Vol. 6 No. 1 (2022)
Peer Reviewed Articles

Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Linkage Between Reproductive Rights and Environmental Sustainability

PDF
  • Céline Delacroix
Céline Delacroix
University of Ottawa
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3197/JPS.63772236595233

Published 2022-01-21

Keywords

  • family planning,
  • reproductive rights,
  • environmental sustainability,
  • population ethics,
  • population growth

How to Cite

Delacroix, Céline. 2022. “Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Linkage Between Reproductive Rights and Environmental Sustainability”. The Journal of Population and Sustainability 6 (1):43-74. https://doi.org/10.3197/JPS.63772236595233.

Copyright (c) 2021 Celine Delacroix

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

The fulfilment of reproductive health and rights may have a synergistic relationship to environmental sustainability because it leads to lower fertility levels. With this in mind, and with the objective of increasing the legitimacy, funding and acceptance of reproductive health and rights, I conducted a mixed-methods qualitative study consisting of an online survey followed by in-depth interviews. I reached out to two groups of participants: stakeholders of the reproductive health and rights movement, and stakeholders of the environmental sustainability movement. I explored how stakeholders perceived the linkages between family planning, population growth and environmental sustainability. Results indicate that these stakeholders overwhelmingly support the integration of the reproductive health and rights ideological framework in a wider sustainability frame reflecting environmental considerations. I identified three barriers to both addressing and implementing the linkage: responsibility allocation injustice, colonialism and discrimination, and marginalisation. Environmental sustainability and reproductive health and rights stakeholders appear in favour of applying what could be considered ‘environmental mainstreaming’ to the reproductive health and rights field. Environmental sustainability stakeholders were more likely than reproductive health and rights stakeholders, who were more divided on this issue, to endorse the linkage and related concepts.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Bammer, G. 2013. Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: Integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-World Problems. ANU E Press. https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_459901
  2. Bell, S.E. and Y.A. Braun. 2010. ‘Coal, identity, and the gendering of environmental justice activism in central Appalachia’. Gender & Society 24(6): 794–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210387277
  3. Bizikova, L., G. Metternicht and T. Yarde. 2018. ‘Environmental mainstreaming and policy coherence: Essential policy tools to link international agreements with national development – a case study of the Caribbean region’. Environment, Development and Sustainability 20(3): 975–995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9924-x
  4. Bongaarts, J. and B.C. O’Neill. 2018. ‘Global warming policy: Is population left out in the cold?’ Science 361 (6403): 650–652. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat8680
  5. Braun, V., V. Clarke, E. Boulton, L. Davey and C. McEvoy. 2020. ‘The online survey as a qualitative research tool’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550
  6. Chakrabarty, D. 2009. ‘The climate of history: Four theses’. Critical Inquiry 35(2): 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1086/596640
  7. Coole, D. 2016. ‘Population, environmental discourse, and sustainability’. In The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Political Theory, p. 274. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199685271.013.35
  8. Corbera, E., L. Calvet-Mir, H. Hughes and M. Paterson. 2016. ‘Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report’. Nature Climate Change 6 (1): 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2782
  9. Costello, A., M. Abbas, A. Allen, S. Ball, S. Bell, … C. Patterson. 2009. ‘Managing the health effects of climate change’. The Lancet 373 (9676): 1693–1733. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60935-1
  10. Dalal-Clayton, D.B. and S. Bass. 2009. The challenges of environmental mainstreaming: Experiences of integrating environment into development institutions and decisions. International Institute for Environment and Development.
  11. Davies, L. 26 Aug. 2021. ‘“Use your £11bn climate fund to pay for family planning”, UK told’. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/aug/26/use-your-11bn-climate-fund-to-pay-for-family-planning-uk-told
  12. DeJonckheere, M. and L.M. Vaughn. 2019. ‘Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: A balance of relationship and rigour’. Family Medicine and Community Health 7 (2). https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000057
  13. Denny, E. and A. Weckesser. 2019. ‘Qualitative research: What it is and what it is not’. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 126 (3): 369–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15198
  14. Ehrlich, P.R. and J.P. Holdren. 1971. ’Impact of population growth’. Science 171 (3977): 1212–1217. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3977.1212
  15. Elo, S. and H. Kyngäs. 2008. ‘The qualitative content analysis process’. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62 (1): 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  16. Engelman, R. 2009. UNFPA STATE OF WORLD POPULATION 2009 Facing a changing world: Women, population and climate. UNFPA.
  17. Engelman, R., Y.G. Terefe, G. Gourmelon, J. Yang … S. Sellers. 2016. Family planning and environmental sustainability: Assessing the science. Wordwatch Institute.
  18. Evans, J. and A. Mathur. 2005. ‘The value of online surveys’. Internet Research 15(2): 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510590360
  19. Gilby, L. and M. Koivusalo. 2020. ‘Universal health coverage: Another political space in which to expand the elimination of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights’. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 28 (2), 1816604. https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2020.1816604
  20. Girard, F. 2017. ‘Implications of the Trump Administration for sexual and reproductive rights globally’. Reproductive Health Matters 25 (49): 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2017.1301028
  21. Hardee, K., J. Kumar, K. Newman, L. Bakamjian … W. Brown. 2014. ‘Voluntary, human rights-based family planning: A conceptual framework’. Studies in Family Planning 45 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00373.x
  22. Howes, M., L. Wortley, R. Potts … P. Nunn. 2017. ‘Environmental sustainability: A case of policy implementation failure?’ Sustainability 9(2): 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020165
  23. Hulme, M. 2011. ‘Reducing the future to climate: A story of climate determinism and reductionism’. Osiris 26(1): 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1086/661274
  24. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate change 2014 – Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Regional aspects. C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken … L.L. White (eds). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Kaufman, R. 18 Sept. 2020. UN Experts to Trump Administration: Reproductive Rights are Human Rights. https://www.justsecurity.org/72473/un-experts-to-trump-administration-reproductive-rights-are-human-rights/
  26. Kimport, K. 2016. ‘Divergent successes: What the abortion rights movement can learn from marriage equality’s success’. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 48(4): 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1363/48e10416
  27. Kopnina, H. and H. Washington. 2016. ‘Discussing why population growth is still ignored or denied’. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment 14(2): 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2016.1149296
  28. The Lancet. 2009. ‘Sexual and reproductive health and climate change’. The Lancet 374(9694), 949. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61643-3
  29. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2019. ‘The bigger picture of planetary health’. The Lancet Planetary Health: 3: e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30001-4
  30. Lv, Z. and C. Deng. 2019. ‘Does women’s political empowerment matter for improving the environment? A heterogeneous dynamic panel analysis’. Sustainable Development 27(4): 603–612. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1926
  31. Marshall, B., P. Cardon, A. Poddar and R. Fontenot. 2013. ‘Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. The Journal of Computer Information Systems 54(1): 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667
  32. Mason, L.R. and J. Rigg (eds). 2019. People and Climate Change: Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http:// doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190886455.001.0001
  33. Mason, M. 2010. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 11(3): Article 3. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428
  34. Mayer, I. 2015. ‘Qualitative research with a focus on qualitative data analysis’. International Journal of Sales, Retailing & Marketing 4(9): 53–67.
  35. McFarlane, D.R. 2014. Global Population and Reproductive Health. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
  36. Mcpherson, G. and S.Thorne. 2008. ‘Exploiting exceptions to enhance interpretive qualitative health research: Insights from a study of cancer communication’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500210
  37. Morgan, M.S. and R.L. Winkler. 2020. ‘The third shift? Gender and empowerment in a women’s ecotourism cooperative’. Rural Sociology 85(1): 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12275
  38. Murtaugh, P.A. and M.G. Schlax. 2009. ‘Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals’. Global Environmental Change 19(1): 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.007
  39. Newman, K., S. Fisher, S. Mayhew and J. Stephenson. 2014. ‘Population, sexual and reproductive health, rights and sustainable development: Forging a common agenda’. Reproductive Health Matters 22(43): 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(14)43770-4
  40. O’Neill, B.C., M. Dalton, R. Fuchs … K. Zigova. 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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004581107
  41. Orr, J.A., R.D. Vinebrooke, M.C. Jackson … J.J. Piggott. 2020. ‘Towards a unified study of multiple stressors: Divisions and common goals across research disciplines’. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 287(1926): 20200421. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.0421
  42. Paterson, M. 2019. ‘Climate-as-condition, the origins of climate change and the centrality of the social sciences’. Dialogues in Human Geography 9(1): 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820619829932
  43. Patz, J.A., H.K. Gibbs, J.A. Foley, J.V. Rogers and K.R. Smith. 2007. ‘Climate change and global health: Quantifying a growing ethical crisis’. EcoHealth 4(4): 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-007-0141-1
  44. Pfadenhauer, M. 2009. ‘At eye level: The expert interview – a talk between expert and quasi-expert’. In Interviewing Experts, pp. 81–97. London: Palgrave Macmillan.https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244276_4
  45. Pidgeon, N. and K. Henwood. 2004. ‘Grounded Theory’. In M. Hardy and A. Bryman (eds). Handbook of Data Analysis, pp. 625–648. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608184.n28
  46. Runhaar, H., B. Wilk, Â. Persson, C. Uittenbroek and C. Wamsler. 2018. ‘Mainstreaming climate adaptation: Taking stock about “what works” from empirical research worldwide’. Regional Environmental Change 18(4): 1201–1210.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1259-5
  47. Sandelowski, M. 1995. ‘Sample size in qualitative research’. Research in Nursing & Health 18(2): 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211
  48. Sear, R., D.W. Lawson, H. Kaplan and M.K. Shenk. 2016. ‘Understanding variation in human fertility: What can we learn from evolutionary demography?’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371(1692): 20150144. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0144
  49. Sellers, S. and K.L. Ebi. 2018. ‘Climate change and health under the shared socioeconomic pathway framework’. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15(1): 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15010003
  50. Senderowicz, L. 2019. ‘“I was obligated to accept”: A qualitative exploration of contraceptive coercion’. Social Science & Medicine 239: 112531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112531
  51. Sim, J., B. Saunders, J. Waterfield and T. Kingstone. 2018. ‘Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori?’ International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21(5): 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1454643
  52. Speidel, J.J., D.C. Weiss, S.A. Ethelston and S.M. Gilbert. 2009. ‘Population policies, programmes and the environment’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 364(1532): 3049–3065. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0162
  53. Starrs, A.M., A.C. Ezeh, G. Barker … L.S. Ashford. 2018. ‘Accelerate progress – sexual and reproductive health and rights for all: Report of the Guttmacher – Lancet Commission’. The Lancet 391(10140): 2642–2692. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30293-9
  54. Tufford, L. and P. Newman. 2012. ‘Bracketing in qualitative research’. Qualitative Social Work 11(1): 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316
  55. UNFPA. 2016a. Universal Access to Reproductive Health: Progress and Challenges, p. 102. UNFPA. https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub pdf/UNFPA_Reproductive_Paper_20160120_online.pdf
  56. UNFPA. 2016b, 14 Sept. Refugees’ and migrants’ reproductive health needs overlooked. UNFPA News. http://www.unfpa.org/news/refugees’-and-migrants’-reproductive-health-needs-overlooked
  57. United Nations Meetings Coverage and Press Releases. 2015, 9 March. ‘As Women Thrive, So Will We All,’ Says Secretary-General as Women’s Commission Opens Session, Pointing to ‘Unacceptably Slow’ Progress since Beijing. https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/wom2021.doc.htm
  58. United Nations Population Fund. 1994. Programme of Action. Adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development. International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo.
  59. Urwin, K. and A. Jordan. 2008. ‘Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance’. Global Environmental Change 18(1): 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.08.002
  60. van Dalen, H.P. and K. Henkens. 2021. ‘Population and climate change: Consensus and dissensus among demographers’. European Journal of Population. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-021-09580-6
  61. Watts, N., M. Amann, S. Ayeb-Karlsson … J. Chambers. 2018. ‘The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: From 25 years of inaction to a global
  62. Whitmee, S., A. Haines, C. Beyrer … S. Robeco. 2015. ‘Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health’. The Lancet 386(10007): 1973–2028. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60901-1