There is lack of studies of global variation in religious affiliation alongside environmental change worldwide. The aim of the current study is to help fill this gap by exploring variation in religious affiliation alongside environmental change worldwide. We study this relationship by analysing religious affiliation, a variety of environmental stressors and environmental outcomes.
As the impacts of climatic change increase, the share of the world population with a religious affiliation is expected to rise (from 84% in 2010 to 87% by 2050). Religion is important for climate change relevant behaviours, including fertility choices or whether one sees climatic change as due to human action or related to forces beyond human control. We conduct exploratory and descriptive statistical analyses to better understand the associations among religion, on the one hand, and economic development, greenhouse gas emissions, exposure to environmental stressors, and attitudes, beliefs and environmental performance, on the other. We show that countries with lower shares that are religious tend to have more emissions, to be better prepared for environmental challenges and have low or negative population growth. Countries with a greater proportion of religiously affiliated tend to have higher population growth, face more environmental risks and to be less prepared for those risks. Identifying groups that disproportionally cause or are exposed to environmental risks represents an issue of environmental justice. Understanding the religious composition of the world along with environmental changes can further help identify which environmental policies that could be more effective.
There is a growing consensus that the challenge of tackling climate and environmental change cannot be met solely through technical solutions, and that human behavior, attitudes, and ultimately consumption patterns will play an important role in climate adaptation and mitigation (The Royal Society 2012). Appropriate responses can be either helped or hampered by societal and psychological barriers and constraints related to culture, values and beliefs (Stern 2007, Markowitz and Shariff 2012). A holistic approach to environmental challenges requires that social dimensions are given a vital role, not only in understanding human motivations, but also addressing normative issues, such as social justice and fairness between groups in response to global warming (Vinthagen 2013, Samson et al. 2011). For many, religion represents a key normative dimension in their lives, and may influence life goals, behavioral choices as well as demographic outcomes. Religious and demographic change coincide with global environmental challenges—and may determine which religious and demographic groups are contributing more to drivers of environmental change and which groups will experience disproportionate impacts of environmental change.
The nature of several of the challenges associated with environmental change (especially climate change mitigation and adaptation) requires a comprehensive understanding and description of the relationship between religion and environmental indicators encompassing countries across the planet. The changes in the global distribution of religious affiliation contribute to shape how environmental problems and risks are perceived, and influence which policy responses are plausible. For example, individuals who are more religious may be more likely to attribute environmental change to forces outside their own control (Kalamas, Cleveland, and Laroche 2014), which could have implications for which policies are effective both for mitigation and for adaptive capacity. Religion can be a factor associated with one’s susceptibility to natural disasters (Soares, Gagnon, and Doherty 2012, Morrow 1999). In the aftermath of natural disasters, people may become more religious and seek support and answers from faith to cope with tragedies (Gaillard and Texier 2010).
The aforementioned effects may be stronger in low income countries, where religion plays a stronger role in daily life, religious organizations have a greater role in the provision of social and health services, and where social vulnerability to environmental stressors are greater (Paldam and Gundlach 2013). In the poorest countries in the world, religion plays an important role in shaping society´s response to crises, and levels of belief and religiosity far exceed more developed nations (Figure 1). The 20 poorest countries also face the brunt of climate change´s negative effects (Eckstein et al. 2019). Countries in sub-Saharan Africa are seeing increases in absolute poverty (Cuaresma et al. 2018), and low preparedness to face the challenges posed by climate change. The World Bank has estimated that by 2050 there may be up to 143 million internal climate migrants or displaced people in only three regions of the developing world (Rigaud et al. 2018), implying significant disruptions to life in these regions. This suggests that a better understanding of the relationships among the global distribution of religious affiliation, environment and development is needed.
The aim of the current study is to help fill this gap by exploring variation in religious affiliation alongside environmental change worldwide. We study this relationship through an examination of the literature, and by presenting results of a statistical analysis and mapping exercise of religious affiliation and a variety of environmental stressors and outcomes. The statistical analysis benefits from a unique global data set on religious affiliations (Stonawski et al. 2015, Skirbekk et al. 2016). We employ data on self-reported religious affiliation, which is the religious measure that is available for the greatest share of the world population (measures of religiosity, such as religious activity or belief in specific religious phenomena tend to be more difficult to compare across religions—and there is less data available) (James 1985, Swatos and Christiano 1999, Hackett et al. 2015, Davie 2007).
Our data set is based on census and survey data on religious affiliation by age and sex covering 199 nations which contain more than 99% of the global population, and is therefore the most comprehensive of its kind. We consider eight broad affiliation groups: Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Folk religionists, Other religions and Religiously unaffiliated. We acknowledge that while religious affiliation relates to religious belief it may for others represents more of a cultural belonging. One the one hand, some may be religious without belonging to a religious community while others may belong to a religious community due to tradition, for family reasons, as it represents a part of a belonging to a societal group which does not necessarily imply that one shares beliefs with their co-religionists (Voas and Crockett 2005, Davie 2008, Marchisio and Pisati 1999). The data set also considers global gross migration flows, differences in age-specific fertility by religion, and intergenerational transmission of religious affiliation as well as conversions at younger ages. Since it contains demographic detail, one can observe the religious composition by age and sex. It is based on a large database of more the 2,500 nationally representative surveys, registers and censuses (Pew research center 2012, Skirbekk and Stonawski 2016, Skirbekk et al. 2016).
We acknowledge that there are important differences in religious views between individuals, groups and regions, where contextual and socioeconomic factors can play a role in affecting whether and how religions –and subgroups therein- influence outcomes. For example, the theology and practice of Christianity is different depending on whether one belongs to the Eastern Orthodox tradition, Catholicism, or the many branches of Protestantism. Similarly, Islam is practiced differently in Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, India, or Iran, where different religious schools, traditions and interpretations prevail. Moreover, the role of religion in society varies across different religious communities, socioeconomic and legal contexts. The degree of practice or “religiosity” (including beliefs in the supernatural, religious practices) differ among those self-identifying as part of a specific religious group. Finally, as Wilk (2016, 2014) points out, material aspirations and growth of consumerism has strong effects on environmental outcomes, regardless of which countries, cultural belonging or religious groups and their underlying theologies concerning environmental stewardship. All of these factors combined may result in greater within-religion differences in environmental attitudes and behaviours than between religions. Yet, as discussed below, religious affiliation is an important marker that can shed light on the human-environment relationship.
Furthermore, several socioeconomic and health factors that are important for both behaviours and responses to climate change have shown partial convergence in recent years, and this could potentially make differences in religious affiliation relatively more important. For instance, mortality inequalities across countries have declined substantially in recent decades (Guillot and Canudas-Romo 2016, Currie and Schwandt 2016), while access to basic healthcare has risen (Hsiao, Li, and Zhang 2017, Ginsburg et al. 2016, Murray et al. 2013). Religious variation, however, does not show signs of disappearing, and the world may see an increasingly polarized development in the years to come, with some parts of the world remaining highly religious and other regions turning increasingly secular (McGrath 2003, Pew research center 2015).
2 Literature Review: Religion and the Human-Environment Nexus
2.1 Environmental Behavior
Religious groups may encourage pro-environmental behaviors for several reasons, including those based on theologies of stewardship of creation or dominion over the earth. Religious convictions may influence both perceptions and behaviour relating to environmental challenges (Newman and Fernandes 2016, Jiang et al. 2015, Dougherty et al. 2013). The 2010 US General Social Survey data suggest that among Christians, the degree of religiosity does not relate to environmental attitudes, but it relates positively to pro-environmental behaviours (Clements, McCright, and Xiao 2014). Another US survey, however, finds an inverse relationship between religious affiliation and environmental concern (Jones, Cox, and Navarro-Rivera 2014). It has been argued that individuals who ascribe environmental change to chance or fate tend to engage less in pro-environmental behaviours (Kalamas, Cleveland, and Laroche 2014). People who are guided by normative goals, which in turn can be influenced by religious affiliation, are more likely to acknowledge environmental problems and more inclined to assume responsibility in terms of environmentally-friendly behaviours (Liobikienė and Juknys 2016). On the other hand, Sherkat and Ellison (2007) report that in the U.S. conservative Protestant Christians tend to be less likely to be politically or privately involved in behaviors associated with environmental activism. Importantly, the existing literature on how religion affects environmental behavior is disproportionally focused on Christianity and Western countries (Berry 2013, Jones, Cox, and Navarro-Rivera 2014)—yet increasing amounts of studies are being conducted on a global scale (Taylor 2010, Lykes 2016).
One study using representative data from 91 countries collected from 1989 to 2014 through the World Values Survey indicate that religion is associated with a greater willingness to pay for environmental protection and fewer conflicts in doing so, and that those who are religious are more likely to donate to ecological causes or demonstrate for the environment. The self-assessed willingness to contribute for environmental protection tends to be more pronounced in the low-income country categories (Zemo and Nigus 2020).
Commonly religious groups, particularly when followers are given freedom, make faith-based arguments about the environment and climate change, including giving human-caused climate change arguments. Almost every faith tradition speaks about the importance of taking care of Creation as not only a fad, but a sacred duty. A collection of different religious groups views on environmental challegens and climate change is provided in (Grim 2019).
2.2 Religion and Environmental Protection
Willingness to make the institutional changes necessary to mitigate climate change can be influenced by religious views, such as convictions regarding whether humans have dominion over the Earth and how one sees the role of humanity on the planet (White 1967). Greeley (1993) found a correlation between belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible and low levels of environmental concern among Protestants,1 which is driven by specific convictions such as belief in a gracious God. Thus, it is not necessarily religious belief per se which causes individuals to be less likely to engage in environmentally-friendly behavior, but religious interpretation and a rigid mind set (exemplified by a literal biblical interpretation) characteristic among more conservative Christian traditions which drives these results. It has been argued that several of the more affluent Christian nations “export” their environmental problems by importing goods from more polluting (and unaffiliated) countries such as China (De Sherbinin and Mara 2018).
Consistent with game theory, research has revealed that individuals who adhered to a religion-based belief in doomsday or end-of-times scenarios (and implicit short time horizon) are less likely to support efforts to address climate change (Barker and Bearce 2013). In this respect, diverse discounting of the future among religious and denominational adherents may represent a potential religion-specific indicator of willingness to meet the challenges posed by climate change.
Perception of and responses to environmental risks may differ depending on systems—both in terms of consumption and production patterns, and in terms of a sense of agency related to the ability to anticipate and protect oneself from natural hazards. Attitudes could affect ones’ understanding of environmental behaviours and thereby influence consumption patterns (Sapci and Considine 2014, Kahle and Gurel-Atay 2013, Büttner and Grübler 1995, Husted et al. 2014). In terms of agency, the relation of religion to protecting nature can be problematic for some: the sacred aspect of nature could preclude environmental action or lead to the denial of climate change (Sachdeva 2016).
Religion can also determine adaption to address climate change. Acceptance of carbon capture storage (CCS) for Muslims can be problematic due to teachings on stewardship, harmony and the intrinsic value of nature, according to one British survey (Hope and Jones 2014). CCS was considered less problematic for Christian participants, who demonstrated anthropocentric values and evaluated environmental issues and technological solutions in relation to the extent to which they supported human welfare. Unaffiliated participants expressed anxiety in relation to environmental issues, especially climate change, where lack of belief in an afterlife or divine intervention led these participants to focus on human responsibility and the need for action, raising the perceived necessity of a range of technologies including CCS.
2.3 Polity and Willingness to Pay
Polity has been defined as a group of people who are collectively united by a self-reflected cohesive force such as identity, who have a capacity to mobilize resources, and are organized by some form of institutionalized hierarchy (Mansbach and Ferguson 1996). Differences in the religious affiliation of those who are exposed to adverse environmental changes versus the religious affiliation of those who contribute more to such changes may influence the ability to implement effective policies to reduce emissions and to adapt to the implications of climate change.
If there is more cultural similarity between the groups causing environmental degradation and the groups subject to its consequences, this may increase mitigation efforts (on the assumption that willingness to pay is affected by the degree of homogeneity between the contributor and the beneficiary). Furthermore, the capacity to impose necessary taxes, implement new production technologies and alter consumption patterns can depend on the degree of shared culture or religious conviction. Collaboration relies on both trust and willingness to pay for measures intended to counter challenges of a global nature.
2.4 Religion and Reproductive and Cultural Outcomes
Cultural and religious convictions can influence individuals’ lifestyles and consumption behaviours, and willingness to change these (Adger et al. 2007, Adger et al. 2013, O’Brien et al. 2007). Religion includes beliefs, worldviews, practices, and institutions that cross borders and time from the level of individuals to multinational movements, but the mechanisms through which religion work can differ across contexts (Haluza‐DeLay 2014). These mechanisms can work indirectly on environmental outcomes, such as through religion’s influence on education, income, reproductive behaviour and consumption patterns.
2.5 Interactions with Fertility and Population Growth
Fertility is the primary driver of population growth, and rapid population growth has been linked to a number of environmental concerns. Religion can be an important driver of family formation, marriage and childbearing patterns (Leyva et al. 2014, Schnall et al. 2010, McCullough et al. 2000). For instance, religion is found to substantially affect fertility (McQuillan 2004; Philipov and Berghammer 2007; Lehrer 1996), and more religious individuals tend to exhibit higher fertility (Berghammer 2012, Adserà 2005, Heaton 2011). Fertility significantly relates to religion, even when socioeconomic factors are accounted for (Heaton 2011, Westoff and Frejka 2007, Dilmaghani 2018). After co-existing for centuries in Europe, different religious groups living in Bulgaria have substantial fertility differences net of confounding influences (Stonawski, Potančoková, and Skirbekk 2015).
Although education is an important determinant of childbearing and schooling levels are rising globally, variation in childbearing behavior by affiliation exists within educational groups. For instance, even women with the highest educational attainment—doctoral degrees—exhibit large differences in fertility preferences and behaviours by their religious affiliation (Buber-Ennser and Skirbekk 2015). Further, religion can influence important determinants of childbearing, including education or employment activity, which in turn may affect fertility (Bonsang, Skirbekk, and Staudinger 2017, Lehrer 2004). Further, due to the high levels of intergenerational transmission of religion from parents to children, fertility differentials by religions are likely to significantly affect population growth as well as the composition of religious groups over time.
3 Statistical Analysis: Religious Affiliation, Environmental Stressors, and Environmental Outcomes
Here we present results of an exploratory statistical analysis and mapping exercise of religious affiliation and a variety of environmental stressors and outcomes. We conduct exploratory and descriptive statistical analyses to better understand the associations among religion, on the one hand, and economic development, greenhouse gas emissions, exposure to environmental stressors, and attitudes, beliefs and environmental performance, on the other. Due to data constraints, all the analyses are at the country level.
The purpose is to test the following two hypotheses:
H1: That there are statistically significant differences among countries by majority religious affiliation in terms of drivers of environmental change (greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy use).
H2: That there are statistically significant differences among countries by majority religious affiliation in terms of vulnerability to the effects of environmental change.
In each case, we test whether we obtain significant results by the majority percent affiliated (meaning the percentage of the population that affiliates with a religion) (see Table 1, Figures 2 and 3) and for countries in which Christian and Muslims constitute the largest share of the total population (even if not a majority). We explore the latter relationship because these two religions are in majority in most countries in the world—there are 159 majority Christian and 48 majority Muslim countries (Table 1) – and these nations are highly diverse.
The G10 countries: Brazil, China, Germany, France, United Kingdom, India, Italy, Japan, Russian Federation, USA. The 10 poorest countries are: Benin, Ethiopia, Haiti, Mozambique, Niger, Nepal, Senegal, Togo, Tanzania, Zimbabwe.
We recognize that a limitation of this analysis is the use of countries as units of analysis. The primary issue is that countries are composed of numerous religious groups, and that significant populations of Christians, Muslims and other religious groups may co-exist in the same country. Because we are unable to obtain data by religious group on different environmentally-relevant factors (drivers and impacts), we are limited to the use of majority religions to classify countries. Another issue with the use of countries as units of analysis are the widely varying population sizes and land areas. For example, the religious composition of Fiji, a majority Christian country with 892,000 inhabitants, counts for the same as India, a majority Hindu country with a population of 1.3 billion. Because this is an exploratory analysis we feel these weaknesses are offset by the potential for this analysis to illuminate religion-environment relationships.
3.1 Religious Affiliation Data
Data on religious affiliation was taken from a separate project that estimated global religious affiliation by age and sex globally. Religious affiliation information from more than 2,500 data sources, including censuses, demographic surveys, general population surveys, and other studies were analysed—the largest project of its kind to date.2 These data were used to have country specific estimates on religious affiliation by 5-year age groups separately for men and women.3 Census, surveys, and other demographic data collection methods were used to identify religious affiliation. Eighty-three percent of the world’s population self-identified as adhering to a religion in 2010 according to our estimates, and this proportion is projected to increase to 87% by 2050 (Hackett et al. 2015, Stonawski et al. 2015, Skirbekk et al. 2016). This unique global collection of data on religious affiliation allows us to describe variation in religion on a global scale. Figures 2 and 3 show current status of majority religious affiliation and trends and projections in religious affiliation globally, and Figure 4 shows the percentage of population that states an affiliation with a religion.
Table 1 gives additional statistics for the number of countries by largest religious group and descriptive statistics for the average percent share of the population across countries, including land areas and population size of countries where each religious group is dominant.
We use the following variables in our analysis: the percent affiliated to any religion and percent unaffiliated; largest religious group and its share of the population; and the country’s second largest religious group and its share of the population, all in 2010.
3.2 Environmental, Socioeconomic and Demographic Data
We use environmental data from a number of different sources. The selected variables aim to capture drivers of environmental problems (for example, energy consumption) and impacts (for example, vulnerability and resilience to disasters). In addition, we also included socioeconomic and demographic control variables likely to affect the interactions of environment and religion.
Key variables we consider as drivers of environmental outcomes include GDP, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (including land use change and forestry) and energy use (primary energy use). The environmental impacts include water stress (total annual water withdrawals expressed as a percentage of the total annual available blue water), world risk index (vulnerability and exposure to natural hazards, such as cyclones, droughts, earthquakes, floods, and sea-level rise), and ND-GAIN (country’s vulnerability to climate change and other global challenges in combination with its readiness to improve resilience).
Control variables include land area, total population, population growth, percentage of urban population, median age and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. A detailed list of variables and their sources is presented in table A.1, and summary statistics are presented in table A.2.
We investigated the religious composition both among countries that contribute most to environmental degradation (e.g., their greenhouse gas emission levels), as well as countries that are subject to the impacts of environmental change (e.g., water stress). The main contributors to GHG emissions in 2010—China, the US, Japan and the European Union—generally have the greatest share of religiously unaffiliated. Globally, the religiously unaffiliated share of the world population was only 16% in 2010 (Hackett et al. 2015), yet the unaffiliated constitute a majority in several nations, including China and Japan. Our 2010 estimates find that the unaffiliated share in Japan was 57%, in China 52%, while in Europe it was 18.8% and the US it was 18% (Pew research center 2012, Stonawski et al. 2015). In many of the nations that are most vulnerable to climate change, there tend to be very low shares of the religiously unaffiliated, e.g., more than 99% of the Indian population declares adhering to a religion, and the vast majorities in the Middle East as well as sub-Saharan Africa are religious.
3.4 GDP and emissions by religious group
GDP differs by religious affiliation, and some religious groups are disproportionally situated in poorer countries, other groups are more common in richer countries (Navarro and Skirbekk 2018). Christian countries, although accounting for only 31.4% of the world population account for 49.3% of global GDP. The unaffiliated were only 16.4% of the population yet represented 22.2% of GDP. Muslim countries’ proportion of the world population in 2010 was 23.2%, but they represented only 12.3% of global GDP. Hindu countries were 15% of the population, but their GDP was only 4.9%.
Figures 5 and 6 present maps highlighting the relationship among religion, GDP levels and GHG emissions. The relationships vary across majority religious group affiliations, as can also be observed in table A.2 (means and standard deviation), especially for GDP per capita. The highest average per capita income is in unaffiliated countries, followed by Christian and Muslim majority countries.
Table A.3 displays correlation results indicating direction and strength of these associations. For the world as a whole, the share of the population in the largest religious group and percentage affiliated with any religion are negatively and significantly correlated with GDP per capita, emissions and energy use, although the relationship is rather weak (small coefficients). Results are slightly different for Muslim countries, where the same relationships hold but with larger coefficients, indicating stronger correlations. For Christian countries, these relationships are not significant. Instead, in these countries the percent of population affiliated to any religion is negatively, significantly and moderately correlated to energy use and GDP per capita (Table A.3).
3.5 Religion and Environmental Impacts
Figures 7 and 8 map the relation between majority religion and two environmental impact indicators, ND-Gain’s adaptive capacity index and the World Risk Index. The ND-Gain index shows the countries that have greater adaptive capacity for environmental change. The World Risk index shows which countries have greater likelihood of disaster risk. It takes into consideration both external and internal factors, i.e. threats by natural hazards such as cyclones, floods, droughts, sea level rise and societal conditions.
Table A.4 summarizes these relations, displaying correlation coefficients (with significance level and number of observations) between religion and environmental impact indicators. For all countries, the larger the share of the largest religious group, the lower the ND-GAIN index, meaning that more pluralistic societies appear to have greater adaptive capacity. Countries with higher proportions of the population who adhere to a single religion tend to have greater environmental risk scores and lower adaptive capacity scores. When the correlations are run for majority Muslim and Christian nations separately, correlation coefficients between religion indicators (percent affiliated to any religion) and the World Risk Index and ND-GAIN, respectively, are not significant for Muslim countries. This may reflect the fact that majority Muslim countries tend to have universally high proportions of percent affiliated to any religion. Conversely, they are significant and slightly stronger for Christian countries. This suggests that majority Christian countries reflect the global pattern, where higher percentages of religious affiliation tend to correlate with higher risk and lower preparedness.
We examine contributions to climate change in relation to preparedness (adaptive capacity) using energy use and the ND-GAIN index (Figure A.1). For majority Christian and Muslim nations, high GHGs are associated with somewhat higher adaptive capacity. In other words, Christian and Muslim nations that contribute the most to climate change may be the least vulnerable and the most able to bear its consequences, a basic ethical dilemma (Samson et al. 2011).
Countries with higher percentages unaffiliated (figure A.2) show higher levels of the adaptive capacity index at comparable levels of GHG and GDP pc. Overall, among the religious (affiliated), we observe a positive development in the timespan since the year 2000. This may be due to the progress made by least developed countries in this 15 year time-span, in developing along less energy intensive and GHG-efficient paths than industrialised countries to date.
Religion is a powerful identity marker, potentially affecting different types of environmentally relevant behaviours. Religious change can also affect social cohesion, consumption trends and willingness-to-pay for climate change mitigation or adaptation initiatives. Our findings indicate that religious affiliation relates to greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and gross domestic product on a global scale. Countries with more emissions and greater GDP tend to be less religious, have less population growth and to be better prepared for environmental challenges. Conversely, countries with a greater proportion of religiously affiliated tend to have younger populations, higher environmental risks, lower GDP and preparedness levels.
We also show that there are differences across religious groups. For example, the lowest level of energy use per capita is observed among the Hindu dominated countries. The lowest climate change adaptive capacity (as measured by ND-GAIN levels) are found among countries with Muslim and Hindu majorities. It is conceivable that risk perception, and therefore preparedness, among these religious groups differs from those in other groups (Kruger et al. 2015). Where the religiously unaffiliated are in majority, levels of climate change adaptive capacity are the highest.
As the impacts of climate change become greater the world is also becoming more religious (the share without religion is expected to decline in the coming decades) but also more polarized. How exactly a growth in the importance of religion translates with regards to climate policy and the future evolution of the climate system remains to be seen. Yet, since religion may affect which policies are more effective and plausible, it is important to understand the evolution of the religious composition of the world alongside environmental changes. Furthermore, the ethical dimensions of climate change, namely the ways in which different faith traditions disproportionately contribute to and are impacted by climate change, will likely receive growing attention. Finally, identifying effective ways to communicate environmental issues and risks within faith traditions, and also to encourage inter-faith and religious-nonreligious collaboration, will be important for addressing future global environmental challenges.
Adger, W Neil, Shardul Agrawala, M Monirul Qader Mirza, Cecilia Conde, Karen o’Brien, Juan Pulhin, Roger Pulwarty, Barry Smit, and Kiyoshi Takahashi. 2007. “Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity.” Climate change: 717–743.
Adger, W Neil, Jon Barnett, Katrina Brown, Nadine Marshall, and Karen O’brien. 2013. “Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation.” Nature Climate Change 3 (2):112–117.
Adserà, Alicia. 2005. “Vanishing children: From high unemployment to low fertility in developed countries.” American Economic Review 95 (2):189–193. doi: 10.1257/ 000282805774669763.
Alesina, A., R. Baqir, and W. Easterly. 1999. “Public Goods and Ethnic Divisions.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114 (4):1243–1284.
Audretsch, David, Dirk Dohse, and Annekatrin Niebuhr. 2010. “Cultural diversity and entrepreneurship: a regional analysis for Germany.” The Annals of Regional Science 45 (1):55–85.
Barker, D. C., & Bearce, D. H. (2013). End-times theology, the shadow of the future, and public resistance to addressing global climate change. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 267–279.
Berghammer, Caroline. 2012. “Church attendance and childbearing: Evidence from a Dutch panel study, 1987–2005.” Population Studies 66 (2):197–212. doi: 10.1080/ 00324728.2012.655304.
Bonsang, Eric, Vegard Skirbekk, and Ursula M Staudinger. 2017. “As You Sow, So Shall You Reap: Gender-Role Attitudes and Late-Life Cognition.” Psychological Science: 0956797617708634.
Buber-Ennser, Isabella, and Vegard Skirbekk. 2015. “Researchers, religion and childlessness.” Journal of biosocial science:1–15.
Büttner, Thomas, and Arnulf Grübler. 1995. “The birth of a “Green” generation?: Generational dynamics of resource consumption patterns.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 50 (2):113–134. doi: 10.1016/0040-1625(95)00052-C.
Chuvieco, Emilio, Mario Burgui, and Isabel Gallego-Álvarez. 2016. “Impacts of Religious Beliefs on Environmental Indicators.” Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 20 (3):251–271.
Clements, John M, Aaron M McCright, and Chenyang Xiao. 2014. “Green Christians? An empirical examination of environmental concern within the US general public.” Organization & Environment 27 (1):85–102.
Cuaresma, Jesús Crespo, Wolfgang Fengler, Homi Kharas, Karim Bekhtiar, Michael Brottrager, and Martin Hofer. 2018. “Will the Sustainable Development Goals be fulfilled? Assessing present and future global poverty.” Palgrave Communications 4 (1):1–8.
Currie, Janet, and Hannes Schwandt. 2016. “Mortality inequality: the good news from a county-level approach.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 30 (2):29–52.
De Sherbinin, A., and V. Mara. 2018. “How green are your imports?” https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/02/07/green-imports-green-import-index-provides-answer/
Dougherty, Kevin D., Jenna Griebel, Mitchell J. Neubert, and Jerry Z. Park. 2013. “A Religious Profile of American Entrepreneurs.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 52 (2):401–409. doi: 10.1111/jssr.12026.
Eckstein, David, Vera Künzel, Laura Schäfer, and Maik Winges. 2019. “Global climate risk index 2020.” Germanwatch Available at: https://germanwatch.org/sites/germanwatch.org/files/20–2-01e%20Global20.
Enquist, Magnus, Stefano Ghirlanda, and Kimmo Eriksson. 2011. “Modelling the evolution and diversity of cumulative culture.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 366 (1563):412–423.
Gaillard, Jean-Christophe, and Pauline Texier. 2010. “Religions, natural hazards, and disasters: An introduction.” Religion 40 (2):81–84.
Ginsburg, Ophira, Rajan Badwe, Peter Boyle, Gemma Derricks, Anna Dare, Tim Evans, Alexandru Eniu, Jorge Jimenez, Tezer Kutluk, and Gilberto Lopes. 2016. “Changing global policy to deliver safe, equitable, and affordable care for women’s cancers.” The Lancet.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
. , Ginsburg, Ophira , Rajan Badwe , Peter Boyle , Gemma Derricks , Anna Dare , Tim Evans , Alexandru Eniu , Jorge Jimenez , and Tezer Kutluk Gilberto Lopes . “ 2016 Changing global policy to deliver safe, equitable, and affordable care for women’s cancers.” The Lancet.
Grim, Brian J. 2019. “Religious Freedom Helps Tackle Climate Change.” https://religiousfreedomandbusiness.org/2/post/2019/10/religious-freedom-helps-tackle-climate-change.html.
Guillot, Michel, and Vladimir Canudas-Romo. 2016. “Revisiting Life Expectancy Rankings in Countries that Have Experienced Fast Mortality Decline.” In Dynamic Demographic Analysis, 51–67. Springer.
Hackett, Conrad, Marcin Stonawski, Michaela Potančoková, Brian J Grim, and Vegard Skirbekk. 2015. “The future size of religiously affiliated and unaffiliated populations.” Demographic Research 32:829–842.
Haluza‐DeLay, Randolph. 2014. “Religion and climate change: varieties in viewpoints and practices.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5 (2):261–279.
Heaton, Tim B. 2011. “Does Religion Influence Fertility in Developing Countries.” Population Research and Policy Review 30 (3):449–465. doi: 10.1007/s11113-010-9196-8.
Hope, Aimie LB, and Christopher R Jones. 2014. “The impact of religious faith on attitudes to environmental issues and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies: A mixed methods study.” Technology in Society 38:48–59.
Hsiao, William, Mingqiang Li, and Shufang Zhang. 2017. “China’s Universal Health Care Coverage.” In Towards Universal Health Care in Emerging Economies, 239–266. Springer.
Husted, Bryan W, Michael V Russo, Carlos E Basurto Meza, and Suzanne G Tilleman. 2014. “An exploratory study of environmental attitudes and the willingness to pay for environmental certification in Mexico.” Journal of Business Research 67 (5):891–899.
Jiang, Fuxiu, Zhan Jiang, Kenneth A Kim, and Min Zhang. 2015. “Family-firm risk-taking: does religion matter?” Journal of Corporate Finance 33:260–278.
Jones, Robert P, Daniel Cox, and Juhem Navarro-Rivera. 2014. “Believers, sympathizers, and skeptics: why Americans are conflicted about climate change, environmental policy and science: findings from the PRRI/AAR religions, values, and climate change survey.”
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
. , Jones, Robert P , and Daniel Cox Juhem Navarro-Rivera . “ 2014 Believers, sympathizers, and skeptics: why Americans are conflicted about climate change, environmental policy and science: findings from the PRRI/AAR religions, values, and climate change survey.”
Kalamas, Maria, Mark Cleveland, and Michel Laroche. 2014. “Pro-environmental behaviors for thee but not for me: Green giants, green Gods, and external environmental locus of control.” Journal of Business Research 67 (2):12–22.
Lee, Soomi, Dongwon Lee, and Thomas E Borcherding. 2015. “Ethnic Diversity and Public Goods Provision Evidence from US Municipalities and School Districts.” Urban Affairs Review: 1078087415587055.
Lehrer, Evelyn L. 2004. “Religion as a Determinant of Economic and Demographic Behavior in the United States.” Population and Development Review 30 (4):707–726. doi: 10.2307/3657335.
Leyva, Bryan, Jennifer D Allen, Laura S Tom, Hosffman Ospino, Maria Idali Torres, and Ana F Abraido-Lanza. 2014. “Religion, fatalism, and cancer control: a qualitative study among Hispanic Catholics.” American journal of health behavior 38 (6):839.
Liobikienė, Genovaitė, and Romualdas Juknys. 2016. “The role of values, environmental risk perception, awareness of consequences, and willingness to assume responsibility for environmentally-friendly behaviour: the Lithuanian case.” Journal of Cleaner Production 112:3413–3422.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
. , and Liobikienė, Genovaitė Romualdas Juknys . “ 2016 The role of values, environmental risk perception, awareness of consequences, and willingness to assume responsibility for environmentally-friendly behaviour: the Lithuanian case.” Journal of Cleaner Production 112: 3413– 3422.
Lykes, Valerie A. 2016. Local environmental attitudes, global environmental attitudes, and religion: An analysis in 47 nations: University of Nevada, Reno.
Mansbach, Richard W, and Yale H Ferguson. 1996. Polities: Authority, identities, and change. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Marchisio, R., and M. Pisati. 1999. “Belonging without believing: Catholics in contemporary Italy.” Journal of Modern Italian Studies 4 (2):236–255. doi: 10.1080/ 13545719908455008.
McCullough, Michael E., William T. Hoyt, David B. Larson, Harold G. Koenig, and Carl Thoresen. 2000. “Religious involvement and mortality: A meta-analytic review.” Health Psychology 19 (3):211–222. doi: 10.1037/0278-6188.8.131.52.
McGrath, Pam. 2003. “Religiosity and the challenge of terminal illness.” Death studies 27 (10):881–899. doi: 10.1080/716100343.
Murray, Christopher JL, Theo Vos, Rafael Lozano, Mohsen Naghavi, Abraham D Flaxman, Catherine Michaud, Majid Ezzati, Kenji Shibuya, Joshua A Salomon, and Safa Abdalla. 2013. “Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.” The lancet 380 (9859):2197–2223.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
. , Murray, Christopher JL , Theo Vos , Rafael Lozano , Mohsen Naghavi , Abraham D Flaxman , Catherine Michaud , Majid Ezzati , Kenji Shibuya , and Joshua A Salomon Safa Abdalla . “ 2013 Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.” The lancet 380( 9859): 2197– 2223.
Navarro, Jose, and Vegard Skirbekk. 2018. “Income inequality and religion globally 1970–2050.” Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis 28:175–199.
Newman, Todd P, and Ronald Fernandes. 2016. “A re-assessment of factors associated with environmental concern and behavior using the 2010 General Social Survey.” Environmental Education Research 22 (2):153–175.
O’Brien, K., Siri Eriksen, Lynn P Nygaard, and Ane Schjolden. 2007. “Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses.” Climate policy 7 (1):73–88.
Pew. 2011. The Future of the Global Muslim Population. Projections for 2010–2030. Washington, D.C.: PEW Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Rigaud, Kanta Kumari, Alex de Sherbinin, Bryan Jones, Jonas Bergmann, Viviane Clement, Kayly Ober, Jacob Schewe, Susana Adamo, Brent McCusker, and Silke Heuser. 2018. “Groundswell.” World Bank Report: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29461
Rosa, Eugene A, and Thomas Dietz. 2012. “Human drivers of national greenhouse-gas emissions.” Nature Climate Change 2 (8):581–586.
Samson, J, D Berteaux, BJ McGill, and MM Humphries. 2011. “Geographic disparities and moral hazards in the predicted impacts of climate change on human populations.” Global ecology and biogeography 20 (4):532–544.
Sapci, Onur, and Timothy Considine. 2014. “The link between environmental attitudes and energy consumption behavior.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 52:29–34.
Schnall, Eliezer, Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, Charles Swencionis, Vance Zemon, Lesley Tinker, Mary Jo O’Sullivan, Linda Van Horn, and Mimi Goodwin. 2010. “The relationship between religion and cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in the women’s health initiative observational study.” Psychology & Health 25 (2):249–263. doi: 10.1080/08870440802311322.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
. , Schnall, Eliezer , Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller , Charles Swencionis , Vance Zemon , Lesley Tinker , Mary Jo O’Sullivan , and Linda Van Horn Mimi Goodwin . “ 2010 The relationship between religion and cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in the women’s health initiative observational study.” Psychology & Health 25( 2): 249– 263. doi: 10.1080/08870440802311322.
Sherkat, Darren E, and Christopher G Ellison. 2007. “Structuring the Religion‐Environment Connection: Identifying Religious Influences on Environmental Concern and Activism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46 (1):71–85.
Skirbekk, Vegard, Michaela Potančoková, Conrad Hackett, and Marcin Stonawski. 2016. “Religious Affiliation Among Older Age Groups Worldwide: Estimates for 2010 and Projections Until 2050.” The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences: gbw144.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
. , Skirbekk, Vegard , Michaela Potančoková , and Conrad Hackett Marcin Stonawski . “ 2016 Religious Affiliation Among Older Age Groups Worldwide: Estimates for 2010 and Projections Until 2050.” The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences: gbw144.
Skirbekk, Vegard, and Marcin Stonawski. 2016. “Faith and Health Globally.” In Yearbook of International Religious Demography 2016, 138–147. Brill.
Soares, Marta Bruno, Alexandre S. Gagnon, and Ruth M. Doherty. 2012. “Conceptual elements of climate change vulnerability assessments: a review.” International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 4 (1):6 –35.
Stahl, Günter K, Martha L Maznevski, Andreas Voigt, and Karsten Jonsen. 2010. “Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups.” Journal of international business studies 41 (4):690–709.
Stonawski, Marcin, Michaela Potančoková, and Vegard Skirbekk. 2015. “Fertility Patterns of Native and Migrant Muslims in Europe.” Population, Space and Place.
Stonawski, Marcin, Vegard Skirbekk, Conrad Hackett, Michaela Potančoková, Phillip Connor, and Brian Grim. 2015. “Global Population Projections by Religion: 2010–2050.” Yearbook of International Religious Demography 2015.
Swatos, William H., and Kevin J. Christiano. 1999. “Secularization Theory: The Course of a Concept.” Sociology of Religion 60 (3):209–228. doi: 10.2307/3711934.
The Royal Society. 2012. People and The Planet. In Royal Society Science Policy Centre report 01/12.
Tjernström, Emilia, and Thomas Tietenberg. 2008. “Do differences in attitudes explain differences in national climate change policies?” Ecological Economics 65 (2):315–324.
Vinthagen, Stellan. 2013. “Ten theses on why we need a “Social Science Panel on Climate Change”. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 12 (1):155–176.
Westoff, Charles F., and Tomas Frejka. 2007. “Religiousness and Fertility among European Muslims.” Population and Development Review 33 (4):785–809. doi: 10.2307/25487622.
Wilk, Richard. 2016. “Is a Sustainable Consumer Culture Possible?” Anthropology and Climate Change: From Actions to Transformations 301.
Wilk, Richard R. 2014. Consumer Cultures Past, Present, and Future. Multi-Disciplinary Approaches to Sustainable Consumption, Oxford University Press.
Zemo, Kahsay Haile, and Halefom Yigzaw Nigus. 2020. “Does religion promote pro-environmental behaviour? A cross-country investigation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy:1–24.
Greeley (1993) acknowledged the absence of a sociological theory accounting for White’s (1967) link between belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible and low levels of environmental concern.
Details regarding the data sources, the procedures used in gathering the data, carrying out the estimations and harmonizing the data are presented in several technical reports and methodological articles (Stonawski et al. 2015, Pew 2011).
Censuses were the primary source in 90 nations, which together cover 45% of all people in the world. Large-scale demographic surveys were the primary sources for 43 countries. General population surveys were the primary source of data for an additional 42 countries, representing 37% of the global population. Together, censuses or surveys provided estimates for 175 countries representing 95% of the world’s population. In the remaining 57 countries, representing 5% of the world’s population, the primary sources for the religious-composition estimates include population registers and institutional membership statistics reported in the World Religion Database and other sources.