GEOGRAPHICAL FACTORS OF FERTILITY
GEOGRAFSKI DEJAVNIKI RODNOSTI PREBIVALSTVA
DamirJosipovič
Less children - less family labour (photography Marjan Grbajs). Manj otrok - manj družinskega dela (fotografija Marjan Grbajs).
Geographical Factors of Fertility
Damir Josipovič
UDC: 911.3:314.3(497.4) COBISS: 1.01
Abstract
This paper presents the problems of determining and identifying fertility factors and fertility behaviour. Analysis shows that a group of geographical factors should be added to the present six identified groups of fertility factors or fertility behaviour factors.
KEY WORDS: factors of fertility behaviour, determinants of fertility, fertility behaviour, fertility, demo-geography, demography, Slovenia.
The editiorialship received this paper for publishing in June 15th 2003. Address:
Damir Josipovič, M. Sc.
Anton Melik Geographical institute SRC SASA Gosposka ulica 13 SI - 1000 Ljubljana Slovenia
Phone: +386 (1) 2002729
Fax: +386 (1) 20027 34
E-mail: Damir.Josipovic@zrc-sazu.si
Contents
1	Theoretical views of fertility factors	114
2	Classification of fertility factors	114
2.1	Direct fertility factors	114
2.2	Indirect fertility factors	114
3	The role of geographical factors of fertility	115
4	Conclusion	117
5	Bibliography	118
1	Theoretical views of fertility factors
A dialectical connection exists between individual demographic processes and all types of population growth. Both positive and negative growth has an important return effect on the birthrate, the death rate, and migrations (Mala~i~ 2000: 187). In the more developed countries of Europe, an apparent contradiction has been evident in the last few decades between the growth and the reproduction of the population. While the rates of natural increase are still generally positive, the net rates of reproduction do not ensure the simple reproduction (replacement-level fertility) of the population for the longer term (Mala~i~ 2000:192). The fear of the potential long-term decrease in the population sent researchers looking for the factors that influence fertility. Knowledge of these is of essential importance for planning all types of population policy.
Blame for the drop in fertility to even below the level of simple reproduction can be ascribed to many factors. In a condensed form, Breznik (1988: 59) mentions them, stating that »the decline in the fertility of the population in industrialized countries is the consequence of the adoption of birth control and family planning in marriages. We can say that birth control has become a characteristic of our civilization. However, the basic reason for the decline in the number of children in families does not lie in the spread of knowledge about the possibilities of birth control but rather in the new perceptions of the population regarding the size of the family. Along with other factors, the main reasons for the decline in the fertility of the population are the low infant and childhood mortality rates, the increased costs of raising children and their education, different living conditions in urbanized and industrialized societies, changes in attitudes toward women, and the disintegration of the old patriarchal family. The changes that have occurred in the social, economic, and professional structure of the population, in the level of its education, etc., are also important. And finally, consciously chosen or desired motherhood or parenthood became the ideal of many societies.« This is a framework that can serve as an introduction in the search for causality of conditions in the field of fertility research.
2	Classification of fertility factors
The literature clearly distinguishes between direct and indirect fertility factors. Direct factors include individual sexual behaviours, physiological fecundity, use of contraceptives, etc., while indirect factors include wider social, economic, and other phenomena.
2.1	Direct fertility factors
Direct factors of fertility present few of the difficulties in determination and evaluation that indirect factors do, and they are substantially easier to quantify. However, direct fertility factors themselves do not suffice to explain the determination of fertility (Mala~i~ 2000: 95). They tend to refer to the period when »reproductive relationships« are taking place and do not describe how a particular reproductive behaviour is created in the first place. Direct fertility factors are covered by the classification done by Davis and Blake (1956), which is frequently cited by Slovene authors (for example, Mala~i~ 1985: 95-96, 2000: 114; Sircelj 1991: 91-92). This classification divides direct fertility factors into three groups of causes: causes affecting the onset (beginning) of sexual intercourses, causes affecting exposure to conception, and causes affecting pregnancy and birth. Davis and Blake refer to direct fertility factors as »causes.« Given that direct factors act directly, that is, causally, this term is justified for persons in the fertile period of life. Here, it is necessary to know from which perspective we are considering the problem. If it is a matter of individual treatment, then infertility, for example, is the direct cause that someone does not have children. This means that infertility determines or defines this person. This same infertility becomes a factor the moment we are dealing with a population since the number of infertile persons affects the fertility of the entire population.
2.2	Indirect fertility factors
From the viewpoint of fertility factors, indirect factors are more important since they determine the external framework of the direct fertility factors. The basic difficulty in determining indirect factors is their extent. For the easier survey and classification of individual factors into groups, various classifications appeared.
The most basic classification was made by Urlanis (1963), who divides fertility factors into biological and social factors (in Malačič 1985: 98). This division is elementary since it derives from the recognition that the human fertility is a socially modified biological process (Sircelj 1991: 88). This social modification of fertility is the consequence of numerous groups of factors that issue directly from society or are its product. A general feature of classifications of fertility factors is that almost all of them include a group of biological factors.
With new knowledge, classifications gradually became increasingly complex. New groups were added to the basic two groups. They were usually formed on the basis of dissecting a group of social factors. Rašević (1971), for example, divides them into biological, social, and psychological factors, which was the most frequent division in the literature at the time (in Malačič 1985: 98). Miloš Macura (1974) divides fertility factors into five groups. Relative to the previous division, he adds economic factors and divides psychological factors into social-psychological and personal-psychological (ibid.). Like Rašević, Wertheimer-Baletić divides fertility factors into three groups, expanding the category of social factors to include economic and social factors (Wertheimer-Baletić 1982: 142,1999: 211). The classification by V. Sircelj is similar to the latter, the difference between the two being that Sircelj places economic and social factors in two separate groups and adds a group of cultural factors (Sircelj 1991: 95).
The most detailed classification of indirect fertility factors was made by Malačič, who divides them into six groups: (1) biological, (2) economic, (3) social, (4) cultural, (5) anthropological, and (6) psychological factors (Malačič 1985: 99, 2000: 115).
Many other divisions of indirect fertility factors exist, but they all have one thing in common: they do not include geographical factors of fertility. In our opinion, including geographical factors in the classification not only makes sense but also is necessary. Some of the basic justifications for this course are presented below.
BIOLOGICAL	SOCIAL	ECONOMIC	CULTURAL
Figure 1: Diagram of factors of fertility behaviour.
3 The role of geographical factors of fertility
Theoretically, it is perfectly clear that in the field of fertility behaviour, effective regional differences exist. V. Sircelj discusses them extensively in her comprehensive work Determinants of Fertility in Slovenia (1991). We can also seek reasons for various fertility behaviours in the relatively small area of Slovenia in the diverse regional-geographical structure of the country. Along with the general indirect fertility factors we already discussed, spatial reasons for regional differences also exist. According to existing definitions and
determinations of fertility factors, the same results should theoretically appear everywhere. However, the results are not the same. Differences can occur due to the specific regional-geographical structure or due to the different strength of individual factors. The strength of an individual factor is linked to the place where it occurs. Thus, each indirect fertility factor has its spatial or regional component that reflects its differential strength or spatial or regional differentiation. To whom should we ascribe the same fertility behaviour in regions with different geographical structures? What played the essential role in the case of different fertility behaviours in regions with the same geographical structure? Of course it is practically impossible to find regions with identical geographical structure, but regions can be similar in some of the geographical elements that we think play an essential role in the creation of certain phenomena. It is certain that geography, with its study of regional spatial reality (that is, of the geosphere, the earth's surface area, the geographical environment) deals primarily with studying of the interdependence and reciprocity of phenomena, factors, and forces (Vri{er 1987: 87). It is precisely this intertwinement that makes it so difficult to evaluate individual phenomena in isolation (see L. Gosar 1976: 73). In such conditions, »pure« cause-effect links are rare or even impossible. Any determination of the effects of individual regional factors must therefore be understood in the direction of partial explanations, and we can consider only those factors for which data is available in a suitable form.
Theoretically, geographical factors of fertility behaviour can be divided into two groups: those that derive directly (primarily) from the geographical environment and are a component part of it and those that are a geographically differentiated reflection of some phenomenon that as a subject of research lies in the basic domain of another branch of science.
Here, for example, we consider relief, referring to the diversity of the earth's surface, to be one of the landscape-forming elements and therefore a primary geographical factor. The percentage of people employed in the secondary sector is an element of another structure. Consequently, it is a part of the population as a landscape-forming element, but in space it appears as a regionally differentiated socioeconomic factor and therefore as a secondary geographical factor. It is a secondary geographical factor because in different regions it has different strength; however, we basically still identify the percentage of people employed in the secondary sector primarily as a socioeconomic factor. With such identification and classification, it is frequently forgotten in the literature that this percentage has been largely determined by the spatial structure of a region, which is complex and which at the same time reflects the influence of this percentage. The largest problem in identifying sociogeographical factors is the »encroachment« of this branch of geography into the fields of other sciences that deal primarily with these subfields. We have no such problems in determining the physical-geographical factors. For example, relative to the distribution of the earth's population, relief, climate, soil, water, vegetation, etc., are counted among the important geographical factors in settlement patterns or colonization (for example, Friganovi} 1978: 185; 221). Analogous to physical-geographical factors, we must also consider the sociogeographical factors since they are also a part of the geographical structure or the regional complex of an area.
A geographer is not interested in individual elements of the geographical environment as such but exclusively from the standpoint of their influence on the transformation of the landscape (see Vri{er 1987: 6). In the same fashion, a demographer (demo-geographer, population geographer) is interested in the population and its elements. He is only interested in it in the role of a factor and an element of the geographical environment and in the function of evaluating the social transformation of a region (Vri{er 1987: 20). The same applies for fertility and fertility behaviour. As an element of population, fertility plays a decisive role in the dynamics of population in the present situation. We are therefore interested primarily in the factors that have an impact on fertility or fertility behaviour in order to better understand the causes and consequences of the transformation of the landscape in this field. Fertility can be influenced by either sociogeographical or physical-geographical factors. The same applies as well for the direction of the influence. Fertility not only influences the landscape, but the landscape has a feedback impact on fertility.
The division outlined above is of course theoretical since any element of the landscape can be a potential factor or a so-called »co-factor« of its transformation. All the currently established indirect fertility factors are therefore always geographical factors since different effects are proven to appear in different
areas. Because they pertain to sociogeographical elements of the region, an a priori rejection of the role of physical-geographical elements arises. Such a rejection is unjustified in some respects. The physical-geographical environment certainly plays a role in a dialectical connection with other fertility factors. The importance of geographical factors of fertility is demonstrated by the analysis of selected factors in the author's work Geographical Characteristics of Fertility in Selected Regions of Slovenia (Josipovi~ 2002).
It is necessary to emphasize that an explicit discussion of geographical factors has not appeared so far in the literature. In most cases, geographical factors are mentioned implicitly in connection with other demographic phenomena. Breznik (1988: 258) speaks about geographical factors in the field of population redistribution dependent on migration. Among these factors, he lists climate, characteristics and forms of the land (relief), energy and mineral resources, spatial relationships, etc. Along with geographical factors of migration, he also distinguishes economic and social factors (such as the customs, behaviour, and goals of the population, its economic activity and level of technology, its social organization...) and demographic factors (differential levels of natality and mortality for different regions and migration flows...) (ibid.).
In Breznik's classification, we can also observe an implicit division between direct (primary) geographical factors and those that within individual sociogeographical structures are ranked lower in the hierarchy and thus, as secondary, are considered non-geographical factors. As geographical factors, Breznik actually considered only physical-geographical factors in the sense of natural (physical) assets but did not consider sociogeographical factors, which are an inseparable part of the regional-geographical complex. These are partly covered in the remaining two groups of socioeconomic and demographic factors, but Breznik does not assign them the status of »geographical« factors.
Using the theoretical framework of the study of migration factors, we can help ourselves build a theoretical framework for fertility factors. For this reason it would make sense to augment Breznik's definition of geographical factors with other factors such as natural obstacles and borders, remoteness, accessibility, spatial disposition, etc., that also play an important role in determination of migration. Studying migration differs from studying fertility in the framework of natural movement of the population in that it is more difficult to localize the migration events than the vital events (see Breznik 1988: 258). In addition, we have to deal with the de jure simultaneity of events taking place at de facto different times in different places. With the natural component of the movement of the population, localization relative to the usual time-space diversity of vital events is not a problem in principle.
It is interesting that in spite of certain similarities in the approach and goals of the research and the properties of mechanical and natural movement, geographical factors do not simultaneously appear among the factors of causality of the two phenomena. As we have already seen, the localization of the events that are the basis for further research is characteristic for both phenomena. From this standpoint, it is essential in the field of vital characteristics of the population to consider geographical factors, because a geographical space complex that causes regional differences exists everywhere.
4 Conclusion
Geography makes possible the study of fertility at a »mezzo-level« by being able to clearly establish borders and through its knowledge of the landscape and space study regions that fall according to size between the national level with its »summarized« statistics and the micro-level of the individual household, family, or person. Such studies have so far been rare in other fields, and this is where new possibilities in the development of geography appear that can fill this gap.
From the viewpoint of geographical factors of fertility, where a person lives is significant since to what extent he or she will realize his or her physiological fecundity also depends on the place (spatial-geographical complex, that is, on the relief, the type of settling, the type of settlement, the transportation infrastructure, the distance from central settlements, accessibility to various facilities, the quality of the environment
and living conditions or the assessment of the living environment and satisfaction with the living conditions, the level of urbanization, and similar factors). Of course, this is often a matter of many intertwined factors - in most cases socioeconomic and geographical - that result in a region-specific fertility. In any case, we cannot deny the role that the geographical environment (physical, as well as social) plays in the formation of all sorts of behaviour (Skinner 1965: 31, 129-130, 257), including fertility behaviour. Knowledge and consideration of geographical factors affecting fertility or fertility behaviour are of key importance for the comprehensive treatment and understanding of human reproduction.
5 Bibliography
Andorka, R. 1978: Determinants of Fertility in Advanced Societies. Methuen, London. Breznik, D. 1988: Demografija - analiza, metodi i modeli. Beograd.
Davis, K & Blake, J. 1956: Social structure and birthrate - an analytical framework. Economic development and cultural change 4; v: Malačič, J. 1985: Sodobno obnavljanje prebivalstva in delovne sile. Ljubljana.
Friganović, M. 1978: Demogeografija- stanovništvo svijeta. Zagreb.
Gosar, L. 1976: Vpliv gibanja kmečke delovne sile na oblikovanje agrarnega prostora. Doktorska disertacija,
Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana. Josipovič, D. 2002: Geografske značilnosti rodnosti v izbranih območjih Slovenije. Magistrsko delo. Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana.
Macura, M. 1974: Prilozi teoriji i politici stanovništva. Ekonomski institut, Beograd. Malačič, J. 1985: Sodobno obnavljanje prebivalstva in delovne sile. Ljubljana. Malačič, J. 2000: Demografija - teorija, analiza, metode in modeli. Ljubljana. Rašević, M. 1971: Determinante fertiliteta stanovništva u Jugoslaviji. Beograd. Skinner, B. F. 1965: Science and human behavior. Free Press, New York. Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika. DZS, Ljubljana 1997.
Sircelj, M. 1991: Determinante rodnosti v Sloveniji. Doktorska disertacija, Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana. Verbinc, F. 1991: Slovar tujk. Ljubljana. Vrišer, I. 1987: Uvod v geografijo. Ljubljana.
Wertheimer - Baletić, A. 1982: Demografija - stanovništvo i ekonomski razvitak. Zagreb. Wertheimer - Baletić, A. 1999: Stanovništvo i razvoj. Zagreb.
Geografski dejavniki rodnosti prebivalstva
Damir Josipovic
UDK: 911.3:314.3(497.4) COBISS: 1.01
Izvleček
Prispevek predstavlja problematiko determinacije in identifikacije dejavnikov rodnosti oziroma rodnost-nega obna{anja. Analiza je pokazala, da bi bilo potrebno dosedanjim {estim identificiranim skupinam dejavnikov rodnosti oziroma rodnostnega obna{anja dodati skupino geografskih dejavnikov.
KLJUCNE BESEDE: dejavniki rodnostnega obnašanja, dejavniki rodnosti, rodnostno obnašanje, rodnost, demogeografija, demografija, Slovenija.
Prispevek je prispel v uredni{tvo 15. junija 2003. Naslov:
Damir Josipovic, mag.
Geografski in{titut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Gosposka ulica 13 1000 Ljubljana Slovenija
telefon: +386 (1) 2002729
faks: +386 (1) 20027 34
el. po{ta: Damir.Josipovic@zrc-sazu.si
Kazalo
1	Teoretski pogledi na dejavnike rodnosti	122
2	Klasifikacije dejavnikov rodnosti	122
2.1	Neposredni dejavniki rodnosti	122
2.2	Posredni dejavniki rodnosti	123
3	Vloga geografskih dejavnikov rodnosti	124
4	Sklep	125
1	Teoretski pogledi na dejavnike rodnosti
Med posameznimi demografskimi procesi in vsemi vrstami rasti prebivalstva obstaja dialektična povezanost. Pozitivna ali negativna rast imata pomemben povratni učinek na rodnost, smrtnost in migracije (Malačič 2000: 187). V razvitej{ih državah Evrope se zadnjih nekaj desetletij kaže navidezna protislovnost med rastjo in obnavljanjem prebivalstva. Medtem ko so stopnje naravnega prirastka {e vedno v glavnem pozitivne, neto stopnje obnavljanja že dalj časa ne zagotavljajo enostavne reprodukcije prebivalstva (Ma-lačič 2000:192). Bojazen ob možnem dolgoročnem upadanju {tevila prebivalcev je gnala raziskovalce, da so se lotili iskanja dejavnikov, ki vplivajo na rodnost. Poznavanje teh je temeljnega pomena za načrtovanje vseh vrst prebivalstvene politike.
Odgovornost za znižanje rodnosti celo pod raven enostavne reprodukcije lahko pripi{emo mnogim dejavnikom. V zgo{čeni obliki jih omenja tudi Breznik (1988: 59), ki meni, da je »zmanj{evanje rodnosti prebivalstva v industrializiranih deželah posledica sprejemanja kontrole rojstev, oziroma načrtovanja družine v zakonih. Lahko rečemo, da je kontrola rojstev postala karakteristika na{e civilizacije. Vendar osnovni razlog zmanj{evanja {tevila otrok v družinah ne leži le v {irjenju znanja o možnostih kontrole rojstev, temveč prej v novih dojemanjih prebivalstva o velikosti družine. Poleg ostalega so nizka smrtnost dojenčkov in majhnih otrok, povečani stro{ki vzdrževanja otrok in njihovega {olanja, drugačni pogoji življenja v urbanizirani in industrializirani družbi, spremembe v stali{čih do ženske, razpadanje stare patriarhalne družine, glavni vzroki upadanja rodnosti prebivalstva. Pomembne so tudi spremembe, do katerih je pri{lo v socialni, ekonomski in poklicni strukturi prebivalstva, v stopnji njegove izobrazbe itd. In končno, zavestno tj. želeno materinstvo, oziroma star{evstvo, je postalo ideal mnogih družb.« To je okvir, ki lahko služi kot uvod v iskanje vzročnosti razmeram na področju rodnosti.
2	Klasifikacije dejavnikov rodnosti
V literaturi je moč zaslediti delitev dejavnikov rodnosti na neposredne in na posredne. Obstaja pa nekaj terminolo{kih razlik. Malačič (2000: 114) v okviru determinant rodnosti loči neposredne vzroke od posrednih dejavnikov rodnosti. Poleg dejavnikov uporablja {e pojma determinante in vzroki. Podobno tudi Sircljeva (1991: 91-92) uporablja izraz determinante rodnosti. V bistvu gre za podomačeno obliko besede, ki se v tuji literaturi pogosto uporablja (npr. Andorka 1978; Wertheimer - Baleti}: 1999: 212), pomeni pa določ-nico (prim. Verbinc 1991). SSKJ (1997) za determinanto pravi, da »nekaj določa, pogojuje«. Gre za besedo, ki je morda celo nekoliko prestroga, saj na nekaj ne le vpliva, ampak tisto nekaj tudi določi ter postavi v nek okvir. V razmerah ne popolnoma jasno opredeljenih in ovrednotenih vplivov na rodnost (prim. Malačič 1985: 95) se zdi uporaba pojma »determinante« kar malce preveč zavezujoča. Zato bomo na tem mestu raje uporabljali »dejavnike«. SSKJ (1997) za dejavnik (faktor, činitelj) pravi, da »... deluje, [oziroma] vpliva na kaj, ali povzroča določeno dogajanje«.
2.1 Neposredni dejavniki rodnosti
Pri neposrednih dejavnikih rodnosti se ne pojavljajo tak{ne težave pri opredeljevanju in vrednotenju kot pri posrednih. Bistveno lažje jih je kvantificirati. Vendar pa sami neposredni dejavniki rodnosti ne zado{čajo za pojasnitev determinacije rodnosti (Malačič 2000: 95). Bolj se nana{ajo na obdobje, ko že nastopijo »reproduktivne zveze«. Ne govorijo pa o tem, kako se neko reproduktivno obna{anje sploh oblikuje. Neposredne dejavnike rodnosti zajema klasifikacija, ki sta jo izdelala Davis in Blakeova (1956) in jo veliko citirajo tudi slovenski avtorji (npr. Malačič 1985: 95-96; 2000:114; Sircelj 1991: 91-92). Deli jih na tri skupine vzrokov, in sicer na vzroke, ki vplivajo na vzpostavitev spolnih odnosov, na vzroke, ki vplivajo na izpostavitev zanositvi, in na vzroke, ki vplivajo na nosečnost in porod. Avtorja omenjene klasifikacije o neposrednih dejavnikih rodnosti govorita kot o vzrokih. Glede na to, da neposredni dejavniki delujejo direktno, torej vzročno, na osebe, ki so v rodnem obdobju, je tako poimenovanje upravičeno. SSKJ (1997) namreč razlaga vzrok kot nekaj, »kar naredi, da kaj nastane, [oziroma] se zgodi«. Ob tem je potrebno vedeti, s katere perspektive se lotevamo problema. Ce gre za individualno obravnavo, potem je denimo neplodnost neposredni vzrok, da neka oseba nima otrok. To pomeni, da s tem determinira oziroma določa to osebo. Ista neplodnost pa postane dejavnik v trenutku, ko obravnavamo neko populacijo, saj {tevilo neplodnih vpliva na rodnost celotne populacije.
2.2 Posredni dejavniki rodnosti
Z vidika dejavnikov rodnosti so pomembnejši posredni dejavniki, saj ti odrejajo zunanji okvir neposrednih dejavnikov rodnosti. Osnovna težava pri opredeljevanju posrednih dejavnikov pa je njihov obseg. Zaradi lažjega pregleda in razvrščanja posameznih dejavnikov v skupine so se pojavile različne klasifikacije.
Najbolj osnovna je denimo Urlanisova (1963), ki dejavnike rodnosti deli na biološke in družbene (v: Mala-čič 1985: 98). Ta delitev je osnovna zato, ker izhaja iz spoznanja, da je človekova rodnost družbeno preoblikovan biološki proces (Sircelj 1991: 88). Ta družbena preoblikovanost rodnosti pa je posledica številnih skupin dejavnikov, ki izhajajo neposredno iz družbe, ali pa so njen produkt. Splošna značilnost klasifikacij dejavnikov rodnosti je, da skoraj vse vsebujejo skupino bioloških dejavnikov.
Z novimi spoznanji so klasifikacije sčasoma postale vse kompleksnejše. Osnovnima dvema skupinama so se pridružile nove. Navadno so nastale na podlagi seciranja skupine družbenih dejavnikov. Denimo Raševič (1971) jih je razdelil na biološke, družbene in psihološke, kot je bilo v tistem času v literaturi najbolj pogosto (Malačič 1985: 98). Miloš Macura (1974) dejavnike rodnosti deli na pet skupin. Glede na predhodno delitev jim dodaja ekonomske dejavnike, psihološke pa deli na socialno-psihološke in oseb-no-psihološke (ibid.). Wertheimer - Baletičeva je dejavnike rodnosti razdelila na tri skupine podobno kot Raševič s tem, da je poimenovanje družbenih razširila na ekonomske in socialne činitelje (Wertheimer - Bale-tič 1982: 142; 1999: 211). Tej klasifikaciji je podobna razvrstitev, ki jo je izdelala V. Sircelj. Razlika je vtem, da je Sircljeva ekonomske in socialne činitelje postavila v ločeni skupini, dodala pa jim je še skupino kulturnih dejavnikov (Sircelj 1991: 95).
Najbolj podrobno klasifikacijo posrednih dejavnikov rodnosti je izdelal Malačič, ki jih je razdelil na šest skupin: (1) biološki, (2) ekonomski, (3) družbeni, (4) kulturni, (5) antropološki in (6) psihološki dejavniki (Malačič 1985: 99; 2000: 115).
Obstaja še vrsta drugih delitev posrednih dejavnikov rodnosti, vsem pa je skupno, da ne vključujejo geografskih dejavnikov rodnosti. Po našem mnenju je uvrstitev geografskih dejavnikov v klasifikacijo ne le smiselna pač pa tudi potrebna. V nadaljevanju so predstavljeni nekateri temeljni razlogi za tako odločitev.
BIOLOŠKI
DRUŽBENI
EKONOMSKI
KULTURNI
ANTROPOLOŠKI
GEOGRAFSKI
PSIHOLOŠKI
Slika 1: Shema dejavnikov rodnostnega obnašanja.
3 Vloga geografskih dejavnikov rodnosti
Teoretično je popolnoma jasno, da obstajajo na področju rodnostnega obnašanja efektivne regionalne razlike. O njih izčrpno piše V. Sircelj v delu Determinante rodnosti v Sloveniji (1991). Razloge različnega rodnostnega obnašanja na relativno majhnem ozemlju Slovenije lahko iščemo tudi v različni regional-no-geografski strukturiranosti območij. Poleg splošnih posrednih dejavnikov rodnosti, o katerih smo že govorili, obstajajo tudi prostorski vzroki za regionalne razlike. Teoretično gledano bi moralo po obstoječih definicijah in opredelitvah dejavnikov rodnosti povsod prihajati do istega rezultata. Ta rezultat pa ni enak. Do razlik lahko prihaja zaradi specifične regionalno-geografske strukture ali pa zaradi različne jakosti posameznega dejavnika. Vendar je tudi omenjena jakost posameznega dejavnika povezana s prostorom, v katerem se odvija, ali dogodi. Tako ima vsak posredni dejavnik rodnosti svojo prostorsko ali pokrajinsko komponento, ki kaže njegovo diferencialno jakost oziroma prostorsko ali pokrajinsko diferenciacijo. Čemu pripisati denimo enako rodnostno obnašanje na območjih z različno geografsko strukturo? Kaj je odigralo bistveno vlogo v primeru različnega rodnostnega obnašanja na območjih enake geografske strukture? Seveda je praktično nemogoče najti območja enakih geografskih struktur, lahko pa so si območja podobna po nekaterih geografskih elementih, za katere mislimo, da imajo bistveno vlogo pri sooblikovanju nekega pojava. Gotovo je, da se geografija pri svojem proučevanju pokrajinske prostorske stvarnosti (oziroma geosfere, zemeljske površinske sfere, geografskega okolja) ukvarja predvsem s proučevanjem soodvisnosti in součinkovanja med pojavi, faktorji in silami (Vrišer 1987: 87). Ravno zaradi te prepletenosti je težko izolirano vrednotiti posamezen pojav (prim. L. Gosar 1976: 73). V takih razmerah so tudi »čiste« vzročno-posledične povezave redke ali celo nemogoče. Vsako opredeljevanje učinkov posameznih pokrajinskih dejavnikov je zato treba razumeti v smeri delnega pojasnjevanja, lotevamo pa se lahko le tistih dejavnikov, za katere imamo na voljo podatke v primerni obliki.
Teoretično bi lahko razdelili geografske dejavnike rodnostnega obnašanja na dve skupini: na tiste, ki izhajajo neposredno (primarno) iz geografskega okolja in so njegov sestavni del, ter na tiste, ki so geografsko diferenciirani odraz nekega pojava, ki je kot predmet proučevanja v osnovni domeni druge znanosti.
Pri tem smatramo, da je denimo relief v smislu razgibanosti zemeljskega površja eden od pokrajinotvor-nih elementov ter tako primarni geografski dejavnik. Delež zaposlenih v sekundarnem sektorju pa je sestavina neke druge strukture. Posledično je sicer del prebivalstva kot pokrajinotvornega elementa, vendar se v prostoru kaže kot regionalno diferenciiran družbeno-ekonomski dejavnik, torej kot sekundarni geografski dejavnik. Sekundarni geografski dejavnik zato, ker ima na različnih območjih različno jakost, vendar ga v osnovi še vedno primarno identificiramo kot družbeno-ekonomskega. Ob taki identifikaciji in klasifikaciji pa se v literaturi pogosto pozablja, da mu je trenutno podobo dala pravzaprav prostorska struktura nekega območja, ki je kompleksna in ki je hkrati odraz tudi njegovega vpliva. Največji problem identifikacije družbeno-geografskih dejavnikov je ravno »poseganje« te veje geografije na področje drugih ved, ki se primarno bavijo s temi podpodročji. Pri opredeljevanju fizično-geografskih dejavnikov tolikšnih težav nimamo. Tako pri distribuciji prebivalstva na Zemlji štejemo denimo relief, podnebje, prst, vodo, rastje itd. kot pomembne geografske faktorje poselitve (npr. Friganović 1978: 185; 221). Analogno fizično-geo-grafskim dejavnikom bi morali razbrati tudi družbeno-geografske, saj so tudi ti del geografske strukture oziroma regionalnega kompleksa nekega območja.
Geografa ne zanimajo posamezne sestavine geografskega okolja kot take, pač pa izključno z vidika vplivov na preobrazbo pokrajine (prim. Vrišer 1987: 6). Na enak način zanima demogeografa prebivalstvo in njegove sestavine. Zanimajo ga le v vlogi faktorja in elementa geografskega okolja in v funkciji vrednotenja družbene preobrazbe pokrajine (Vrišer 1987:20). Enako velja tudi za rodnost in rodnostno obnašanje. Rodnost kot sestavina prebivalstva igra v današnjih razmerah odločilno vlogo v dinamiki prebivalstva. Zato nas zanimajo predvsem dejavniki, ki vplivajo na rodnost oziroma na rodnostno obnašanje prebivalstva, da bi lahko bolje razumeli vzroke in posledice preobrazbe pokrajine na tem področju. Na rodnost pa lahko vplivajo tako družbeno-geografski kot tudi fizično-geografski dejavniki. Podobno je tudi s smerjo vplivanja. Rodnost ne vpliva le na pokrajino, pač pa le-ta vpliva tudi povratno.
Prej omenjena delitev je seveda teoretična, saj je lahko katerakoli sestavina pokrajine potencialni dejavnik ali 'so-dejavnik' njene preobrazbe. Vsi doslej ugotovljeni posredni dejavniki rodnosti so tako vedno geografski, saj dokazano prihaja do različnih učinkov na različnih območjih. Ker se nanašajo na družbeno-geografske
sestavine pokrajine, prihaja do apriornega negiranja vloge fizično-geografskih elementov. Tako negiranje je v določenem delu neupravičeno. Svojo vlogo, seveda v dialektični povezavi z drugimi dejavniki rodnosti, ima tudi fizično-geografsko okolje. Kako pomembni so geografski dejavniki rodnosti, nam kaže tudi analiza izbranih dejavnikov v delu Geografske značilnosti rodnosti na izbranih primerih (Josipovič 2002).
Poudariti je treba, da eksplicitnega izpostavljanja geografskih dejavnikov rodnosti doslej v literaturi ni bilo zaslediti. Največkrat se geografski dejavniki omenjajo implicitno v povezavi z drugimi demografskimi pojavi. O geografskih dejavnikih na področju redistribucije prebivalstva pogojene s selitvami govori Breznik (1988: 258). Mednje uvršča klimo, lastnosti in oblike zemljišča (relief), energetske in mineralne resurse, prostorske odnose itd. Poleg geografskih dejavnikov migracij loči še ekonomske in socialne dejavnike (kot so običaji, obnašanje in cilji prebivalstva, njegove ekonomske aktivnosti in tehnike, njegovo družbeno organiziranost...) in demografske dejavnike (diferencialne stopnje natalitete in mortalitete za različna območja in migracijske tokove...) (ibid.).
Tudi pri Breznikovi klasifikaciji lahko opazimo implicitno delitev na neposredno (primarno) geografske dejavnike in na tiste, ki so znotraj posamezne družbeno-geografske strukture hierarhično nižje razvrščeni, s tem pa so kot sekundarni smatrani za negeografske. Dejansko je Breznik kot geografske dejavnike upošteval le fizično-geografske dejavnike v smislu naravnih (fizičnih) danosti, ni pa upošteval družbeno-geografskih dejavnikov, ki so neločljivi del regionalno-geografskega kompleksa. Ti so deloma zajeti v preostalih dveh skupinah ekonomsko-socialnih in demografskih dejavnikov, a jim statusa 'geografskih' dejavnikov ne pripisuje.
Sicer pa si s teoretskim okvirom proučevanja dejavnikov migracij lahko pomagamo pri dograjevanju teoretskega okvira dejavnikov rodnosti. Zato bi bilo smiselno Breznikovo opredelitev geografskih dejavnikov dopolniti še z drugimi dejavniki, kot so naravne ovire in meje, oddaljenost, dostopnost, prostorska razmestitev itd., ki imajo lahko pravtako pomembno vlogo v determinaciji migracij. Proučevanje migracij se od proučevanja rodnosti v okviru vitalnega gibanja prebivalstva razlikuje v tem, da je lokalizacija migracijskih dogodkov težja od vitalnih (prim. Breznik 1988: 258). Poleg tega imamo opraviti še z de iure časovno hkratnostjo prostorsko različnih dogodkov. Pri vitalni komponenti gibanja prebivalstva pa lokalizacija glede na običajno časovno-prostorsko različnost vitalnih dogodkov načeloma ni problematična.
Zanimivo je, da se kljub nekaterim podobnostim v pristopih in ciljih proučevanja ter lastnostih mehanskega in naravnega gibanja med dejavniki vzročnosti ne pojavljajo hkrati pri obeh tudi geografski dejavniki. Kot smo že prej videli, je za oba pojava značilna lokalizacija dogodkov, ki so osnova za nadaljnje proučevanje. S tega vidika je na področju vitalnih karakteristik prebivalstva nujno obravnavati tudi geografske faktorje, saj povsod obstaja geografski prostorski kompleks, ki povzroča regionalne razlike.
4 Sklep
Geografija omogoča proučevanje rodnosti tudi na 'mezo-nivoju' s tem, da lahko jasno razmeji in preko svojega poznavanja pokrajine in prostora tudi prouči območja, ki so po velikosti med državnim nivojem in 'zbirnimi statistikami' ter mikro-nivojem posameznega gospodinjstva, družine ali posameznika. Taka proučevanja so bila doslej na drugih področjih redka, zato se tu kažejo nove možnosti razvoja geografije, ki lahko zapolni to vrzel.
Z vidika geografskih dejavnikov rodnosti je pomembno, kje neka oseba živi, saj je tudi od prostora (prostorskega geografskega kompleksa tj. od reliefa, tipa poselitve, tipa naselij, prometne infrastrukture, oddaljenosti od centralnih naselij, dostopnosti do najrazličnejših funkcij, kvalitete okolja in bivanja oziroma vrednotenja bivalnega okolja in zadovoljnosti s pogoji bivanja, stopnje urbanizacije in podobnih dejavnikov) odvisno, v kolikšni meri bo realizirala svojo fiziološko plodnost. Seveda gre marsikdaj za preplet mnogih dejavnikov, največkrat socioekonomsko-geografskih, ki rezultirajo v regionalno-specifični rodnosti. Ne moremo pa zanikati vloge geografskega (tako fizičnega kot družbenega) okolja, ki jo ima pri oblikovanju vseh vrst obnašanja (Skinner 1965: 31, 129-130, 257) in tako tudi rodnostnega. Poznavanje in upoštevanje tudi geografskih dejavnikov rodnosti oziroma rodnostnega obnašanja je ključno za celovito obravnavo in razumevanje človekove reprodukcije.