BMC Public Health (Dec 2023)

Environmental quality and its impact on total fertility rate: an econometric analysis from a new perspective

  • Shah Md Atiqul Haq,
  • Mohammad Ashraful Ferdous Chowdhury,
  • Khandaker Jafor Ahmed,
  • Mohammed Thanvir Ahmed Chowdhury

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17305-z
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 23, no. 1
pp. 1 – 16

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Environmental quality significantly affects various aspects of human existence. This study employs ecological footprint as a proxy to assess the impact of environmental quality on the TFR, measured as births per woman. This study investigates the extent to which ecological footprint indicators impact on the TFR in across 31 countries between from 1990 to 2017. Methods We gathered data on ecological footprints, specifically carbon, agricultural land, grazing land, forest products, and fisheries, from the Global Footprint Network. Information on the TFR, Human Development Index (HDI), and per capita Gross National Income (GNI) were sourced from the World Bank and the United Nations. We applied static panel and quantile regression models to scrutinize the connection between the ecological footprint and TFR, showing how the former influences the latter. Results The outcomes reveal that, in both fixed and random effects models, factors including HDI, carbon, and fishing grounds exert a negative influence on TFR, all at a significance level of p < 0.01. Conversely, cropland and forest product footprints exhibited a favorable impact on the TFR (p < 0.01). Furthermore, GNI per capita positively affected the TFR in both models, with a p-value of 0.01. Quantiles regression analysis demonstrated that HDI and carbon footprint had a negative impact on TFR across all quantiles. This statistical significance is maintained for all quantiles, although it is only significant for the carbon footprint up to the 60th quantile, at p < 0.01. Conclusions This study establishes a negative correlation between specific ecological footprint indicators, such as carbon and fishing grounds, and TFR. Conversely, there was a positive correlation between the footprint of forest products and the TFR. The primary conclusion drawn is that there is heterogeneity in the results regarding the relationship between ecological footprint and TFR. Moreover, the ecological footprint indicators considered in this study did not uniformly influence TFR. Each ecological footprint indicator exhibited distinct effects on the TFR, displaying either positive or negative correlation coefficients. Future research endeavors may delve into how ecological footprints impact other population dynamics, such as mortality and migration.

Keywords