DPSIR

Last updated

DPSIR (drivers, pressures, state, impact, and response model of intervention) is a causal framework used to describe the interactions between society and the environment. [1] It seeks to analyze and assess environmental problems by bringing together various scientific disciplines, environmental managers, and stakeholders, and solve them by incorporating sustainable development. First, the indicators are categorized into "drivers" which put "pressures" in the "state" of the system, which in turn results in certain "impacts" that will lead to various "responses" to maintain or recover the system under consideration. [2] It is followed by the organization of available data, and suggestion of procedures to collect missing data for future analysis. [3] Since its formulation in the late 1990s, it has been widely adopted by international organizations for ecosystem-based study in various fields like biodiversity, soil erosion, and groundwater depletion and contamination. In recent times, the framework has been used in combination with other analytical methods and models, to compensate for its shortcomings. It is employed to evaluate environmental changes in ecosystems, identify the social and economic pressures on a system, predict potential challenges and improve management practices. [4] The flexibility and general applicability of the framework make it a resilient tool that can be applied in social, economic, and institutional domains as well. [3]

Contents

The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response Framework DPSIR Framework .png
The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response Framework

History

The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework was developed by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 1999. It was built upon several existing environmental reporting frameworks, like the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1993, which itself was an extension of Rapport and Friend's Stress-Response (SR) framework (1979). The PSR framework simplified environmental problems and solutions into variables that stress the cause-effect relationship between human activities that exert pressure on the environment, the state of the environment, and society's response to the condition. Since it focused on anthropocentric pressures and responses, it did not effectively factor natural variability into the pressure category. This led to the development of the expanded Driving Force-State-Response (DSR) framework, by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in 1997. A primary modification was the expansion of the concept of “pressure” to include social, political, economic, demographic, and natural system pressures. However, by replacing “pressure” with “driving force”, the model failed to account for the underlying reasons for the pressure, much like its antecedent. It also did not address the motivations behind responses to changes in the state of the environment. The refined DPSIR model sought to address these shortcomings of its predecessors by addressing root causes of the human activities that impact the environment, by incorporating natural variability as a pressure on the current state and addressing responses to the impact of changes in state on human well-being. Unlike PSR and DSR, DPSIR is not a model, but a means of classifying and disseminating information related to environmental challenges. [5] Since its conception, it has evolved into modified frameworks like Driver-Pressure-Chemical State-Ecological State-Response (DPCER), [6] Driver-Pressure-State-Welfare-Response (DPSWR), [7] and Driver-Pressure-State-Ecosystem-Response (DPSER). [8] [9]

The DPSIR Framework

Driver (Driving Force)

Driver refers to the social, demographic, and economic developments which influence the human activities that have a direct impact on the environment. [3] They can further be subdivided into primary and secondary driving forces. Primary driving forces refer to technological and societal actors that motivate human activities like population growth and distribution of wealth. The developments induced by these drivers give rise to secondary driving forces, which are human activities triggering “pressures” and “impacts”, like land-use changes, urban expansion and industrial developments. Drivers can also be identified as underlying or immediate, physical or socio-economic, and natural or anthropogenic, based on the scope and sector in which they are being used. [1]

Pressure

Pressure represents the consequence of the driving force, which in turn affects the state of the environment. They are usually depicted as unwanted and negative, based on the concept that any change in the environment caused by human activities is damaging and degrading. [3] Pressures can have effects on the short run (e.g.: deforestation), or the long run (e.g.: climate change), which if known with sufficient certainty, can be expressed as a probability. They can be both human-induced, like emissions, fuel extraction, and solid waste generation, and natural processes, like solar radiation and volcanic eruptions. [1] Pressures can also be sub-categorized as endogenic managed pressures, when they stem from within the system and can be controlled (e.g.: land claim, power generation), and as exogenic unmanaged pressures, when they stem from outside the system and cannot be controlled (e.g.: climate change, geomorphic activities). [9]

State

State describes the physical, chemical and biological condition of the environment or observable temporal changes in the system. It may refer to natural systems (e.g.: atmospheric CO2 concentrations, temperature), socio-economic systems (e.g.: living conditions of humans, economic situations of an industry), or a combination of both (e.g.: number of tourists, size of current population). [3] It includes a wide range of features, like physico-chemical characteristics of ecosystems, quantity and quality of resources or “carrying capacity”, management of fragile species and ecosystems, living conditions for humans, and exposure or the effects of pressures on humans. It is not intended to just be static, but to reflect current trends as well, like increasing eutrophication and change in biodiversity. [9]

Impact

Impact refers to how changes in the state of the system affect human well-being. It is often measured in terms of damages to the environment or human health, like migration, poverty, and increased vulnerability to diseases, [3] but can also be identified and quantified without any positive or negative connotation, by simply indicating a change in the environmental parameters. [9] Impact can be ecologic (e.g.: reduction of wetlands, biodiversity loss), socio-economic (e.g.: reduced tourism), or a combination of both. [3] Its definition may vary depending on the discipline and methodology applied. For instance, it refers to the effect on living beings and non-living domains of ecosystems in biosciences (e.g.: modifications in the chemical composition of air or water), whereas it is associated with the effects on human systems related to changes in the environmental functions in socio-economic sciences (e.g.: physical and mental health). [9]

Response

Response refers to actions taken to correct the problems of the previous stages, by adjusting the drivers, reducing the pressure on the system, bringing the system back to its initial state, and mitigating the impacts. It can be associated uniquely with policy action, or to different levels of the society, including groups and/or individuals from the private, government or non-governmental sectors. Responses are mostly designed and/or implemented as political actions of protection, mitigation, conservation, or promotion. A mix of effective top-down political action and bottom-up social awareness can also be developed as responses, such as eco-communities or improved waste recycling rates. [9]

Criticisms and Limitations

Despite the adaptability of the framework, it has faced several criticisms. One of the main goals of the framework is to provide environmental managers, scientists of various disciplines, and stakeholders with a common forum and language to identify, analyze and assess environmental problems and consequences. [3] However, several notable authors have mentioned that it lacks a well-defined set of categories, which undermines the comparability between studies, even if they are similar. [10] For instance, climate change can be considered as a natural driver, but is primarily caused by greenhouse gases (GSG) produced by human activities, which may be categorized under “pressure”.  A wastewater treatment plant is considered a response while dealing with water pollution, but a pressure when effluent runoff leading to eutrophication is taken into account. This ambivalence of variables associated with the framework has been criticized as a lack of good communication between researchers and between stakeholders and policymakers. [11] Another criticism is the misguiding simplicity of the framework, which ignores the complex synergy between the categories. For instance, an impact can be caused by various different state conditions and responses to other impacts, which is not addressed by DPSIR. [1] [9] Some authors also argue that the framework is flawed as it does not clearly illustrate the cause-effect linkage for environmental problems. [12] The reasons behind these contextual differences seem to be differences in opinions, characteristics of specific case studies, misunderstanding of the concepts and inadequate knowledge of the system under consideration. [11]

DPSIR was initially proposed as a conceptual framework rather than a practical guidance, by global organizations. This means that at a local level, analyses using the framework can cause some significant problems. DPSIR does not encourage the examination of locally specific attributes for individual decisions, which when aggregated, could have potentially large impacts on sustainability. For instance, a farmer who chooses a particular way of livelihood may not create any consequential alterations on the system, but the aggregation of farmers making similar choices will have a measurable and tangible effect. Any efforts to evaluate sustainability without considering local knowledge could lead to misrepresentations of local situations, misunderstandings of what works in particular areas and even project failure. [11]

While there is no explicit hierarchy of authority in the DPSIR framework, the power difference between “developers” and the “developing” could be perceived as the contributor to the lack of focus on local, informal responses at the scale of drivers and pressures, thus compromising the validity of any analysis conducted using it. The “developers” refer to the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), State mechanisms and other international organizations with the privilege to access various resources and power to use knowledge to change the world, and the “developing” refers to local communities. According to this criticism, the latter is less capable of responding to environmental problems than the former. This undermines valuable indigenous knowledge about various components of the framework in a particular region, since the inclusion of the knowledge is almost exclusively left at the discretion of the “developers”. [11]

Another limitation of the framework is the exclusion of social and economic developments on the environment, particularly for future scenarios. Furthermore, DPSIR does not explicitly prioritize responses and fails to determine the effectiveness of each response individually, when working with complex systems. This has been one of the most criticized drawbacks of the framework, since it fails to capture the dynamic nature of real-world problems, which cannot be expressed by simple causal relations. [4]

Applications

Despite its criticisms, DPSIR continues to be widely used to frame and assess environmental problems to identify appropriate responses. Its main objective is to support sustainable management of natural resources. DPSIR structures indicators related to the environmental problem addressed with reference to the political objectives and focuses on supposed causal relationships effectively, such that it appeals to policy actors. Some examples include the assessment of the pressure of alien species, [13] evaluation of impacts of developmental activities on the coastal environment and society, [14] identification of economic elements affecting global wildfire activities, [15] and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and gross domestic product (GDP) correction. [16]  

To compensate for its shortcomings, DPSIR is also used in conjunction with several analytical methods and models. It has been used in conjunction with Multiple-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) for desertification risk management, [17] with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to study urban green electricity power, [18] and with Tobit model to assess freshwater ecosystems. [19] The framework itself has also been modified to assess specific systems, like DPSWR, which focuses on the impacts on human welfare alone, by shifting ecological impact to the state category. [10] Another approach is a differential DPSIR (ΔDPSIR), which evaluates the changes in drivers, pressures and state after implementing a management response, making it valuable both as a scientific output and a system management tool. [20] The flexibility offered by the framework makes it an effective tool with numerous applications, provided the system is properly studied and understood by the stakeholders. [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural capital</span> Worlds stock of natural resources

Natural capital is the world's stock of natural resources, which includes geology, soils, air, water and all living organisms. Some natural capital assets provide people with free goods and services, often called ecosystem services. All of these underpin our economy and society, and thus make human life possible.

The carrying capacity of an environment is the maximum population size of a biological species that can be sustained by that specific environment, given the food, habitat, water, and other resources available. The carrying capacity is defined as the environment's maximal load, which in population ecology corresponds to the population equilibrium, when the number of deaths in a population equals the number of births. The effect of carrying capacity on population dynamics is modelled with a logistic function. Carrying capacity is applied to the maximum population an environment can support in ecology, agriculture and fisheries. The term carrying capacity has been applied to a few different processes in the past before finally being applied to population limits in the 1950s. The notion of carrying capacity for humans is covered by the notion of sustainable population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecological economics</span> Interdependence of human economies and natural ecosystems

Ecological economics, bioeconomics, ecolonomy, eco-economics, or ecol-econ is both a transdisciplinary and an interdisciplinary field of academic research addressing the interdependence and coevolution of human economies and natural ecosystems, both intertemporally and spatially. By treating the economy as a subsystem of Earth's larger ecosystem, and by emphasizing the preservation of natural capital, the field of ecological economics is differentiated from environmental economics, which is the mainstream economic analysis of the environment. One survey of German economists found that ecological and environmental economics are different schools of economic thought, with ecological economists emphasizing strong sustainability and rejecting the proposition that physical (human-made) capital can substitute for natural capital.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental resource management</span> Type of resource management

Environmental resource management or environmental management is the management of the interaction and impact of human societies on the environment. It is not, as the phrase might suggest, the management of the environment itself. Environmental resources management aims to ensure that ecosystem services are protected and maintained for future human generations, and also maintain ecosystem integrity through considering ethical, economic, and scientific (ecological) variables. Environmental resource management tries to identify factors affected by conflicts that rise between meeting needs and protecting resources. It is thus linked to environmental protection, resource management, sustainability, integrated landscape management, natural resource management, fisheries management, forest management, wildlife management, environmental management systems, and others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecosystem service</span> Benefits provided by healthy nature, forests and environmental systems

Ecosystem services are the many and varied benefits to humans provided by the natural environment and healthy ecosystems. Such ecosystems include, for example, agroecosystems, forest ecosystem, grassland ecosystems, and aquatic ecosystems. These ecosystems, functioning in healthy relationships, offer such things as natural pollination of crops, clean air, extreme weather mitigation, and human mental and physical well-being. Collectively, these benefits are becoming known as ecosystem services, and are often integral to the provision of food, the provisioning of clean drinking water, the decomposition of wastes, and the resilience and productivity of food ecosystems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sustainable habitat</span>

A Sustainable habitat is an ecosystem that produces food and shelter for people and other organisms, without resource depletion and in such a way that no external waste is produced. Thus the habitat can continue into the future tie without external infusions of resources. Such a sustainable habitat may evolve naturally or be produced under the influence of man. A sustainable habitat that is created and designed by human intelligence will mimic nature, if it is to be successful. Everything within it is connected to a complex array of organisms, physical resources, and functions. Organisms from many different biomes can be brought together to fulfill various ecological niches.

Ecological indicators are used to communicate information about ecosystems and the impact human activity has on ecosystems to groups such as the public or government policy makers. Ecosystems are complex and ecological indicators can help describe them in simpler terms that can be understood and used by non-scientists to make management decisions. For example, the number of different beetle taxa found in a field can be used as an indicator of biodiversity.

Environmental indicators are simple measures that tell us what is happening in the environment. Since the environment is very complex, indicators provide a more practical and economical way to track the state of the environment than if we attempted to record every possible variable in the environment. For example, concentrations of ozone depleting substances (ODS) in the atmosphere, tracked over time, is a good indicator with respect to the environmental issue of stratospheric ozone depletion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecological resilience</span> Capacity of ecosystems to resist and recover from change

In ecology, resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a perturbation or disturbance by resisting damage and subsequently recovering. Such perturbations and disturbances can include stochastic events such as fires, flooding, windstorms, insect population explosions, and human activities such as deforestation, fracking of the ground for oil extraction, pesticide sprayed in soil, and the introduction of exotic plant or animal species. Disturbances of sufficient magnitude or duration can profoundly affect an ecosystem and may force an ecosystem to reach a threshold beyond which a different regime of processes and structures predominates. When such thresholds are associated with a critical or bifurcation point, these regime shifts may also be referred to as critical transitions.

Environmental data is that which is based on the measurement of environmental pressures, the state of the environment and the impacts on ecosystems. This is usually the "P", "S" and "I" of the DPSIR model where D = Drivers, P = Pressures, S = State, I = Impact, R = Response.

Design impact measures are measures used to qualify projects for various environmental rating systems and to guide both design and regulatory decisions from beginning to end. Some systems, like the greenhouse gas inventory, are required globally for all business decisions. Some are project-specific, like the LEED point rating system which is used only for its own ratings, and its qualifications do not correspond to much beyond physical measurements. Others like the Athena life-cycle impact assessment tool attempt to add up all the kinds of measurable impacts of all parts of a building throughout its life and are quite rigorous and complex.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marine spatial planning</span> Sustainable ocean use planning process

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a process that brings together multiple users of the ocean – including energy, industry, government, conservation and recreation – to make informed and coordinated decisions about how to use marine resources sustainably. MSP generally uses maps to create a more comprehensive picture of a marine area – identifying where and how an ocean area is being used and what natural resources and habitat exist. It is similar to land-use planning, but for marine waters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sustainability</span> Goal of people safely co-existing on Earth

Sustainability is a social goal for people to co-exist on Earth over a long time. Definitions of this term are disputed and have varied with literature, context, and time. Experts often describe sustainability as having three dimensions : environmental, economic, and social, and many publications emphasize the environmental dimension. In everyday use, sustainability often focuses on countering major environmental problems, including climate change, loss of biodiversity, loss of ecosystem services, land degradation, and air and water pollution. The idea of sustainability can guide decisions at the global, national, and individual levels. A related concept is sustainable development, and the terms are often used to mean the same thing. UNESCO distinguishes the two like this: "Sustainability is often thought of as a long-term goal, while sustainable development refers to the many processes and pathways to achieve it."

Ecosystem-based management is an environmental management approach that recognizes the full array of interactions within an ecosystem, including humans, rather than considering single issues, species, or ecosystem services in isolation. It can be applied to studies in the terrestrial and aquatic environments with challenges being attributed to both. In the marine realm, they are highly challenging to quantify due to highly migratory species as well as rapidly changing environmental and anthropogenic factors that can alter the habitat rather quickly. To be able to manage fisheries efficiently and effectively it has become increasingly more pertinent to understand not only the biological aspects of the species being studied, but also the environmental variables they are experiencing. Population abundance and structure, life history traits, competition with other species, where the stock is in the local food web, tidal fluctuations, salinity patterns and anthropogenic influences are among the variables that must be taken into account to fully understand the implementation of a "ecosystem-based management" approach. Interest in ecosystem-based management in the marine realm has developed more recently, in response to increasing recognition of the declining state of fisheries and ocean ecosystems. However, due to a lack of a clear definition and the diversity involved with the environment, the implementation has been lagging. In freshwater lake ecosystems, it has been shown that ecosystem-based habitat management is more effective for enhancing fish populations than management alternatives.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecosystem management</span> Natural resource management

Ecosystem management is an approach to natural resource management that aims to ensure the long-term sustainability and persistence of an ecosystem's function and services while meeting socioeconomic, political, and cultural needs. Although indigenous communities have employed sustainable ecosystem management approaches implicitly for millennia, ecosystem management emerged explicitly as a formal concept in the 1990s from a growing appreciation of the complexity of ecosystems and of humans' reliance and influence on natural systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental issues</span> Concerns and policies regarding the biophysical environment

Environmental issues are disruptions in the usual function of ecosystems. Further, these issues can be caused by humans or they can be natural. These issues are considered serious when the ecosystem cannot recover in the present situation, and catastrophic if the ecosystem is projected to certainly collapse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Planetary boundaries</span> Limits not to be exceeded if humanity wants to survive in a safe ecosystem

Planetary boundaries are a framework to describe limits to the impacts of human activities on the Earth system. Beyond these limits, the environment may not be able to self-regulate anymore. This would mean the Earth system would leave the period of stability of the Holocene, in which human society developed. The framework is based on scientific evidence that human actions, especially those of industrialized societies since the Industrial Revolution, have become the main driver of global environmental change. According to the framework, "transgressing one or more planetary boundaries may be deleterious or even catastrophic due to the risk of crossing thresholds that will trigger non-linear, abrupt environmental change within continental-scale to planetary-scale systems."

A social-ecological system consists of 'a bio-geo-physical' unit and its associated social actors and institutions. Social-ecological systems are complex and adaptive and delimited by spatial or functional boundaries surrounding particular ecosystems and their context problems.

MuSIASEM or Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism, is a method of accounting used to analyse socio-ecosystems and to simulate possible patterns of development. It is based on maintaining coherence across scales and different dimensions of quantitative assessments generated using different metrics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nature-based solutions</span> Sustainable management and use of nature for tackling socio-environmental challenges

Nature-based solutions is the sustainable management and use of natural features and processes to tackle socio-environmental issues. These issues include for example climate change, water security, food security, preservation of biodiversity, and disaster risk reduction. Through the use of NBS healthy, resilient, and diverse ecosystems can provide solutions for the benefit of both societies and overall biodiversity. The 2019 UN Climate Action Summit highlighted nature-based solutions as an effective method to combat climate change. For example, NBS in the context of climate action can include natural flood management, restoring natural coastal defences, providing local cooling, restoring natural fire regimes.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Maxim, Laura; Spangenberg, Joachim H.; O'Connor, Martin (November 2009). "An analysis of risks for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework". Ecological Economics. 69 (1): 12–23. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.03.017.
  2. ↑ Ness, Barry; Anderberg, Stefan; Olsson, Lennart (2010-05-01). "Structuring problems in sustainability science: The multi-level DPSIR framework". Geoforum. 41 (3): 479–488. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.005. ISSN   0016-7185.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Martins, Joana H.; Camanho, Ana S.; Gaspar, Miguel B. (December 2012). "A review of the application of driving forces – Pressure – State – Impact – Response framework to fisheries management". Ocean & Coastal Management. 69: 273–281. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.07.029.
  4. 1 2 Malmir, Mahsa; Javadi, Saman; Moridi, Ali; Neshat, Aminreza; Razdar, Babak (July 2021). "A new combined framework for sustainable development using the DPSIR approach and numerical modeling". Geoscience Frontiers. 12 (4): 101169. doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2021.101169 . S2CID   233543312.
  5. ↑ Bowen, Robert E.; Riley, Cory (2003-01-01). "Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastal management". Ocean & Coastal Management. The Role of Indicators in Integrated Coastal Management. 46 (3): 299–312. doi:10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00008-5. ISSN   0964-5691.
  6. ↑ Rekolainen, Seppo; Kämäri, Juha; Hiltunen, Marjukka; Saloranta, Tuomo M. (December 2003). "A conceptual framework for identifying the need and role of models in the implementation of the water framework directive". International Journal of River Basin Management. 1 (4): 347–352. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.122.5939 . doi:10.1080/15715124.2003.9635217. ISSN   1571-5124. S2CID   989048.
  7. ↑ O'Higgins, Tim; Farmer, Andrew; Daskalov, Georgi; Knudsen, Stale; Mee, Laurence (2014-09-26). "Achieving good environmental status in the Black Sea: scale mismatches in environmental management". Ecology and Society. 19 (3). doi: 10.5751/ES-06707-190354 . hdl: 10468/2417 . ISSN   1708-3087.
  8. ↑ Kelble, Christopher R.; Loomis, Dave K.; Lovelace, Susan; Nuttle, William K.; Ortner, Peter B.; Fletcher, Pamela; Cook, Geoffrey S.; Lorenz, Jerry J.; Boyer, Joseph N. (2013-08-12). "The EBM-DPSER Conceptual Model: Integrating Ecosystem Services into the DPSIR Framework". PLOS ONE. 8 (8): e70766. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...870766K. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070766 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   3741316 . PMID   23951002.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Gari, Sirak Robele; Newton, Alice; Icely, John D. (January 2015). "A review of the application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an emphasis on coastal social-ecological systems". Ocean & Coastal Management. 103: 63–77. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.11.013.
  10. 1 2 Cooper, Philip (October 2013). "Socio-ecological accounting: DPSWR, a modified DPSIR framework, and its application to marine ecosystems" (PDF). Ecological Economics. 94: 106–115. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.010. ISSN   0921-8009. S2CID   153432235.
  11. 1 2 3 4 Carr, Edward R.; Wingard, Philip M.; Yorty, Sara C.; Thompson, Mary C.; Jensen, Natalie K.; Roberson, Justin (December 2007). "Applying DPSIR to sustainable development". International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 14 (6): 543–555. doi:10.1080/13504500709469753. ISSN   1350-4509. S2CID   16526139.
  12. ↑ Rekolainen, Seppo; Kämäri, Juha; Hiltunen, Marjukka; Saloranta, Tuomo M. (December 2003). "A conceptual framework for identifying the need and role of models in the implementation of the water framework directive" . International Journal of River Basin Management. 1 (4): 347–352. doi:10.1080/15715124.2003.9635217. ISSN   1571-5124. S2CID   989048.
  13. ↑ Dai, Xiao Peng; Li, Dong Hui (September 2013). "Research on Risk Assessment of Alien Species Based on Group AHP" . Advanced Materials Research. 765–767: 3094–3098. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.765-767.3094. ISSN   1662-8985. S2CID   136828520.
  14. ↑ Lin, Tao; Xue, Xiong-Zhi; Lu, Chang-Yi (2007-03-16). "Analysis of Coastal Wetland Changes Using the "DPSIR" Model: A Case Study in Xiamen, China" . Coastal Management. 35 (2–3): 289–303. doi:10.1080/08920750601169592. ISSN   0892-0753. S2CID   86862004.
  15. ↑ Kim, Yeon-Su; Rodrigues, Marcos; Robinne, François-Nicolas (October 2021). "Economic drivers of global fire activity: A critical review using the DPSIR framework". Forest Policy and Economics. 131: 102563. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102563.
  16. ↑ Bidone, E. D.; Lacerda, L. D. (2004-03-01). "The use of DPSIR framework to evaluate sustainability in coastal areas. Case study: Guanabara Bay basin, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil" (PDF). Regional Environmental Change. 4 (1): 5–16. doi:10.1007/s10113-003-0059-2. ISSN   1436-378X. S2CID   153371987.
  17. ↑ Akbari, Morteza; Memarian, Hadi; Neamatollahi, Ehsan; Jafari Shalamzari, Masoud; Alizadeh Noughani, Mohammad; Zakeri, Dawood (2021-02-01). "Prioritizing policies and strategies for desertification risk management using MCDM–DPSIR approach in northeastern Iran" . Environment, Development and Sustainability. 23 (2): 2503–2523. doi:10.1007/s10668-020-00684-3. ISSN   1573-2975. S2CID   213169550.
  18. ↑ Cheng, Chao; Zhou, Yu-Hui; Yue, Kai-Wei; Yang, Jian; He, Zhan-Yong; Liang, Na (2011). "Study of SEA Indicators System of Urban Green Electricity Power Based on Fuzzy AHP and DPSIR Model". Energy Procedia. 12: 155–162. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.10.022 .
  19. ↑ Kosamu, Ishmael Bobby Mphangwe; Makwinja, Rodgers; Kaonga, Chikumbusko Chiziwa; Mengistou, Seyoum; Kaunda, Emmanuel; Alamirew, Tena; Njaya, Friday (January 2022). "Application of DPSIR and Tobit Models in Assessing Freshwater Ecosystems: The Case of Lake Malombe, Malawi". Water. 14 (4): 619. doi: 10.3390/w14040619 . ISSN   2073-4441.
  20. ↑ Nobre, Ana M. (2009-07-01). "An Ecological and Economic Assessment Methodology for Coastal Ecosystem Management" . Environmental Management. 44 (1): 185–204. Bibcode:2009EnMan..44..185N. doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9291-y. ISSN   1432-1009. PMID   19471999. S2CID   39378116.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.