Hutchinson’s ecological niche as an indicator of life quality of the population

Abstract

In classical ecology the concept of “ecological niche” is used for estimating living conditions. By analogy, we consider the socio-ecological niche as hypervolume in a multidimensional space of factors that determine the quality of life of the population. A potential niche is built for the world’s population as a whole and realized for the population of a state or region. In the article the method of analytical determination of the boundaries of zones of optimal, normal and oppressive quality of life is considered under the rubric of the factors: ‘level of nutrition’, ‘level of medical care’, ‘purity of the environment’ in a potential niche. The method is based on using the influence functions of social and environmental factors proposed by D. Meadows in the global development model “Limits to Growth”. The hypothesis about equal contribution to the relative change of life expectancy about the changing roles of influence factors is used. The niches of quality of life of Imperial Russia, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation are projected for the time interval from 1913 to 2010, as the socio-economic statistical information is not differentiated in terms of income, the niches degenerated to points that form a trajectory of the quality of life in the space of a potential social-ecological niche. The trajectory has the shape of a loop, located in areas of strong oppression (1913–1968 years) (1988–2004 years) and moderate oppression (1968–1987 years) (2005–2010 years) of quality of life. The descending branch of the “Russian cross” dating back to the ‘perestroika’ (restructuring) and ‘market reforms’ period corresponds to a dramatic decrease in the quality of life and explains the reason for the formation of ‘the Russian cross’ as it is known in demography. The location of the trajectory of quality of life the USSR and Russia in the space of a potential niche reveals that the main limiting factors of this characteristic were and still are socioeconomic factors. Environmental pollution is of secondary importance. Refs 34. Figs 5. Tables 2.