conceptual models for the effects of marine pressures on ... · pdf fileconceptual models for...

Conceptual models for the ef fects of

marine pressures on biodivers i ty

D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 1 .

WP 1 Deliverable 1.1.

LEAD CONTRACTOR

Hellenic Centre for Marine Research

AUTHORS

Chris Smith, (HCMR), Nadia Papadopoulou, (HCMR), Steve Barnard (UHULL), Krysia Mazik (UHULL), Joana Patrício (JRC), Mike Elliott

(UHULL), Oihana Solaun (AZTI), Sally Little (UHULL), Angel Borja (AZTI), Natasha Bhatia (UHULL), Snejana Moncheva (IO-BAS), Sirak

Robele (NILU), K. Can Bizsel (IMST-DEU) Atilla H. Eronat (IMST-DEU).

SUBMISSION DATE

23 | June | 2014

Dissemination level

Public

2

Abstract

Conceptual models help draw together, visualise and understand the issues and problems relating to actual

or predicted situations and how they might be solved. In recent years, Pressure-State-Response (P-S-R)

frameworks have been central to conceptualising marine ecosystem risk analysis and risk management

issues and then translating those to stakeholders, environmental managers and researchers. It is axiomatic

that society is concerned about the risks to the natural and human system posed by those pressures (thus

needing risk assessment) and then is required to act to minimise or compensate those risks (as risk

management). This document explores existing conceptual models of pressure-state change and refines

these to produce a new model focusing on the way in which state change arises from the individual to the

ecosystem level. Difficulties are addressed in dealing with cumulative impacts and in particular with

multiple simultaneous pressures, which more often occur in multi-use and multi-user areas. An improved

understanding of the interactions between drivers, pressures and states (or, more particularly, the

pressure-state change (P-S) linkage) is important to help facilitate consideration of possible Responses, but

this is not something that is specifically provided for by application of the DPSIR approach alone (Driver-

Pressure-State-Impact-Response). Assessment tools including matrices assessments, dynamic ecosystem

models and Bayesian Belief Networks are described. The Bow-Tie application is introduced as a marine risk

assessment and risk management tool and the conceptual framework is redefined to incorporate

mechanisms of pressure effect into a new model structure that supports the application of risk

management approaches. In turn, the challenges for moving from conceptual frameworks to assessments

are investigated.

3

Contents

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ 2

CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 3

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: .............................................................................................................................. 6

2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DPSIR ........................................................................................................... 7 2.1. SINGLE DPSIR CYCLES ............................................................................................................................. 10 2.2. MULTIPLE DPSIRS .................................................................................................................................. 11 2.3. MULTIPLE PRESSURES .............................................................................................................................. 13

3. CONCEPTUAL MODELS ..................................................................................................................... 14 3.1. PRESSURE-STATE CHANGE CONCEPTUAL MODELS ....................................................................................... 14

3.1.1. Research projects ........................................................................................................................ 15 3.1.2. Published Investigations .............................................................................................................. 27

3.2. FROM CONCEPTS TO ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................................... 39 3.2.1. Simple Matrices Approach .......................................................................................................... 39 3.2.2. Ecosystem Models ....................................................................................................................... 40 3.2.3. Bayesian Belief Networks ............................................................................................................ 41 3.2.4. The BowTie approach .................................................................................................................. 42

4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................................................................................................... 44 4.1. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN REGIONAL SEA STUDIES........................................................................................ 46

5. DPS CHAINS IN THE MSFD ................................................................................................................ 48

6. DEVOTES CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 52 6.1. REFINED CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF PRESSURE-STATE CHANGE RELATIONSHIPS ..................................................... 52 6.2. THE STATE CHANGE CONCEPTUAL MODEL IN THE CONTEXT OF RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................... 60

7. DATA CHALLENGES IN MOVING FROM CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS TO ASSESSMENTS ................... 64 7.1. REGIONAL SEAS ...................................................................................................................................... 64 7.2. DATA AVAILABILITY ................................................................................................................................. 66

7.2.1. Drivers ......................................................................................................................................... 67 7.2.2. Pressures ..................................................................................................................................... 68 7.2.3. State-Change ............................................................................................................................... 68

7.3. ASSESSMENT SCALES AND SCALING UP TO REGIONAL SEAS ............................................................................. 69 7.4. LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE ........................................................................................................................... 69

8. CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................................................................................................... 70

9. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 72

Deliverable 1.1. Conceptual models for the effects of marine pressures on biodiversity

4

1. Introduction

The marine system is extremely complex with highly interrelated processes acting between its physical,

chemical and biological components. Many diverse human activities exert pressure on this complex

environment and the cumulative environmental effects these activities have on the system varies

according to the intensity, number and spatial and temporal scales of the associated pressures. There is

an increasing need to demonstrate, quantify and predict the effects of human activities on these

interrelated components in space and time (Elliott, 2002). The study and management of marine

systems therefore requires information on the links between these human activities and effects on

structure, functioning and biodiversity, across different regional seas in a changing world.

Determining the cause and consequence of marine problems requires Risk Assessment and the

responses require Risk Management (Cormier et al., 2013). Conceptual models are required to

summarise, explain and address the identified risks. They allow a problem to be deconstructed as a

precursor to each aspect being assessed, prioritised and addressed (Elliott, 2002). In terms of Risk

Management, these models provide the basis for communicating the main message to managers and

developers as well as having an educational value (capturing and relating knowledge about a given

subject matter) (Mylopoulos, 1992). They provide the starting point for developing quantitative and

numerical models, or for indicating the limitation of such models and the available scientific knowledge

(Elliott, 2002).

Conceptual models can be regarded as diagrams which bring together and summarise information from

many areas. Simple to complex diagrams can be used to conceptualise particular issues or problems.

The more components that are drawn in, the more complex the diagrams become leading to what

Elliott (2002) has described as “horrendograms” (Figure 1). These models may describe a process very

aptly but may become very difficult to understand and therefore to model, although all numerical

models start with a conceptual framework on which to base the quantitative thought-process.

5

Figure 1. Example of Horrendograms: the environmental consequences of offshore wind power generation at difference stages, processes and responses (from Elliott, 2002)

One of the key current conceptual frameworks in widespread use, the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-

Response (DPSIR) framework, has developed over the last few decades and is used as the basis for the

majority of conceptual approaches addressing pressure-state change links. The DPSIR framework

provides some structure to the way that complex issues can be conceptualised in a standard way.

Currently, however, the DPSIR framework provides an overly simplistic representation of the

relationship between pressures and state changes, merely indicating that pressure leads to state change

(which may not necessarily be the case). It takes no account of the processes (and hence where to

target management), which may lead to state change or of the interaction between different activities

and their associated pressures occurring simultaneously. Furthermore, it does not highlight the

difference in the nature, severity, timescale or longevity of state changes in relation to pressure

intensity, frequency or duration.

Whilst most pressure-state change conceptual models begin to accommodate all of the necessary

information for conceptualising the multidimensional relationships between human activities, pressures

and state changes, there is also a requirement to be able to take model constructs or outputs and use

them to help augment our understanding of the complexity of the marine system. The spatial and

temporal links in the marine system, coupled with the diverse nature of stressors on the systems will

require conceptual models to be linked together and further developed towards numerical and

predictive models.

In particular, an improved understanding of the interactions between drivers, pressures and states (or,

more particularly, the pressure-state change (P-S) linkage) is important to help facilitate consideration of

possible risk management responses.

This document has focussed on the pressures that emanate from activities in a specific area, and takes

the view that pressures are the mechanism to lead to state changes (and impacts on human welfare).


6

Hence a pressure may be analogous to hazard which has been defined as the cause leading to a risk to

some element of the system. In turn, the risk is the probability of effect (likely consequences) causing a

disaster (as human consequences) (Elliott et al., 2014). Hence risk is often given in terms of assets which

will be affected by the hazard. However, because of this Smith and Petley (2009) consider that hazard,

as a cause, and risk, as a likely consequence, relate especially to humans and their welfare. In the

discussion here, this may be regarded as relating to the Impact (on human Welfare) part of the DPSIR

cycle. Therefore, this emphasises the links between the DPSIR approach and Risk Assessment and Risk

Management.

1.1. Aims and objectives:

This deliverable aims to review conceptual models for pressure-impact links and develop a merged and

refined model which links human activities to effects on ecosystem structure, functioning and

biodiversity. This model aims to be suitable for use in seas across Europe, with differing levels of

available information and data. This review considers an example pressure (abrasion of the sea bed

associated with demersal trawling in sedimentary habitats) and aims to identify the trajectory of

potential state changes at different levels of organisation, acknowledging that this trajectory will be case

specific. This facilitates understanding the way in which state changes in the marine environment arise.

The objectives are:

to investigate the development and review conceptual models that have addressed the

relationship between pressure and state change;

to present a review of the DPSIR framework and derivatives used in coastal and marine

ecosystems;

to demonstrate the complexity of interactions between simultaneously occurring activities and

pressures (multiple DPSIRs) and the complexity of their ability to cause state change

(antagonistic and synergistic interactions);

to review methods which may enable the conceptualisation of such complex interactions;

to present a conceptual model, using demersal trawling as an example, to describe pressure-

state change relationships caused by abrasion in subtidal sedimentary habitats; and

to present that conceptual model in the context of the Risk Assessment and Risk Management

framework.

7

2. The Development of DPSIR

The DPSIR framework is a development of the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework initially

proposed by Rapport and Friend (1979), adapted and largely promoted by the Organisation for

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for its environmental reporting. The PSR framework

(Figure 2) was based on the concept of causality that human activities exert Pressures on the

environment (marine and terrestrial), which can induce changes in the State/quality of natural

resources. Society Responds to these changes through environmental, governance, economic and

sectoral responses (policies and programmes). Highlighting the cause-effect relationships can help

decision makers and the public see how environmental, economic, societal and other issues are

interconnected. The model was generalised and did not try to specify the form of the interactions

between human activities and the state of the environment. In the early 1990’s, the OECD re-evaluated

the PSR model, whilst initiating work with environmental indicators (OECD, 1993). Its use has been

extended to many countries and international organisations and the PSR framework remains in a

continuous state of evolution (Figure 2). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1994) extended

the framework to include the effects of changes in state on the environment (pressure-state-

response/effects). UNEP (1994) also took up the framework with development of Pressure-State-

Impact-Response (PSIR) framework.

Figure 2. Pressures-State-Responses framework (OECD, 1993)

The adoption and development of indicators was essential to support the further development of causal

frameworks, allowing for performance evaluation, the setting of thresholds, causal links, and model


8

based analysis. In its work on sustainable development indicators, the United Nations Commission on

Sustainable Development proposed the Driving Force-State-Response framework (DSR). Here, Driving

force replaced the term pressure in order to accommodate more accurately the addition of social

economic and institutional indicators. It allows for the impact on sustainable development being both

positive and negative as is often the case for social economic and institutional indicators.

In further developments, through agencies such as the European Environmental Agency and EUROSTAT,

the EU adopted and started to use the Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework

(DPSIR), which provides an overall mechanism for analysing environmental problems (Figure 3). The

Driving forces (e.g. social and economic developments) exert Pressures (e.g. pollution), leading to

changes in the State of the environment (e.g. changes in the physico-chemical and biological systems,

nutrients, organic matter, etc.), which then lead to Impacts on humans and ecosystems (e.g. fish

mortality, phytoplankton blooms) that will in turn require a societal Response (e.g. building water

treatment plants). The response can feed back to the driving forces, the pressures, the state or the

impacts directly though adaptation or remedial action (policies, legislation, restrictions, etc.). A fuller

review of the early development of DPSIR can be found through international organisation web

resources, but is well described by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

(http://www.fao.org/nr/lada/?option=com_content&task=view&id=69&Itemid=1) and European

Environment Agency (EEA) (http://ia2dec.ew.eea.europa.eu/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182).

Figure 3. Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response modified from original EU framework (EU, 1999)

http://www.fao.org/nr/lada/?option=com_content&task=view&id=69&Itemid=1

http://ia2dec.ew.eea.europa.eu/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182

9

It should be noted that interpretation of DPSIR has been variable, particularly regarding States and

Impacts which are often defined/used differently by natural and social scientists. For example, where

either:

States are State of the Environment and Impacts are physical/chemical/biological changes to

the state of the environment (*1), or

State is State Change (of the environment) and Impacts are the effects on human society and

welfare (*2);

where *1 is a natural science perspective and *2 is a social science perspective.

The lack of clarity of DPSIR definitions led to further re-definition of one element of the model resulting

in the ‘modified DPSIR’ (mDPSIR) of the ELME EU FP6 project (for project details see Section 3.1.1.).

Within mDPSIR the Impact category was restricted to impacts on human systems thus leading in turn to

the definition of the DPSWR framework in the KNOWSEAS FP7 project (for project details see Section

3.1.1.). In this project, Cooper (2013) replaced Impact with Welfare (W, hence DPSWR). However, it has

been suggested that neither I or W fully described the main features given that it is an impact on human

welfare that is important hence using I(W) (Elliott, 2014). Many applications of what is referred to as a

DPSIR approach actually make use of definitions that actually reflect those associated with the DPSWR

model.

This report uses the terminology defined in Box 1 and is based on Borja et al. (2006), Robinson et al.

(2008) and Atkins et al. (2011), with the important proviso that where Impacts are related to natural

ecosystems we have defined this as a State Change.


10

Within the last 10 years, the core use of DPSIR in a number of EU funded projects, covering a wide range

of issues, has led to clarifications, adaptations and translation into assessments. This is further detailed

in Section 3.1.1.

In another modification, used by social scientists, DPSIR has been related to Goods and Services through

EBM-DPSER where Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) is directly related to Driver-Pressure-State-

Ecosystem Service-Response (Kelble et al., 2012) or the ES&SB (Ecosystem Services and Societal

Benefits) linked DPSIR approach (Atkins et al., 2011). A further development of DPSIR in the area of

health has been the DPSEEA framework comprising Driving forces-Pressures-State-Exposure-Effect-

Action (and sometimes DPSEEAC, where ‘C’ relates to Context), a framework used primarily in risk

assessments for contaminants and developed by the World Health Organisation (Schirnding, 2002). A

further development for creating indicators of children’s environmental health is the MEME framework

(many-exposures many-effects) thus moving from the linear and pollution based view of DPSEEA (and

other) frameworks (Briggs, 2003).

2.1. Single DPSIR Cycles

It is emphasised that the DPSIR framework (as a single cycle) relates to a sectoral Driver, such as the

requirement for food space, navigation, production, etc., and its resulting Pressures. As those occur

BOX 1. D e f i n i n g D P S I R

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Drivers at the highest level, ‘Driving Forces’ are considered to be the overarching economic and social policies of governments, and economic and social goals of those involved in industry. At a mid-level they may be considered to be Sectors in industry (e.g. fishing) and at a lower level, Activities in the sector (e.g. demersal trawling).

Pressure is considered as the mechanism through which an activity has an actual or potential effect on any part of the ecosystem (e.g. for demersal trawling activity, one pressure would be abrasion to the seabed).

State change refers to changes in the ‘State’ of the natural environment which is effected by pressures which cause State Changes to Ecological Characteristics (Environmental variable, Habitats, Species/Groups structural or functional diversity) (e.g. abrasion may cause a decrease in macrofaunal diversity)

Impacts are the effect of State Changes on human health and society, sometimes referred to as welfare, change in welfare is affected by changes in use values and in non-use values (e.g. loss of goods and services from loss of biodiversity).

Response is the societal response to impacts through various policy measures, such as regulations, information and taxes; these can be directed at any other part of the system (e.g. reduction in the number of bottom trawler licenses, the change to a less abrasive gear, or creation of no-fishing areas).

11

within an area being managed then they are referred to as Endogenic Managed Pressures in which the

management can address the causes and consequences, such as fishing or navigation (e.g. Elliott, 2011).

However, it should be recognised that the elements in this framework (and their depicted inter-

relationships) do not exist in isolation from the wider environment and that a range of natural pressures

(based on ecology, climate, geomorphology and other dynamic conditions) act on the ecosystem and

may potentially lead to State Change. That is, the area being managed is also subject to external

pressures, i.e. Exogenic Unmanaged Pressures, in which consequences rather than causes are addressed

and where management is required on larger or external scales, such as climate change or nutrient

pollution from catchments.

Whilst a single DPSIR model or cycle represents a vast over-simplification of the ‘real world’, it can

nevertheless be used to help build a conceptual understanding of the relationships between

environmental change, anthropogenic pressures and management options. However, to be of value, the

model does need to be bounded (e.g. Svarstad et al., 2008), for example, by defining the spatial limits

for its application to any particular instance (usually the management unit such as a particular area of

sea or length of coast). Additionally, a simple DPSIR cycle is bounded in conceptual terms, for example,

in terms of the activity or sector to which it applies. Given that all areas are subjected to multiple

Drivers, then there is the need for multiple and nested DPSIR cycles.

2.2. Multiple DPSIRs

The marine environment can be seen as a complex adaptive system (Gibbs and Cole, 2008). In this

context one activity (such as might be represented by a single DPSIR cycle) will inevitably interact with

and impact upon other activities and cannot be fully considered in isolation. For example a reduction in

wild fisheries could have a knock-on effect to aquaculture or the fish from wild fisheries used as

feedstock for aquaculture. Using the DPSIR approach this can most simply be visualised as several

interlinked DPSIR cycles (each representing a different activity or sector which interact together and

demand a share of the available resources).

Atkins et al. (2011) linked separate systems by the Response element, arguing that the effective

management of anthropogenic impacts should be in the form of an integrated action (involving many

types of response) affecting all relevant activities. It is also possible to consider separate DPSIR cycles,

each relating to a different activity, being linked by the Pressures element and reflecting the concept

that a number of different activities can give rise to the same environmental pressure (Figure 4). In a

manner analogous to the graphical presentation used by Atkins et al. (2011), Figure 4 illustrates how a


12

single Pressure (the central blue circle) provides a common link between five separate DPSIR cycles,

which represent five separate activities. For the sake of clarity, the links within each individual DPSIR

cycle have been simplified (e.g. by omitting the direct R-P link within each cycle and the links between

other D, S, I and R elements for different cycles a la Atkins et al., 2011).

Linking separate DPSIR cycles in this way (Figure 4), and placing Pressure at the heart of the model, has

the advantage of focusing attention on the Pressure as the system element that needs to be managed,

an approach that supports the assessment of pressure-state change linkages. It should be noted that

any such single Pressure may bring about a State change across a number of different ecological

components.

Figure 4. Separate DPSIR cycles linked through a common pressure element.

Having a series of nested and linked DPSIR cycles, and linking those nested DPSIR cycles across

ecosystems, accommodates many pressures within one area (Atkins et al., 2011). It is emphasised that a

nested DPSIR cycle in a near-shore area, for example, has to link with those in the catchments, estuaries

and at sea. This overcomes some of the difficulties in applying the framework to dynamic systems,

cause-consequence relationships, multiple drivers and only linear unidirectional causal chains. The

remainder of this review investigates further the DPSIR concept as a flexible framework to structure

biodiversity impact studies in the marine environment.

13

2.3. Multiple pressures

It is recognised that any one driver or activity may cause multiple pressures which, in turn, can cause

multiple state changes. Any framework used to help conceptualise pressure-state change relationships

in the marine environment needs to be able to account for multiple pressures. Consequently the DPSIR

conceptual model framework (Figure 4) would need to be expanded to accommodate multiple

pressures. For example, the different levels in Figure 5 (shown as blue, green and purple circles)

represent different pressures or classes of pressure, P1, P2 and P3 (e.g. abrasion from demersal trawling,

anchoring, dredging; marine litter from fishing, shipping, renewable energy developments; substratum

loss from non-renewable energy development, renewable energy development, dredging etc.) Again,

individual DPSIR cycles are activity-specific. Within this model there would be numerous links between

DPSIR chains across the different levels; for example, where the DPSIR cycle for a single activity is

responsible for a number of different pressures, or where the responses and drivers for one activity

interact with or affect the responses and drivers for a different activity.

Figure 5. Linked DPSIR cycles within and across three separate pressures, P1, P2 and P3.


14

Whilst this approach begins to accommodate all of the necessary information for conceptualising the

multidimensional relationships between activities and, through their associated and inter-related DPSIR

cycles, the pressures and state changes to which they potentially give rise, there is also a requirement to

be able to take the model constructs or outputs and use them to help augment our understanding of

the (complex) system that is represented. For example, an improved understanding of the interactions

between Drivers, Pressures and States (or, more particularly, the pressure-state change (P-S) linkage)

would help to facilitate consideration of possible Responses. This is not something that is specifically

provided for by application of the DPSIR approach.

3. Conceptual Models

3.1. Pressure-State Change Conceptual Models

Since the DPSIR framework was developed in the late 1990s to structure and organize indicators in a

meaningful way, it has been further applied, discussed and developed. Concentrating on known

concepts, we have carried out a comprehensive but non-exhaustive review of the available literature

concerned with the DPSIR framework its ‘derivatives’ and other related frameworks (Table 1). Box 2

shows the frameworks included in the review and the general components of each model.

The focus of this review is on research projects and publications dealing with coastal and marine

habitats. However, the scope of the analysis is broadened to include both projects and publications that

present or discuss the framework, regardless of its application to specific case studies and studies that

address biodiversity (sensu lato) under the scope of DPSIR.

15

3.1.1. Research projects

Table 1 shows the final list of projects that were considered, categorised by “Acronym”, “Title”,

“Duration”, “Funding institution”, “Geographical area”, “General objective” of the project,

“Framework/model type” used, “Keywords”, “Website” and some examples of “Output references”. A

column with additional information gives complementary details for some of the projects. The projects

are listed in alphabetical order.

Since 1999, at least 23-research projects focusing on coastal and marine habitats have used (or are

using) the DPSIR framework and/or derivatives as part of their conceptual development phases. Three

of these projects had a scope beyond coastal and marine ecosystems, aiming to tackle large-scale

environmental risks to biodiversity (e.g. FP6 ALARM), to contribute to the progress of Sustainability

BOX 2. F r a m e w o r k c o m p o n e n t s

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

BPSIR: Behavior - Pressure - State - Impact – Response

DPCER: Driver - Pressure - Chemical state - Ecological state – Response

DPS: Driver - Pressure – State

DPSEA: Driver - Pressure - State - Effect – Action

DPSEEA: Driver - Pressure - State - Exposure - Effect – Action

DPSEEAC: Driver – Pressure – State – Exposure – Effect – Action - Context

DPSI: Driver - Pressure - State – Impact

DPSIR: Driver - Pressure - State - Impact – Response

DPSWR: Driver - Pressure - State (change) - Welfare – Response

DSR: Drivers - State – Response

EBM-DPSER: Ecosystem Based Management/Driver - Pressure - State - Ecosystem service – Response

eDPSEEA: ecosystems-enriched Driver - Pressure - State - Exposure - Effect – Actions

eDPSIR: enhanced Driver - Pressure - State - Impact – Response

mDPSIR: Driver - Pressure - State - Impact – Response

PD: Pressures – Drivers

PSBR: Pressure - State - Benefits – Response

PSIR: Pressure - State - Impact – Response

PSR/E: Pressure - State - Response – Effects

Tetrahedral DPSIR: Driver - Pressure - State - Impact – Response (adapted)


16

Science (e.g. FP6 THRESHOLDS) and to identify and assess integrated EU climate change policy (e.g. FP7

RESPONSES). They have been included in this review as their findings can extend to the coastal and

marine habitats.

From the considerable number of projects that used the framework or derivatives, only one was the

result of non-European funds. The USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Centre for

Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research supported the MARES project that developed the EMB-DPSER

framework (see Nuttle et al., 2011 and Kelble et al., 2013). This review suggests that DPSIR is a

framework that several European projects have applied and/or developed but is less commonly the case

in non-EU areas.

The research projects that were considered in this review had diversified objectives, for example:

to improve Integrated Coastal Zone Management and planning maritime safety (e.g. BLAST);

integration of climate change into development planning (e.g. CLIMBIZ, RESPONSES, LAGOONS);

to provide a roadmap to sustainable integration of aquaculture and fisheries (e.g. COEXIST);

application of an ecosystem based marine management (ODEMM), the Ecosystem Approach to

management (KNOWSEAS) or to fisheries (e.g. CREAM);

to integrate the marine and human system and assess human activity and its social, economic

and cultural aspects (ELME, KNOWSEAS, VECTORS, ODEMM, DEVOTES);

to support scientifically the implementation of several European directives and legislation (e.g.

ODEMM, LAGOONS, MULINO, SPICOSA, KNOWSEAS, DEVOTES);

to improve the knowledge of how environmental and man-made factors are impacting the

marine ecosystems and are affecting the range of ecosystem goods and services provided (e.g.

VECTORS, ODEMM, DEVOTES, SESAME, LAGOONS);

to produce integrated management tools (e.g. MESMA, ODEMM, DITTY, MULINO, LAGOONS,

DEVOTES);

to look at spatial management and conflicts/synergies/trade offs (MESMA, COEXIST, ODEMM);

to produce threat, risk and pressure assessment (e.g. ODEMM, DEVOTES), and

to produce new biodiversity indicators and Environmental Status assessment tools (e.g.

DEVOTES)

In addition to the scientific context, the role played by the DPSIR framework and/or derivatives also

varied markedly from project to project. ELME, KNOWSEAS, ODEMM, DEVOTES and VECTORS have used

(or are using) the DPSIR framework extensively and some of these projects have developed and further

17

modified the framework (e.g. ELME-mDPSIR and KNOWSEAS-DPSWR). However, this review

encountered some difficulties mainly related to access to information. For some projects the website is

no longer active (e.g. DITTY, ELME, EUROCAT, SESAME). In other projects, it has been difficult to find

specific content even with a careful and thorough examination of websites, list of deliverables and

publications. The lack of easy open-access acts as a constraint to apply and explore further the

knowledge gained by the application of the conceptual frameworks.


18

Table 1. List of research projects that have used or are using DPSIR and/or derivatives as part of their conceptual frameworks.

Acronym Title Duration Funding Area General objectiveFramework/

Model typeKeywords Website

Output

references

(e.g.)

Additional information

ALARM

Assessing large scale

risks for biodiversity

with tested methods

2004-2008 EU - 6FP Europe + others

To develop and test methods for

assessing large-scale

environmental risks to

biodiversity and to evaluate

options to mitigate these risks.

DPSIR

biodiversity,

environmental

risk assessment,

mitigation

measures

http://www.alarmpr

oject.net/alarm/

Hulme 2007,

Maxim et al.

2009

The ALARM project adapted the general DPSIR concept

to biodiversity (Maxim et al. 2009). Social and economic

developments (Driving Forces) exert Pressures on the

environment and, as a consequence, the State of the

environment changes. This leads to Impacts on

ecosystems, human health, and society, which may elicit

a societal Response that feeds back on Driving Forces, on

State or on Impacts via various mitigation, adaptation or

curative actions. The general DPSIR approach was

adapted for the risk assessmet because (i) biodiversity is

complex with many interdependencies; (ii) it is difficult

to consider social or political aspects in the general

approach; (iii) it does not address uncertainties, needed

for scientific applications.

BLASTBringing land and

sea together2009-2012 EU- Interreg

North Sea

region

To improve ICZM and planning

and maritime safety in a broad

sense, by improving and

contributing to harmonising

terrestrial and sea geographical

data, by developing planning and

visualisation tools, and by

improving the safety of

maritime navigation - all in the

context of climate change.

DPSIR

Integrated

coastal zone

management,

maritime safety

www.blast-project.eu

WP6 analysed how the DPSIR model can be used to

describe the role of ICZM under the pressure of climate

change.

CLIMBIZ

Introducing climate

change in the

environmental

strategy of the

protection for the

Black Sea

BSEC Proj.

Dev. Fund

and the

Austrian

Dev. Agency

Black Sea

region

Regional Multilateral

Organizations of the Black Sea

have improved understanding of

and capacities to integrate

climate change into

development planning, while

private sector agents in the

region are better equipped to

contribute to low-carbon and

climate change resilient

development.

DPIVR

climate change

vulnerability and

adaptation,

development

planning, low-

carbon

development

http://www.climbiz.o

rg/1-0-

OVERVIEW.html#.U3

xy7tKSz_E

Hills et al.

2013

The analysis is structured around DPIVR which is a

modification of the DPSIR framework. The DPIVR stands

for: Drivers (D) – major driving forces which characterise

the target area; Pressures (P) – the pressures on the

system caused by climate change; Impacts (I) – the effect

of climate change on the different dimensions of the

region; Vulnerability (V) – the degree to which systems

affected by climate change are susceptible and unable to

cope with climate impacts; Response (R) – management

responses to climate change vulnerabilities. The DPIVR

framework considers economic, social and natural

dimensions.

19



Output

references

(e.g.)


COEXIST

Interaction in coastal

waters: a roadmap

to sustainable

integration of

aquaculture and

fisheries

2010-2013 EU - FP7 Europe

To provide a roadmap to better

integration, sustainability and

synergies across the diverse

activities taking place in the

European coastal zone.

DPSIR

fisheries,

aquaculture,

coastal

ecosystems,

sustainability

www.coexistproject.e

u

Jongbloed et

al 2011

Case studies reports and factsheets are available online

along with the COEXIST guidance document and

publications. The website also provides info and where

applicable access to the COEXISTdeliverables and tools

that include GIS mapping of activities, to Individual Stress

Level Analysis (ISLA), Analysis of Conflict Scores, models

and suitability maps, and stakeholder preferences.

CREAM

Coordinating

research in support

to application of

ecosystem approach

to fisheries and

management advice

in the

Mediterranean and

Black Seas

2011-2014 EU - FP7Mediterranean

and Black Seas

To set up the basis for a future

network of research

organisations to coordinate

fisheries research for the

effective application of the

Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries

(EAF) in Mediterranean and Black

Seas.

DPSIR

fisheries,

ecosystem

approach,

management

www.cream-fp7.eu

An International Conference on "Ecosystem Approach to

Fisheries in the Mediterranean and BlackSeas" was held

focussing on practical applications and socio-political

recommendations derived from the project. A special

Issue of "Sciencia Marina" (The Ecosystem Approach to

Fisheries in the Mediterranean and Black Seas”; Sci. Mar.

78S1: 2014) with Conference contributions is available

at: http://www.icm.csic.es/scimar/index.php/secId/6/IdNum/196/)

DEVOTES

Development of

innovative tools for

understanding

marine biodiversity

and assessing good

environmental status


To improve understanding of

human activities impacts

and variations due to climate

change on marine biodiversity,

to test/integrate indicators into

a unified assessment of the

biodiversity and to look at

innovative modelling tools and

monitoring systems.

DPSIR refined

assessment

tools, marine

biodiversity,

GEnS, MSFD,

ecosystem

services,

indicators,

monitoring,

modelling tools

http://www.devotes-

project.eu/

Smith et al.

2014 (this

Deliverable)

The DPSIR framework is reviewed and DPSWR is

developed under WP1 "Human pressures and climate

change" Task 1.1. "Conceptual models". It is also used

and populated with data/metadata under WP2 "Social-

economic implications for achieving Good Environmental

Status" and WP6 "Integrated Assessment of Biodiversity".

DITTY

Development of an

information

technology tool for

the management of

European Southern

lagoons under the

influence of river-

basin runoff

2003-2006 EU - FP5

Portugal, Spain,

France, Italy

and Greece

To develop the scientific and

operational bases for a sustained

utilisation of resources in

Southern European Lagoons,

taking into account all relevant

impacts that affect the aquatic

environment and developing

targeted information technology

tools.

DPSIR

information

technology tools,

ICZM, coastal

lagoons,

Decision Support

System (DSS)

http://www.dittyproj

ect.org - NOT ACTIVE

Aliaume et al.

2007

The framework was used in WP6 final report - Scenario

Analysis for Coastal Lagoons Management (D19 and

D20).


20



Output

references

(e.g.)


ELME

European lifestyles

and marine

ecosystems.

Exploring challenges

for managing

Europe's seas.


Model the consequences of

alternative scenarios for human

development in post-accession

Europe on the marine

environment, through improved

understanding of the relationship

between European lifestyles and

the state of marine ecosystems.

mDPSIR

lifestyles and the

state of marine

ecosystems,

scenarios,

human

development,

policy, social

change

http://www.elme-

eu.org/ - NOT ACTIVE

Langmead et

al. 2007,

2009

ELME was designed to help ensure that emergent

European Union policies take into account the protection

of marine ecosystems and biological diversity. The

approach integrates information on: the current major

state changes affecting Europe’s marine ecosystems; the

pressures (anthropogenic and from natural variability) on

the environment producing these state changes; the

underlying social and economic drivers that lead to these

pressures; and the plausible scenarios for social and

economic change across Europe during the next 2

decades. KNOWSEAS was the follow up from ELME.

EUROCAT

European

catchments.

Catchment changes

and their impact on

the coast


1) Identify the impacts on the

coast, 2) Interface biophysical

catchment and coastal models

with socio-economic models, 3)

Develop regional environmental

change scenarios, 4) Link

scenarios with the modelling

toolbox to evaluate plausible

futures and 5) Evaluate the

research outcomes with

stakeholders and policy makers.

DPSIR

water resouces,

river basin

management,

scenarios,

models

http://www.cs.iia.cnr.i

t/EUROCAT/project.ht

m - NOT ACTIVE

Turner et al

2001 (draft

report),

Salomons

2004, Kannen

et al. 2004,

Nunneri and

Hofmann

2005

IASON

International action

for sustainability of

the Mediterranean

and Black Sea

environment

2005-2006 EU - FP6

Mediterranean

and Black Sea

region

To make hitherto inaccessible

knowledge regarding the current

state of the marine and coastal

environment of the

Mediterranean and Black Sea,

available to the scientific

community and the public at

large.

DPSIR

pressures on the

coastal zone,

ecosystem

functioning

www.iasonnet.gr

download

deliverables

here:

http://www.i

asonnet.gr/lib

rary/index.ht

ml

Attention: there is also a FP7 IASON.

KNOWSEAS

Knowledge-based

sustainable

management for

Europe's seas


To develop a comprehensive

scientific knowledge base and

practical guidance for the

application of the Ecosystem

Approach to the sustainable

development of Europe’s

regional seas.

DPSWR

ecosystem

approach, costs

and benefits,

sustainable seas,

socio-ecological

systems

modelling,

marine

ecosystem

impacts, marine

resources

www.knowseas.com Cooper 2012

KnowSeas worked at the Regional Sea and Member

State EEZs scale and developed a new approach of

Decision Space Analysis to investigate mismatches of

scale. Knowledge created through the ELME project,

augmented with necessary new studies of climate

effects, fisheries and maritime industries provided a basis

for assessing changes to natural systems and their

human causes. New research examined and modeled

economic and social impacts of changes to ecosystem

goods and services and costs and benefits of various

management options available through existing and

proposed policy instruments.

21



Output

references

(e.g.)


LAGOONS

Integrated water

resources and

coastal zone

management in

European lagoons in

the context of

climate change


To contribute to a science-based

seamless strategy of the

management of lagoons seen

under the land-sea and science-

policy-stakeholder interface; i.e.,

the project seeks to underpin the

integration of the WFD, Habitat

Directive, the EU’s ICZM

Recommendation, and the

MSFD.

DPSIR

lagoons, climate

change,

modelling,

ecosystem

processes, WFD,

science-policy

interface, river

basins

lagoons.web.ua.ptDolbeth et al.

2014

MARE

Marine Research on

Eutrophication - A

Scientific Base for

Cost Effective

measures for the

Baltic

1999-2006

Swedish

Foundation

for Strategic

Env.

Research

Baltic Sea

To develop a user-friendly

decision support system (Nest) in

order to make estimations of

cost-effective measures against

eutrophication of the Baltic Sea

possible.

DPSIR

eutrophication,

coastal

ecosystems,

scenarios,

management,

land-ocean

interactions

http://www.mare.su.s

e/ENG/eng-om/eng-

om.html

Lundberg

2005

MARES

Marine and

Estuarine Goal

Setting

2009-2012

NOAA

Center for

Sponsored

Coastal

Ocean

Research,

USA

USA

To reach a science-based

consensus on the defining

characteristics and fundamental

regulating processes of a South

Florida coastal marine ecosystem

that is both sustainable and

capable of providing the diverse

ecological services upon which

society depends.

DPSER

management,

coastal and

marine

ecosystems,

integrated

ecosystem

models,

indicators,

sustainability

http://sofla-

mares.org/

Nuttle et al.

2011, Kelble

et al. 2013

MESMA

Monitoring and

evaluation of

spatially managed

areas


To produce integrated

management tools (concepts,

models and guidelines) for

Monitoring, Evaluation and

implementation of Spatially

Managed marine Areas, based on

European collaboration.

DPSIR

marine spatial

management,

ecosystem based

approach,

planning

strategies,

sustainable

development

www.mesma.orgStelzenmüller

et al. 2013

The MESMA framework was developed in WP2 -

Framework for monitoring and evaluation of Spatially

Managed Areas.

MULINO

Multi-sectoral

integrated and

operational decision

support system for

sustainable use of

water resources at

the catchment scale


To develop a methodology that

aims to support the

implementation of the EU WFD.

DPSIR

decision support

system,

catchment areas,

management,

water resources,

tool, WFD

http://siti.feem.it/muli

no/

Giupponi

2002,2007,

Fassio et al.

2005, Mysiak

et al. 2005


22



Output

references

(e.g.)


ODEMM

Options for

delivering ecosystem-

based marine

management


To develop a set of fully-costed

ecosystem management options

that would deliver the objectives

of the MSFD, the Habitats

Directive, the EC Blue Book and

the Guidelines for the Integrated

Approach to Maritime Policy. To

produce scientifically-based

operational procedures that

allow for a step by step

transition from the current

fragmented system to fully

integrated mature ecosystem

based marine management.

DPSIR

ecosystem-based

marine

management,

pressure

assessment, risk

assessment, cost-

benefit analysis,

management

strategy

evaluation,

governance,

MSFD, decision

making,

uncertainty,

ecosystem

services

www.liv.ac.uk/odemm

/

Koss et al.

2011, Knights

et al. 2011,

2013

Publications and guidance documents/supporting info

are availbale online on the tools developed including the

pressure assessment guidance and the detailed linkage

framework populating aspects of the DPSIR (e.g. linking

sectors/pressures/ecosystem components and

ecosystem services).

RESPONSES

European responses

to climate change:

deep emissions

reductions and

mainstreaming of

mitigation and

adaptation

2010 -

2013EU - FP7 Europe

To identify integrated EU climate-

change policy responses that

achieve ambitious mitigation and

environmental targets and, at

the same time, reduce the

Union's vulnerability to

inevitable climate-change

impacts.

DPSIR

climate change

mitigation and

adaptation,

strategic climate

assessment

approach

http://www.responses

project.eu/

Meller et al,

2012 (D5.2)

The ALARM-work was useful for the RESPONSES

framework (see above).

SESAME

Southern European

seas: assessing and

modelling ecosystem

changes

2007-2011 EU - FP6

Mediterranean

and Black Sea

region

To assess and predict changes in

the Mediterranean and Black Sea

ecosystems as well as changes in

the ability of these ecosystems

to provide goods and services.

DPSIR

ecosystem goods

and services,

global change,

ecosystem

variability

http://www.sesame-

ip.eu/ - NOT ACTIVE

The ongoing project Policy-oriented marine

Environmental Research for the Southern European Seas

(PERSEUS) is a research project that assesses the dual

impact of human activity and natural pressures on the

Mediterranean and Black Seas. http://www.perseus-

net.eu/ PERSEUS was the follow up project from

SESAME.

SPICOSA

Science and policy

integration for

coastal system

assessment


To develop and test a self-

evolving, operational research

approach framework for the

assessment of policy options for

the sustainable management of

coastal zone systems.

DPSIR

sustainable

management,

coastal zone,

policy options,

System

Approach

Framework,

science-policy

interface, ICZM

http://www.spicosa.eu

/Gari, 2010

23



Output

references

(e.g.)


TIDETidal river

development2010-2013 EU Interreg

North Sea region

estuaries

To help make integrated

management and planning a

reality in the Elbe, Weser,

Scheldt and Humber estuaries.

DPSIR

integrated

estuarine

management

and planning

http://www.tide-

project.eu/

Atkins et al.

2011b

TIDE took into account the ecological, economical and

societal needs of the regions involved and interlinked the

multiple processes and large scale efforts taking place in

the estuaries. TIDE integrated the knowledge and

solutions generated by previous projects such as

HARBASINS, SedNet and New!Delta and existing

management plans required by EU directives.

THRESHOLDS

Thresholds of

environmental

sustainability


To bridge the gap between

Science and Sustainability

Policies through the

establishment of a policy

formulation mechanism based

on: a) a target setting process

driven by novel scientific

knowledge on environmental

sustainability indicator

thresholds, b) the assessment of

socio-economic costs and

impacts associated to such

targets and c) an integrated

assessment model leading to the

identification of the most cost-

effective abatement measures to

maintain sustainability.

DPSIR

sustainability,

indicator

thresholds,

coastal

ecosystems,

socio-economic

assessment,

policy support

http://www.threshold

s-eu.org

Thresholds

Report No.

D6.2.5, 2007

The THRESHOLDS IP will develop generic tools but will

apply them to the specific case of coastal ecosystems.

VECTORS

Vectors of change in

oceans and seas

marine life, impact

on economic sectors

2011-2015 EU - FP7

Europe (North

Sea, Baltic and

Western

Mediterranean)

To improve our understanding of

how environmental and man-

made factors are impacting

marine ecosystems now and in

the future. To examine how

these changes will affect the

range of goods and services

provided by the oceans, the

ensuing socio-economic impacts

and some of the measures that

could be developed to reduce or

adapt to these changes.

DPSIR

marine

management,

database of

genetic material

of invasive and

outbreak

species, tourism,

AquaNIS

www.marine-

vectores.eu

Vugteveen et

al. 2014

To facilitate integrated assessment of human and

ecosystem health and ecosystem service provision

VECTORS also produced a new DPSIR based conceptual

model, the ecosystems-enriched Drivers, Pressures,

State, Exposure, Effects, Actions or ‘eDPSEEA’ model (Reis

et al 2014). Their model recognizes convergence

between the concept of ecosystems services which

provides a human health and well-being slant to the

value of ecosystems while equally emphasizing the

health of the environment.


24

Focus should be drawn to a number of key EU funded projects because of their application of the DPSIR

conceptual framework in the marine environment and how they have taken, adopted and/or adapted

the framework going into assessments with towards a clear and standardised process.

The ELME project (European Lifestyles and the Marine Environment) investigated marine environmental

problems, their connectivity with social and economic causes, and alternative future policy options.

ELME adopted the DPSIR framework to organize information related to regional seas case study

environmental issues with impacts relating to human welfare although the project did not consider the

Response component of the framework. One of the key aspects was the identification of environmental

linkages through use of expert groups. The conceptual models represented the linkages (sectoral

drivers, pressures, states) identified for Bayesian modelling for future impacts under plausible 2025

scenarios. ELME was important as noted in Section 2 for developing the ‘modified DPSIR’, bringing a

structure to horrendograms or pressure linkages (see Figure 6 an example of the Black Sea conceptual

model) and for incorporating exogenous climatic variables along with normally stated endogenous

anthropogenic drivers.

Figure 6. ELME Black Sea conceptual model with the simulation model embedded within it (red arrows show pathways between variables included in the simulation model, while grey arrows indicate where linkages were made conceptually but were not included). Yellow indicates anthropogenic driver variables; blue indicates exogenous climatic driver variables; purple indicates pressures, while green indicates ecological state variables.

25

The KNOWSEAS project, a follow-up to ELME concerned the Ecosystem Approach to Management and

the development of a strong systems approach between natural (environment) and social science

(economic and social data) that could deliver the knowledge base to support management for

sustainable seas. KNOWSEAS took forward mDPSIR to the DPSWR conceptual approach, because of

definition uncertainty and difficulties with the underpinning concepts of the EEA categorization (EEA,

1999). The DPSWR framework isolated human system aspects of the interaction with ecological systems,

enabling a direct comparison of the sort required by cost-benefit analysis. This reconfiguration also

supported accountability within human systems. By isolating human from environmental impacts it is

possible to describe which of these and to what extent they are attributable to those who perform

Driver activities (Cooper, 2012).

With the implementation of latest environmental framework directives, the ODEMM project was set up

to investigate and quantitatively evaluate, specify and propose options and actions for a gradual

transition from fragmented management of activities (e.g. fish stock based regime for fisheries

management) to a mature integrated ecosystem-based approach management. Scientifically-based

operational procedures were used, with pressure-impact linkages, building on the DPSIR assessment

approach, which systematically organised information to assess threats and help prioritize management

actions. In terms of methodology, the ODEMM project produced a very structured DPSIR-based linkage

framework matrix approach (Koss et al., 2011) with rigorous definition and pressure (Knights et al.,

2011; Robinson and Knights, 2011) and risk assessments (Breen et al., 2012; Knights et al., 2014 subm).

Regional sea pressure assessments were undertaken which considered standardised lists with 19 marine

Sector/105 related Activities (including for example, different types of fishing or phases of operations of

renewable energy activities), 21-25 pressures (18 taken from the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

(MSFD; EU, 2008) plus other emergent or current threats identified by ODEMM), and 17 ecological

characteristics (physical chemical features, habitats, and biotic groups). This 3-way matrix resulted in

7066 activity-pressure-impact chains, where impact is synonymous with state change, (Knights et al.,

2013). Of these, 1462 individual chains were identified as having the potential for detrimental effects on

the ecosystem and its characteristics. Concerning only Descriptor 4 of the MSFD (Food Webs), there

were more than 700 causal chains. Ecological characteristics assessed were at high group levels (and not

the more detailed MSFD/DEVOTES habitats and taxa) and analyses did not consider links between

ecological characteristics. Figure 7 shows an example of the linkages of the Renewable Energy Sector are

given for pressures on ecological components on specific MSFD descriptor and the linkage of the sector

with economic and socio-cultural societal components.


26

Figure 7. Example of Sector-Pressure-Ecological Component linkage for how the Renewable Energy Sector (yellow) exerts multiple pressures (green) on to one Ecological Characteristic (blue), Predominant Habitat Type. This influences the ability to achieve Good Environmental Status for the MSFD Descriptor Seafloor Integrity (brown). From ODEMM project, Knights et al. (2011).

The COEXIST project, investigating the interaction in coastal waters between aquaculture and fisheries

using a DPSIR approach for spatial management, paralleled ODEMM producing standardised lists of

Sector/Activities (15), pressures (25) and ecological components (7) in 6 regional and local study areas

with matrices-based assessments (Jongbloed et al., 2011).

The VECTORS project is another complete integrated multidisciplinary project encompassing natural and

social sciences working towards future environmental requirements, policies and regulations across

multiple sectors. The project structure was modelled on the DPSIR framework with individual

workpackages on pressures, mechanisms, impacts, projection of impacts, all with socio-economic

considerations (including governance and policy). As the title (Vectors of Change in Oceans and Seas

Marine Life, Impact on Economic Sectors) implies, there is some degree of emphasis on vectors of

change and in particular on causes and consequences of invasive alien species, outbreak forming

species, and changes in fish distribution and productivity. To facilitate integrated assessment of human

and ecosystem health and ecosystem service provision VECTORS propose a new DPSIR based conceptual

model, the ecosystems-enriched Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effects, Actions or ‘eDPSEEA’ model

(Reis et al., 2014). Their model recognizes convergence between the concept of ecosystems services

27

which provides a human health and well-being slant to the value of ecosystems while equally

emphasizing the health of the environment.

3.1.2. Published Investigations

The 126 studies analysed are available in different publication formats: research papers, review papers,

essays, short communications, view point papers, seminar papers, discussion papers, journal editorials,

policy briefs, conference long abstracts, monographs, technical reports, manuals, synthesis or final

project reports and book chapters (see Table 2).

The studies were collated and each reference was categorised by ‘Study site’, ‘Habitat’, ‘Region’,

‘Framework/Model type’, ‘Issue/problem tackled’, ‘Implementation level’ and ‘Type of publication’. The

complete references are given in Section 8. Table 2 presents the final list of references and their

classification according to the previous categories. The order of the references in the table is grouped

first by habitat (marine, coastal, etc.) then within habitat by implementation level (applied, conceptual,

conceptual and applied).

Despite the popularity that the DPSIR framework and derivative models have gained in the last twenty

years among the scientific community, and the recommendations of OECD (1993), EPA (1994), EEA

(1999) and EU (1999) for its application, rather few studies have focused on the marine habitat. From

our comprehensive review, only 21 studies cover exclusively this habitat and from these only 8 illustrate

a concrete case study (German Exclusive Economic Zone (Fock et al., 2011); German waters of the North

Sea (Gimpel et al., 2013); Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and North East Atlantic Ocean

(Langmead et al., 2007; 2009); Baltic Sea (Andrulewicz, 2005); North and Baltic Sea (Sundblad et al.,

2014); Northwestern part of the North Sea (Tett et al., 2013) and Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas (Kelble

et al., 2013)). The remaining 14 studies are either explicitly conceptual or illustrate the framework with

generic situations/issues. For example, Elliott (2002) examined offshore wind power and Ojeda-Martinez

et al. (2009) studied the management of marine protected areas.

Adding to the studies exclusively focussing on marine habitats, there are 17 other studies that focus

simultaneously on marine and coastal habitats (12 of them applied), covering the Mediterranean region

(Casazza et al., 2002), Portuguese marine and coastal waters (Henriques et al., 2008), German North Sea

(Lange et al., 2010), West coast of Schleswig-Holstein (Licht-Eggert, 2007), Baltic Sea (Lundberg, 2005,

Ness et al., 2010), Dutch Wadden Sea region (Vugteveen et al., 2014), UK waters (Rogers and

Greenaway 2005, Atkins et al., 2011) and the North East Atlantic (Turner et al., 2010).


28

Approximately half of the references focus explicitly on coastal habitats (e.g. estuaries, coastal lagoons,

entire basins), and half of these are concrete case studies where to a certain extent the DPSIR

framework or derivatives where applied. The framework has been used with very different purposes, for

example:

assessment of eutrophication (e.g. Lundberg, 2005; Rovira and Pardo, 2006; Bricker et al., 2003;

Cave et al., 2003; Pirrone et al., 2005; Gari, 2010; Garmendia et al., 2012; Newton et al., 2003;

Trombino et al., 2007; Zaldivar et al., 2008; Karageorgis et al., 2005; Nunneri and Hofmann,

2005);

development and selection of indicators (e.g. Bell, 2012; EPA, 2008; Bowen and Riley, 2003);

assessment of the impact and vulnerabilities of climate change (e.g. Hills et al., 2013; Holman et

al., 2005);

fisheries and/or aquaculture management (e.g. Henriques et al., 2008; Hoff et al., 2008 in

Turner et al., 2010; Martins et al., 2012; Rudd, 2004; Knudsen et al., 2010; Mangi et al., 2007;

Marinov et al., 2007; Ou and Liu, 2010; Viaroli et al., 2007; Cranford et al., 2012);

integrated coastal management (e.g. EEA, 1999; Licht-Eggert, 2007; Mateus and Campuzano,

2008; Vugteveen et al., 2014; Turner et al., 1998b, 2010; Schernewski, 2008; Vacchi et al., 2007);

management of marine aggregates (e.g. Atkins et al., 2011; Cooper et al., 2013);

assessment of seagrass decline (e.g. Azevedo et al., 2013);

management of water resources (e.g. Giupponi, 2002, 2007; Mysiak et al., 2005);

assessment of wind farming consequences (e.g. Lange et al., 2010).

The remaining references (25) are not habitat-specific, most of them being conceptual by nature (i.e.

defining or reviewing the frameworks, using DPSIR as reporting outline or as framework for selecting

environmental indicators, assessing biodiversity loss, etc.).

It is also of note that 70% of the publications refer to the use of DPSIR and derivatives as frameworks for

issue framing, for gaining greater understanding, as a research tool, for capturing and communicating

complex relationships, as a tool for stakeholder engagement, as the subject of reviews and as the

subject for further tool/methodology development linked to policy making and decision support

systems. For example, Cormier et al. (2013), using Canadian and European approaches, emphasised

DPSIR as a Risk Assessment and Risk Management framework and recommends that ICES uses this as

their underlying rationale for assessing single and multiple pressures.

This review shows clearly that the DPSIR framework and its extensions have mainly been used in the

European context, with only 18 % of the studies being performed in other regions of the world (e.g. EPA,

29

1994, 2008; Kelble et al., 2013 and Bricker et al., 2003, in the USA; Bidone and Lacerda, 2004 in South

America; Lin et al., 2007; Ou and Liu 2010; Turner et al. 1998a in Asia; Mangi et al., 2007; Scheren et al.,

2004; Walmsley, 2002 in Africa; Cox et al., 2004 in Australia).

It can be seen from the reviews above that there is a widespread and increasing usage of DPSIR type

conceptual framework models in management and issue resolving. However, their usage in fully marine

habitats was noted to be low. The variety of derivatives that have come directly through the original DPS

chains or DPSIR, indicates that usage is widely open to re-interpretation and our experience has shown

that even within DPSIR there is a high degree in variation with how the major components are

interpreted or defined. It thus becomes necessary to define how it is used in every study otherwise

there is great confusion in whether a component is ascribed to driver/pressure, pressure/state or

state/impact. The recent development within and between recent EU funded projects has helped to

standardise definitions and component lists and has given a more rigid structure in starting from

concept and moving to assessments, even though they may have used different definitions. The existing

models are good for depicting the relationships between activities/sectors/pressures and the

habitat/biological component that might be affected (or have its state changed) but there are none that

actually address state change, what it is or how it arises. The science behind assessments is still

advancing as new knowledge becomes available, but it still has it has to deal with ecosystems that are all

complex, and where pressure-effect relationships on ecosystem components and interrelationships

between these components are not fully understood. This complexity is further highlighted by the

7000+ regional seas activity-pressure-impacts (impact=state change) chains identified from the ODEMM

project (see previous section) with state change components only identified at a very gross level.

Consequently whilst DPSIR provides a very strong concept, there is room for much more development in

refining the concept, methodologies and applications.


30

Table 2. Reference investigations concerned with DPSIR framework and derivatives (grouped by “habitat” – 1st level and by “implementation level” – 2nd level)).

Reference Study site Habitat RegionFramework/

Model typeIssue/problem

Implementation

level

Type of

publication

Fock et al. 2011 German EEZ Marine Europe PSR

Linking marine fisheries to

environmental objectives (seafloor

integrity)

Applied Research paper

Gimpel et al. 2013German waters of the

North SeaMarine Europe DPSI Assessing changes in nursery grounds Applied Research paper

Langmead et al. 2007

Baltic Sea, Black Sea,

Mediterranean Sea and

North-East Atlantic

Marine Europe mDPSIR

Organising information relating to

habitat change, eutrophication,

chemical pollution and fishing

Applied Final project report

Langmead et al. 2009Northwestern Black Sea

shelfMarine Europe DPSIR

Modelling the consequences of

alternative scenarios of human

development


Andrulewicz 2005 Baltic Sea Marine Europe DPSIRDeveloping indicators for management

of human impact

Conceptual and

AppliedBook chapter

Kelble et al. 2013Florida Keys and Dry

Tortugas, USAMarine North America EBM-DPSER Informing management decisions

Conceptual and

AppliedResearch paper

Sundblad et al. 2014North and Baltic seas,

SweedenMarine Europe BPSIR

Framework for structuring the social

information that can play an important

role in MSFD implementation (case

studies: phosphorous load, mercury

load and cod fishery)

Conceptual and


Tett et al. 2013Northwestern part of the

North SeaMarine Europe DPSIR + other

Framework for understanding marine

ecosystem health

Conceptual and

AppliedReview paper

Atkins et al. 2011a - Marine - DPSIRGeneral management of the marine

environmentConceptual Research paper

Cooper 2013 - Marine Europe DPSWR

Defining the DPSWR framework and

comment on its application to marine

systems

Conceptual Research paper

Curtin and Prellezo 2010 - Marine - DPSIR & PSRHelp management to form

sustainability indicators (EBM)Conceptual Review paper

Elliott 2002 - Marine - DPSIR Management of offshore wind power Conceptual Journal editorial

Elliott et al. 2006 - Marine Europe DPSIR

Management approach for marine

environment (i.e. framework to explain

the causes and consequences of state

change in the marine environment)

Conceptual Technical report

31



Implementation

level

Type of

publication

Elliott 2011 - Marine - DPSIR

Philosophy for tackling and

communicating methods of marine

management

Conceptual Journal editorial

Fehling 2009 - Marine - DPSIREnvironmental assessment and

monitoring managementConceptual Seminar paper

Kannen and Bukhard 2009 German North Sea Marine Europe DPSIR

Integrated assessment of coastal and

marine changes (e.g. offshore wind

farms)


Knights et al. 2013 - Marine Europe DPSIR

Build an integrated network that

captures the diverse and complex

range of sector activities that through

pressure pathways impact marine

ecosystems, i.e. methodology

development to support ecosystem-

based management


Ojeda-Martínez et al. 2009 - Marine - DPSIRManagement of marine protected

areasConceptual Research paper

Rapport and Hildén 2013 Baltic Sea Marine Europe PSR Effectiveneness of ecological indicators Conceptual Research paper

Rees et al. 2006 UK waters Marine Europe DPSIR

Use of indicators in international

evaluations under the ‘DPSIR’

framework

Conceptual Review paper

Stelzenmüller et al. 2013 - Marine Europe DPSIR & PSR Monitoring and evaluation of spatially

managed areas (ecosystem based

marine management)


Casazza et al. 2002 Mediterranean region Marine and CoastalMediterranean

regionDPSIR

Selection of indicators for

environmental analysisApplied Research paper

EEA 1999 - Marine and CoastalMediterranean

regionDPSIR

Report marine and coastal

managementApplied Technical report

Henriques et al. 2008Portuguese marine and

coastal watersMarine and Coastal Europe DPSIR

Development of a fish-based

multimetric index toassess ecological

quality of marine habitats


Hills et al. 2013 - Marine and Coastal Black Sea DPIVR

Assessment of the impact and

vulnerabilities associated with climate

change

Applied Technical report

Lange et al. 2010 German North Sea Marine and Coastal Europe DPSIRAnalyzing coastal and marine changes -

offshore wind farmingApplied Synthesis Report

Licht-Eggert 2007West coast of Schleswig-

Holstein (North Sea)Marine and Coastal Europe DPSIR

Scenarios as a tool for integrated

assessment of potential coastal

developments



32



Implementation

level

Type of

publication

Lundberg 2005 Baltic Sea Marine and Coastal Europe DPSIRDevelopment of a conceptual model to

describe eutrophicationApplied Research paper

Vugteveen et al. 2014 Dutch Wadden Sea region Marine and Coastal Europe PSBRMonitoring for integrated coastal

managementApplied Research paper

Ness et al. 2010 Baltic Sea Marine and Coastal Europe DPSIR

Understanding and assessment of

complex understanding issues (e.g.

eutrophication)

Conceptual and


Rogers and Greenaway 2005 UK Marine and Coastal Europe DPSIRAssessment and reporting of marine

ecosystem indicators

Conceptual and

AppliedViewpoint paper

Turner et al. 2010 North East Atlantic Marine and Coastal Europe DPSIR

Integrate natural and socio-economic

science in coastal management (e.g.

Hoff et al. 2008: fisheries in the North

East Atlantic)

Conceptual and

AppliedTechnical report

Atkins et al. 2011b

UK waters (e.g. Eastern

English Channel) and

Flamborough Head, UK

Marine and Coastal Europe DPSIRMarine aggregates extraction and

management of biodiversity

Conceptual and


Borja et al. 2010 - Marine and Coastal Europe DPSIRExplain and communicate marine and

coastal managementConceptual Research paper

Cormier et al. 2013 - Marine and Coastal - DPSIRMarine and coastal ecosystem-based

risk managementConceptual Technical report

Martins et al. 2012 - Marine and Coastal - DPSIR Fisheries management Conceptual Review paper

Rovira and Pardo 2006 - Marine and Coastal Europe DPSIRAssessment of eutrophication and

indicatorsConceptual Research paper

Rudd 2004 - Marine and Coastal - PSR + others

Design and monitor ecosystem-based

fisheries management policy

experiments


Aubry and Elliott 2006 Humber estuary, UK Coastal Europe DPSIRAssessment of seabed disturbance and

use of integrative indicatorsApplied Research paper

Azevedo et al. 2013 Ria de Aveiro, Portugal Coastal Europe DPSIR Assessment of seagrass decline Applied Research paper

Bidone and Lacerda, 2004Guanabara Bay basin, Rio

de Janeiro, BrazilCoastal South America DPSIR

Evaluate development and

sustainability in coastal zonesApplied Research paper

Borja et al. 2006Basque estuaries and

coastal watersCoastal Europe DPSIR

Assessing pressures and risk of failing

good ecological status (WFD)Applied Research paper

33



Implementation

level

Type of

publication

Bricker et al. 2003

138 estuaries in the

continental USA + Long

Island Sound, Neuse River

estuary, Savannah River

estuary, Florida Bay, West

Mississippi Sound, Tagus

estuary, Sado Estuary

Coastal USA, Europe PSRAssessment of estuarine trophic status

(i.e. eutrophication)Applied Research paper

Cave et al. 2003 Humber estuary, UK Coastal Europe DPSIR

Assessment of fluxes of nutrients and

contaminants to the coastal zone (i.e.

water quality)


Cooper et al. 2013 Thames estuary, UK Coastal Europe DPSIRManagement of marine aggregates

extraction industryApplied Research paper

Dolbeth et al. 2014

Ria de Aveiro, Portugal;

Mar Menor, Spain; Vistula

Lagoon, Poland/Russia;

Tylygulskyi Lagoon,

Ukraine

Coastal Europe DPSIRPropose management

recommendationsApplied Oral presentation

Gari 2010 Ria Formosa, Portugal Coastal Europe DPSIR Management of eutrophication Applied MSc Thesis

Garmendia et al. 201214 Basque country

estuariesCoastal Europe DPSIR Management of eutrophication Applied Research paper

Karageorgis et al. 2006Inner Thermaikos Gulf,

GreeceCoastal Europe DPSIR

Evaluation of long run coastal zone

changesApplied Research paper

Knudsen et al. 2010Samsun, Black Sea coast of

TurkeyCoastal Europe DPSIR

Identification of drivers for fishing

pressureApplied Research paper

Lin et al. 2007Xiamen coastal wetlands,

ChinaCoastal Asia DPSIR

Assessment of the coastal wetland

changesApplied Research paper

Mangi et al. 2007 Kenya Coastal Africa DPSIR Reef fisheries management Applied Research paper

Marinov et al. 2007Sacca di Goro, Northern

Adriatic Sea, ItalyCoastal Europe DPSIR

Assessment of clam farming

(modelling)Applied Research paper

Newton et al. 2003Ria Formosa coastal

lagoon, PortugalCoastal Europe DPSIR Assessment of eutrophication Applied Research paper

Newton et al. 2014

Bassin d'Arcachon,

Curonian lagoon, Etang

Thau, Logarou, Mar Menor,

Odra lagoon, Papas, Ria

Formosa, Ringkøbing Fjord,

Sacca di Goro, Venice

lagoon

Coastal Europe DPSIRAssessment of environmental

problemsApplied Research paper


34



Implementation

level

Type of

publication

Nunneri et al. 2005

Baltic Sea, Mediterranean,

North Sea and Atlantic

coast

Coastal Europe DPSIR

Scenario assessment to provide an

outline forward look at the European

coastal areas

Applied Group report

Ou and Liu 2010 Gungliau, Taiwan Coastal Asia PSRDevelopment of sustainable indicators

for local fisheriesApplied Research paper

Pinto et al. 2013 Mondego estuary, Portugal Coastal Europe DPSIR

Assessment, organisation and

communication of major changes in

water uses


Scheren et al. 2004 Ebrié lagoon, Ivory Coast Coastal West Africa DPSIR Environmental pollution assessment Applied Research paper

Schernewski 2008 Oder/Odra estuary Coastal Europe DPSIR Coastal management Applied Research paper

Trombino et al. 2007Po basin-North Adriatic

coastal continuumCoastal Europe DPSIR Assessment of eutrophication Applied Research paper

Turner et al. 1998b UK coast Coastal Europe PSIR

Analyse environmental and socio-

economic changes (coastal

management for sustainable

development)


Vacchi et al. 2014Ligurian coastline and

MPA, ItalyCoastal Europe DPSIR

Spatial modelling for coastal

managementApplied Review paper

Viaroli et al. 2007 Sacca di Goro lagoon, Italy Coastal Europe DPSIR Analysis of clam farming scenarios Applied Research paper

Aliaume et al. 2007

Ria Formosa, Portugal; Mar

Menor, Spain; Etang de

Thau, France; Sacca di

Goro, Italy; Gulf of Gera,

Greece

Coastal Europe DPSIR

Facilitate the integration of scientific

issues with needs of end-users and

define the modelling input-outputs

Conceptual and

AppliedJournal editorial

Bell 2012 Malta and Slovenia CoastalMediterranean

regionDPSIR

Selection of indicators and

participatory application of DPSIR

Conceptual and


EPA 2008 - Coastal USA PSR & PSR/EUse of conceptual models in indicator

development

Conceptual and

AppliedManual

Escaravage et al. 2006 - Coastal Europe DPSIR

Ecological functioning of coastal

systems under eutrophication stress

and implications for management

Conceptual and


Gregory et al. 2013 Flamborough Head, UK Coastal Europe DPSIRManagement of marine biodiversity at

a multi-user coastal site

Conceptual and


Ostoich et al. 2009 Venice lagoon, Italy Coastal Europe DPSIRControl of dangerous and priority

substances (WFD)

Conceptual and


35



Implementation

level

Type of

publication

Pacheco et al. 2007 Ria Formosa, Portugal Coastal Europe DPSIR

Management of channels located in

backbarrier systems subject to

dredging operations

Conceptual and


Turner et al. 1998aTokyo Bay, Japan and

Baltic SeaCoastal Asia and Europe PSIR

Integrated system for land-ocean

interaction

Conceptual and

AppliedTechnical report

Turner 2000 Baltic Sea drainage basin Coastal Europe PSIRIntegrate natural and socio-economic

science in coastal management

Conceptual and


Zaldívar et al. 2008 - Coastal - DPSIR Assessment of eutrophicationConceptual and

AppliedReview paper

Borja and Dauer 2008 - Coastal - DPSIRDealing with the complexities of socio-

environmental issuesConceptual Research paper

Bowen and Riley 2003 - Coastal - DPSIR & PSR Selection of indicators Conceptual Research paper

Cox et al. 2004 - Coastal Australia PSIR

Provision of an integrated reporting

framework to assess condition, risk,

management actions and priorities for

coastal systems

ConceptualConference

proceedings

Cranford et al. 2012 - Coastal - DPSIR Bivalve aquaculture management Conceptual Research paper

EEA 2013 - Coastal Europe DPSIRCoastal vulnerability and indicator-

based approachConceptual Technical report

Karakos et al. 2003 Nestos Delta, Greece Coastal Europe DPSIREnvironmental status indicators that

span DPSIR categoriesConceptual Research paper

Ledoux and Turner 2002 - Coastal - DPSIR Sustainable development Conceptual Review paper

Mateus and Campuzano 2008 - Coastal - DPSIR Integrated coastal zone management Conceptual Book chapter

Newton and Weichselgartner 2014 - Coastal - DPSIRExplore the causes and consequences

of coastal vulnerabilityConceptual Review paper

Sekovski et. 2012 - Coastal - DPSIR

Elaborate on the role of coastal

megacities in environmental

degradation and their contribution to

global climate change


Kannen et al. 2004

Vistula River catchment,

Bay of Gdansk,

Poland/Russia

Coastal (entire

catchment area)Europe DPSIR

Response of marine ecosystem to

inflowing contaminates (modelling)Applied Research paper

Karageorgis et al. 2005Aixos River catchment and

Thermaikos Gulf, Greece

Coastal (entire

catchment area)Europe DPSIR Assessment of eutrophication Applied Research paper

Ledoux et al. 2005 Humber estuary, UKCoastal (entire


Use of scenarios for integrated

catchment/coastal zone managementApplied Research paper


36



Implementation

level

Type of

publication

Meybeck et al 2007 Seine River basin, FranceCoastal (entire


Sources, evolution, fate and regulation

of metal fluxes Applied Research paper

Nunneri and Hofmann 2005Elbe River catchment-

North Sea

Coastal (entire


Nutrient enrichment and coastal

eutrophicationApplied Research paper

Pirrone et al. 2005Po Catchment -Adriatic

Sea, Italy

Coastal (entire


Integrated coastal zone management -

elaborate strategies for controlling

eutrophication


Walmsley 2002South Africa water

resources

Coastal (entire

catchment area)South Africa DPSIR

Identify key issues in catchment

management and develop indicatorsApplied Research paper

Fassio et al. 2005 -Coastal (entire


Management of water resources (i.e.

nitrates)Conceptual Research paper

Giupponi 2002 -Coastal (entire

catchment area)Europe DPSIR (DPS) Sustainable water management Conceptual

Conference long

abstract

Giupponi 2007 -Coastal (entire

catchment area)Europe DPSIR (DPS)

Management of water resources (view

of causal relationships in human-

environmental systems)


Mysiak et al. 2005

Dyle catchment, Belgium;

Caia catchment, Portugal;

Vahlui catchment,

Romania; Vela catchment,

Italy; Cavallino catchment,

Italy

Coastal (entire

catchment area)Europe DPSIR (DPS)

Management of water resources (view

of causal relationships in human-

environmental systems)


Rekolainen et al. 2003 -Coastal (entire

catchment area)Europe DPSIR & DPCER

Selection of models and other tools

within different phases of WFD

implementation


Haberl et al. 2009

Donana, Spain; Inner

Danube Delta wetland

system, Romania;

Eisenwurzen, Austria

Coastal and others Europe DPSIRSocioeconomic biodivesity drivers and

pressuresApplied Analysis paper

Holman et al. 2005East Anglia and North West

England, UKCoastal and others Europe DPSIR

Regional integrated assessment of the

impacts of climate change and socio-

economic change


Panov et al. 2009 - Coastal and others Europe DPSIRTo assess the risks of aquatic species

invasions - selection of indicatorsApplied Research paper

37



Implementation

level

Type of

publication

McGeoch et al. 2010 - not habitat-specific - PSR Global indicators of biological invasion Applied Research paper

Omann et al. 2009 - not habitat-specific - DPSIR Climate change and biodiversity loss Applied Research paper

Burkhard and Muller 2008 - not habitat-specific - DPSIR Presentation of the framework Conceptual Book chapter

Cooper 2012 - not habitat-specific - DPSWRDefine the DPSWR framework and

comment on its applicationConceptual Policy Brief

Berger and Hodge 1998 - not habitat-specific - PSR & DSREnvironmental assessment and natural

change in the environmentConceptual Research paper

Carr et al. 2007 - not habitat-specific - DPSIRSustainable development (DPSIR as

reporting framework)Conceptual Research paper

Delbaere 2003 - not habitat-specific - DPSIR

Inventory of biodiversity indicators (i.e

allocattion of biodiversity indicators to

DPSIR components)

Conceptual Technical report

EPA 1994 - not habitat-specific USA PSR and PSR/EUse of conceptual models in indicator

developmentConceptual Research paper

EU 1999 - not habitat-specific Europe DPSIR Development of indicators Conceptual Technical report

Gabrielsen and Bosh 2003 - not habitat-specific - DPSIR Reporting on indicators using DPSIR Conceptual Technical report

Green et al. 2005 - not habitat-specific - DPSIRMeasure biodiversity and reduce

biodiversity lossConceptual Essay

Hulme 2007 - not habitat-specific Europe DPSIRCharacterise the threat of alien

species to European biodiversityConceptual Book chapter

Mace and Baillie 2007 - not habitat-specific - DPSIRSelection of indicators and

measurement of biodiversityConceptual Research paper

Maes et al. 2013 - not habitat-specific Europe DPSIR

Propose a conceptual framework for

ecosystem assessment under Action 5

of the Biodiversity Strategy

ConceptualDiscussion paper -

Final

Maxim et al. 2009 - not habitat-specific - tetrahedral DPSIR Biodiversity Conceptual Research paper

Meyar-Naimi and Vaez-Zadeh 2012 - not habitat-specific -PSR, DSR, DPSIR,

DPSEA, DPSEEA

Environment, energy and health

related issuesConceptual Review paper

Müller and Burkhard 2012 - not habitat-specific - DPSIREcosystem services and ecological

indicatorsConceptual

Short

communication

Niemeijer and de Groot 2008 - not habitat-specific - eDPSIRFramework for selecting environmental

indicatorsConceptual Research paper

OECD 1993 - not habitat-specific - PSRFramework for developing and

selecting environmental indicatorsConceptual Monograph


38



Implementation

level

Type of

publication

Singh et al. 2009 - not habitat-specific - DPSIRSustainability assessment

methodologiesConceptual Review paper

Smeets and Weterings 1999 - not habitat-specific - DPSIR Reporting on indicators using DPSIR Conceptual Technical report

Spangenberg 2007 - not habitat-specific - PDBiodiversity loss and developing

preservation strategiesConceptual Research paper

Spangenberg et al. 2009 - not habitat-specific - DPSIRBiodiversity loss and developing

preservation strategiesConceptual Journal editorial

Svarstad et al. 2008 - not habitat-specific - DPSIR

Biodiversity (structuring and

communicating research about the

environment)


Tscherning et al. 2012 - not habitat-specific - DPSIR Revise the use of the DPSIR framework Conceptual Review paper

UNEP 2009 - not habitat-specific - DPSIR Vulnerability assessment Conceptual Manual

39

3.2. From Concepts to Assessments

The intricacy of interactions between drivers-pressures, and the relationship of pressures to state

changes, means that it is a complex task to undertake high level or quantitative assessments for

management purposes. Any individual method requires knowledge of all the potential causal chains and

state changes. The methodologies that might be applied can be broadly classified as a matrices

approach or as a form of ecosystem modelling. The assessment can only be as good as the knowledge

and detail applied.

3.2.1. Simple Matrices Approach

Matrices are simple tables where drivers (or, more specifically, the activities resulting from them) can be

related to pressures, and where pressures can be related to state changes. Such tables allow the

identification of chains formed by particular causal links and permit some form of linear analysis of the

impact chain (Knights et al., 2013).

The potential state changes caused by anthropogenic pressures in the marine environment, caused by a

series of specific activities, have previously been defined in terms of their adverse effects on a series of

receptors. Nevertheless, there remains a need to define the pressures (emanating from hazards) causing

the problems (as the adverse effects on receptors) and the risk relating to those hazards (Elliott et al.,

2014). The determination of the severity of the problems is then Risk Assessment (i.e. the movement of

D and P to S and I), which needs Risk Management (i.e. the use of R to D and P) as the outcome of the

responses under the DPSIR framework. Such information has been presented as a series of linked

matrices, allowing users to identify those biodiversity components within the marine environment that

are likely to be susceptible to damage by known pressures, as brought about by a defined activity. These

relationships effectively define the links between pressures and potential state changes.

Under this simple approach, the matrices record relationships between activity and pressures, and

between pressures and state changes. The relationships that are represented are complex with, for

example, any single activity potentially causing many pressures, and any single pressure being caused by

more than one activity (i.e. a many-to-many relationship).

The matrices that support this approach can be linked simply by an overlap (pressure X causes state

change Y) or through more detailed information on potential levels of interaction, for example showing

high/low or increasing/decreasing degrees of state change. The degree of state change caused by a


40

pressure on a habitat can be assessed in terms of: activity area or footprint, frequency, persistence, and

characteristics of the habitat/ecosystem component impacted, including sensitivity and resilience

(ability for recovery). Matrices and pressure assessment approaches have been used extensively and

their use has been explained in the ODEMM project (see, for example, Robinson and Knights, 2011;

Knights et al., 2011; Koss et al., 2011). Matrices are used as standard tools for pressure assessments, for

example by HELCOM and OSPAR (Johnson, 2008). Complex matrices and linkages can be compiled

through databases where the programming environment can be used to analyse data and use special

tools that filter data, for example, to highlight activities that need to be managed or sensitive ecological

components that might be at risk of state change (e.g. the PRISM and PISA Access database tools

developed through the U.K. Net Gain programme (Net Gain, 2011)). The accuracy or value of the matrix

approach will depend on identification of components, linkages and parameterisation for a particular

area. They are useful for assessments, and depending on how comprehensive they are, will give the

state changes; this will then allow users to predict the state changes under given circumstances.

3.2.2. Ecosystem Models

With the move towards ecosystem-based management, much attention has been devoted to ecosystem

modelling. These models may be conceptual (Section 3), deterministic (in which there is underlying

theory or embedded mathematical relationships) or empirical in which the links are described

statistically even when there is no apparent underlying theory. Some studies have focussed on the

management of particular aspects of the ecosystem (e.g. Robinson and Frid, 2003; Plagányi, 2007) whilst

other, more recent, studies concern the whole natural ecosystem and/or socio-ecological system (the

latter are referred to as ‘end-to-end’ models) model development/application (e.g. Rose et al., 2010;

Heath, 2012). In the context of the DEVOTES project (Piroddi et al., 2013), whole ecosystem models are

the more relevant as they may better represent interactions with biodiversity components and these

would for example include ECOPATH with ECOSIM, ATLANTIS or coupled lower trophic and high trophic

models (Rose et al., 2010) (see DEVOTES Deliverable 4.1. Report on available models for biodiversity and

needs for development).

The ability to apply models to drivers and pressure effects relies on knowledge of activities/pressures

and being able to parameterise accordingly. For example, if trawling is known to cause a 30% reduction

in suspension feeders in a modelled area, a 30% mortality figure can be applied to that biological

component (split over a temporal or spatial scale) with respect to trawling activity (Petihakis et al.,

2007). A specific model may not have the resolution to apply a precise mechanism, nor do models

currently include detail on habitats. Whilst pelagic habitats may be defined by salinity, temperature,

depth, nutrients, oxygen, etc., benthic habitats (an important setting for all species groups) are generally

41

not parameterised in any model. Nevertheless, such models may well be able to take into account

indirect effects such as changes in predator-prey relations.

3.2.3. Bayesian Belief Networks

Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs; also referred to as belief networks, causal nets, causal probabilistic

networks, probabilistic cause effect models, and graphical probability networks) offer a pragmatic and

scientifically credible approach to modelling complex ecological systems and problems, where

substantial uncertainties exist. A BBN is a graphical and probabilistical representation of causal and

statistical relationships across a set of variables (McCann et al., 2006). The structure consists of

graphically represented causal relationships (for example, the DPSIR D-P-S chain links) comprised of

nodes that represent component variables and causal dependencies or links based on an understanding

of underlying processes/relationships/association. Each node is associated with a function that gives the

probability of the variable represented by the node dependant on the upstream/parent nodes. Each

variable is populated with the best data available and can include expert opinion, simulation results or

observed data. It is therefore flexible and also allows the information to be easily updated as better data

become available (from Pollino et al., 2007; Hamilton et al., 2005).

Notwithstanding their potential, BBNs represent a relatively new modelling approach. They have only

been applied to marine assessments in a limited way (e.g. in the ELME project, Langmead et al., 2007).

However, BBNs are becoming an increasingly popular modelling tool, particularly in ecology and

environmental management. This is largely because they can be used in a predictive capacity and also,

because they use probabilities to quantify relationships between model variables, they explicitly allow

uncertainty and variability to be accommodated in model predictions (Barnard and Boyes, 2013). They

show high promise in adaptive management being iterative and especially in being able to mix and use

both empirical data and expert knowledge. Although their uptake has been slow, in future it is expected

that they will be used to a greater extent.

Within terrestrial studies, BBNs have been used in conjunction with State and Transition Models (STMs)

(e.g. Bashari et al., 2009). Because of their graphical and descriptive nature, STMs are excellent tools for

communicating knowledge regarding a system between scientists, managers, and policy makers.

However, because they are essentially descriptive diagrams, STMs on their own have only a very limited

predictive capability (which has restricted their practical application in scenario analysis), and their

coarse handling of uncertainty represents a further shortcoming. In applying STMs and BBNs to

rangeland management in south-east Queensland, Australia, Bashari et al. (2009) demonstrated an


42

approach which effectively linked an STM with a BBN to provide a relatively simple and dynamic model

that was able to accommodate uncertainty, and support scenario-, diagnostic- and sensitivity- analyses.

3.2.4. The BowTie approach

The BowTie method initially presents a conceptual model, which is increasingly being used to explore

the causes, consequences and responses relating to natural and anthropogenic causes of change (Smyth

and Elliott, 2014). It facilitates analysis or assessment of a defined problem by focusing attention onto

the areas of a system where the consequences of a potentially damaging event can be proactively

managed. The BowTie method is itself formed from a conceptual model that can be adapted to provide

for a graphical representation of the expansion of the initial DPSIR environmental cause-and-effect

pathway (Cormier et al., 2013). More specifically, it can be used to focus on the pathway between

Pressure and State Change, and provides a means of identifying where controls can be put in place

either to control the occurrence of a particular event, or to mitigate for the effects of the event should it

occur. A BowTie embodies various elements of risk causes, assessment and consequence associated

with the system under consideration and creates a clear differentiation between proactive and reactive

management options (Figure 8). As well as being a useful management tool in its own right, it also

serves as a key communication and consultation tool (Cormier et al., 2013).

Figure 8. A classic BowTie framework. Taken from www.cgerisk.com/knowledge-base/risk-assessment/thebowtiemethod

The start of any BowTie is the identification of a ‘Hazard’ – which is defined as part of the system under

consideration that has the potential to cause damage; it represents an element of the system which, if

control were to be lost, would generate negative consequences for the system. For example, within a

BowTie structure, an activity such as demersal trawling could be considered to be a Hazard.

43

Once a Hazard is been identified, the next step is to define the ‘Top event’. This represents the point

where control would be lost over the Hazard, but where as yet here is no damage or negative impact,

but it is imminent. This means that the Top Event is defined so as to be occurring just before events start

causing actual damage. For any Top Event, there are a number of ‘Threats’ that might cause the Top

Event, which if not prevented or mitigated could then lead to a set of ‘Consequences’: hence usually

there are several or many Threats and Consequences for every Top Event.

The final stage of building a basic BowTie model is to identify potential barriers which can be placed

either between the threat and the Top Event as a prevention measure or alternatively as a recovery,

mitigation or compensation mechanism preventing the Top Event from escalating into actual

consequences or reducing the severity of the consequences. The preventative measures can be

economic, governance, societal, political or technological devices, hence mapping on to the 10-tenets as

a set of actions required to give sustainable environmental management (Elliott, 2013). It is likely that

there may be several top events possibly occurring in any one area as the result of the Drivers such that

nested Bow Ties are required in any assessment of cumulative impacts (Cormier et al., in prep.).

Similarly, the consequence of the loss of control in one Bow Tie sequence may become the top event in

another. For example, the threat of the introduction of non-indigenous species may be a top event, the

consequence of which may be that an area fails Good Environmental Status (GEnS) under the MSFD. In

turn, the failure to meet GEnS will then become the Top Event which has legal and financial

consequences, each requiring mitigation (Smyth and Elliott, 2014).

The DPSIR framework can then be superimposed on the Bow-Tie structure given that the threats to the

top-event will be Drivers and/or Pressures and the top-event and consequences are likely to be the

State changes and/or Impacts. The barriers both as prevention measures and as mitigation or

compensation measures, constitute the Response within DPSIR. As such, this links to a Risk Assessment

and then Risk Management (RARM) framework as the need for responses to human pressures, which

then follows the set of steps outlined in Table 3.


44

Table 3. Stages in the assessment of risk leading to the need for risk management (from Elliott et al., 2014).

Stage Detail

1. Problem Formulation What needs to be assessed?

2. Hazard Identification What can go wrong? (What are the hazards?)

3. Cause Identification What can lead to the hazard occurring? (What causes the hazard?) Quantitative: How often or how likely is it that these causes will occur?

4. Exposure Assessment (This is a quantitative step that is not necessary but adds value to the risk assessment)

Quantitative: How does the hazard reach the receptor? At what intensity? How long for and/or how frequently does the hazard reach or affect the receptor? Quantitative: How likely is it that the receptors will be exposed to the hazard?

5. Consequence or Effect Identification

What are the consequences of the hazard if it occurs?

6. Risk Characterisation and Estimation for Consequences

What are the risks (quantitative or qualitative measure)? Quantitative: What is the probability of the consequence happening? Estimated for both before and after preventative and mitigation measures are put in place.

4. Cumulative Effects

Single activities can have multiple pressures and the marine ecosystem usually supports multiple

activities. Consequently multiples pressures will often be affect physico-chemical and ecological

components. The multiple pressures will rarely be equal and will lead to cumulative and in-combination

effects and such combinations may be synergistic, in which the sum of the effects is increased, or

antagonistic, in which effects may cancel each other. This section summarises some of the current

knowledge on cumulative effects and regional seas aspects.

In determining cumulative effects, it is important to note that synergism and antagonism may refer to

either a mechanistic- or an outcome-based sense, referring to either the mechanistic interactions

between drivers or to the resultant net outcome for an organism/population/community (Boyd and

Hutchins, 2012). This section relates to resultant outcomes, whereas the beginning of the next section

deals with mechanistic interactions.

45

When considering multiple pressures, resultant effects can act in many different ways (see Box 3). In

previous research, agents (particularly climatologically mediated) effecting environmental properties

have been defined as ‘stressors’ (Breitburg et al., 1998). In both theoretical and applied research, the

effect of multiple stressors was often assumed to be the additive accumulation of effects associated

with single stressors (Crain 2008) with the major difficulty of equating the impact of different

stressors/pressures relative to one another (even between or within different areas). Non-additive

concepts were introduced and defined by Folt et al. (1999); as well as additive effects, two stressors may

cause synergistic effects where the total effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects (for

example, two pollutants of low toxicity, each may have minor debilitating effects but combined may be

lethal) or antagonistic effects where the total effect is lesser than the sum of the individual effects. For

example, increases in coral calcification rates due to warming could partially counter the negative

effects of calcification of decreasing carbonate ion concentration due to ocean acidification (Lough and

Barnes, 2000). Synergistic effects are likely to be widespread (e.g. Sala et al., 2000).

Crain et al. (2008) analysed 171 studies concerning multiple stressors in marine and coastal

environments and included: salinity, sedimentation, nutrients, toxins, fishing, sea level rise,

temperature, CO2, UV exposure, species invasions, disease, hypoxia and disturbance (subset from

Halpern et al., 2007). The meta-analysis found multiple stressor effects, by study, to be 26% additive,

36% synergistic and 38% antagonistic, while interaction type varied by response level, trophic level, and

specific stressor pair. They noted that addition of a third stressor changed interaction effects

significantly in 66% of all cases and doubled the number of synergistic interactions. Response at the

community level tended to be antagonistic, whilst synergistic at the population level, suggesting that

species interactions within communities dampen and diffuse the impacts of multiple stressors that can

have strong negative effects on individual species. Consequently, species level-data where most studies

have taken place may have limited value in predicting community or ecosystem responses (Crain et al.,

BOX 3. M u l t i p l e P r e s s u r e / S t r e s s o r E f f e c t s

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The cumulative effects of Stressor a and Stressor b upon an ecosystem component can be defined as:

Additive Effect: result = a + b

Synergistic Effect: result > a + b

Antagonistic Effect: result < a + b


46

2008). In another meta-analysis of 112 experimental studies Darling and Cote (2008) found that the

majority of the combined effects of two stressors were similar to the previous study with 23% additive,

35% synergistic and 42% antagonistic, a consistent result across different stressors, organisms and life-

history stages. They concluded that synergies may be rarer than expected, but highlighted that 77% of

studies showed non-additive effects (synergistic plus antagonistic), which is unexpected from a

community or ecosystem-based conservation perspective where multiple stressors effects may be

unpredictable from individual stressors and may lead to ‘ecological surprises’ as defined earlier by Paine

et al. (1998). This makes it extremely difficult, and also inappropriate, to attempt to define a single

conceptual model to illustrate the links between pressures and state change.

Many authors have indicated our lack of knowledge at the community and ecosystem level elucidating

or predicting effects of combinations of individual pressure impacts, although we can measure the

status of an ecosystem that is impacted by multiple pressures. This reflects how we may know what we

have, but are unclear to exactly how it is happening at a sub-species, species, population or community

level.

4.1. Cumulative Impacts in Regional Sea Studies

Multiple activity/pressure impacts, as cumulative threats or cumulative impacts, have been investigated

according to the footprints of a particular driver/activity and their overlap with habitats using spatial

mapping/modelling. This approach does not consider additive/synergistic/antagonistic effects.

Cumulative impacts (including both overlap and weighted cumulative methods) have been investigated

at a global level by Halpern et al. (2008) with their global impact map shown in Figure 9, but also at the

European level, for example in the Baltic (Korpinen et al., 2013 – Figure 10), eastern North Sea

(Andersen et al., 2013) and the Mediterranean (Figure 11 and 12) by both Coll et al. (2011) and Micheli

et al. (2013), the latter two examples with some contrasting results in different geographical areas.

These techniques may not be of direct use in assessing State changes within the DEVOTES project but

may nevertheless be of value in spatial planning applications, for example, in identifying areas where

high levels of protection may be necessary. Similarly it is of note that the analysis by Halpern et al.

(2008) was of the presence of activities rather than, and despite the paper’s title, human impacts. It is

emphasised that an activity does not always have to lead to an impact especially if mitigation measures

are employed.

47

Figure 9. Global map of cumulative impacts from Halpern et al. (2008).

Figure 10. Baltic Sea cumulative impacts from Korpinen et al. (2013).


48

Figure 11. Mediterranean Sea cumulative impacts on invertebrate species from Coll et al. (2011).

Figure 12. Mediterranean Sea cumulative impacts from Micheli et al. (2013).

Phenomena that characterize the dynamics of multiple environmental issues have multiple causes and

represent the cause for many different other phenomena. The effects of several causes can be

synergistic or antagonistic, and causes and effects can interact in different ways (Maxim et al., 2009).

5. DPS Chains in the MSFD

As a major example of the complexity of interactions and considering just one sector (fishing) with one

activity (demersal trawling), activities exert multiple individual pressures affecting the seafloor

environment (see evidence in Blaber et al., 2000, and conceptual models McLusky and Elliott, 2004).

Demersal trawling results in the selective extraction of species but, amongst other effects, also brings

about the non-selective extraction of other living resources and causes abrasion to the seabed (scouring

and turning over the sediment as well as causing compaction and other changes in sediment structure).

49

As well as extraction, fishing vessels can also input various objects/elements into the marine

environment. From the identified list of MSFD pressures those potentially resulting from demersal

trawling are identified in Table 4, which highlights both primary and lesser trawling pressures.

In turn, the pressures may act on specific habitats in a particular area, where the trawling activities are

taking place (Table 5). The habitats could be said to define what biological components may potentially

be present (e.g. shallow sublittoral muddy sand may have seagrass present) and are in some cases a link

between pressures and ecological components.

Table 4. Standard pressures (25) in the marine environment identified from various sectoral activities (Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EC, 2008)) and ODEMM project - (Koss et al., 2011)). Bold highlighted (dark grey), primary pressures by demersal trawling activities; weakly highlighted (light grey), lesser pressures by demersal trawling.

MSFD Pressures

Smothering Nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment

Substratum loss Input of organic matter

Changes in siltation Introduction of microbial pathogens

Abrasion Introduction of non-indigenous species

Selective extraction of non-living resources Selective extraction of species

Underwater noise Death by injury and collision

Marine litter Barrier to species movement

Thermal regime changes Emergence regime change

Salinity regime changes Water flow rate changes

Introduction of synthetic compounds pH changes

Introduction of non-synthetic compounds Electromagnetic changes

Introduction of radionuclides Change in wave exposure

Introduction of other substances


50

Table 5. Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) habitats impacted by demersal trawling (from the defined list of Predominant Habitats related to monitoring (adapted for DEVOTES from EU Commission Decision (2010/477/EC) and the EU Commission Staff Working Papers (EC, 2011, 2012)). Bold highlighted: strongly impacted to demersal trawling. Benthic habitats: littoral (approx. 0-1 m – intertidal zone), shallow sub-littoral (approx. 1-60 m), shelf sub-littoral (approx. 60-200 m), upper bathyal (approx. 200-1100 m), lower bathyal (approx. 1100-2700 m), abyssal (approx. >2700m).

MSFD Habitats (Predominant Habitats related to monitoring)

Littoral rock and biogenic reef Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef

Littoral sediment Upper bathyal sediment

Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef

Shallow sublittoral coarse sediment Lower bathyal sediment

Shallow sublittoral sand Abyssal rock and biogenic reef

Shallow sublittoral mud Abyssal sediment

Shallow sublittoral mixed sediment Reduced salinity water

Shelf sublittoral rock and biogenic reef Variable salinity (estuarine) water

Shelf sublittoral coarse sediment Marine water: coastal

Shelf sublittoral sand Marine water: shelf

Shelf sublittoral mud Marine water: oceanic

Shelf sublittoral mixed sediment Ice-associated habitats

Table 6. Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) environmental characteristics impacted by demersal trawling (adapted for DEVOTES from EU Commission Decision (2010/477/EC) and the EU Commission Staff Working Papers (EC, 2011, 2012)). Bold highlights indicate groups that are strongly influenced by demersal trawling.

MSFD Environmental Characteristics

Bathymetry Mixing characteristics

Topography Turbidity

Sediment composition Residence time

Temperature Salinity

Ice cover Nutrients

Current velocity Oxygen

Upwelling pH

Wave exposure pCO2

Within any one habitat, the different pressures may affect several environmental characteristics (Table

6). These characteristics also define/affect the niches of species groups (Table 7) such that following a

51

pressure, the environmental characteristics may no longer be suitable for that species group. Each of

those species groups has structural and functional characteristics (Table 8) that may be affected to

various extents. Although most of the effects that have been highlighted are direct, there are indirect

affects for example through damage or habitat modification or changes to predator prey relationships.

Table 7. Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Species Groups impacted by demersal trawling (adapted for DEVOTES from EU Commission Decision (2010/477/EC) and the EU Commission Staff Working Papers (EC, 2011, 2012)). Bold highlights indicate groups that are strongly influenced by demersal trawling; light highlights indicates lesser influence by demersal trawling,

MSFD Species Groups

Microbes Fish

Phytoplankton Cephalopods

Zooplankton Birds

Angiosperms Reptiles

Macroalgae Marine Mammals

Benthic invertebrates

Table 8. Structural and Functional type characteristics impacted by demersal trawling (adapted for DEVOTES from EC 2008). Bold highlights indicate structural and functional characteristics that are strongly influenced by demersal trawling; light highlights indicate characteristics subject to lesser influence by demersal trawling.

Structural Characteristics Functional Characteristics

Species composition Functional Diversity

Species distribution/range Productivity

Species variability Fecundity

Abundance Survival

Age/Size structure Mortality

Biomass and ratios Bioturbation

Population Dynamics & Condition Predator-Prey Processes

Non-indigenous species Energy Flows

Chemical levels/contaminants

Although presented simplistically, the situation is always complex. Different degrees of pressure can

lead to different state change trajectories, for example, something causing large scale direct mortality

will immediately cause a reduction in species, abundance, biomass, diversity, community structure

change, etc., and the duration of this will be dependent on the nature of the habitat and its recovery

potential (Duarte et al., 2013). This then determines the severity and timescale of wider impacts (e.g. at

higher trophic levels). Alternatively, the pressure could just cause damage (e.g. crushing, loss or


52

damaged limbs or shells through collision with fishing gear) so that energy is allocated to individual

recovery rather than growth/reproduction etc. In the long term, biomass, some components of

population and community may be compromised with wider effects at ecosystem level. These impacts

may take longer to manifest at higher levels and may occur over longer timescales. Some of these

aspects are explored further in Section 6.

6. DEVOTES Conceptual Framework

6.1. Refined conceptual model of pressure-state change

relationships

Whilst it is well understood that pressures on environmental systems can result in varying degrees of

state change, and that this can cause a loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, the process by which

those impacts occur is complex. For a single, specific pressure, the relationship between pressure and

impact varies according to the degree of pressure (e.g. spatial extent, duration and/or frequency,

intensity), the habitat type upon which the pressure is acting, the component species and those species

in the wider ecosystem which they support. This gives rise to a large number of potential pressure-state-

change trajectories which increase in complexity when potentially synergistic or antagonistic

combinations of activities and pressures are acting simultaneously (Section 4). It is therefore not

possible to produce a single, informative conceptual model that fully describes pressure-state change

relationships. Similarly, it would be incorrect to force complex processes into over-simplified models.

This section presents example models that describe the generic processes leading to impacts for a

selection of activities, pressures, habitat types and biological components. It is emphasised however

that the specific, detailed trajectories will be site/system specific and specific to the nature of the

activities and their associated pressures.

Pressure is defined as the mechanism through which a state change occurs (Robinson et al., 2008) and

current attempts to link pressure with state change assume pressure to act as a single mechanism

leading to state change (Robinson and Knights, 2011; Knights et al., 2011; Koss et al., 2011). Within this

definition, pressure is more specifically viewed as the cause of a series of physico-chemical and

biological state changes to the environment which, through lethal or sub-lethal processes, compromise

the performance or survival of the component level of biological organisations (cell, individual,

population (species, or community) (Figure 13). For example, the physical structure of the environment

53

may be rendered unsuitable to support the existing biological community, thus leading to changes in

species composition and relative abundance.

Achievement of State change can be a progressive process and whilst changes to the structure of the

physico-cehmical and biological components may be classed as state changes, paradoxically they may

also be viewed as the mechanisms through which a pressure acts to cause a biological state change

(Figure 13). For example, a change to the substratum type due to an activity is a physico-chemical state

change and at the same time is a mechanism (and hence a pressure) causing a biological state change in

the benthos. It is emphasised that, whilst most pressures are associated with physical state changes (e.g.

hydrodynamic changes, substratum changes), the direct removal of species, the introduction of non-

indigenous species and the input of microbial contaminants represent biological mechanisms of change.

These physico-chemical and biological modifications to the environment lead to a series of biological

state changes, which can occur at any level (e.g., cellular, physiological, individual, population,

community, ecosystem) (Figure 13). At a cellular or individual level, the response may be lethal

(referring to loss) as a result of direct mortality associated with the pressure, direct removal (e.g. by

fishing gear) or emigration, or sublethal. Lethal responses can have immediate, direct effects on an

individual population and community (and ultimately ecosystem) structure in terms of the species

composition, their relative abundance and biomass, total population and community biomass, trophic

interactions and other functional attributes such as primary and secondary production and

biogeochemical cycling. Sublethal responses relate to physical, chemical or biological damage caused by

the pressure at an individual level, whereby the organism survives but its performance and, therefore,

contribution to ecosystem processes is compromised.

Collectively, these physico-chemical and biological changes to the environment and associated biological

responses lead to an overall state change which may initially be at a localised population and

community level but, if severe enough and sustained, may also lead to state changes in interacting

populations, communities and at the ecosystem level (Figure 13). The ultimate degree of state change at

a community or ecosystem level associated with lethal and sub-lethal mechanisms of state change may

be broadly similar but the severity, timescales over which those state changes occur and their duration

will differ.

Despite this, the inherent variability and complexity throughout the levels of biological organisation may

mean that an effect at a lower level does not necessarily manifest itself at higher levels, i.e. stressors at

lower levels (e.g. cellular, individual) may get absorbed so that the higher levels (e.g. population,


54

community, ecosystem) do not show any deleterious effects. The ability to absorb that stress has been

termed environmental homeostasis (Elliott and Quintino, 2006). Hence a stressor does not

automatically lead to a high-level ecological effect.

55

Figure 13. Generic conceptual model showing the progression of physico-chemical and biological state changes arising from pressures in the marine environment. The black arrows under the diagram indicate the way in which pressure can cause a biological state change at any level: either (1) progressively through a sub-lethal response at the individual level which, over time, can lead to state changes at higher levels or (2) directly by acting at a higher level, leading to more immediate community and ecosystem state changes.


56

The sequence of biological state changes will vary according to:

degree of pressure (spatial extent, intensity, duration, frequency) and whether it leads to lethal or sub-lethal effects;

type of pressure;

habitat sensitivity and the potential for disturbance and recovery of the physical attributes;

sensitivity of the component species and communities and their recovery potential;

sensitivity of the balance of interactions within and between habitats and biological components.

The pressures associated with demersal trawling are described in section 5. Taking the abrasion

pressure as a specific example, and assuming a subtidal sedimentary (mud/sand) habitat, there are a

number of physical state changes that may arise and which may, in turn, lead to a series of biological

state changes (Figure 14).

The physical state changes associated with abrasion can be divided into those that cause immediate

biological state change at higher biological levels (community/ecosystem), for example, by direct

mortality, and those that cause a progressive state change over an extended time period through a

sequence of physico-chemical state changes and state changes at different levels of biological

organisation (e.g. through a modification of the physical environment). This leads to two different

trajectories of state change (lethal and sub-lethal) which act over different timescales and may

ultimately differ in severity and longevity (Figures 13, 14).

With respect to sub-lethal effects (upper row of Figure 14), in sedimentary habitats, the pressure

‘abrasion’ can lead to sediment homogenisation, change in the particle size characteristics and organic

content of the sediment, changes in the sedimentation regime and changes to sediment stability and

consolidation (Figure 14). Since the composition of the substratum is directly linked to the inhabiting

species (Snelgrove and Butman, 1994), such changes, if severe enough or sustained for long enough, will

act as physical mechanisms that result in overall changes to biological community structure by rendering

the habitat unsuitable for long term survival, larval settlement and recruitment (Alexander et al., 1993).

Similarly, the removal of species will affect a feedback loop whereby the organisms modify the

sedimentary conditions through bioturbation, bioengineering, biodeposition, etc. (e.g. Gray and Elliott,

2009). Additionally, those organisms that are more mobile may simply relocate to other areas. Whilst

this leads to species loss, it also presents opportunities for colonisation by new species leading to an

overall change in community structure. Coupled with this may be a change in community function, as

species are lost and replaced by functionally different species. Under this scenario, there would be a

57

degree of change in abundance, biomass and secondary production (and perhaps species richness and

diversity), which may impact on wider ecosystem processes. Whilst this impact would be more gradual

than in the second (lethal effects) scenario, and may be counteracted to an extent by colonisation by

new species, overall community structure and function may nevertheless be altered.

Additionally, sub-lethal effects may arise through (for example) morphological damage (caused by

interaction with fishing gear) and the associated physiological stress, changes in the physico-chemical

parameters of the water column (e.g. dissolved oxygen, suspended solids), clogging of respiratory

structures, inability to feed or burrow and behavioural modifications. Subsequently, somatic growth and

reproductive capacity may be compromised as a result of, for example, increased respiration rate,

increased ammonia production in response to stress, re-allocation of resources to survival and recovery

(e.g. Widdows et al., 1981) or evolutionary adaptations that enable accelerated maturation and early

reproduction at the expense of ultimate body size (Mollet et al., 2007; Elliott et al., 2012). These effects

may initially be apparent at the individual or population level but if sustained, will ultimately lead to

changes in abundance, biomass and function at community and ecosystem level.

With respect to lethal effects (the lower row of Figure 14, relating to mortality or direct removal)

immediate state changes at the population and community level within a habitat are likely to include a

reduction in the biomass and abundance of both target and non-target species. In the longer term, and

particularly where demersal trawling is repetitive and frequent, a sustained reduction in species richness

and diversity may occur, coupled with changes to community structure. Population structure in

disturbed habitats may also be altered, particularly in longer-lived species, whereby individuals of a

certain size class are selectively removed or where species of a more opportunistic nature allocate

resources to reproductive output rather than somatic production resulting in a population dominated by

small and or/young individuals. Ultimately, these state changes will result in an overall loss of secondary

production which, coupled with altered predator-prey interactions, will lead to alterations of higher

ecosystem processes.

In terms of timescale, and with reference to the ability of MSFD indicators to detect state change, this

could potentially be a relatively acute process, with state changes at population and community level

being immediately detectable. The duration would depend on the sensitivity of the species and habitats,

their recovery potential (or their potential to recover to an alternative state which supports wider

ecosystem processes) and the intensity of the pressure (or causative activity). It would also depend on

the processes in the first (sub-lethal) scenario, since the two do not occur in isolation, whereby physical

and biological changes to the environment will influence recovery rates and trajectories.


58

Both of these scenarios (lethal and sub-lethal) have the potential to ultimately lead to changes in

population and community structure, overall community biomass and primary/secondary production,

fragmentation and overall negative effects at higher trophic levels and wider ecosystem processes. The

difference between the scenarios lies in the complexity/detail trajectory between the application of a

pressure and the resultant state change.

59

Figure 14. State change trajectory initiated by the pressure abrasion (for example, as caused by demersal trawling) in a subtidal sedimentary habitat. MSFD:

Marine Strategy Framework Directive.


60

6.2. The state change conceptual model in the context of risk

assessment

The pressure-state change conceptual model (Figures 13 and 14) has been conceived to accommodate

the multiple pathways that can link a pressure to a series of state changes and to allow express

consideration of the range of initial biological or physico-chemical state changes that may result from

any given pressure and which through lethal or sub-lethal processes, compromise the performance or

survival of an ecological component and so may bring about state change detected by MSFD descriptors

(e.g. at the population, community or ecosystem level).

However, as emphasised earlier, it is important to recognise that whilst the scenario (Figure 14) relates

only to a single pressure, abrasion, this pressure may potentially arise as the result of a number of

different activities (Table 9).

As with the basic pressure-state change model that underpins the simple matrix approach (Section

3.2.1.), each of the stages within the conceptual model (Figure 14) are characterised by a series of

many-to-many relationships. This can be set in the context of the MSFD by visualising these links as they

relate to an MSFD descriptor. For example, Figure 15 shows the range of physico-chemical state changes

that may lead to loss of sea floor integrity (i.e. effectively those changes that arise due to abrasion) and

the consequent range of potential (biological) state changes that may result at the individual,

population, community or ecosystem level.

61

Table 9. Activities (by sector) that may give rise to the pressure of seabed abrasion

Sector Activity

Aquaculture (including marine biotechnology based on aquaculture)

Set-up of fin-fish aquaculture facilities (interaction with seafloor during set-up of infrastructure, loss of gear)

Operation of fin-fish aquaculture facilities (waste products, anti-fouling, predator control, disease and disease control, infrastructure effects on local hydrography, escapees, litter, anchoring/mooring of boats)

Set-up of macro-algae aquaculture facilities (trampling (certain species), interaction with seafloor, removal of habitat-structuring species, loss of gear)

Operation of macro-algae aquaculture facilities (waste products, anti-fouling, predator control, disease and disease control, infrastructure effects on local hydrography, litter, anchoring/mooring of boats)

Set-up of shellfish aquaculture (interaction with seafloor when dredging for brood stock, loss of gear, litter)

Operation of shellfish aquaculture (waste products, anti-fouling, predator control, disease and disease control, infrastructure effects on local hydrography, litter, anchoring/mooring of boats)

Fishing Operation of benthic trawls and dredges (interaction with seafloor, catch, bycatch, waste products)

Operation of benthic trawls and dredges - mooring/anchoring (interaction with seafloor)

Operation of suction/hydraulic dredges (interaction with seafloor, catch, bycatch, waste products)

Operation of suction/hydraulic dredges - mooring/anchoring (interaction with seafloor)

Shipping Mooring/anchoring/beaching/launching (interaction with seafloor)

Renewable Energy Construction of wind farms (installation/deinstallation of turbines on seafloor includes interaction with seafloor, habitat change and sealing, laying cables)

Construction of wave energy installations (cable laying/removing - localised habitat change, noise)

Construction of tidal sluices (interaction with seafloor, localised sealing of habitat)

Construction of tidal barrages (interaction with seafloor, habitat change (upstream and downstream) and localised sealing of habitat, barrier to movement for migratory anadromous or catadromous species)

Non-renewable Energy (oil, gas and hydro)

Exploration/construction of oil and gas facilities (drilling, anchoring, construction of wellheads, laying pipelines, oil spills) and subsequent decommissioning (anchoring, oil spills, removal of infrastructure where relevant)

Construction of (land-based, coastal) power stations (jetties and intake wells - habitat change, sealing, increased turbidity, noise)

Construction of (land-based, coastal) nuclear power stations (jetties and intake wells - habitat change, sealing, increased turbidity, noise)

Telecommunications Installation/laying of communication cables (localised habitat change and smothering, interaction with seafloor, atmospheric emissions from ships laying cables)


62

Table 9. (Cont.)

Sector Activity

Aggregates Maerl extraction - removal of substrate (habitat change, interaction with seafloor, removal of habitat-structuring species)

Coastal rock/mineral quarrying - extraction of substrate (habitat change, interaction with seafloor, contaminant release)

Sand/gravel aggregate extraction - removal of substrate (habitat change, interaction with seafloor, contaminant release)

Navigational Dredging Capital dredging - extraction of substrate (habitat change, interaction with seafloor, contaminant release, increased turbidity, noise)

Maintenance dredging and associated extraction of substrate (habitat change, interaction with seafloor, contaminant release, increased turbidity, noise)

Coastal Infrastructure Construction of artificial reefs (interaction with seafloor, habitat change)

Construction of culverted lagoons (interaction with seafloor, habitat change, smothering, increased turbidity, noise)

Construction of marinas and dock/port facilities (habitat change, sealing, interaction with seafloor, smothering, increased turbidity, noise)

Operation of marinas and dock/port facilities (anti-fouling, contaminants, interaction with seafloor from anchoring, litter)

Construction of land claim projects (habitat change, smothering, increased turbidity, noise)

Construction of coastal defences - sea walls/breakwaters/groynes etc (habitat change, sealing, interaction with seafloor, smothering, increased turbidity, noise)

Tourism/Recreation Angling (catch, bycatch, interaction with seafloor (gear, and anchors if offshore))

Boating/Yachting/Diving/Water sports - mooring/anchoring/beaching/launching (interaction with seafloor)

Public use of beach - general (trampling, litter)

Construction of tourist Resort (habitat change, sealing, smothering, increased turbidity, noise)

Military Military activity - mooring/anchoring/beaching/launching (interaction with seafloor)

Research Research operations (specific to activity but can include: interaction with seafloor, catch, bycatch)

Harvesting/Collecting Bait digging - (trampling, interaction with seafloor, removal of habitat-structuring species)

Seaweed and saltmarsh vegetation harvesting (trampling, interaction with seafloor, removal of habitat-structuring species)

Bird egg collection - (trampling, removal of individuals)

Shellfish hand collecting - (trampling, interaction with seafloor, removal of individuals)

Collection of peels/peeler crabs (boulder turning) - (trampling, removal of individuals)

Collection of curios - (trampling)

63

Figure 15. Physical state changes associated with abrasion that potentially lead to an overall loss of seafloor integrity, and consequent biological state changes (at population, community or ecosystem level) that would be detected by Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) indicators.

Whilst the full range of possible relationships is extremely complex and impossible to show

diagrammatically, it may be possible to define certain critical causal pathways by filtering the range of

potential causal chains by considering only one specific instance within any one of the intermediary

stages. Such a filter could be based on a particular physical mechanism, or on a given activity and MSFD

descriptor. For example, for a given activity a range of physical state changes may be brought about. In

turn these state changes may potentially affect a number of MSFD descriptors, as well as giving rise to a

range of biological state changes. It is important to note that the pressures (and the consequent

physico-chemical and biological state changes) do not occur in isolation but, notwithstanding this, this

model structure lends itself to assessment using a BowTie approach and so provides a linkage between

consideration of the pressure-state change element of the DPSIR framework and RARM methodologies

(see Section 3.2.4.).

As indicated above, the approach recommended here is a linked DPSIR and BowTie system, hence using

DPSIR-BT. This then aligns with Cormier et al. (2013) who indicated that the BowTie method supports

the expansion of the initial DPSIR environmental cause-and-effect pathway. Again, by having the Threats

Deliverable 1.1. Conceptual models for pressure links

64

as Drivers and Pressures, and the Main Event and Consequences as State Changes and Impacts, then the

link between these constitutes the Risk Assessment. The Risk Management then comprises of the

Responses to the Drivers, Pressures and State changes by placing preventative and

mitigation/compensation measures in the framework. Hence, we emphasise that the DEVOTES

Conceptual model of DPSIR-BT also aligns with the demands of RARM (Risk Assessment and Risk

Management). Following this, it is then straightforward to link this approach to the implementation of

the MSFD. For example, in so doing, considering the failure to attain GEnS for a MSFD descriptor as both

a state change and as an intermediary stage between physical state changes on the one hand and

consequential biological state changes on the other is important; it allows a formalised assessment to be

made of possible controls to remove or reduce the production of the physical mechanism and/or

opportunities to mitigate its effects.

7. Data Challenges in Moving from Conceptual

Frameworks to Assessments

In making an assessment concerning an environmental or management issue, there are many challenges

in moving from a conceptual framework to a data-based or expert judgement-based analysis. These

challenges involve the identification of all the components and their linkages (e.g. DPS) within the

greater problem, components data/indicators and their quality or thresholds, etc. In the following

section, these issues/challenges are described further including data availability, equality of data from

different areas, assessment scales and scaling up assessments, and finally confidence in the

assessments.

7.1. Regional Seas

The regional seas surrounding Europe cover around 11,220,000 km2 (EEA, 2014) and include a wide

range of environmental conditions and different ecosystems, which vary in diversity and sensitivity. The

particular characteristics of each area play a key role in the types of human activities developed there,

and consequently, in the pressures that take place. An ecosystem overview of the European regional

seas is available in the DEVOTES Deliverables D1.4 (Patrício et al., 2014) and D3.1 (Teixeira et al., 2014).

These highlight the specific features of those areas that could be relevant to regional monitoring

programs and give context to the existing indicators and the observed gaps.

65

Pressures in one regional area may not elicit the same response (impact or spatial/temporal scale of

impact) in another area because of differing conditions. For example, the Mediterranean Sea is

characterised by high salinity, high temperatures, predominantly wind driven or water mass difference

driven currents, deep water, oligotrophic sea with a fauna exhibiting low abundance and biomass. In

contrast northern waters have opposing characteristics where, for example, tidally driven mixing may

distribute the effects of a pressure in a very different impact footprint.

The regional seas also have contrasting developmental and socio-economic situations and issues

resulting in different complex and fragmented governance systems (Raakjaer et al., 2014), levels of

legislation and compliance. Although each of the regional seas have their own conventions (see Box 4)

with similar objectives and targets, the strength and applications greatly differ from the northern

Regions to the Mediterranean and Black Sea reflecting the cohesiveness of EU Member States and

related developed countries to the areas bordered by a higher number of non-EU Member States with

lower states of development, lower standards of living and higher degrees of regional instabilities.

An outcome of geographically differing stages of development is generally seen in the status and depth

of monitoring programmes that can produce data required in assessments in terms of Drivers, Pressures

and State change. Whilst aided by the establishment of conventions and directives, there still may be

large differences between nations in one regional sea where monitoring programmes may not be

contiguous across bordering nations or where the extent and quality of the data may differ.

BOX 4. R e g i o n a l S e a s F u n d a m e n t a l C o n v e n t i o n s

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

North-East Atlantic: The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic – Oslo and Paris conventions (adopted 1974, revised and combined into OSPAR Convention 1992, in force 1998)

Baltic Sea: Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention), adopted 1974, in force 1980, revised 1992, in force 2000)

Mediterranean Sea: The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention); adopted on 16 February 1976, in force 12 February 1978; revised in Barcelona, Spain, 9-10 June 1995 as the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (not yet in force).

Black Sea Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (Bucharest Convention); adopted 1992, in force 1994.

From UNEP (Regional Seas Conventions and Protocols. UNEP and Partner Programmes. www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/hconlist.html#pp)

http://www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/hconlist.html#pp


66

7.2. Data Availability

Within a causal link framework and to provide the route for management, indicators and their

component indices/metrics are needed to determine the level of pressure, and changes in state and in

the impact (e.g. Aubry and Elliott, 2006). To do this, the beginning or end points of the gradient of state

change can be used to determine targets or reference conditions for the assessment of the indicators

(see Borja et al., 2012). These changes in state need to be assessed by developing assessment methods

or indices such as those within the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) (Birk et al., 2012).

However, they need to be validated and calibrated against independent abiotic datasets. Taking into

consideration the MSFD descriptors, some of them can be related to pressures, whilst others, such as

biological diversity (D1), non-indigenous species (D2), food-webs (D4) and seafloor Integrity (D6), are

related to state change (Figure 16). Therefore, data collection and analysis is needed to assess the

effects that activities could have on the physical, chemical and biological quality of the marine

environment.

Figure 16. Diagram showing the relationships between drivers, pressures, state of change, impacts and responses, together with the way in which they can be assessed and the relationship with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive descriptors (D). BPJ: Best professional judgment. Modified from Borja et al. (2012).

Considering that the DEVOTES assessments will require drivers, pressures and state-change, the

available data catalogued in the DEVOTES project is a valuable starting point (see following sections).

However, it has to borne in mind that the same pressure can be caused by several activities and can

produce a different state-change depending on the location where is produced. Therefore, for a

particular assessment in a geographical area, the identification of all the relevant activities, pressures,

states and their indicators is necessary in each case. Moreover, in order to assess the status of the

marine environment, there is also the need to identify the linkages (cause-effect interactions) between

67

them. ODEMM’s linkage framework (Koss et al., 2011 and Knights et al., 2013), for example, provides a

means to fully evaluate all components that can affect the GEnS achievement in a fully integrated

ecosystem assessment.

Applying the framework presented here relies on having not only indices of change but also baselines,

thresholds and targets against which to judge that change. In addition, there is the need to define the

inherent variability (‘noise’) against which the ‘signal’ of change is measured. Each of these requires a

fit-for-purpose data background for each biological and physico-chemical component relevant to a

particular stressor. Given that for many activities, the amount of pressure required to produce a given

state change and thus impact on human welfare is unknown then the amount of data required to

determine and asses the state change is also unknown. Furthermore, although power analysis could be

used to determine the amount of data required to implement the Risk Assessment framework described

here, that cannot be used unless the inherent variability in the components is known. Because of this, it

is likely that the approaches advocated here will continue to be semi-qualitative at best and reliant on

expert judgement (see below).

7.2.1. Drivers

As previously noted in Section 3.1.1, approximately 20 standard sectors and over 100 activities have

been defined and characterised through several projects (e.g. ODEMM, CO-EXIST, VECTORS). At the

European level, the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet;

http://www.emodnet.eu/) is currently developing a portal (http://www.emodnet-

humanactivities.eu/index.php) which will provide access to marine data for some of the human

activities considered in the ODEMM project. Although currently few data sets are available, in the near

future the parameters considered should include the geographical position and spatial extent of many

marine activities. At a regional sea level, geographic data on human activities are available for some

seas, due to the work done by some Regional Seas Conventions. In the OSPAR Maritime Area, for

example, activities such as offshore wind-farms, offshore installations or marine protected areas are

mapped (www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=01511400000000_000000_000000), while in the

HELCOM area (http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html) a wider range of activities are

included. Additionally, ocean databases are available for some European countries, which have mapped

a wide range of human uses of the marine environment. The German CONTIS maps (developed by the

BSH, www.bsh.de/en/Marine_uses/Industry/CONTIS_maps/index.jsp), for example, present the spatial

extent of individual uses (e.g., on shipping, exploitation of resources, planned offshore wind farms or

environmentally sensitive areas) and interfaces with other users in the German continental shelf, for

both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. The Coastal Atlas of Belgium (www.coastalatlas.be/map/) also

http://www.coastalatlas.be/map/


68

has digital geographic data on uses of the North Sea, while the functions and uses of the Dutch

Continental Shelf are shown in the pdf maps available at the Noordzeeloket web page

(www.noordzeeloket.nl/en/functions-and-use/). In the UK, The Crown Estate gives a general overview

of the coastal and offshore marine activities in regularly updated maps and/or GIS data

(www.thecrownestate.co.uk/).

7.2.2. Pressures

The DEVOTES Deliverable D1.4 (Patrício et al., 2014) analyses the gaps in monitoring networks related

with pressures per analysed at Regional Sea and subregional level. The interactive maps prepared

identify the pressures that are currently being assessed, considering the full pressures list. The list

originated from the MSFD (EC, 2008) with added emergent or current threats identified in the ODEMM

project (Koss et al., 2011), and additional unmanageable widespread pressures (exogenous pressures or

climate change) added in the DEVOTES project (Mazik et al., 2013): a total of 31 standard pressures.

Overall, monitoring programmes undertaken within the European marine regions address all considered

pressures; however, not all pressures are assessed in all subregions (some of the implemented

programmes have demonstrated capability to assess up to 20 pressures at once, but most programmes

assess four or less pressures). It should be noted that even where these pressures are monitored, their

impact on many biodiversity components is not well understood and therefore, cannot be used

quantitatively in the environmental assessment although a semi-quantitative or expert judgement

approach may provide a valuable starting point.

7.2.3. State-Change

The DEVOTES Deliverable D3.1 Catalogue of Indicators (Teixeira et al., 2014) reviews of the current

capabilities of the existing environmental indicators, in the context of the MSFD. It shows the availability

of the indicators for addressing specific relevant pressures in the EU regional seas and can be queried

through DEVOTool, a special software tool developed to host the catalogue (www.devotes-

project.eu/devotool/). This catalogue is complementary to the DEVOTES Deliverable D4.1 Catalogue of

Model-derived Indicators (Piroddi et al., 2013). Analysis of the catalogue has shown that, for European

regional seas, gaps exist mainly for indicators to address ecosystem structure, processes and functions,

indicators for genetic diversity, the effects of non-indigenous invasive species, and indicators related to

food-web structure and functioning (productivity and size distribution).

69

7.3. Assessment Scales and scaling up to regional seas

The connections between ecosystem features and human activities (and their related pressures) should

determine the appropriate scale at which an ecosystem-based approach should be implemented.

Defining these scales and their boundaries is an imperative for any ecosystem-based approach

management (EEA, 2014).

For a well monitored small bay, a comprehensive assessment can be normally made, because the

drivers, pressures and state-changes could be well understood, mapped and assessed. However, at a

larger scale, some issues may be well known, but some are not; some areas have quantitative data,

some have no-data, and a more widespread range of very differing habitats may be included. As Borja et

al. (2013) have pointed out, the fundamental challenge of arriving at a regional quality status is by either

having a broad approach and omitting or down-weighting point-source problems or summing the point-

source problems (which may cover only a very small area) to indicate the quality status of the whole

area. State-change becomes much more complicated and diverse. An important problem could also be

the mismatch between the quantitative pressure information and the quantitative information from

different descriptors and biodiversity components, at large scale (i.e. regional or sub-regional sea),

making the assessment of the response of indicators of change at such large level difficult. During the

phase of implementation of the MSFD, and the baseline assessment on the state of marine waters in the

EU has allowed a better understanding of pressures and impacts from human activities on marine life.

Although most Member States have reported on most descriptors, providing a very broad overview of

the marine environment in Europe, the quality of reporting varies widely from country to country, and

within individual Member States, from one descriptor to another (EC, 2014).

In addition, when different countries are involved in the assessment, the relevant information may

come from many different sources, which each have their own assessment timescales, aims, indicators,

criteria, targets and baseline values. In the ODEMM project, the available information on the status and

trends of ecological characteristics, impacts on those characteristics, and pressures from human

activities, by regional sea, have been identified. The summary information is a useful compendium of all

recent status assessments by regional sea (Knights et al., 2011).

7.4. Levels of Confidence

A conceptual framework such as DPSIR allows the view of key components and interactions of an

ecosystem problem. However when moving to the next step of assessment, involving the use and

distillation of a wide variety of data, confidence in the outcome becomes an issue for both the assessors


70

and the users of the assessment. The level of confidence in an assessment depends on the degree of

uncertainty associated with the basis for the determination, including the adequacy of available data,

knowledge, and understanding about the environmental component being assessed, the proposed

technology, the nature of the project-environment interaction, and the efficacy of proposed mitigation

(Horvath, 2013). Determining the degree of uncertainty also requires distinguishing between lack of

knowledge and natural variability (Hoffman and Hammonds, 1994). Uncertainty in the future forecasted

state (due to lack of long-term data sets and historical data and/or spatio-temporal variability of a

biological indicator) as well as uncertainty in the resulting ecosystem state post management action

present challenges in target setting (Knights et al., 2014b). In most cases, uncertainty is addressed

through monitoring programmes that have adequate spatio-temporal coverage (Borja et al., 2010),

although the absence of reference conditions or clear targets to be achieved makes it difficult to

establish an accurate assessment (Borja et al., 2012). However, confidence can also be given through a

range of methods from cumulative qualitative assessment of each metric and, for example, a traffic-light

overall confidence assessment to a separate quantitative confidence metric (e.g. Anderson et al., 2010).

Despite this, the largest amount of uncertainty lay in the fact that the end points of any assessment (as

the determination of deviation from that expected in a physico-chemical or biological component) are

poorly defined. If the agreed targets against which indices and metrics are judged as not sufficiently well

defined, then the status of the area is uncertain. Hence, in determining whether an area is in GEnS due

to a low pressure influence may indicate that, for example, there is 60% confidence that the area is in

good status and 40% that it is not. This may be decided for one of the Descriptors but as yet the final

rules on aggregating Descriptors (and criteria and indices) have not yet been agreed (see Borja et al., in

press). Hence, any uncertainty for any one Descriptor in defining GEnS is then compounded across all

the Descriptors.

8. Concluding remarks

This document has defined, described and reviewed Conceptual Frameworks for management and

assessment purposes as well as refining the methodology for biodiversity assessments. By showing the

predominant use of the DPSIR framework and its derivatives as a Risk Assessment and Risk Management

tool, this report presents the generic approach and shows that there is a practical limit regarding the

value of conceptual models and diagrams. Whilst they are of value in an abstract or generic application,

the underlying complexity of the systems under consideration means that specific applications cannot

be easily shown diagrammatically. In such instances, and in common with earlier work that considered

71

simple pressure-impact linkages, the most straightforward option for assessing specific examples of this

conceptual model is to record relationships between successive stages by means of matrices.

Subsequently, matrices and linkages can be compiled within a database and interrogated and analysed

by means of interactive data filters. Such an approach facilitates the extraction of information for

specific stages of the overall process, which can then be used as the input to other techniques, such as

BowTie analysis.

In emphasising the complexity of the marine system, here we show that although creating a system

which covers all eventualities (all activities, pressures, state changes and impacts on human welfare and

the links between these) is a laudable aim, it is more profitable to focus on a problem-based approach.

Hence for any specific area (e.g. a Regional Sea, eco-region or sub-ecoregion) to determine the ranked

priority pressures based on the number of activities. Each of these can then be addressed through the

proposed DPSIR-BowTie (DPSIR-BT) linked approach in which we can address the main risks and hazards

creating pressures, and thus the Main Event of concern (Smyth and Elliott, 2014).

The challenge for marine management, as shown here, is to apply that linked DPSIR-BT approach for the

area being managed. As shown here, by focussing on the Risk Assessment approach, i.e. the pressures

as mechanisms causing the State Changes and Impacts on Human Welfare (and so ultimately impacting

on Ecosystem Services and Societal Benefits, a la Atkins et al. (2011)), then by definition management

measures for prevention and mitigation/compensation can be implemented; hence the latter being the

Responses under DPSIR and the means by which the Responses address the Drivers and Pressures (and

State changes) becomes the Risk Management framework (see Elliott, 2014 in press).

A further challenge, again given the complexity of the marine system, its uses and users, is its ability to

respond to Exogenic Unmanaged Pressures as well as the Endogenic Managed Pressures, the latter the

focus of much of the current review. Although outside the scope of the current review, superimposed

on the activity-pressure-state change (impact) chain described here is external pressures such as climate

change. Hence management not only has to provide the Responses to the causes and consequences of

change due to system internal pressures but also the Responses to the consequences of external

pressures. Because of this, the application of the proposed scheme to cumulative and in-combination

pressures, as discussed here, is also an imminent challenge. It is of note that ICES (2014) has

recommended that the BowTie framework is used to address cumulative and in-combination pressures

and their consequences.


72

9. References

Alexander RR, Stanton (Jr) RJ, Dodd JR (1993) Influence of sediment grain size on the burrowing of bivalves: correlation with distribution and stratigraphic persistence of selected Neogene clams. Palaios, 8(3), 289-303.

Andersen JH, & Stock A, (eds.), Mannerla M, Heinänen S, Vinther M (2013) Human uses, pressures and impacts in the eastern North Sea. Aarhus University, DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy. 136 pp. Technical Report from DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 18. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/TR18.pdf

Aliaume C, Do Chi T, Viaroli P, Zaldívar JM (2007) Coastal lagoons of Southern Europe: recent changes and future scenarios. Transitional Waters Monographs 1: 1-12.

Andrulewicz E (2005) Developing the DPSIR framework of indicators for management of human impact on marine ecosystems, Baltic Sea example. In Gönenc IE et al. (Eds), Assessment of the fate and effects of toxic agents on water resources. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Atkins JP, Burdon D, Elliott M, Gregory AJ (2011). Management of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with DPSIR framework in a systems approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 215-226.

Aubry A, Elliott M (2006) The use of environmental integrative indicators to assess seabed disturbance in estuaries and coasts: application to the Humber Estuary, UK. Marine Pollution Bulletin 53: 175-185.

Azevedo A, Sousa AI, Lencarte-Silva JD, Dias JM, Lillebo AI (2013). Application of the generic DPSIR framework to seagrass communities of Ria de Aveiro: a better understanding of this coastal lagoon. Journal of Coastal Research 65: 19-24.

Barnard S, Boyes SJ (2013) Review of Case Studies and Recommendations for the Inclusion of Expert Judgement in Marine Biodiversity Status Assessments - A report for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. JNCC Report No. 490 by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, University of Hull.

Bashari H, Smith C, Bosch OJH (2009) Developing decision support tools for rangeland management by combining state and transition models and Bayesian belief networks. Agricultural Systems 99: 23-34.

Bell S (2012) DPSIR = A Problem Structuring Method? An exploration from the "Imagine" approach. European Journal of Operational Research 222: 350-360.

Berger AR, Hodge RA (1998) Natural change in the environment: a challenge to the pressure-state-response concept. Social Indicators Research 44: 255-265.

Bidone EB, Lacerda LD (2004) The use of DPSIR framework to evaluate sustainability in coastal area. Case study: Guanabara Bay basin, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Regional Environmental Change 4: 5-16.

Birk S, Bonne W, Borja Á, Brucet S, Courrat A. Poikane S, Solimini A, van de Bund W, Zampoukas N, Hering D (2012) Three hundred ways to assess Europe's surface waters: An almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive. Ecological Indicators 18: 31-41.

Blaber SJM, Albaret J-J, Ching CV, Cyrus DP, Day JW, Elliott M, Fonseca D, Hoss J, Orensanz J, Potter IC, Silvert W, (2000) Effects of fishing on the structure and functioning of estuarine and nearshore ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 590-602.

Borja Á, Dauer DM (2008) Assessing the environmental quality status in estuarine and coastal systems: comparing methodologies and indices. Ecological Indicators 8: 331-337.

Borja Á, Dauer DM, Grémare A (2012) The importance of setting targets and reference conditions in assessing marine ecosystem quality. Ecological Indicators 12: 1-7.

Borja Á, Elliott M, Carstensen J, Heiskanen A-S, van de Bund W (2010) Marine management – Towards an integrated implementation of the European Marine Strategy Framework and the Water Framework Directives. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 2175-2186.

http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/TR18.pdf

73

Borja Á, Elliott M, Andersen JH, Cardoso AC, Carstensen J, Ferreira JG, Heiskanen A-S, Marques JC, Neto JM, Teixeira H, Uusitalo L, Uyarra MC, Zampoukas N (2013) Good Environmental Status of marine ecosystems: What is it and how do we know when we have attained it? Marine Pollution Bulletin 76: 16-27.

Borja Á, Galparsoro I, Solaun O, Muxika I, Tello EM, Uriarte A, Valencia V (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: 88-96.

Borja Á, Prins T, Simboura N, Andersen JH, Berg T, Marques JC, Neto JM, Papadopoulou N, Reker J, Teixeira H, Uusitalo L (in press) Tales from a thousand and one ways to integrate marine biodiversity components when assessing the environmental status. Frontiers in Marine Science. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2014.00022.

Bowen RE, Riley C (2003) Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management 46: 299-312.

Boyd PW, Hutchins DA (2012) Introduction: Understanding the responses of ocean biota to a complex matrix of cumulative anthropogenic change. Marine Ecology Progress Series 470: 125-135.

Breen P, Robinson LA, Rogers SI, Knights AM, Piet G, Churilova T, Margonski P, Papadopoulou N, Akoglu E, Eriksson A, Fineko Z, Fleming-Lehtinen V, Galil B, Goodsir F, Goren M, Kryvenko O, Leppanen JM, Markantonatou V, Moncheva S, Oguz T, Paltriguera L, Stefanova K, Timofte F, Thomsen F (2012) An environmental assessment of risk in achieving good environmental status to support regional prioritisation of management in Europe. Marine Policy 36(5): 1033-1043.

Breitburg DL, Baxter JW, Hatfield CA, Howarth RW, Jones CG, Lovett GM, Wigand C (1998) Understanding effects of multiple stressors: ideas and challenges. In: Pace ML, Groffman PM (eds) Successes, limitations, and frontiers in ecosystem science, Chapter 17. Springer Verlag, New York, p 416−431.

Bricker SB, Ferreira JG, Simas T (2003) An integrated methodology for assessment of estuarine trophic status. Ecological Modelling 169: 39-60.

Briggs D (2003) Making a difference: indicators to improve children’s environmental health. World Health Organization, Geneva, 13 pp.

Burkhard B, Müller F (2008) Driver - Pressure - State - Impact - Response. In Jørgensen SE, Fath BD (Eds), Ecological Indicators, Vol 2 of Encyclopedia of Ecology, 5 vols. pp. 967-970 Oxford, Elsevier.

Carr ER, Wingard P, Yorty S, Thompson M, Jensen N, Roberson J (2007) Applying DPSIR to sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 14: 543-555.

Casazza G, Silvestri C, Spada E (2002) The use of bio-indicators for quality assessments of the marine environment: examples from the Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Coastal Conservation 8: 147-156.

Cave RR, Ledoux L, Turner K, Jickells T, Andrews JE, Davies H (2003) The Humber catchment and its coastal area: from UK to European perspectives. The Science of the Total Environment 314-316: 31-56.

Coll M, Piroddi C, Albouy C, Ben Rais Lasram F, Cheung WWL, Christensen V, Karpouzi V, Guilhaumon F, Mouillot D, Paleczny M, Palomares ML, Steenbeek J, Trujillo P, Watson R, Pauly D (2011) The Mediterranean Sea under siege: spatial overlap between marine biodiversity, cumulative threats and marine reserves. Global Ecology and Biogeography 21: 465–480.

Cooper P (2012) The DPSWR social ecological accounting framework: notes on its definition and application. Policy Brief No 3. EU FP7 KNOWSEAS Project. ISBN 0-9529089-5-6.

Cooper P (2013) Socio-ecological accounting: DPSWR, a modified DPSIR framework, and its application to marine ecosystems. Ecological Economics 94: 106-115.

Cormier R, Kannen A, Elliott M, Hall P, Davies IM (Eds.) (2013) Marine and coastal ecosystem-based risk management handbook. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 317. 60 pp.

Cox M, Scheltinga D, Rissik D, Moss A, Counihan R, Rose D (2004) Assessing condition and management priorities for estuaries in Australia. Proceedings of the Coastal Zone Asia Pacific Conference 2004: Improving the Quality of Life in Coastal Areas. 5-9 September 2004, Brisbane. pp 551-557.

Crain CM, Kroeker K, Halpern BS (2008) Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecology Letters 11: 1304.


74

Cranford P, Kamermans P, Krause G, Mazurié J, Buck BH, Dolmer P, Fraser D, Nieuwenhove KV, O'Beirn FX, Sanchez-Mata A, Thorarinsdóttir GG, Strand O (2012) An ecosystem-based approach and management framework for the integrated evaluation of bivalve aquaculture impacts. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 2: 193-213.

Curtin R, Prellezo R (2010) Understanding marine ecosystem based management: a literature review. Marine Policy 34: 821-830.

Darling ES, Cote IM (2008) Quantifying the evidence for ecological synergies. Ecology Letters 11:1278-1286.

Delbaere B (2003) An inventory of biodiversity indicators in Europe, 2002. Technical report No 92. EEA, Copenhagen, 42 pp.

Dolbeth M, Lillebø AI, Alves FL, Sousa L, Stålnacke P, Zarruk KK, Gooch GD, Baggett S, Khokhlov V, Loret J, Bielecka M, Rozynski G, Margonski P, Chubarenko B (2014) Integrated pan-European view for coastal lagoons management: a nested DPSIR approach. Conference on European Climate Change Adaptation - Research and Practice, 11 March.

Duarte CM, Borja A, Carstensen J, Elliott M, Krause-Jensen D, Marbà N (2013) Paradigms in the Recovery of Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts, in press. DOI 10.1007/s12237-013-9750-9

EC (2008) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union. L164: 19-40.

EC (2010) EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (2010/477/EU).

EC (2011) European Commission Staff Working Paper (CSWP) Relationship between the initial assessment of marine waters and the criteria for good environmental status, Brussels, 14.10.2011. SEC(2011) 1255 final.

EC (2012) European Commission Staff Working Paper (CSWP) Guidance for 2012 reporting under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, using the MSFD database tool. Version 1.0. DG Environment, Brussels, pp 164.

EC (2014) COM(2014) 97 final. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). The European Commission's assessment and guidance {SWD(2014) 49 final}. http://www.fishsec.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/com_2014_97.pdf

EEA (1999) Environmental indicators: Typology and overview. Technical report No.25, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. 19 pp.

EEA (2014) Marine messages. Our seas, our future – moving towards a new understanding. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/marine-messages.

EEA (2013) Balancing the future of Europe's coasts - knowledge base for integrated management, EEA, Copenhagen, 64 pp. ISBN 978-92-9213-414-3.

EEA (Online) http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/terminology/concept_html?term=dpsir

Elliott 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: iii-vii.

Elliott M (2011) Marine Science and management means tackling exogenic unmanaged pressures and endogenic managed pressures - a numbered guide. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 651-655.

Elliott M (2014) Integrated marine science and management: wading through the morass. Marine Pollution Bulletin, in press.

Elliott M, Burdon D, Callaway R, Franco A, Hutchinson T, Longshaw M, Malham S, Mazik K, Otto Z, Palmer D, Firmin C, Smith T, Wither A 2012. Burry Inlet cockle mortalities investigation 2009-2011. Final technical report to Environment Agency (Wales), 17 January 2012. Available online: http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/gewa0112bwap-e-e.pdf.

Elliott M, Burdon D, Hemingway KL (2006). Marine ecosystem structure, functioning, health and management and potential approaches to marine ecosystem recovery: a synthesis of current understanding. Report: YBB092-F-2006. IECS, The University of Hull, UK, 122 pp.

http://www.fishsec.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/com_2014_97.pdf

http://www.fishsec.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/com_2014_97.pdf

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/marine-messages

75

Elliott M, Quintino V (2007) The Estuarine Quality Paradox, Environmental Homeostasis and the difficulty of detecting anthropogenic stress in naturally stressed areas. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 640-645.

EPA (1994) A Conceptual Framework to Support the Development and Use of Environmental Information. Environmental Statistics and Information Division. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. EPA 230-R-94-012, USEPA, Washington D.C.

EPA (2008) Indicator development for estuaries. Washington DC, EPA842-B-07-004, 138 pp.

EEA (1999) State and pressures of the marine and coastal Mediterranean environment. EEA, Copenhagen, 44 pp. FAO (Online) www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Refer/EnvIndi.htm

Escaravage V, Herman PMJ, Heip CHR (2006) Nutrient dynamics in European water systems - the management perspective emerging from ELOISE, a European cluster of land-ocean interaction studies. Environmental Sciences 3: 97-112.

EU (1999) Towards environmental pressure indicators for the EU. First Edition 1999. European Union. 181 pp.

Fassio A, Giupponi C, Hiederer R, Simota C (2005) A decision support tool for simulating the effects of alternative policies affecting water resources: an application at the European scale. Journal of Hydrology 304: 462-476.

Fehling A (2009) Marine application of the Driver-Pressure-Impact-Response (DPSIR) - framework. University of Kiel, Ecology Centre, Ms Environmental Science.

Fock HO, Kloppmann M, Stelzenmüller V (2011) Linking marine fisheries to environmental objectives: a case study on seafloor integrity under European maritime policies. Environmental Science & Policy 14: 289-300.

Folt CL, Chen CY, Moore MV, Burnaford J (1999) Synergism and antagonism among multiple stressors. Limnology and Oceanography 44: 864−877.

Gabrielsen P, Bosch P (2003) Environmental indicators: typology and use in reporting. EEA internal working paper. EEA, Copenhagen, 20 pp.

Gari SR (2010) The use of DPSIR and SAF for the management of eutrophication in the Ria Formosa. MSc Thesis. University of Algarve, Portugal, 106 pp.

Garmendia M, Bricker S, Revilla M, Borja A, Franco J, Bald J, Valencia V (2012) Eutrophication assessment in Basque estuaries: comparing a North American and a European method. Estuaries and Coasts 35: 991-1006.

Gibbs M, Cole A (2008) Oceans and coasts as complex adaptive systems. In: Patterson MG, Glavovic BC (eds) Ecological Economics of the Oceans and Coasts. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. p 74-91.

Gimpel A, Stelzenmuller V, Cormier R, Floeter J, Temmings A (2013) A spatially explicit risk approach to support marine spatial planning in the German EEZ. Marine Environmental Research 86: 56-69.

Giupponi C (2002) From the DPSIR reporting framework to a system for a dynamic and integrated decision making process. MULINO Conference on "European policy and tools for sustainable water management", 21-23 November, Venice, Italy.

Giupponi C (2007) Decision Support Systems for implementing the European Water Framework Directive: The MULINO approach. Environmental Modelling & Software 22: 248-258.

Gray JS, Elliott M, (2009) Ecology of Marine Sediments – From Science to Management, second ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Green RE, Balmford A, Crane PR, Mace GM, Reynolds JD, Turner RK (2005) A framework for improved monitoring of biodiversity: responses to the World Summit on sustainable development. Conservation Biology 19: 56-65.

Haberl H, Gaube V, Díaz-Delgado R, Krauze K, Neuner A, Peterseil J, Plutzar C, Singh SJ, Vadineanu A (2009) Towards an integrated model of socioeconomic biodiversity drivers, pressures and impacts. A feasibility study based on three European long-term socio-ecological research platforms. Ecological Economics 68: 1797-1812.

Hamilton G, Alston C, Chiffings T, Abal E, Hart B, Mengersen K (2005) Integrating Science through Bayesian Belief Networks: Case study of Lyngbya in Moreton Bay. In: Proceedings of International Congress on Modelling and Simulation 2005, 12‐15 December 2005, Melbourne, Victoria.

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Refer/EnvIndi.htm


76

Halpern BS, Selkoe KA, Micheli F, Kappel CV (2007) Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conservation Biology 21: 1301–1315.

Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel CV, Micheli F, D’Agrosa C, Brunoa JF, Casy KS, Ebert C, Fox HE, Fujita R, Heinemann D, Lenihan HS, Madin EMP, Perry MT, Selig ER, Spalding M, Steneck R, Watson R (2008) A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319: 948–952.

Heath MR (2012) Ecosystem limits to food web fluxes and fisheries yields in the North Sea simulated with an end-to-end food web model. Progress in Oceanography 102: 42-66.

Henriques S, Pais MP, Costa MJ, Cabral H (2008) Development of a fish-based multimetric index to assess the ecological quality of marine habitats: the Marine Fish Community Index. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56: 1913-1934.

Hills JM, Schoen G, Nadcrinicinii A (2013) Climate change vulnerability and impact assessment review for the Black Sea region. CLIMBIZ - Black Sea Trade and Investment Programme, UNDP – Athens.

Hoffman FO, Hammonds JS (1994) Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. Risk Analysis 14(5): 707-712.

Holman IP, Rousevell MDA, Shackley S, Harrison PA, Nicholls RJ, Berry PM, Audsley E (2005) A regional, multi-sectoral and integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK: Part I. Methodology. Climatic Change 71: 9-41.

Horvath CL (2013) Confidence, Uncertainty, and Risk in Environmental Assessment. 'IAIA13 Conference Proceedings' Impact Assessment the Next Generation 33rd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment 13 – 16 May 2013, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 6pp. (http://www.iaia.org/conferences/iaia13/proceedings/Final%20papers%20review%20process%2013/Confidence,%20Uncertainty,%20and%20Risk%20in%20Environmental%20Assessment.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Hulme PE (2007) Biological invasions in Europe: drivers, pressures, states, impacts and responses. In: Hester R, Harrison RM (eds) Biodiversity under threat. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 56-80.

ICES (2014) Report of the joint RIJKSWATERSTAAT/DFO/ICES workshop: Risk Assessment for Spatial Management (WKRASM), 24-28 February 2014, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ICES CM 2014 /SSGHIE:07. 35 pp (draft).

Johnson D (2008) Environmental indicators: their utility in meeting the OSPAR Convention’s regulatory needs. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1387–1391.

Jongbloed R, Jak R, Bolman B (2011) Deliverable D1.5 Characterisation of ecosystems. EU FP7 COEXIST Project. Project Number 245178. 89 pp.

Kannen A, Jedrasik J, Kowalewski M, Oldakowski B, Nowacki J (2004) Assessing catchment-coast interactions for the Bay of Gdansk. Coastline Reports 2: 155-165.

Kannen A, Burkhard B (2009) Integrated assessment of coastal and marine changes using the example of offshore wind farms: the coastal futures approach. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 18: 185-272.

Karageorgis AP, Skourtos MS, Kapsimalis V, Kontogianni AD, Skoulikidis NT, Pagou K, Nikolaidis NP, Drakopoulou P, Zanou B, Karamanos H, Levkov Z, Anagnostou C (2005) An integrated approach to watershed management within the DPSIR framework: Axios River catchment and Thermaikos Gulf. Regional Environmental Change 5: 138-160.

Karageorgis A, Kapsimalis V, Kontoganni A, Skourtos M, Turner RK, Salomons W (2006) Impact of 100-year human interventions on the deltaic coastal zone of the Inner Thermaikos Gulf (Greece): A DPSIR framework analysis. Environmental Management 38: 304-315.

Karakos A, Skoulikaris X, Monget J-M, Jerrentrup H (2003) The broadcasting on internet of water DPSIR indicators. Experiments on the Nestos delta, Greece. Global Nest 5: 81-87.

Kelble CR, Loomis DK, Lovelace S, Nuttle WK, Ortner PB, Fletcher P, Cook GS, Lorenz JJ, Boyer JN (2013) The EBM-DPSER Conceptual Model: Integrating Ecosystem Services into the DPSIR Framework. PLoS ONE 8(8): e70766. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070766

http://www.iaia.org/conferences/iaia13/proceedings/Final%20papers%20review%20process%2013/Confidence,%20Uncertainty,%20and%20Risk%20in%20Environmental%20Assessment.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1



77

Knights AM, Culhane F, Hussain SS, Papadopoulou KN, Piet GJ, Raakær J, Rogers SI, Robinson LA, (2014b) A step-wise process of decision-making under uncertainty when implementing environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy 39, 56-64.

Knights AM, Koss RS, Papadopoulou N, Cooper LH, Robinson LA (2011) Sustainable use of European regional seas and the role of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Deliverable 1, EC FP7 Project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool. ISBN: 978-0-906370-63-6: 165 pp.

Knights AM, Piet GJ, Jongbloed RH, Tamis JE, White L, Akoglu E, Boicenco L, Churilova T, Kryvenko O, Fleming-Lehtinen V, Leppanen J-M, Galil BS, Goodsir F, Goren M, Margonski P, Moncheva S, Oguz T, Papadopoulou KN, Setälä O, Smith CJ, Stefanova K, Timofte F, Robinson LA (2014a) An exposure-effect approach for evaluating ecosystem-wide risks from human activities. submitted Biological Conservation.

Knights AM, Koss RS, Robinson LA (2013) Identifying common pressure pathways from a complex network of human activities to support ecosystem-based management. Ecological Applications 23: 755-765.

Knudsen S, Zengin M, Koçak MH (2010) Identifying drivers for fishing pressure. A multidisciplinary study of trawl and sea snail fisheries in Samsun, Black Sea coast of Turkey. Ocean & Coastal Management 53: 252-269.

Korpinen S, Meidinger M, Laamanen M (2013) Cumulative impacts on seabed habitats: An indicator for assessments of good environmental status. Marine Pollution Bulletin 74: 311-319.

Koss RS, Knights AM, Eriksson A, Robinson LA (2011) ODEMM Linkage Framework Userguide. ODEMM Guidance Document Series No.1. EC FP7 project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool, ISBN:978-0-906370-66-7.

Lange M, Burkhard B, Garthe S, Gee K, Kannen A, Lenhart H, Windhorst (2010) Analyzing Coastal and Marine Changes: Offshore Wind Farming as a Case Study. Zukunft Küste - Coastal Futures Synthesis Report. LOICZ Research & Studies No. 36. GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht, 212 pp.

Langmead O, McQuatters-Gollop A, Mee LD (eds) (2007) European lifestyles and marine ecosystems: exploring challenges for managing Europe's seas. Plymouth, UK. University of Plymouth Marine Institute, 43 pp.

Langmead O, McQuatters-Gollop A, Mee LD, Friedrich J, Gilbert AJ, Gomoiy M-T, Jackson EL, Knudsen S, Minicheva G, Todorova V (2009) Recovery or decline of the northwestern Black Sea: A societal choice revealed by socio-ecological modelling. Ecological Modelling 220: 2927-2939.

Ledoux L, Turner RK (2002) Valuing ocean and coastal resources: a review of practical examples and issues for further action. Ocean & Coastal Management 45: 583-616.

Ledoux L, Beaumont N, Cave R, Turner RK (2005) Scenarios for integrated river catchment and coastal zone management. Regional Environmental Change 5: 82-96.

Licht-Egger K (2007) Scenarios as a tool for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) - how to handle the aspects of quality of life? Coastline Reports 8: 265-275.

Lin T, Xue X-Z, Lu C-Y (2007) Analysis of coastal wetland changes using the "DPSIR" model: a case study in Xiamen, China. Coastal Management 35: 289-303.

Lough JM, Barnes DJ (2000) Environmental controls on growth of the massive coral Porites. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 245:225−243.

Lundberg C (2005) Conceptualizing the Baltic Sea Ecosystem: an interdisciplinary tool for environmental decision making. AMBIO 34: 433-439.

Mace GM, Baillie JEM (2007) The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators: challenges for science and policy. Conservation Biology 21: 1406-1413.

Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Liquete C, Braat L, Berry P, Egoh B, Puydarrieux P, Fiorina C, Santos F, Paracchini ML,Keune H, Wittmer H, Hauck J, Fiala I, Verburg PH, Condé S, Schägner JP, San Miguel J, Estreguil C, Ostermann O, Barredo JI, Pereira HM, Stott A, Laporte V, Meiner A, Olah B, Royo Gelabert E, Spyropoulou R, Petersen JE, Maguire, C, Zal N, Achilleos E, Rubin A, Ledoux L, Brown C, Raes C, Jacobs S, Vandewalle M, Connor D, Bidoglio G (2013) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 57 pp.


78

Mangi SC, Roberts CM, Rodwell LD (2007) Reef fisheries management in Kenya: preliminary approach using the driver-pressure-state-impacts-response (DPSIR) scheme of indicators. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 463-480.

Marinov D, Galbiati L, Giordani G, Viaroli P, Norro A, Bencivelli S, Zaldívar JM (2007) An integrated modelling approach for the management of clam farming in coastal lagoons. Aquaculture 269: 306-320.

Martins JH, Camanho AS, Gaspar MB (2012) A review of the application of Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework to fisheries management. Ocean & Coastal Management 69: 273-281.

Mateus M, Campuzano FJ (2008) The DPSIR framework applied to the integrated management of coastal areas. In: Neves R, Baretta JW, Mateus M (eds) Perspectives on integrated coastal zone management in South America, 29-42. IST Press, p 29-42.

Maxim L, Spangenberg JH, O'Connor M (2009) An analysis of risk for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework. Ecological Economics 69(1): 12-23.

Mazik K, Papadopoulou N, Elliot M, (2013) Working definition of pressure adopted for DEVOTES. DEVOTES document. Dissemination level public. 6 pp.

McCann RK, Marcot BG Ellis R (2006) Bayesian belief networks: applications in ecology and natural resource management. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne de Recherche Forestiere 36: 3053-3062.

McGeoch MA, Butchart SHM, Spear D, Marais E, Kleynhans EJ, Symes A, Chanson J, Hoffmann M (2010) Global indicators of biological invasion: species numbers, biodiversity impact and policy responses. Diversity and Distributions 16: 95-108.

Meller L, van Teeffelen AJA, van Minnen J, Vermaat J, Alkemade R, Hellmann F, Cabeza M (2012) A matrix of Biodiversity Indicators. RESPONSES Deliverable D5.2.

Meyar-Naimi H, Vaez-Zadeh S (2012) Sustainable development based energy policy making frameworks, a critical overview. Energy Policy 43: 351-361.

Meybeck M, Lestel L, Bonté P, Moilleron R, Colin JL, Rousselot O, Hervé D, Pontevès C, Grosbois C, Thévenot DR. 2007. Historical perspective of heavy metals contamination (Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb, Zn) in the Seine River basin (France) following a DPSIR approach (1950-2005). Science of the Total Environment 375: 204-231.

Micheli F, Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Ciriaco S, Ferretti F, Fraschetti S, Lewison R, Nykjaer L, Rosenberg AA (2013) Cumulative Human Impacts on Mediterranean and Black Sea Marine Ecosystems: Assessing Current Pressures and Opportunities. PLoS ONE 8(12): e79889. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079889

Mollet FM, Kraak SBM, Rijnsdorp AD (2007) Fisheries-induced evolutionary changes in maturation norms in the North Sea sole Solea solea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 351: 189-199.

Mylopoulos J (1992) Conceptual modeling and Telos1. In Loucopoulos P, Zicari R, Conceptual Modeling, Databases, and Case: An integrated view of information systems development. Wiley. New York, pp. 49–68.

Mysiak J, Giupponi C, Rosato P (2005) Towards the development of a decision support system for water resource management. Environmental Modelling & Software 20: 2013-214.

Müller F, Burkhard B (2012) The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 1: 26-30.

Ness B, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2010) Structuring problems in sustainability science: the multi level DPSIR framework. Geoforum 41: 479-488.

Net Gain (2011) Net Gain Final Recommendations Submission to Natural England and JNCC. V 1.1. The North Sea Marine Conservation Zones Project. Hull, UK. 880 pp.

Newton A, Icely JD, Falcão M, Nobre A, Nunes JP, Ferreira JG, Vale C (2003) Evaluation of eutrophication in the Ria Formosa coastal lagoon, Portugal. Continental Shelf Research 23: 1945-1961.

Newton A, Icely J, Cristina S, Brito A, Cardoso AC, Colijn F, Riva SD, Gertz F, Hansen J, Holmer M, Ivanova K, Leppakoski E, Mocenni C, Mudge S, Murray N, Pejrup M, Razinkovas A, Reizopoulou S, P]erez-Ruzafa A, Schernewski G, Schubert H, Seeram L, Solidoro C, Viaroli P, Zald]ivar J-M (2014) An overview of ecological status, vilnerability and future perspectives of European large shallow, semi-enclosed coastal lagoons and transitional waters. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 140: 95-122.

79

Newton A, Weichselgartner J (2014) Hotspots of coastal vulnerability: a DPSIR analysis to find societal pathways and responses. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 140: 123-133.

Niemeijer D, de Groot RS (2008) Framing environmental indicators: moving from causal chains to causal networks. Environment, Development and Sustainability 10: 89-106.

Nunneri C, Turner RK, Cieslak A, Kannen A, Klein RJT, Ledoux L, Marquenie JM, Mee LD, Moncheva S, Nicholls RJ, Salomons W, Sardá R, Stive MJF, Vellinga T (2005) Group report: integrated assessment and future scenarios for the coast. In: Vermaat JE et al. (eds.) Managing European Coasts: Past, Present, and Future. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 271–290.

Nunneri C, Hofmann J (2005) A participatory approach for Integrated River Basin Management in the Elbe catchment. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 62: 521-537.

OECD (1993) OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews. A Synthesis Report by the Group on the State of the Environment. OECD, Paris. 35 pp.

Ostoich M, Critto A, Marcomini A, Aimo E, Gerotto M, Menegus L (2009) Implementation of Directive 2000/60/EC: risk-based monitoring for the control of dangerous and priority substances. Chemistry and Ecology 25: 257-275.

Ojeda-Martínez C, Casalduero FG, Bayle-Sempere JT, Cebrián CB, Valle C, Sanchez-Lizaso JL, Forcada A, Sanche-Jerez P, Martín-Sosa P, Falcón JM, Salas F, Graziano M, Chemello R, Stobart B, Cartagena P, Pérez-Ruzafa A, Vandeperre F, Rochel E, Planes S, Brito A (2009) A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 52: 89-101.

Omann I, Stocker A, Jäger J (2009) Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: an application of the DPSIR approach. Ecological Economics 69: 24-31.

Ou C-H, Liu W-H (2010) Developing a sustainable indicator system based on the pressure-state-response framework for local fisheries: a case study of Gungliau, Taiwan. Ocean & Coastal Management 53: 289-300.

Pacheco A, Carrasco AR, Vila-Concejo A, Ferreira O, Dias JA (2007) A coastal management program for channels located in backbarrier systems. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 119-143.

Panov VE, Alexandrov B, Arbačiauskas K, Binimelis R, Copp GH, Grabowski M, Lucy F, Leuven RS, Nehring S, Paunović M, Semenchenko V, Son MO (2009) Assessing the risks of aquatic species invasions via European inland waterways: from concepts to environmental indicators. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 5: 110-126.

Paine RT, Tegner MJ, Johnson EA (1998) Compounded perturbations yield ecological surprises. Ecosystems 1: 535–545.

Patr cio J, Little S, Mazik K, Thomson S, Zampoukas N, Teixeira H, Solaun O, Uyarra MC, Papadopoulou N, Kaboglu G, Bucas M, Churilova T, Kryvenko O, Moncheva S, Stefanova K, Borja A, Alvarez M, Zenetos A, Smith C, Zaiko A, Danovaro R, Carugati L, Elliott M (2014) Report on SWOT analysis of monitoring. Deliverable 1.4. Devotes Project. 100 pp + 4 Annexes.

http://www.devotes-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DEVOTES_D1-4_Report-on-SWOT-analysis-of-monitoring.pdf

Petihakis G, Smith CJ, Triantafyllou G, Sourlantzis G, Papadopoulou K-N, Pollani A, Korres G (2007) Scenario testing of fisheries management strategies using a high resolution ERSEM–POM ecosystem model. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 1627-1640.

Pinto R, de Jonge VN, Neto JN, Domingos T, Marques JC, Patrício J (2013) Towards a DPSIR driven integration of ecological value, water uses and ecosystem services for estuarine systems. Ocean & Coastal Management 72: 64-79.

Piroddi C, Lynham C, Teixeira H, Smith C, Alvarez M, Mazik K, Andonegi E, Churilova T, Tedesco L, Chifflet M, Chust W, Galparsoro I, Garcia AC, Kamari M, Kryvenko O, Lasalle G, Neville S, Niquil N, Papadopoulou N, Rossberg A, Suslin S, Uyarra MC (2013) Available models for biodiversity and needs for development Deliverable 4.1 Devotes Project. 32 pp + 6 Annexes.




80

Pirrone N, Trombino G, Cinnirella S, Algieri A, Bendoricchio G, Palmeri L (2005) The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) approach for integrated catchment-coastal zone management: preliminary applications to the Po catchment-Adriatic Sea coastal zone. Regional Environmental Change 5: 111-137.

Plagányi ÉE (2007) Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 477. FAO, Rome, 108 pp.

Pollino CA, Woodberry O, Nicholson A, Korb K, Hart BT (2007) Parameterisation and evaluation of a Bayesian network for use in an ecological risk assessment. Environmental Modelling & Software 22: 1140-1152.

Raakjaer J, van Leeuwen J, van Tatenhove J, Hadjimichael M, (2014) Ecosystem-based marine management in European regional seas calls for nested governance structures and coordination — A policy brief. Marine Policy, In Press, Corrected Proof, DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.007.

Rapport D, Friend A (1979) Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental statistics: a stress-response approach. Statistics Canada Catalogue 11-510. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa. 90 pp.

Rapport DJ, Hildén M (2013) An evolving role for ecological indicators: from documenting ecological conditions to monitoring drivers and policy responses. Ecological Indicators 28: 10-15.

Rees HL, Boyd SE, Schratzberger M, Murray LA (2006) Role of benthic indicators in regulating human activities at sea. Environmental Science & Policy 9: 496-508.

Reis S, Morris G, Fleming LE, Beck S, Taylor T, White M, Depledge MH, Steinle S, Sabel CE, Cowie H, Hurley F, Dick JMcP, Smith RI, Austen M, (2014) Integrating health and environmental impact analysis, Public health (2013) 1-7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.07.006.

Rekolainen S, Kamari J, Hiltunen M, Saloranta TM (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): 347-52. DOI:10.1080/15715124.2003.9635217

Robinson LA, Frid CLJ (2003) Dynamic ecosystem models and the evaluation of ecosystem effects of fishing: can we make meaningful predictions? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13: 5–20.

Robinson LA, Knights AM (2011) ODEMM Pressure Assessment Userguide. ODEMM Guidance Document Series No. 2. EC FP7 Project (244272) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool. ISBN: 978-0-906370-62-9.

Robinson LA, Rogers S, Frid CLJ (2008) A marine assessment and monitoring framework for application by UKMMAS and OSPAR – Assessment of Pressures and Impacts. Phase II: Application for regional assessments. Joint Nature Conservation Committee contract No. C-08-0007-0027.

Rogers SI, Greenaway B (2005) A UK perspective on the development of marine ecosystem indicators. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 9-19.

Rovira JL, Pardo P (2006) Nutrient pollution of waters: eutrophication trends in European marine and coastal environments. Contributions to Science 3: 181-186.

Rose KA, Allen JI, Artioli Y, Barange M, Blackford J, Carlotti F, Cropp R, Daewel U, Edwards K, Flynn K, Hill S, Hille Ris Lambers R, Huse G, Megrey B, Moll A, Rivkin R, Salihoglu B, Schrum C, Shannon L, Shin Y, Smith SL, Smith C, Solidoro C, St. John M, Zhou M (2010) End-To-End Models for the Analysis of Marine Ecosystems: Challenges, Issues, and Next Steps. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 2: 115–130.

Rudd MA (2004) An institutional framework for designing and monitoring ecosystem-based fisheries management policy experiments. Ecological Economics 48: 109-124.

Sala OE, Chapin FS III, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans, R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774.

Scheren PAGM, Kroeze C, Janssen FJJG, Hordijk L, Ptasinski KJ (2004) Integrated water pollution assessment of the Ebrié Lagoon, Ivory Coast, West Africa. Journal of Marine Systems 44: 1-17.

Schernewski G (2008) First steps towards an implementation of coastal management: from theory to regional practise. Rostocker Meeresbiologische Beiträge 19:131-148.

81

Sekovski I, Newton A, Dennison WC (2012) Megacities in the coastal zone: using a driver-pressure-state-impact-response framework to address complex environmental problems. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 96: 48-59.

Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2009) An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators 9: 189-212.

Smeets E, Weterings R (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical report no 25 European Environment Agency, 19 pp.

Smith K, Petley DN (2009) Environmental Hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. 5th Ed. Routledge, London.

Smyth K, Elliott M (2014) Develop Risk assessments leading to Best Practice: Resource Exploitation – Renewable Energy. Deliverable 60.5, VECTORS FP7 project, IECS, University of Hull, pp 65.

Snelgrove PVR, Butman CA (1994) Animal-sediment relationships revisited: cause versus affect. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 32: 111-177.

Spangenberg JH (2007) Biodiversity pressure and the driving forces behind. Ecological Economics 61: 146-158.

Spangenberg JH, Martinez-Alier J, Omann I, Monterroso I, Binimelis R (2009) The DPSIR scheme for analysing biodiversity loss and developing preservation strategies. Ecological Economics 69: 9-11.

Stelzenmüller V, Breen P, Stamford T, Thomsen F, Badalamenti F, Borja A, Buhl-Mortensen L, Carlstöm J, D'Anna G., Dankers N, Degraer S, Dujin M, Fiorentino F, Galparsoro I, Giakoumi S, Gristina M, Johnson K, Jones PJS, Katsanevakis S, Knittweis, Kyriazi Z, Pipitone C, Piwowarzyk J, Rabaut M, Sørensen TK, van Dalfsen J, Vassilopoulou V, Fernández TV, Vincx M, Vöge S, Weber A, Wijkmark N, Jak R, Qiu W, ter Hofstede R (2013). Monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas: A generic framework for implementation of ecosystem based marine management and its application. Marine Policy 37: 149-164.

Sundblad E-L, Grimvall A, Gipperth L, Morf A (2014) Structuring social data for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Marine Policy 45: 1-8.

Svarstad H, Petersen LK, Rothman D, Siepel H, Wätzold F (2008) Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy 25: 116-125.

Tett P, Gowen RJ, Painting SJ, Elliott M, Forster R, Mills DK, Bresnan E, Capuzzo E, Fernandes TF, Foden J, Geider RJ, Gilpin LC, Huxham M, McQuatters-Gollop AL, Malcolm SJ, Saux-Picart S, Platt T, Racault M-F, Sathyendranath S, van der Molen J, Wilkinson M (2013) Framework for understanding marine ecosystem health. Marine Ecology Progress Series 494: 1-27.

Teixeira H, Berg T, Furhaupter K, Uusitalo L, Papadopoulou N, Bizsel KC, Cochrane S, Churilova T, Zenetos A, Heiskanen, AS, Uyarra MC, Zampoukas N, Borja A, Akcali B, Anderson JH, Beauchard O, Berzano M, Bizsel N, Bucas M, Camp J, Carvalho S, Flo E, Garces E, Herman P, Katsanevakis S, Kavcioglu R, Krause-Jensen D, Kryvenko O, Lynham C, Mazik K, Moncheva S, Neville S, Ozaydinli M, Pantazi M, Patr cio J, Piroddi C, ueir s AM, Ramsvatn S, Rodriguez JG, Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N, Smith C, Stefanova K, Tempera F, Vassilopoulou V, Verissimo , Yilmaz EC, Zaiko A (2014) Existing biodiversity, non-indigenous species, food-web and seafloor integrity GEnS indicators. Deliverable 3.1. Devotes Project. 198 pp + 2 Annexes.

http://www.devotes-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/D3-1_Existing-biodiversity-indicators.pdf

Trombino G, Pirrone N, Cinnirella S (2007) A business-as-usual scenario analysis for the Po Basin-North Adriatic continuum. Water Resources management 21: 2063-2074.

Tscherning K, Helming K, Krippner B, Sieber S, Paloma SG (2012) Does research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making. Land Use Policy 29: 102-110.

Turner RK, Adger WN, Lorenzoni I (1998a) Towards Integrated Modelling and Analysis in Coastal Zones: Principles and Practices, LOICZ Reports & Studies No. 11, iv + 122 pp. LOICZ IPO, Texel, The Netherlands.

Turner RK, Lorenzoni I, Beaumont N, Bateman IJ, Langford IH, McDonald AL (1998b) Coastal management for sustainable development: analysing environmental and socio-economic changes on the UK coast. The Geographical Journal 164: 269-281.

Turner RK (2000) Integrating natural and social-economic science in coastal management. Journal of Marine Systems 25: 447-460.

http://www.devotes-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/D3-1_Existing-biodiversity-indicators.pdf


82

Turner RK, Hadley D, Luisetti T, Lam VWY, Cheung WWL (2010) An introduction to socio-economic assessment within a marine strategy framework. DEFRA, London, 121 pp.

UNEP (Online) Regional Seas Conventions and Protocols. UNEP and Partner Programmes. www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/hconlist.html#pp

UNEP (1994) World Environment Outlook: Brainstorming Session. ENEP/EAMR. 94-5. Env. Assessm. Prog., Nairobi. 18 p.

UNEP (2009) IEA training manual - II: Vulnerability and impacts assessment for adaptation to climate change (VIA module). UNEP-IISD-UNITAR. ISBN: 978-92-807-3072-2.

Vacchi M, Montefalcone M, Parravicini V, Rovere A, Vassallo P, Ferrari M, Morri C, Bianchi CN (2014) Spatial models to support the management of coastal marine ecosystems: a short review of best practices in Liguria, Italy. Mediterranean Marine Science 15: 172-180.

Viaroli P, Marinov P, Bodini D, Giordani G, Galbiati L, Somma F, Bencivelli S, Norro A, Zaldívar-Comenges J-M (2007) Analysis of clam farming scenarios in the Sacca di Goro lagoon. Transitional Waters Monographs 1: 71-92.

Vugteveen P, van Katwijk MM, Rouwette E, Hanssen L (2014) How to structure and prioritize information needs in support of monitoring design for integrated coastal management. Journal of Sea Research 86: 23-33.

Walmsley JJ (2002) Framework for measuring sustainable development in catchment systems. Environmental Management 29(2): 195-206.

Widdows J, Bayne BL, Donkin P, Livingstone DR, Lowe DM (1981) Measurement of the responses of mussels to environmental stress and pollution in Sullom Voe: a baseline study. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh B 80: 323-338.

Zaldívar J-M, Cardoso, AC, Viaroli P, Newton A, de Wit R, Ibañez C, Reizopoulou S, Somma F, Razinkovas A, Basset A, Holmer M, Murray N (2008) Eutrophication in transitional waters: an overview. Transitional Waters Monographs 1: 1-78.

http://www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/hconlist.html#pp

conceptual models for the effects of marine pressures on ... · pdf fileconceptual models for...

Documents