The Indian subcontinent can be divided into four geographical divisions. In this paper, we characterize three of the four divisions; the Northern Plains, the Deccan Plateau, and the Northern Mountains or the Himalayan as regions with dissimilar climatic and physical resources. It is argued that human adaptations to these variations would be varied by differences in social organization of production and consumption resulting in differences in fertility differences across the three divisions. We found significant differences in the median age at motherhood as well as in the total family size. The effects of the three selected fertility determinants, age at marriage, years of woman's education, and level of child loss on family size also varied significantly across the three divisions. There is considerable homogeneity with respect to fertility levels within the zones considered in this study. 1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between broad features of the Indian geographical terrains in which populations live and their fertility. While it is well-known that the Indian subcontinent can be partitioned into four broad types of geographical areas, very few studies have attempted to explore the relationship if any between the geographical area and fertility. Information on the broad association between geographical environment and fertility is necessary in many respects [1–3] and has policy implications. 2. Background Studies on the spatial aspects of fertility in India point to the existence of a variety of patterns. The cultural, economic, and social determinants contributing to the evolution of various patterns have not been adequately identified. The cultural theory presented by Dyson and Moore [4] suggests a North-South divide in fertility levels. They identify and relate the roles of several cultural aspects of property rights, ties to natal kin, and marriage rules to high-fertility levels in the North compared to the South. Marriage rules in the North are exogamic giving rise to strong patriarchal institutions that encourage high-fertility levels. Using the 1991 Census and National Family Health Survey 1991–1993 survey data, M. L. Brookins and O. L. Brookins [5] found that seventy percent of the interstate variations in fertility in India is explained by economic variables. They also found a number of significant non-economic fertility determinants to conclude that “evidence from our study indicates that a consideration of factors determining fertility-decision making in India must be comprehensive and extend
References
[1]
M. Susser, “The logic in ecological: I. The logic of analysis,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 825–829, 1994.
[2]
S. Curtis and I. R. Jones, “Is there a place for geography in the analysis of health inequality?” Sociology of Health and Illness, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 645–672, 1998.
[3]
G. H. Williams, “The determinants of health: structure, context and agency,” Sociology of Health and Illness, vol. 25, pp. 131–154, 2003.
[4]
T. Dyson and M. Moore, “On kinship structure, female autonomy, and demographic behavior in India,” Population & Development Review, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 35–60, 1983.
[5]
M. L. Brookins and O. T. Brookins, “An exploratory analysis of fertility differentials in India,” Journal of Development Studies, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 54–72, 2002.
[6]
R. Jeffrey, Politics, Women and Well-Being: How Kerala Became, “A Model”, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India, 1993.
[7]
L. Rahman and V. Rao, “The determinants of gender equity in India: examining Dyson and Moore's thesis with new data,” Population and Development Review, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 239–268, 2004.
[8]
M. R. Rosenzweig and T. P. Schultz, “Market opportunities, genetic endowments, and intrafamily resource distribution: child survival in rural India,” American Economic Review, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 803–815, 1982.
[9]
A. P. J. Mol and G. Spaargaren, “Ecological modernisation theory in debate: a review,” Environmental Politics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 17–49, 2000.
[10]
R. Walker, “The geographical organization of production-systems,” Environment & Planning D, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 377–408, 1988.
[11]
B. Fisher and T. Christopher, “Poverty and biodiversity: measuring the overlap of human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots,” Ecological Economics, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 93–101, 2007.
[12]
M. Fafchamps and F. Shilpi, “Cities and specialisation: evidence from south Asia,” Economic Journal, vol. 115, no. 503, pp. 477–504, 2005.
[13]
F. DeClerck, J. C. Ingram, and C. M. Rumbaitis del Rio, “The role of ecological theory and practice in poverty alleviation and environmental conservation,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 533–540, 2006.
[14]
A. Datta and S. Sinha, “Gender disparities in social well-being: an overview,” Indian Journal of Gender Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 51–65, 1997.
[15]
P. K. Samal, L. M. S. Palni, and D. K. Agrawal, “Ecology, ecological poverty and sustainable development in Central Himalayan region of India,” International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 157–168, 2003.
[16]
S. Fan, A. Gulati, and S. Thorat, “Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in rural India,” Agricultural Economics, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 163–170, 2008.
[17]
S. Fan, P. Hazell, and T. Haque, “Targeting public investments by agro-ecological zone to achieve growth and poverty alleviation goals in rural India,” Food Policy, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 411–428, 2000.
[18]
W. E. Rees, “An ecological economics perspective on sustainability and prospects for ending poverty,” Population and Environment, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 15–46, 2002.
[19]
V. Bhasin, Habitat, Habitation and Health in the Himalayas: A Comparative Study of the People of Sikkim and the Gaddis of Himachal Pradesh, KRE Books, New Delhi, India, 1990.
[20]
M. K. Bhasin and S. Nag, “A demographic profile of the people of Jammu and Kashmir: estimates, trends and differentials in fertility,” Journal of Human Ecology, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 57–112, 2002.
[21]
Z. Sathar, N. Crook, C. Callum, and S. Kazi, “Women's status and fertility change in Pakistan,” Population & Development Review, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 415–432, 1988.
[22]
G. W. Jones, “Fertility decline in Asia: the role of marriage change,” Asia-Pacific Population Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 13–10, 2007.
[23]
A. Bhargava, “Family planning, gender differences and infant mortality: evidence from Uttar Pradesh, India,” Journal of Econometrics, vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 225–240, 2003.
[24]
T. B. Heaton, “Does Religion Influence Fertility in Developing Countries,” Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 449–465, 2011.
[25]
International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Macro International, India National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) 2005-2006, IIPS, Mumbai, India, 2007.
[26]
A. M. Basu and S. Amin, “Conditioning factors for fertility decline in Bengal: history, language identity, and openness to innovations,” Population and Development Review, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 761–794, 2000.
[27]
K. S. James, “Fertility decline in Andhra Pradesh: a search for alternative hypotheses,” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 491–499, 1999.
[28]
C. Z. Guilmoto, “The geography of fertility in India (1981–1991),” in Essays on Population and Space in India, C. S. Guilmoto and A. Vaguet, Eds., pp. 37–53, French Institute of Pondicherry, Pondicherry, India, 2000.
[29]
P. K. R. Nair and J. C. Dagar, “An approach to developing methodologies for evaluating agroforestry systems in India,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 55–81, 1991.
