0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
103 Ansichten4 Seiten
Unresolved issues related to stressor dose-response relationship needing further studies in ecological risk assessment. Bailey HC, Miller JL, Miller MJ, et al. (1997) Joint acute toxicity of diazinon and chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. Burns LA and Baughman GL (1985) Fate modeling. In: Rand GM and Petrocelli SR (eds.) fundamental aquatic
Unresolved issues related to stressor dose-response relationship needing further studies in ecological risk assessment. Bailey HC, Miller JL, Miller MJ, et al. (1997) Joint acute toxicity of diazinon and chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. Burns LA and Baughman GL (1985) Fate modeling. In: Rand GM and Petrocelli SR (eds.) fundamental aquatic
Unresolved issues related to stressor dose-response relationship needing further studies in ecological risk assessment. Bailey HC, Miller JL, Miller MJ, et al. (1997) Joint acute toxicity of diazinon and chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. Burns LA and Baughman GL (1985) Fate modeling. In: Rand GM and Petrocelli SR (eds.) fundamental aquatic
could be invoked in situations such as the accidental dis-
charge of pesticides or chemicals on land by humans or in
water systems, draining of wetlands, human-induced for- est decline resulting from acid deposition, etc. In summary, the following are unresolved issues related to stressor doseresponse relationship needing further studies in ecological risk assessment:
quantifying cumulative impacts and stress dose
response relationships for multiple stressors;
methodology for predicting ecosystem recovery;
improving the quantification of indirect effects;
describing stressorresponse relationships for physical
perturbation;
distinguishing ecosystem changes due to natural pro-
cesses from those caused by man;
models that reflect compensatory processes at popula-
tion and evolutionary timescale;
logical frameworks and guidance for conducting wildlife
risk assessment to support a variety of environmental decision contexts;
methods that allow extrapolation of effects across spe-
cies and levels of biological organization; and
data sets and systems needed for wildlife risk assess-
ment, and mechanistic population models for particular species and classes of species that use these data. See also: Biogeochemical Approaches to Environmental Risk Assessment; Environmental Stress and Evolutionary Change. Further Reading Bailey HC, Miller JL, Miller MJ, et al. (1997) Joint acute toxicity of diazinon and chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16(11): 23042308. Bailey HC, Miller JL, Miller MJ, Wiborg LC, and Konemann H (1981) Fish toxicity tests with mixtures of more than two chemicals: A proposal for a quantitative approach and experimental results. Toxicology 19: 229238. Burns LA and Baughman GL (1985) Fate modeling. In: Rand GM and Petrocelli SR (eds.) Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology: Methods and Applications, pp. 558584. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Cohen BL (1990) Ecological versus case-control studies for testing a linear-no threshold doseresponse relationship. International Journal of Epidemiology 19(3): 680684. Haanstra L and Doelman P (1989) An ecological doseresponse model approach to short and long-term effects of heavy metals on arylsulphatase activity in soil. Journal of Environmental Quality 7: 115119. Hoffman DJ, Rattner BA, Burton GA, Jr., and Cairns J, Jr. (2003) Handbook of Ecotoxicology. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publisher. Landis W and Yu M-H (2004) Introduction to Environmental Toxicology, 512pp. Boca Raton: FL: CRC Press. Marking LL (1977) Method for assessing additive toxicity of chemical mixtures. In: Mayer FL and Hamelink JL (eds.) Aquatic Toxicity and Hazard Evaluation, ASTM STP 634, pp. 99108. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Moriarty F (1988) Ecotoxicology: The Study of Pollutants in Ecosystems, 2nd edn. London: Academic Press. Munns WR, Jr. (2006) Assessing risks to wildlife populations from multiple stressors: Overview of the problem and research needs. Ecology and Society 11(1): 23 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol11/iss1/art23/ (accessed October 2007). Newman MC (1998) Fundamentals of Ecotoxicology. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press. Pape-Lindstrom PA and Lydy MJ (1997) Synergistic toxicity of atrazine and organophosphate insecticides contravenes the response addition mixture model. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16(11): 24152420. Slob W (2002) Doseresponse modeling of continuous endpoints. Toxicology Sciences 66(2): 298312. Straaler NV (2003) Ecoloxicology becomes stress ecology. Environmental Science & Technology 37: 324329. US Environmental Protection Agency (1992) Framework for ecological risk assessment. EPA-Risk Assessment Forum, EPA/630/R-92/001, Washington, DC. Walker CH, Hopkin HP, Sibly RM, and Peakall DB (1996) Principles of Ecotoxicology. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis. Wolfe CJM and Crossland NO (1991) The environmental fate of organic chemicals. In: Cote RP and Wells PG (eds.) Controlling Chemical Hazards: Fundamentals of the management of toxic chemicals, 475pp. London: Unwin Hyman. DriverPressureStateImpactResponse B Burkhard and F Mu ller, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Introduction Drivers Pressure State Impact Response DriverPressureStateImpactResponse Further Reading Introduction The driverpressurestateimpactresponse (DPSIR) model is a tool that helps to identify and describe pro- cesses and interactions in humanenvironmental systems. It facilitates the analysis of specific causeeffect relation- ships in past, recent, and future developments. The approach is based on the pressurestateresponse (PSR) model that was developed in the 1970s by the Canadian statistician Anthony Fried (Figure 1). It assumes that a Ecological Indicators | DriverPressureStateImpactResponse 967 certain stress or pressure on a system is followed by an appropriate response (stressresponse model). The PSR approach was adopted and enhanced by the OECDs state of the environment (SOE) researchers. It provides a good basis for the explanation of mainly environmental issues. It simplifies complex systems relations to one-to-one linkages which can be unsatisfying in more complex cases. A variation is the driving forcestateresponse (DSR) model that has, for example, been used by the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD). This model focuses on human demands and activities that affect the natural system. The resulting changes in the natural system induce societal response. For the description of these societalenvironmental interrelations, the DSR model is satisfactory and widely used. If further components of humanenvironmental systems (as, e.g., essential economic processes and changes) are to consider, the capacities of the DSR model are limited. Therefore, it has subsequently been expanded to the recent DPSIR model. Within the DPSIR approach a certain human demand for goods and products (e.g., agricultural and industrial products, energy, transport, and housing) is assumed as a driving force of human actions (Figure 2). These actions (basically in form of different kinds of land use) lead to a pressure on the environment and the particular ecosys- tems. This input affects the state of the ecosystems that may have an impact on human health, ecosystem health, or financial value. According to kind and degree of the impacts, decision makers and responsible stakeholders have to determine appropriate responses to counteract these impacts. The use of indicators for the description, quantification, and monitoring of the individual process components improves the performance of the DPSIR approach. Drivers Drivers (or driving forces) are various factors that cause changes or lead the behavior of a system. They can be natural or human induced. A functional differentiation between direct and indirect drivers has proved to be useful. Direct drivers have an explicit influence on the system while indirect drivers are acting by changing the conditions of one (or more) direct drivers of the system. The identification and distinction of direct and indirect drivers is not always obvious. Typical direct drivers are the human demand for goods and services, good health and social relations, security, education, and freedom. Indirect drivers include components such as the demo- graphical development, economic and social conditions, the state of the environment, or political situations. Hence, suitable driver indicators have to describe phe- nomena that are strongly connected to socioeconomic conditions and forces. In general, they are not very flex- ible or reactive to changes in the rest of the system. But as drivers describe current conditions and trends (e.g., the energy demand of a society), they serve as a basis to assess the kind and degree of pressures on the system (e.g., the amount of CO 2 emissions related to energy conversion). Pressure Pressure indicators represent the first stage to express the consequences of various, mainly human-induced actions which are results of particular constellations of driving forces. Hence, pressure indicators are often linked to spe- cific causes. Different forms of human activities like certain types of spatial utilization of land, sea, or air are classical forms of pressures in humanenvironmental systems. Their spatial extensions are observed and monitored by using state-of-the-art techniques like remote sensing, GIS, spatial databases, or digital/analog maps. In general, all human activities affecting the environ- ment can be classified as pressures. Special attention has to be paid to the effects of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide or methane. Due to their capacity to affect the global climate and thus life on Earth, this form of pressure takes an exceptional position. Consequences as sea level and temperature rising, glacier retreat, or increase of extreme weather events are following nonsus- tainable patterns of consumption and production. However, the socioeconomic causes and effects of global change are extremely manifold and complex. Therefore, it is addressed in many cases as an external (or exogenous) factor acting upon the humanenvironmental system. In comparison to the drivers, pressure indicators can be identified and measured more easily. Often, indicators and corresponding parameters can be derived from socio- economic or environmental databases. Due to the close Pressure State Response Figure 1 PSR model. Pressure State Response Driver Impact Figure 2 DPSIR model. 968 Ecological Indicators | DriverPressureStateImpactResponse linkage of pressures to human actions they are more responsive to changes and developments in the system. In addition to spatial extensions of the land use types, their intensities have to be taken into account too. For example, certain single-spot activities (e.g., an industrial plant) can have much higher effects on the whole system than spatially wide-stretching forms of land use (e.g., extensive animal husbandry). State As a result of the actions that are described as pressures, environmental conditions often are changed (e.g., eutro- phication due to intensive agriculture, air pollution caused by burning of fossil fuels). Because of sometimes delayed reactions in natural systems, conditions and changes in environmental state are often related to pres- sures that occurred in the past (e.g., acidification caused by former SO 2 emissions). Other changes occur rather abruptly and initiate significant alterations in the envir- onment (e.g., floods, fires). Environmental state indicators should be reactive to changes in the pattern of pressures. Furthermore, they have to be suitable for the elaboration of appropriate actions (like mitigation of emissions, restoration of habi- tats). The connection of state indicators to existing or planned environmental monitoring systems increases their applicability. To assess the state of the environment in a holistic manner, relevant processes (energy, matter, and water cycling) and components (diversity of species, habitats) have to be taken into account and integrated in an eco- system-based approach. Difficulties often arise in assessments on varying spatial or temporal scales or in the run of integration of different natural components (air, water, and soil). The application of different modeling and spatial analysis tools (e.g., GIS) are suitable approaches to handle these problems. Impact Changes in the state of the environment will affect cir- cumstances of human life. Important social components as health and well-being but also economic conditions are closely related to an intact environment. For example, a pollution of soil and water can cause serious diseases and high restoration costs. The degradation of usable land leads to a decreased provision of ecosystem services (e.g., production of goods, regulation of natural processes) which reduces social and economic values. The reaction of impact indicators is often delayed because they act in response to changes in the environmen- tal state variables. To define proper and direct relationships between pressures, states, and impacts can be difficult because of these delays and due to the great number of possible indirect and nonenvironmental effects. Hence, assessments of impacts within the DPSIR approach deals with a high degree of conceptual and nonquantitative mod- eling. Nevertheless, impact indicators have an exceptional importance for management and decision making because they are directly illustrating environmental and societal consequences of human actions. Response The response component accounts for human actions taken as a consequence of specific issues. In an optimal process, the responses should take effect on the driver and the pressures and thus, improve the environmental state. In most cases professional managers, decision makers, or politicians are in charge to solve environmental and soci- etal problems. Possibilities of response are manifold, depending on the area of application (environmental, social, and economic), the temporal and spatial context, and the available options and instruments. Typical response instruments are: legislative procedures (laws, ban, production standards), planning (construction and development plans, landscape planning), market or public-oriented instruments (taxes, bills, subventions), cooperation, information, education, and participation. While response indicators are directly related to these different measures, the success of these response measures is basically monitored by the pressure and state indicators. Therefore, response indicators are often referred to as process indicators. DriverPressureStateImpactResponse The intrinsic value of the DPSIR model emerges from the interaction of its components. As different cause and effect chains are included in the model and because it is intended as an iterative loop, the DPSIR model is adap- tive to arising changes and developments. This adaptation potential includes environmental alterations as well as changes within the socioeconomic system. The DPSIR approach is very useful in conceptual modeling and analyzing causes and effects of human activities. In particular cases it may be too comprehensive on the one hand and on the other hand not detailed enough to sufficiently depict indicatorindicandum relations. Nevertheless, the DPSIR framework can be used as basis for alternative model derivations. An example for a con- ceptual model of humanenvironmental relationships based on the DPSIR approach including land use, ecological integrity, and the provision of ecosystem services is given in Figure 3. Ecological Indicators | DriverPressureStateImpactResponse 969 See also: Ecological Systems Thinking; Environmental Protection and Ecology. Further Reading Borja A
, Galparsoro I, Solaun O, et al. (2006) The European water
framework directive and the DPSIR: A methodological approach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 66: 8496. EEA (2006) How we reason. http://org.eea.eu.int/documents/brochure/ brochure_reason.html. Elliot M (2002) The role of the DPSIR approach and conceptual models in marine environmental management: An example for offshore wind power. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 34. Environmental Professionalization Group ETH Zurich (2005) DAS DPSIR Modell professioneller umweltta tigkeiten. http://www.mieg.ethz.ch/ about/DPSIR. FAO Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative (LEAD) (1999) http://lead.virtualcentre.org/en/dec/toolbox/Refer/ EnvIndi.htm. Hardi P and Pinter L (1995) Models and Methods of Measuring Sustainable Development Performance. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Washington: Island Press. OECD (2003) OECD environmental indicators. Development, Measurement and Use. Paris: OECD. Retrieved on 18 August 2006 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/47/24993546.pdf. OECD (1993) OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews. OECD Environment Monographs 83. Paris: OECD. Vacik H, Wolfslehner B, Seidl R, and Lexer MJ (2006) Integrating the DPSIR approach and the analytical network process for the assessment of forest management strategies. In: Reynolds KM (ed.) Proceedings of the IUFRO conference on sustainable Forestry in theory and practice. Edinburgh, Scotland, 58 April 2005. Portland: Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-688. Contextual constraints __________ Social change Political change Technological change Cultural change Human well-being __________ Basic supply Health Social security Education Ecosystem services __________ Provisioning Regulating Cultural Landscape state / integrity __________ Structural Functional Land use __________ Spatial (structural) Intensity (functional) Contextual constraints __________ External environmental changes P r e s s u r e S t a t e I m p a c t D r i v e r s
Response Decision process _________ Formation of opinions Governance Participation Drivers __________ Socioeconomic Sociopolitical Demographic Technological Cultural/religious s u p p o r t i n g . . . Figure 3 DPSIR-based model of humanenvironmental systems. 970 Ecological Indicators | DriverPressureStateImpactResponse
PALMER, M. Et Al. 2004. Ecological Science and Sustainability For A Crowded Planet-21st Century Vision and Action Plan For The Ecological Society of America.