Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-09-15
“There Are Many People Like Me,Who Feel They Want to Do Something Bigger”: An Exploratory Study of Choosing Not to Have Children Based on Environmental Concerns
Calculating the ecological impact of different types of proenvironmental behavior has shown that having one child less is the behavior with the largest ecological impact. Despite this, environmental psychology has barely researched the childfree lifestyle as a proenvironmental behavior. The aim of this article is to explore this topic, here defined as being environmentally childfree. Twenty participants, including three couples, who have chosen to be environmentally childfree, were interviewed using semistructured interviews focusing on the psychological and social processes around making such a choice. Three main themes were identified using thematic analysis. The three main themes revolve around how the participants made the choice, how they share their choice, and how the choice is integrated into their lives. Further research should investigate being environmentally childfree as a decision made by couples, rather than as an individual decision, in addition to how the phenomenon is represented among youth and younger adults. Economic and social consequences of decreasing fertility rates should also be investigated.
AndrijevicM., & StriessnigE. (2017, November1). Less feet, less footprint: The relationship between environmental concern and fertility intentions. Poster session presented at the 2017 International Population Conference in Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved from https://iussp.confex.com/iussp/ipc2017/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/6509
3.
ArnockyS., DupuisD., & StroinkM. L. (2012). Environmental concern and fertility intentions among Canadian university students. Population and Environment, 34, 279–292.
BenatarD. (2012). Every conceivable harm. A further defence of anti-natalism. South African Journal of Philosophy, 31, 128–164.
6.
BendellJ. (2018, July27). Deep adaptation: A map for navigating climate tragedy. Institute for leadership and sustainability occasional papers volume 2. University of Cumbria, Ambleside, United Kingdom. Retrieved from www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
7.
BhatiaR. (2004). Green or brown? White nativist environmental movements. In FerberA. L. (ed.), Home-grown hate. Gender and organized racism (pp. 194–214). New York: Routledge.
8.
BraunV., & ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
9.
ChapmanD. A., LickelB., & MarkowitzE. M. (2017). Reassessing emotion in climate change communication. Nature, 7, 850–852.
10.
DailyG. C., EhrlichA. H., & EhrlichP. R. (1994). Optimum human population size. Population and Environment, 15, 469–475.
11.
DaumM. (ed.). (2015). Selfish, shallow, and self-absorbed. Sixteen writers on the decision not to have kids. New York: Picador.
12.
DavisA. C., ArnockyS., & StroinkM. (2019). The problem of overpopulation: Proenvironmental concerns and behavior predict reproductive attitudes. Ecopsychology, 11, 92–100.
13.
EatonA. A., & StephensD. P. (2020). Reproductive justice special issue introduction: “Reproductive justice: Moving the margins to the center in social issues research.” Journal of Social Issues, 76, 208–218.
FrieseC., BeckerG., & NachtigallR. D. (2006). Rethinking the biological clock: Eleventh-hour moms, miracle moms and meanings of age-related infertility. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 1550–1560.
GkargkavouziA., HalkosG., & MatsioriS. (2019). Development and validation of a scale for measuring multiple motives toward environmental protection (MEPS). Global Environmental Change, 58, 101971.
18.
HoogendornG., SütterlinB., & SiegristM. (2019). When good intentions go bad: The biased perception of the environmental impact of a behavior due to reliance on an actor's behavioral intention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 64, 65–77.
JonssonA.-K. E., & NilssonA. (2014). Exploring the relationship between values and pro-environmental behavior: The influence of locus of control. Environmental Values, 23, 297–314.
23.
KirkD. (1996). Demographic transition theory. Population Studies, 50, 361–387.
24.
KopninaH., & WashingtonH. (2016). Discussing why population growth is still ignored or denied. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 14, 133–143.
25.
LiaoP.-J. (2013). The one-child policy: A macroeconomic analysis. Journal of Development Economics, 101, 49–62.
26.
MurtaughP. A., & SchlaxM. G. (2009). Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals. Global Environmental Change, 19, 14–20.
PinkertF., & StickerM. (2020). Procreation, footprint and responsibility for climate change. The Journal of Ethics. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-020-09345-z
29.
PolkinghorneD. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 5–23.
30.
RiederT. N. (2016). Toward a Small Family Ethic. How Overpopulation and Climate Change Are Affecting the Morality of Procreation (SpringerBriefs in Public Health). Cham: Springer.
31.
SchultzP. W. (2014). Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: Lots of tools but few instructions. European Psychologist, 19, 107–117.
32.
SøraaR. A., AnfinsenM., FouldsC., KorsnesM., LagesenV., RobisonR., & RyghaugM. (2020). Diversifying diversity: Inclusive engagement, intersectionality, and gender identity in a European social sciences and humanities energy research project. Energy Research & Social Science, 62, 101380.
33.
SpringmannM., ClarkM., Mason-D'CrozD., WiebeK., BodirskyB. L., LassalettaL., de VriesW., VermeulenS. J., HerreroM., CarlsonK. M., JonellM., TroellM., DeClerckF., GordonL. J., ZuraykM., ScarboroughP., RaynerM., LokenB., FanzoJ., … WillettW. (2018). Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature, 562, 519–525.
34.
SveenH. H. (Ed.). (2015). Evig barnefri. Historier om frivillig barnløshet. Oslo: Humanist Forlag.
35.
TrueloveH. B., CarricoA. R., WeberE. U., RaimiK. T., & VandenberghM. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127–138.
36.
VaiseyS. (2014). Is interviewing compatible with the dual-process model of culture?. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 2, 150–158.
37.
VollsetS. E., GorenE., YuanC.-W., CaoJ., SmithA. E., HsiaoT., BisignanoC., AzharG. S., CastroE., ChalekJ., DolgertA. J., FrankT., FukutakiK., HayS. I., LozanoR., MokdadA. H., NandakumarV., PierceM., PletcherM., … MurrayC. J. L. (2020). Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: A forecasting analysis for the Global burden of disease study. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2
38.
WhitmarshL., & O'NeillS. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 305–314.
39.
WynesS., & NicholasK. A. (2017). The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12, 074024.
