Page ii
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council and by competent members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Indian National Science Academy. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Grant No. 95-31825A-POP/PCE and 96-41812A-WER between the National Academy of Sciences and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and Task Order #34, NO1-OD-4139 of the Department of Health and Human Services. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-07554-8
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 2001117395
Additional copies of this report are available from National Academy Press , 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. , Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055 ; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Cover Art: Photograph by Anamaria Viveros
Printed in the United States of America
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences . All rights reserved.
Page iii
Indian National Science Academy
The Indian National Science Academy, formerly known as the National Institute of Sciences, is a nonprofit society of distinguished scientists. Established in 1935, it received the recognition of the Government of India in 1945 as the premier scientific society representing all branches of science in India. The Academy is dedicated to the promotion and coordination of scientific research in the country and its practical applications to problems of national welfare.
Chinese Academy of Sciences
The Chinese Academy of Sciences was founded on November 1, 1949, on the basis of the institutions of the former Academia Sinica and Beiping Academy of Sciences. It is the country's highest academic institution and comprehensive research and development center in the natural sciences and high technology. The Academy has five academic divisions, 121 institutes, more than 200 scientific and technological enterprises, and more than 20 supporting units, including three universities, five documentation and information centers, two printing houses, and five research and development centers for scientific instruments. They are distributed over various parts of the country. Thirteen branches of the Academy have been established. They are in Shanghai, Nanjing, Hefei, Changchun, Shenyang, Wuhan, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Kunming, Xi'an, Lanzhou, Xinjiang, and Hainan.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
Page iv
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Page v
TRI-ACADEMY PANEL ON POPULATION AND LAND USE
M. Gordon Wolman, Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering,
Johns Hopkins University, Study Chairman
India
P. S. Ramakrishnan, Professor of Ecology, School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Chairman
P. S. George, Fellow, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
Sumati Kulkarni, Head, Department of Development Studies, International Institute for Population Sciences
Prem S. Vashishtha, Director, Agricultural Economics Research Centre, University of Delhi
People's Republic of China
Zhao Shidong, Institute of Geographic Science and Natural Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chairman
Zhao Qiguo, Director, Nanjing Institute of Soil Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Cai Wenmei, Institute of Population Research, Peking University
Zeng Yi, Institute of Population Research, Peking University
United States
M. Gordon Wolman, Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Chairman
John F. Long, Director, Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census
Cynthia Rosenzweig, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
William D. Solecki, Professor, Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University
Staff
Judith Bale (1995–1997), Office of International Affairs, U.S. National Research Council
Michael Greene (1998–2001), Policy and Global Affairs, U.S. National Research Council
Page vii
Preface
This collaborative study of population and land use change grew out of conversations among representatives of the academies of science of India, China, and the United States. They were attending the “Science Summit” on World Population, a gathering of the world's scientific academies held in New Delhi in October 1993. The three academies expressed their desire to engage in studies of important issues of mutual interest. Once they agreed on a study of population and land use, they explored issues of comparability of data and approaches to studying the issue in their respective countries. In the end, they decided to identify two sites in each country that would serve as the basis for comparison. A panel made up of representatives of each of the three academies was established to guide the effort.
The panel suggested criteria for selection of the study sites, but each country chose its own. Site selection depended on the existence of data, the availability of research personnel, and the specific interests of each country, balanced by the desire to provide comparable rural and urban settings.
Despite a variety of simplistic arguments about the relationship between population and land use change, many studies have demonstrated that the relationship is complex, influenced by a multitude of physical, social, economic, and political factors. Investigators also have recognized that correlations alone do not translate directly into explanations of cause and effect. Although the study design emphasized issues of transnational
Page viii
collection and comparison of data on population and land use change, the interests of the research scholars at each site inevitably moved toward focus on the nature of the processes leading to change. Thus the studies of the individual sites reflect the richness and complexities of reality rather than the bland results of generalization.
To the general public, a study based on statistical research and comparisons of data across different jurisdictions in different countries conjures up one word: dry. To a professional in the social sciences, it suggests another word: risky. “Dry” is easy to understand. Statistics alone do not explain how people and land interact. They do, however, capture some facets of the dynamism of human societies, their differences as well as their commonalties, and in this report they are often wrapped in a narrative that sheds light on the rich histories, evolution, and day-to-day life of the study regions. For example, although the numbers describe the spectacular growth of Shenzhen City in southern China, from a town of 45,000 to a city of 2.5 million in 15 years, they do not convey the dynamism of the site as experienced by an observer on the ground. In the surrounding Pearl River Delta, 7 kilometers of furniture manufacturing establishments are abruptly truncated by fish ponds a few kilometers from a major toll highway flanked by raw quarry faces supplying rock for highways and high-rises. A retired farmer in a new concrete three-story house with an electric fan and a TV describes the sale of the communal lands to industry, with each farmer claiming a share. His only complaint: he has three married children but only one grandchild, a common occurrence under China's population policy.
In China's Jitai Basin, three sisters and a younger brother live in a farmhouse, next door to a family with a son home for a holiday from his job in Guangdong Province, which includes the Pearl River Delta. His father complains that the son sends home too little money; the son replies that his father does not understand the high cost of living in the Delta. There, a new hotel with a marble lobby and dining room that seats hundreds suggests he is right. Elsewhere in the province, three families are living side by side in a new compound for workers. In the yard outside the compound stand three separate, identical wells, one for each family, instead of a single shared one.
In Kerala in southwest India, where roads are clogged with decoratively painted trucks, the international beachcombers and opulent retirement homes of overseas workers in a small village contrast with the small paddy fields and bullocks in the countryside. In northern India, at the western desert edge of Haryana State, a new sprinkler irrigation system provides the hope of new crops even as salinization of soil and ground-water threaten the system. In the words of a village elder, hushed by the younger generation, people have replaced wildlife on the landscape. At a
Page ix
half-day's drive away in eastern Haryana, poultry barns have replaced chicken yards, and a huge automated rice mill is shipping its products to the world, a sign of the Green Revolution. On a major highway on the outskirts of New Delhi, whose streets teem with people, a Mercedes is slowed by cows in the roadway.
And then there is South Florida, a plumber's paradise on an immense scale, a landscape engineered to control floods and protect the land devoted to sugarcane and cattle. Immigrants continue to come, settling in urban areas of the Atlantic Coast, where they are hemmed in by the Everglades wetland. The Everglades itself, once subject to massive drainage, is now the site of a major “restoration” project aimed at, among other things, returning the Kissimmee River from a straight canal to its meandering former self.
In the U.S. Midwest, Chicago, site of one of the world's highest office towers built by a company that has since moved its headquarters 40 miles to the west, has a thriving downtown and waterfront playland. The city continues to expand across land that was once prairie, then farmland, and now exurbia laced with interstate highways.
Much of the riskiness perceived by professional colleagues relates to the definition of variables and the compatibility of data used. Early in the study, “common variables” became a rallying cry, lamentation, or denunciation as the Tri-Academy panel and associated research scientists traveled to the study sites in India, China, and the United States. Everyone knows that true comparative analyses are impossible without identically defined, relevant variables expressed in comparable units. Save for some demographers, geographers, economists, and sociologists who have tried to compare spatial data in the international context, few researchers are aware of how each country respects its own land classification scheme and special definitions. Still fewer are aware, for example, that “urban” may refer to neither city nor metropolitan area, and that “rural” may not imply agricultural. Each category may contain some of the other, and definitions may change between censuses, unbeknownst to the unwary researcher. In the absence of comparable and unchanging spatial units and definitions, the numerical size of a population within political boundaries of varying scales produces uncertain measures of migration or population density. Does a sudden increase in rural population and decrease in urban population stem from people moving or definitions changing? Researchers also encountered the problem of verifying data sources and the differences in languages (only two of the six jurisdictions speak the same language). It is a measure of the goodwill and cooperative spirit of all of the participants from the three countries that we remain on speaking terms.
That said, a word on compromises is warranted. This study was based on the premise that international comparisons of recorded social transfor
Page x
mations may yield insight into principles that could lead to broader generalizations, or at least to recognition of common experience, generalizable or not. A perfect design would call for the selection of study sites carefully matched across a spectrum of attributes such as population, land cover, occupations, and geography. Although the panel encouraged such design criteria, each country was responsible for selecting its own sites, under the significant constraint that the studies rely on ongoing work or existing material and not on the collection of new data. One result is that all sites have large populations and high population densities. A base period, roughly the last half-century, was adopted for the comparison of trends, but, where available, much earlier data were used in the analyses. Even though the case studies described here do include some anecdotal narrative, the panel has emphasized, to the extent possible, quantitative measures of trends. As the findings demonstrate, however, some explanations of changes in land use and population draw on qualitative as well as quantitative observations.
The three academies intend to continue their discussions of this important topic, including lessons learned from this initial experiment in collaboration. At the same time, new opportunities for discussion and the exchange of ideas should continue to be pursued. After all, researchers, policymakers, and others are paying greater attention to the ways in which diverse societies throughout the world are evolving socially, culturally, and economically. Cross-disciplinary and cross-national studies can, despite the obstacles they face, contribute to our understanding of a rapidly changing world. As chairman of such a study, my special thanks go to the staff and to my colleagues on the panel from India, China, and the United States. The process from beginning to end has been a long one, complete with much debate, drafting, and redrafting. But most of us, new to each other initially, have become friends, drawn together by mutual interest, harrowing field excursions, and humor.
M. Gordon Wolman, Chairman
Tri-Academy Panel
Page xi
Acknowledgments
The first four chapters of this report are the work of the Tri-Academy panel and represent a synthesis of the material presented in the six case study reports and the gender analysis. The country studies were carried out by Tri-Academy panel members and their colleagues. The Kerala study ( Chapter 5) was conducted by the Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, under the direction of P. S. George. The Haryana study ( Chapter 6) was undertaken by the Agricultural Economics Research Centre of the University of Delhi under the leadership of Prem S. Vashishtha. In a complementary study ( Chapter 7), Sumati Kulkarni of the International Institute for Population Sciences in Mumbai analyzed the gender dimensions of the relationship between population and land use in the two Indian study sites. P. S. Ramakrishnan of Jawaharlal Nehru University provided coordination on behalf of the Indian National Science Academy. A. K. Jain of the Indian National Science Academy provided indispensible administrative and logistic support.
The Chinese studies of the Jitai Basin ( Chapter 8) and the Pearl River Delta ( Chapter 9) were accomplished through the collaboration of the Institute of Geographic Science and Natural Resources, the Nanjing Institute of Soil Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Institute of Population Research at Peking University. Zhao Shidong served as the Chinese study director.
In the United States, the South Florida case study ( Chapter 10) was carried out by a group at Florida State University, led by William D. Solecki and Robert T. Walker. The Chicago study ( Chapter 11) was con-
Page xii
ducted by Edwin S. Mills of Northwestern University and Cynthia S. Simmons, a consultant to the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) presently at Michigan State University. The U.S. studies were coordinated by M. Gordon Wolman of Johns Hopkins University, chairman of the NRC's Committee on Population and Land Use.
Leaders of the science academies of India, China, and the United States encouraged the work of this project, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. National Research Council provided financial support. Billie Lee Turner of Clark University and Edwin Mills of Northwestern University aided in the design of the effort and in its execution. T. R. Lakshmanan of Boston University contributed an early review of a portion of the text, and Barbara Torrey, executive director of the NRC's Division on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, not only helped to initiate the study but also reviewed a major portion of the panel's text.
This study of population and land use would not have gotten off the ground had it not been for the energy and indefatigable work of the original study director, Judith Bale, staff member of the U.S. National Research Council, and it would never have been completed without the commitment, eye for standards, and good sense of her colleague and successor as study director, Michael Greene. Project consultant Sabra Bissette Ledent edited the report.
This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
John S. Adams, University of Minnesota
D. Gale Johnson, University of Chicago
Ronald Lee, University of California, Berkeley
Clifton Pannell, University of Georgia
G. William Skinner, University of California, Davis
T. N. Srinivasan, Yale University
David Sui, Texas A&M University
James Wescoat, University of Colorado
Thomas Wilbanks, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Yue-man Yueng, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Page xiii
Although these reviewers provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Brian J. L. Berry of the University of Texas, Dallas, and F. Sherwood Rowland of the University of California, Irvine. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Page xv
Contents
|
Page xvi
|
Page xvii
|
Page xviii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
|
Page xix
|
Page xx
|
Page xxi
|
Figures
|
Page xxii
|
Page xxiii
|