Population bomb may be defused, but research reveals ticking household bomb

After decades of fretting about population explosion, scientists are pointing to a long-term hidden global menace.

The household. More specifically, the household explosion.

In the current edition of Population and Environment, Jianguo “Jack” Liu, director of the Michigan State University Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, and former MSU students Mason Bradbury and Nils Peterson present the first long-term historical look at global shifts in how people live. One large shelter for many people is giving way across the world to ones holding fewer people – sometimes young singles, sometimes empty nesters, and sometimes just folks more enamored with privacy.

Liu and his colleagues pointed out that even though population growth has been curbed, the propensity to live in smaller households is ratcheting up the impact on the natural resources and the environment worldwide.

“Long-term dynamics in human population size as well as their causes and impacts have been well documented,” said Liu, who is the Rachel Carson Chair in Sustainability. “But little attention has been paid to long-term trends in the numbers of households, even though they are basic consumption units.”

More houses require more lumber and other building materials. Smaller homes are generally less efficient, with fewer people using proportionally more energy, land and water.

Reviewing data dating back 400 years, the researchers revealed that household size has been declining in some countries for centuries, adding a largely unaccounted for nuance to human’s impact on the environment. In this paper, Liu and his colleagues call for households to be more centrally included in calculating human’s impact on the environment. They also caution against thinking that slowing population growth is cause for celebration.

Average household size in developed countries declined rapidly from approximately 5 members in 1893 to 2.5 at present, while the rapid decline in average size in developing nations began around 1987. The number of households grew faster than population size in almost every country and every time.

“We’ve documented that the changes we’re seeing in household size across the globe essentially doubles the number of homes needed per-capita,” said Peterson, who is now with North Carolina State University. “This will put enormous strain on the environmental life support system we rely on, even if we achieve a state of zero population growth.”

The researchers point out that the environmental footprint becomes more of a trail. The new homes usually eventually require more roads, more yards and more commercial development.

Bradbury is a master’s student at the University of Montana.

The research is supported by the National Science Foundation, MSU and NCSU.

MSU Today

11 Comments on "Population bomb may be defused, but research reveals ticking household bomb"

DC on Thu, 13th Feb 2014 1:27 pm 



Hey everybody, the population problem has been ‘curbed’. Were only adding (still) adding 80 mil a year, problem…solved! I am glad the education system is still capable of pumping out quality researchers like these. Maybe next week they can declare AGW solved too. The lack of action of on that ones been bugging me to no end.

Anyhow thats one down…whats next?

rollin on Thu, 13th Feb 2014 1:59 pm 



A rather interesting paper, although some of the correlations are rather weak. With societal and economic changes as well as lower birth rates and seniors living independently, it is apparent that the density per household can drop.
Does this mean more effect on the environment. Not necessarily much more or possibly even less.
Since most people live in cities, one might expect smaller households to live in smaller units. Both apartment buildings, condos and stand alone houses are all built to higher efficiency standards and do not use nearly as much energy as older homes. They can now even be built to use zero energy or very low energy.

Since much of the extended impact is personal now (individual has their own computer, TV, other electronic devices, clothing, etc.) the dynamic of household does not enter into the equation as much as personal use does.
Seniors tend to go down to one car from two. Appliances are much more efficient than previous.
I think that after all is said and done, the impact of lower density households will be a minor factor to just overall population growth and the increased purchase of things in developed and developing countries (economic, societal changes).
A factor worth looking at but probably not that significant.

Here is the original paper.
http://csis.msu.edu/sites/csis.msu.edu/files/Longterm%20housing.pdf

Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 13th Feb 2014 3:24 pm 



Good thoughts Rollin!

Yea, DC, there is no cure for anything if population continues to grow. We must also admit there are issues if the population ages and declines. The aging and declines are really scary for economist. That is why they are always talking up population growth. They worry about unfunded pensions and few young workers supporting allot of golfing seniors.

Well, in a finite world that must live in an ecosystem with other species it depends upon and it’s own human ecosystem, over shoot is what it is. Nature will take over at some point. Markets will not solve this problem. Religion surely won’t. The major religions are preaching a divine message to populate the world. Religions tend to be behind the times IMHO….laugh… If we look at all the problems we discuss here and then we look at population, we have the one variable that makes all other solutions null and void. I am sure there is a mad scientist out there contemplating a way to rid the world of population. Could be some secret organization with plans for global death and a small group to repopulate the earth. Good luck boys on climbing out of your bunker I would tell them. You may need space suits. Hey, maybe we can have outpost on Mars cause earth will look like mars if all this Sh*T keeps up.

action on Thu, 13th Feb 2014 3:53 pm 



And the point of the paper is? He’s trying to curb the last bastion of what’s left of peace of mind, I refuse to live packed into an apartment complex subject to other stupid peoples noises. The paper over thinks the population problem, its the number of people that is the problem, not having a house.

mike on Thu, 13th Feb 2014 9:12 pm 



Americocentric or Anglophone view. In Italy, we still have large households living in apartments in high density urban concentrations. Mama and Papa, Nonna and Nonno (= Grampies), all the young offspring with their partners, a great extended famiglia in one apartment of several floors. Heating energy (in an admittedly meditrranean climate)output is minimised by having large volume of enclosed space with relatively low external wall surface. Here in UK, you see suburbs of single family houses detached or semidetached, low storeys, big external wall space for heat leakage from confined volume of internal space, and low density of households to hectare (acre) – same in US, Canada, Oz, NZ. Energy madness. Mediterranean lands – Spain, Portugal, Greece, South and Central Europe more sensible with energy usage per hectare. Unfortunately – or maybe fortunately – fertility rate plummetting as young people not marrying or foinding partners and not able afford education, rent, and high youth “disoccupazione” unemployment. Population ageing and declining.

Northwest Resident on Fri, 14th Feb 2014 1:22 am 



“The aging and declines are really scary for economist.” — I don’t know if it is true or not, but I read an article yesterday on ZeroHedge that said every day another 10K baby boomers are retiring, looking to collect benefits and go on social security. Those are some scary numbers. And that trend is predicted to continue for quite a few years, leading ultimately to a situation where — can’t remember the exact numbers — but the projection in another ten years or so was that the government’s liability to keep the social contract promises was going to be $120 trillion per year — totally unsustainable — and that there would be something like 2.x workers for every 4.x or so retired people collecting benefits — also, totally undoable. The cost of healthcare to take care of all the aged population was projected to be astronomical. All the numbers were just numbers — the reality is “no can do”. It will never get that far, it can’t be done. Physical and real-world limits are going to make themselves known not too far down the road and when that happens, things will get very interesting.

Makati1 on Fri, 14th Feb 2014 1:57 am 



Sorry, I see the home spaces becoming more populated, not less. More multi-generation family homes with Mom, Dad, the kids and maybe Grandma and/or Grandpa, maybe even an uncle or aunt. I think they are called ‘extended families’. Cost is going to be the deciding factor. Nothing else.

Davy, Hermann, MO on Fri, 14th Feb 2014 3:49 am 



Sorry, I see the home spaces becoming more populated, not less. More multi-generation family homes with Mom, Dad, the kids and maybe Grandma and/or Grandpa, maybe even an uncle or aunt. I think they are called ‘extended families’. Cost is going to be the deciding factor. Nothing else.

Yea Makati, like it used to be in normal human times before we destroyed the family unit and the tribe with distance.

Ricardo on Fri, 14th Feb 2014 12:08 pm 



Time for a cut in third world countries, who have contributed little to nothing in better the world.

Davy, Hermann, MO on Fri, 14th Feb 2014 1:39 pm 



Ricardo, one the one hand they may being spoiling the party early but on the other hand there is fairness

Kenz300 on Fri, 14th Feb 2014 3:27 pm 



Every year the world add another 80 million more people to feed, clothe, house and provide energy for…….. too many people and too few resources.

Access to family planning resources needs to be available to all that want it.

If you can not provide for yourself you can not provide for a child.