas [37]. Furthermore, the interplay between fertility and marriage has implications for environmental quality [5]. Downey and Hawkins (2008) argued for evaluating the impact of family size and household headship by males or females on ecological quality [7].
While this literature review primarily focused on studying the effects of socioeconomic and sociodemographic changes on the ecological footprint, the present study takes a different approach. It explores how the ecological footprint, as an environmental indicator, influences fertility, a key demographic measure.