Skip to content

Malthus And Boserup Gcse Geography Coursework

Ecological Footprints

Ecological Footprint [according to the IB]: The theoretical measurement of the amount of land and water a population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its waste under prevailing technology.

Key  Words

Global Hecate: The measurement of biocapacity and ecological footprint. There were 13.4billion hectares of biologically productive land and water on this planet in 2005. Dividing by the number of people alive in that year, 6.5 billion, gives 2.1 global hectares per person.

Ecological Debetor: Country's whole ecological footprint is higher than their biocapacity.


Ecological Creditor: Country's whose ecological footprint is lower than their biocapacity.
Biocapacity - is the capacity of an area to provide resources and absorb wastes. When the area's ecological footprint exceeds its biocapacity, an ecological deficit occurs.

Biological capacity available per person (or per capita): There were 12 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water on this planet in 2008. Dividing by the number of people alive in that year, 6.7 billion, gives 1.8 global hectares per person . This assumes that no land is set aside for other species that consume the same biological material as humans

Neo-Malthusian v Anti-Malthusian

Objective: To be able to evaluate the ecological footprint as a measure of the relationship between population size and resource consumption.

Task 1 - Take the WWF Footprint calculator to work out your approximate impact on the planet. 

How did you do? What features caused your footprint to be bigger or smaller than your peers in the class? 

Task 2 - Take a copy of the map to the right hand side and write a commentary of less than 100 words describing the global disparities in ecological footprint values.  Are there any surprises? 

Task 3 - Complete this quiz sheet. Match each of the IB Five to the data sets within. Remember they are China, Niger, Brazil, USA & Australia. 

Task 4 - Click here to be taken directly to the GATW page where you must research and then complete the first 7 questions as set out. *

Task 5 - Answer the question below using the image in the centre, and the key worlds below as part of your response.

Evaluate ecological footprint versus biocapacity as a measure of sustainability between population size and resource consumption (10) - (15-20 minutes)
Objective: To be able to discuss the two opposing views (neo-Malthusian and anti-Malthusian) of the relationship between population size and resource consumption.

Task 1What is Malthusian and who is it named after?
Watch the first 4,40 minutes of the YouTube video to the right hand side and the slide 1-13 of the presentation underneath to create an A4 fact sheet on Thomas Malthus. Include facts, figures, projections & dates. Use the worksheet embedded on the blue tab above. 

Make sure you are clear on his views on the relationship between population size & resource consumption. This webpageis great too.
Preventative checks: These are measures taken by humans to reduce shortages. This might be reducing population through better family planning and possibly anti-natalist policies. Or it could be reducing waste e.g. through better recycling.

Positive checks: Despite their name, they are actually more negative solutions to resource shortages. These might be fighting and war or massive famines which actually reduce the overall population and therefore demand.
Task 2 - Make a copy of the key terms above. 

Task 3 - What is neo-Malthusian?

Neo-Malthusian: This is an idea of thought that follows Malthus's ideas. Paul Ehrlich and the ''Club of Rome" both have Neo-Malthusiasn ideas.

Split into pairs. One person will be researching and completing a fact file on Paul Ehrlich and the other on the "Club of Rome". 

Your starting point is to study slides 14-35 on the embedded presentation. Again, make sure you are clear on their views of the relationship between population size and resource consumption in 2013.

Club of Rome & its Limits to Growth Model
Study the 'Limits to Growth' model carefully. 
  • Developed by the Club of Rome it looked at population, natural resources, agricultural output, industrial production and pollution. 
  • They predicted that the limits to growth would be reached in 2070. 
  • The model basically suggests that ability of resources, food, the environment, etc. to meet human needs will be reached by 2070. 
  • Beyond this point if population is not controlled naturally, it will start to decline because of increased death rates.

Task 4 - Take a copy of the graph above and explain three of the relationships shown using case study data from the IB Geography course so far. 

Task 5 - What are the limitations of this model? 
What is Anti Malthusian?
Anti-Malthusian: Anti-Malthusian is simply the school of thought that disagrees with Malthus's pessimism and is more aligned to Boserup's optimism i.e. that humans will always find solutions to shortages.

Task 6 - Watch the two videos to the right hand side and outline their key message. 

Task 7 - You are now going to create your fourth and final fact sheet for Ester Boserup.  Remember, it is vital to highlight her views of the relationship between population size and resource consumption.

Paper 1 - 7 Mark Essay Question:

i.  Outline the two opposing views of the relationship between population size and resource consumption.

ii. Analyse how the production of resources has kept up with rapid population increase.

IB Essay Corner - Malthus Got it Right - We are Doomed

Download and print out the essay beneath, taking care to read the teachers annotations and highlight the key parts of the argument. 


Answer Task 5 - The model has come in for some criticism because it does not look at individual regions that may be well resourced and underpopulated. It also doesn't take into account certain developments in technology like renewables, GM crops and desalination.

Malthus vs Boserup

Holly Story sizes up two theories of population growth

Humans, like members of all populations of plants and animals, are in competition with one another for the Earth’s resources. The global human population is growing at a rate of around 1.2 per cent per year, and as it does the competition for resources increases.

One of those resources is food. In high-income countries food supply is relatively secure; Britain has not experienced a widespread food shortage since the Second World War. But as demand for food increases, supplies come under greater pressure. In 2012 a drought in the USA caused a drop in the global production of maize, and the effects were felt around the world as the prices of staple foods such as bread increased. In the future will we be able to produce enough food to support the ever-increasing human population?

While this seems like a 21st-century problem, it is actually a question that has concerned economists for hundreds of years (and farmers since the first days of agriculture).

Malthus’s theory

In the 18th century an economist called Thomas Robert Malthus wrote an essay outlining his response to the problem. The work, entitled ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’ (1798), set out Malthus’s theory of population growth: a theory of how and why the size of the population would change.

Malthus thought that if the human population continued to grow, food production would not be able to keep up with demand and there would not be enough food to go around. The result, he warned, would be a terrible famine that would kill many people.

In ecological terms, Malthus was arguing that the human population was at risk of outgrowing its carrying capacity (the number of individuals that can be supported by a specific habitat). There are examples of this happening to particular populations of animals and insects, such as the reindeer on St Matthew Island.

Malthus reasoned that this disastrous outcome could only be avoided if the population stopped growing. He described two types of ‘checks’ that could stop population growth: a negative check that would cause a drop in the birth rate (e.g. increased use of contraceptives) and a positive check that would increase the death rate (e.g. disease or war). These checks, he argued, were more likely to take effect as the population got closer to its carrying capacity, either because governments would take steps to stop the population getting any bigger or because of increased competition and hardship within the population. This, Malthus thought, was what would save us from large-scale starvation.

But the population has not stopped growing. Since Malthus’s lifetime the number of humans on the planet has continued to increase, and in 2011 the population reached 7 billion. According to Malthus’s theory, this should not have been possible. Where did he go wrong?

Malthus’s theory was based on the assumption that the population would grow exponentially (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32) whereas food production would grow linearly (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), much more slowly. At the time when he was writing the Industrial Revolution had not yet arrived, and without developments such as pesticides and fertilisers the amount of food that could be produced per acre of land was much smaller than it is today.

Over the 250 years since Malthus published his essay, advances in technology and innovations in farming methods have allowed food production to grow quickly enough that we can now, in theory at least, provide sufficient food for the world’s 7 billion inhabitants. Malthus did not account for these advances in his population theory, but another economist, Ester Boserup, did.

Boserup’s theory

Ester Boserup (1910–1999) was a Danish economist who specialised in the economics and development of agriculture. She worked for the United Nations and her experience working in low- and middle-income countries such as India helped to shape her theory of the relationship between human population growth and food production.

In her work ‘The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The economics of agrarian change under population pressure’ (1965), Boserup challenged Malthus’s conclusion that the size of the human population is limited by the amount of food it can produce. She suggested that food production can, and will, increase to match the needs of the population.

Drawing on her knowledge of farming in the developing world, where populations were growing quickly, Boserup argued that the threat of starvation and the challenge of feeding more mouths motivates people to improve their farming methods and invent new technologies in order to produce more food.

Boserup described this change as ‘agricultural intensification’. For example, a farmer who has four fields to produce food for his family might grow crops in three of the fields, but leave the fourth field empty as the ground is dry and his crop will not grow there. However if the farmer has two more children, the pressure to produce more food might drive him to build irrigation canals to bring water to the fourth field or to buy a different type of seed that will grow in drier ground. He would change the way he farms to make sure that he has enough food to support a larger family.

Is there a limit?

Boserup’s theory seems to provide a model for continuous population growth, but there are those who argue that Malthus was right and that there is a limit to the amount of humans the planet can support.

As modern environmentalists, scientists and politicians debate the future of the world’s climate and resources, we must hope that Boserup was right to believe that human beings are capable of remarkable ingenuity in the face of a problem.

Lead image:

Wellcome Library, London CC BY

Print this resource

Questions for discussion

  • Can you find an example of an individual or a group that thinks Malthus was right? What are their arguments?
  • Food is not the only resource that we need to survive. Can you think of other resources that humans compete for? What would happen if they ran out?

Further reading

About this resource

This resource was first published in ‘Populations’ in June 2014.

Topics:
Statistics and maths, History, Health, infection and disease
Issue:
Populations
Education levels:
16–19, Continuing professional development

Related resources