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