Enviormental degradtion has taken place due to many factors. One among them is of human activity.how?

Answer 1

There are many dear. Few listed below:

population expansion of the last 50 years, urban growth, tourism, intensive agriculture and pollution, eutrophication, soil degradation, disposal of industrial and domestic waste and desertification.

What kind of details are you looking at?

Answer 2

Do you mean "environmental degradation?" Your spelling is degraded. One of humanity's activities is overuse of fossil fuels.

Answer 3

More people are using more resources with more intensity than at any point in human history. Fresh water, cropland, forests, fisheries and biodiversity all show signs of stress at local, regional and global levels. Increasing pressure on the environment is the result of, on one hand, increasing affluence—that is, more consumption, pollution and waste, and on the other persistent poverty—that is, lack of resources and the technology to use them, and lack of the power to change these circumstances.

Growing human numbers play a role in both scenarios. Global use of fuel-wood, for example, has doubled over the past 50 years; the Worldwatch Institute attributes this increase largely to population growth. But the six-fold increase in the use of paper since 1950 is ascribed mainly to rising affluence, and the multiple uses for paper products in an increasingly urban environment.

Population size, growth, distribution and movement help determine the relationship between people and their environments. Similar numbers of people can have very different impacts on the environment, depending on for example social institutions, means of production, property rules and forms of governance.1 Access to education, health and economic opportunity; consumption levels; and gender differentials (the "quality of human capital") all have an influence.
The most basic determinant of impact is scale. Thirty years ago Paul Ehrlich and J. Holdren described this relationship in the now-famous equation2: I = PAT, meaning that people's impact on their environment (I) is a product of population size (P), affluence (A, representing output per capita or the level of consumption) and technology (T, representing the per unit output or efficiency in production).

This equation has been often used3 but also often criticized or elaborated.4 The main shortcoming is that the factors in the relationship are not independent, but are related in complex ways. Nonetheless, the approach has been useful in demonstrating that population dynamics are central to environmental change.

For example, since 1970 global carbon dioxide emissions per capita have been relatively constant, while GDP per capita has increased in both more developed and less developed regions.5 This means that improvements in technology have offset the effects of increased consumption.6 Whether carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase in step with population size will depend on economic and social trends, the institutional response to environmental problems and the pace of technological change.
Population pressures are increasing in many poor and ecologically fragile zones in urban as well as rural areas. Fertility in many of these places is already high, and more people are being driven to them by a shortage of land for subsistence farming, by economic policies encouraging large holdings, intensive agriculture and cash crops, and by poverty and high population densities elsewhere.

For example, slash-and-burn agriculture and logging are expanding in and around Mexico's Calakmul Biosphere Reserve on the Yucatan Peninsula, because of rapid in-migration and high fertility. Under unrelenting population pressure, subsistence farmers have stripped forest cover from the Garo Hills in north-east India. Growing poverty in coastal communities and rapid population growth in large towns along the coast of West Africa are similarly driving destruction of the mangrove swamps for firewood and dynamite fishing in nursery waters.

In these and many other examples, the poor are the most visible agents of destruction in degraded environments. Poor people depend heavily on natural resources for direct income and their poverty offers them few choices. In the case of Garo alternative land was not available; on the West African coast urban demand for fish and firewood offered a source of immediate income. Here and elsewhere, the poor stand at the end of a long chain of cause and effect. They are the messengers of unsustainability rather than its agents.

Answer 4

You really should do your own homework.