Environment
Environment
Environment
Review
The Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response Model to
Structure Cause-Effect Relationships between Agriculture and
Aquatic Ecosystems
Alexandre Troian 1, * , Mário Conill Gomes 1 , Tales Tiecher 2 , Julio Berbel 3 and Carlos Gutiérrez-Martín 3
1 Eliseu Maciel Agronomy School, Federal University of Pelotas, Campus Universitário, s/n,
Capão do Leão 96010-610, RS, Brazil; mconill@gmail.com
2 Faculty of Agronomy, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Bento Gonçalves 7712,
Porto Alegre 91540-000, RS, Brazil; tales.tiecher@ufrgs.br
3 WEARE—Water, Environmental and Agricultural Resources Economics Research Group, Campus Rabanales,
Universidad de Córdoba, Ctra N-IV km 396, Edificio Gregor Mendel CP, 14071 Córdoba, Spain;
es1bevej@uco.es (J.B.); carlos.gutierrez@uco.es (C.G.-M.)
* Correspondence: xtroian@gmail.com
Abstract: Different segments of society have shown interest in understanding the effects of human
activities on ecosystems. To this end, the aim of this article is to analyze the scientific literature on the
application of the Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) conceptual model to identify
the parameters used to describe the causal interactions that occur between agriculture and aquatic
ecosystems at the watershed scale. In this way, descriptive indicators were established for the data of
63 publications collected through Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct. The results confirm
Citation: Troian, A.; Gomes, M.C.;
the great heterogeneity in the interpretation of the pressure, state, and impacts components. Part
Tiecher, T.; Berbel, J.; of this discrepancy can be attributed to the use of different indicators, as the model is flexible and
Gutiérrez-Martín, C. The Drivers- generic. Overall, the DPSIR is a tool used not only in the scientific field, but also has demonstrated
Pressures-State-Impact-Response its potential to guide public policy formulation, planning, and decision-making in water resource
Model to Structure Cause-Effect management.
Relationships between Agriculture
and Aquatic Ecosystems. Keywords: conceptual framework; water management; agriculture
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9365. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13169365
In academia, it is also possible to identify the use of the DPSIR framework in differ-
ent approaches: in the integrated management of water resources in coastal zones [5,6],
mobility and growth of urban populations [7], in the management of surface and ground-
water [8–10], as a tool to support decision processes [11,12], to assess the impacts of climate
change [13,14], to assess issues related to sustainable development [15,16], and for the
development of environmental indicators [17–19].
Although different applications of the DPSIR structure can be identified, to the best
of our knowledge, no analysis has been conducted to organize and systematize studies
focusing on the socioeconomic and environmental problems derived from the development
of agricultural activities, which is important to consider given that agriculture plays an
elementary role in this debate, as it uses approximately 50% of the planet’s habitable land
and consumes more than 60% of its fresh water volume [20]. Several studies have been
conducted at a watershed scale that correlate aquatic ecosystem degradation and pollution
to agricultural activities [21–25]. For example, agricultural land use is one of the main
factors affecting nutrient status and sedimentation in streams [26], with its effects extending
to fish community composition [27]. The poor status of many aquatic ecosystems requires
the restoration of catchments and improving agricultural practices [28].
In this way, through an interdisciplinary perspective, the aim of this paper is (a)
to develop a bibliometric analysis of current scientific production to examine the use
of the DPSIR framework in assessing interactions between agricultural activities and
aquatic ecosystems. In addition, we seek to (b) point out how authors have ordered the
parameters observed in the DPSIR chain, and to (c) synthesize the elementary parameters
for a cause−effect analysis in watersheds. To this end, the following section describes
the methodology used to assemble the database. The third section portrays the historical
evolution of the structure, and lastly, the main results of this research and the considerations
are presented.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9365 (EEA) contained data not only on the pressures, state, and response, but also3on their ori-
of 17
gins in economic activities. Thus, the EEA proposed a second restructuring in the causal
chain [31], organized by five components arranged in cyclic systems [32] (Figure 1).
Criteria Description
1. Use of DPSIR Single or in conjunction with other methodologies.
Interest in qualitative (analyzing attributes related to water quality),
quantitative (collecting and quantifying data related to the quantity and
2. The research approach
availability of water), or mixed information (using data related to water
quantity as well as in information related to water quality).
Documents that organized secondary data but did not conduct a case study,
3. The nature and use of the information generated documents that used secondary data to present a case study, or documents
that generated new data and information from empirical studies.
Greater concern with the indicators, greater interest in the nature of the
4. Approach to the problem phenomena, or presents a balance between measuring and understanding
phenomena.
Exploratory (although it characterizes a problem, is more concerned with
exploring and presenting the approach), descriptive (aims to describe the
5. Contribution of the analysis characteristics of a problem from the approach), and explanatory (seeks to
determine the nature of the relationship between the causes and the doings
of the analyzed problem).
6. Collaborations between institutions for the
National or international.
development of research
7. Interaction with stakeholders for the development Nonparticipative analysis or with the participation of stakeholders in the
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
of the model problem.
Figure2.2.Stages
Figure Stagesof
ofresearch.
research.Source:
Source:Elaborated
Elaboratedby
bythe
theauthors.
authors.
4. Results
In the first stage, the theme of interest was defined and the concepts that best repre-
sentThis
this theme were explored
bibliometric in the titles,
analysis of DPSIRabstracts,
conceptualandframework
keywords shows
of the scientific docu-
that scientific
ments. In the
production second
applied tostage, databases
the structure of were consulted and
the interactions 115 documents
between agriculturewere
and collected
aquatic
from the Scopus
ecosystems (58),concentrated
has been Web of Science in (39), andtwo
the last Science Directtotaling
decades, (18) platforms. After exclud-
63 documents since
ing duplicate
2004. publications,
These documents werewe analyzed
published thejournals,
in 37 content as
of 3the 63 publications
books available
or chapters, and as partin
English.
of 3 conferences. The majority of this production is as digital articles (85.7% of the total).
In thethe
Although third and last stage,
63 publications the
are information
distributed in was synthesized
17 research areasand the results(Environ-
or categories were pre-
sented Science;
mental through Agricultural
descriptive indicators regarding
and Biological the areas
Sciences; of Sciences;
Social knowledge, authorship,
Decision and
Sciences;
Earth and Planetary
geographical Pciences;
location of the Engineering; Computer
authors’ affiliation. Science; Biochemistry,
In addition, the documents Genetics
selectedandto
Molecular
make up the Biology; Business,
bibliometric Management,
sample and Accounting;
were classified Energy;
so as to compare the Multidisciplinary;
way specialists ap-
proached the possible cause−effect interactions between agriculture and aquatic ecosys-
tems. As an analysis parameter, seven criteria were used to identify the instruments and
procedures adopted (Table 1).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9365 5 of 17
Figure 3. Geographic
Figure location
3. Geographic of of
location thetheauthors affiliation.
authors affiliation. Source:
Source: Elaborated
Elaborated by theby the authors.
authors.
number of occurrences and the distribution word frequency among all of the documents.
Vertical axis shows word frequency in documents analyzed; while the length of segments
in the horizontal axis represent the set of words found in the documents. Figure 4B shows
the words arranged graphically according to their frequency (words occurring at least
tainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of
20 times), the more centralized and larger the spelling, the more expressive is the frequency
of words in the documents.
The compiled documents were assembled into large topics (according to highlighted
The compiled documents were assembled into large topics (according to highlight
color), according to the purpose of the investigation. Next, they were organized according
color),
to according tocriteria
the following the purpose ofinthe
presented investigation.
Table 2. Next, they were organized accordi
to the1.following criteria presented in Table 2.
Use of DPSIR—(A) single or (B) in conjunction with other methodologies;
2.
Predominant indicators in the analysis—(A) water quality, (B) water quantity, or (C)
Table
both 2. Characterization
attributes of documents.
(quality and quantity);
3. Source and use of information—(A) generate information from already prepared
eference Object
materialofand
Analysis 1 2data 3in a specific
does not present a case study, (B) use secondary 4 5case 6 7
study, or (C) produce primary data and, together with secondary data, analyze a
[38] Participatory approach to water quality problems
specific case study;
A C C A B I S
[12] Combination of 4.
approaches
Approachfor agricultural
to the problem—(A) management B interest
concern with indicators, (B) C inBthe nature
C ofAthe N
phenomena, or (C) balance between measuring and understanding the phenomena;
[39] Agricultural5. management and theofenvironment
Level of contribution A descriptive,
the analysis—(A) exploratory, (B) B B or (C)
C explana-
C N
[40] tory; for socio-ecological systems
Participatory policies B C C A C N S
6. Collaboration for the development of research—(N) national or (I) international; and
[41] Seasonal human
7. migrationofin
Participation search of water
stakeholders—(S) A B C construction
participatory or non-participatory B C I S
[42] model.
Sustainable water management A C C C C I S
[43] Soil and water conservation policy A C B C C N
[44] Cognitive engineering in the management of water resources A A C A B N S
[45] Groundwater management A C C C C I
[46] Criteria for the use of wastewater B C C B B N S
[47] Scenarios for management of environmental resources B C B A B N
[7] Integrated management of water resources A C C B C N
[48] Planning for large-scale water management B C C C B N S
[49] Strategic planning for risk management B C C C B N S
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9365 7 of 17
Although in most documents the DPSIR framework was used as a discrete tool, a
considerable proportion of the researchers used it in combination with another approach.
This was the case for the use of multicriteria decision support methods applied to test
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9365 8 of 17
Frequently, the following indications prevailed among the driving forces: population
growth (in 13 documents), urbanization (5 documents), and industrialization (7 documents).
In addition, at least 23 of the documents highlighted agriculture as a driving force, while 7
of them highlighted animal husbandry (Table 4).
Factors
Reference
Change in Water Nutrients/ Amount/
Agricultural Livestock Fertilizers Eutrophication
Land Use Extraction Contaminants Quality Water
[65] D P P S
[12] D P P I S
[53] D P P S I
[38] D P S S
[40] P D S
[41] D D D P I
[10] P S
[71] P P S
[39] P P S
[19] P P I
[42] D D I P S S
[83] D P S
[43] D P P
[67] * D P I/S I/S I/S
[82] P S S P S
[60] I P S P
[78] D P S I
[88] S
[85] P P S
[68] D D P P S I I
[47] D P I
[8] D P P P S I I
[44] * D D P P S/P
[69] I S
[48] I P S
[73] D D P P S
[81] D S S I
[51] D D P P P S S I
[11] D P
[57] D P P S I
[5] D D P I S S
[52] D D P S I I
[64] D P P I
[76] D P S I
Note: (D) drivers, (P) pressures, (S) state, (I) impacts, (R) responses, and (*) combined use of components.
Among the authors who included land-use change as a parameter, most classified it in
the pressures category (in 8 documents); in these cases, population density and agriculture
formed the driving forces. Land use change was analyzed for a wide range of possibilities,
the most frequent ones being based on indicators of the intensification of production and
crops in mountain environments, which in turn cause increased water extraction rates,
deforestation, and changes in biotic and abiotic landscape conditions.
For example, in 16 cases, the authors of the compiled documents allocated water
extraction as a pressures component. Overexploitation, water management, and water
demand were the main indicators used. On the other hand, in five documents, water
extraction was specified as a state, impact, or driving force component.
In one scenario, water extraction was classified into two categories simultaneously:
impact and state. In this case, excessive water extraction from the Sarno River
(10,515 × 106 m3 y−1 ) aggravated the water resource conditions and caused changes
in the state of the river. On the other hand, water extraction results in large domestic
and industrial effluent discharges from that region of Italy, which worsened qualitative
indicators such as the concentrations of nitrite, nitrate, phosphorus, metal, and the chemical
oxygen demand. Therefore, it may also have a form of impact on aquatic ecosystems [61].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9365 10 of 17
Another aspect that needs to be clarified is the use of fertilizer. Although fertilizers
and nutrients are often considered synonyms [64], in the DPSIR chain they can be evaluated
differently. One mode of evaluation is when fertilizers used in agriculture are observed
with regard to dosage and application techniques; another is when they are observed based
on the presence of residues found in water as mineral or organic nutrients. In the first
case, in view of the DPSIR proposal, fertilizers are considered to be substances that can put
pressure on the environment and water resources, while in the second case, the presence of
phosphates, nitrites, and nitrates in the water are indicators of the natural state of change
in water resources.
In addition, some authors have assigned water contamination due to the presence
of nutrients, suspended solids, pesticides, and other toxic substances to the pressures
component. Another group of authors assigned the different forms of water pollution to
the impact component. In summary, fertilizers, nutrients, and pollutants can easily be fitted
to any of the components, including: state, pressures, and impact. For example, nitrogen
could be considered a driving force when mistakenly applied to crops; when evaluating
the process of erosion and leaching, nitrogen concentrations would become part of a state
change; and it can be considered a pressure when assessing the efficiency of its use on
crops [52].
Water quantity and quality parameters were used in combination and sometimes
under separate conditions. Although the quantity and quality parameters were represented
by a change of state in 15 documents, impact in 8 and pressures in 2, the indicators found
in this set of documents were similar.
Water balance, decreased availability, nutrient concentration, presence of toxic compo-
nents, and salinization of water stand out as state indicators [39,51]. Among the documents
that considered impact, the main indicators used were dissolved oxygen, electrical conduc-
tivity, hydrogen potential (pH), increased biochemical oxygen demand, and chlorophyll
concentration [8,68]. Finally, water scarcity and droughts, which characterize the reduction
in the amount of water available, were among the pressure indicators.
Eutrophication of water resources was one of the parameters considered in 13 docu-
ments. Nine of them established this phenomenon as an impact, because they considered
the eutrophication process to be an event triggered by factors that “exert pressure” on
water resources. Eutrophication was considered as a change in the conservation status
of water resources in only four documents. In some cases, eutrophication was used as
an indicator of water quality; in others, it was synonymous or complementary to water
quality, measured through the concentration of chlorophyll, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
Although in the compiled documents there were different views on the dividing line
that defined the driving forces, the greatest divergences focused on the definitions of what
constitutes pressures, impact, and state.
With respect to responses, a wide variety of actions and policies have been verified,
ranging from monitoring to technical, regulatory, and subsidy provisions to prevent,
compensate, or adjust possible changes in the state of the environment, and may be
directed at individuals or public or private social groups. Among the actions verified,
the most common were water use restrictions, water and watershed management plans,
economic mechanisms related to water prices and tariffs on pollutants, technical and
financial incentives to modernize irrigation systems, training programs for water users, etc.
No references were made to wastewater treatment by small towns or rural populations,
which is a recurrent problem in river basin studies [22].
Although the answers mentioned are apparently consistent, the implementation of
actions has been minimal. In addition, there is a predominance of global or national re-
sponses. Local or social group responses are virtually nonexistent. In fact, the responses
are presented as suggestions; they do not express objective proposals, with timelines, im-
plementation costs, or anything similar, that technically support the suggested arguments.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9365 11 of 17
5. Discussion
In general, while there is consensus on the use of spatial and temporal indicators to
identify an anthropogenic effect on the environment, the distinction between pressures,
state, and impact is not uniform among authors. There are cases in which impact is
described differently by social and natural scientists, as negative changes in human well-
being, in contrast with unfavorable changes in the natural environment, respectively.
Analogous ambiguities are also found for other references. For example, in a review
of 24 papers aiming to assess the potential of the DPSIR framework in coastal social-
ecological systems, the authors indicated that there was consistency in the formulation of
the parameters that make up a driving force; however, they highlighted that there was
little consensus on the definitions of pressures and impact [1].
x FOR PEER REVIEW In another review, the authors concluded that the extensive diversity of13 terminologies
of 19
used among scientists from different fields of knowledge contributes to the discrepancies in
definitions regarding the categories of the DPSIR framework. There are cases where driving
forces are subdivided into primary and secondary or into underlying and immediate,
and other examples refer to driving forces as physical and socioeconomic; natural and
According to our systematization presented in Figure 5, first, driving forces are de-
anthropogenic, indirect, and direct, endogenous and exogenous, etc. [91].
fined by the coexistenceAccording
of genuine natural
to our factors presented
systematization and factors associated
in Figure with the
5, first, driving devel-
forces are defined
opment of human activities. In the first
by the coexistence case, the
of genuine natural
natural factorsenvironment is highlighted
and factors associated in the
with the development
of human
form of climate, geology, andactivities. In the first
topography, case, the
which natural environment
determine is highlighted
the underlying in theof
character form of
climate, geology, and topography, which determine the underlying
watersheds. These factors generally have a positive influence by ensuring the renewal of character of watersheds.
These factors generally have a positive influence by ensuring the renewal of natural
natural resources, while anthropogenic
resources, interference
while anthropogenic tends to
interference be predominantly
tends to be predominantly of aofnega-
a negative
tive character. character.
Figure
Figure 5. Elements
5. Elements of theof the DPSIR
DPSIR chain forchain for agriculture
agriculture and water
and water resources. Note:resources. Note:
(*) parameters (*)toparameters
added the analysis chain
added to the analysis chain not mentioned in
not mentioned in the literature consulted. Source: [33]. the literature consulted. Source: [33].
Similarly, there are pressures derived from the natural environment, in particular
variations in the rainfall regime, such as changes caused by extreme events such as “El Niño”
and “La Niña”, which occur with great intensity in Amazonia and Northeast Brazil and
in some regions of Australia and Indonesia. Other phenomena derived from the natural
environment, which can also put pressure on the balance of ecosystems, are hurricanes,
snowfalls, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc.
On the other hand, anthropogenic pressures are generally characterized by the descrip-
tion of how natural resources are used and the amount of waste transported and deposited
in the environment, especially in aquatic systems. Changes in the landscape, which include
land use and natural resource management, in the case of agriculture, are among the main
drivers of anthropogenic pressures in our assessment. In this case, land use can be analyzed
against a wide range of possibilities, the most common ones are based on indicators of
crop intensification in environments with a low agricultural potential, deforestation, and
changes in biotic and abiotic conditions of the landscape. The inputs used in agricultural
production systems are also part of the set of pressures to be observed, especially pesticides
and fertilizers, as these are not fully absorbed in the production processes and residues
that are harmful to the environment accumulate.
Situations in which ecosystems are considered in relation to the conditions of conser-
vation or degradation are evaluated on the basis indicators related to the state of the natural
environment (physical, chemical, and biological state). According to our approach, these
indicators should basically portray quantitative information regarding the water balance
and identify the presence of toxic components in watersheds (qualitative and quantitative
data).
Impacts are characterized by indirect and diffuse disturbances, i.e., their indicators
generally include measures of the health of natural systems (animal morbidity, extinction of
species, etc.) and measures of human well-being (diseases transmitted by microorganisms,
fraction of the population with access to water below quality standards, etc.). Contingencies
that affect the economy, such as environmental investment costs, compensation costs for
environmental services, provisioning, and regulation, can be considered reverse impact
measures [3,31,32].
As a result, society generally reacts with the fundamental aim of mediating the
observed conflicts between agriculture and ecosystems. Society’s responses aim to mitigate
the state of environmental degradation provided by agriculture and the impacts that may
affect ecosystems and human well-being. Above all, the current challenge with regard
to responses should be to overcome and transcend conflicts to exploit the potentials and
synergies arising from the interaction of agriculture with its environment.
In summary, the aim of this bibliometric survey was not to organize agri-environmental
indicators, but it has been acknowledged that these indicators should measure the scalar,
temporal, and multidimensional effects. In our study, we observed difficulties in integrat-
ing indicators of plural dimensions. Moreover, most of them described outcomes on a
global scale or one that did not consider local knowledge. Existing inequalities between
actors and stakeholders have often been ignored, which minimizes the relevance of social
diversity across most fields of research [15].
Another aspect that deserves emphasis in this approach concerns the rich diversity
of habitats, the distinct threats to these habitats, and the great variety of conservation
challenges that aquatic ecosystems face [28]. Hydrological flows form a broad and continu-
ous river system along which sediments and dissolved agricultural substances disperse.
Although interconnected, aquatic ecosystems can be divided into marine and freshwater
systems. Marine systems, located in coastal zones, tend to absorb disturbances from urban-
ized; highly populated; and, generally, industrialized regions. In turn, freshwater regions
present a more diverse mosaic with respect to human occupation patterns and land use.
In addition to the differences in use and occupation, different aquatic ecosystems
respond differently to driving forces, and consequently to impacts, and therefore have
different habitat restoration and recovery needs. In freshwater watersheds, impacts can
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9365 13 of 17
be scaled locally, and there is more scope for active restoration work. On the other hand,
in coastal marine areas, contaminating pollutants may present cumulative impacts, and
there is a greater dispersion and connectivity of species; consequently, there is a need to
consider regional scales and a better possibility of taking advantage of the natural recovery
of systems [28]. In this sense, we highlight the need to rethink the structure and functioning
of these ecosystems.
Finally, the DPSIR framework has contributed to organizing and describing the an-
thropogenic interactions with the environment; however, it is not categorical to minimize
contemporary environmental problems. Operationally, the DPSIR has functioned as a
support tool, giving a medium- to long-term vision; therefore, cross-cutting issues, which
refer to human capital, health, education, and gender, which have indirect relationships
with environmental issues, need to be incorporated into the current concerns.
6. Conclusions
This literature review presents documents with applications in different scientific fields
in the social and environmental dimensions, which illustrates the flexibility of the DPSIR
framework to establish causal relationships between agriculture and aquatic ecosystems.
We highlight the employment of the DPSIR framework to identify and evaluate
pollutants of an agricultural origin in water; examine the environmental status of water
resource stressors; analyze changes in the use of land and climatic changes; qualify eco-
systemic services; address sustainable development; and to manage and make decisions.
Overall, this analysis concluded the following:
• The DPSIR framework demonstrates the capacity to organize and present causal
relationships between agricultural activities and the environment related to ecological,
social, or economic perspectives.
• DPSIR is a simple and generic application model; however, the interpretations of the
variable components of pressures, state, and impact are not homogeneous. Thus, it is
difficult to establish a standard of socioeconomic and agri-environmental indicators.
• In the documents analyzed here, the DPSIR model was not used to explain synergic
situations between the environment and agricultural activities, that is, to present
sustainable development scenarios. In contrast, they have been directed to illustrate
situations where agricultural activities lead to environmental degradation.
• The stress factors of an anthropogenic origin that affect ecosystems are difficult to
measure, and the available data are often limited.
In summary, this bibliometric survey demonstrated that the DPSIR approach has
virtues to promote a dialog between different scientific disciplines with respect to complex
environmental problems. In this sense, based on the results of the literature review, it
is suggested to establish a research agenda among scientists and experts interested in
this instrument to equalize the establishment and employment of indicators related to
agricultural externalities. For managers, it is recommended to adopt the guidelines of the
DPSIR approach as an integrated and participatory strategy for environmental assessment
to support decision-making processes in the field of water resources at the watershed scale.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.B.; methodology, A.T.; software, A.T.; validation, M.C.G.,
C.G.-M. and J.B.; formal analysis, T.T.; investigation, A.T.; resources, J.B., C.G.-M. and M.C.G.; data
curation, A.T.; writing original draft preparation, J.B. and A.T.; writing review and editing, A.T.,
C.G.-M. and T.T.; visualization, A.T. and C.G.-M.; supervision, J.B. and M.C.G.; project administration,
J.B. and M.C.G.; funding acquisition, M.C.G., A.T. and J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) funded this
research (grant number PDSE 88881.189405/2018-01) for Alexandre Troian, as well as the Andalusian
Department of Economy and Knowledge and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
through the research project SEKECO (UCO-1263831-R).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9365 14 of 17
Data Availability Statement: The data were organized from the following websites: Scopus, Web of
Science, and Science Direct.
Acknowledgments: Department of Economics and FinanceUniversity of Cordoba and University of
Pelotas.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Lewison, R.L.; Rudd, M.A.; Al-Hayek, W.; Baldwin, C.; Beger, M.; Lieske, S.N.; Jones, C.; Satumanatpan, S.; Junchompoo, C.;
Hines, E. How the DPSIR framework can be used for structuring problems and facilitating empirical research in coastal systems.
Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 56, 110–119. [CrossRef]
2. Philippi, A., Jr.; Tucci, C.E.M.; Hogan, D.J.; Navegantes, R. Interdisciplinaridade em Ciências Ambientais; Signus: São Paulo, Brazil,
2000; p. 320.
3. Schulze, I.; Colby, M.A. A Conceptual Framework to Support Development and Use of Environmental Information in Decision-Making;
European Environment Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; p. 51.
4. Community Europea. Directiva 2000/60/CE Del Parlamento Europeo y Del Consejo, de 23 de Octubre de 2000, Por la Que se
Establece un Marco Comunitario de Actuación en el Ámbito de la Política de Aguas. D.O.L. 327 de December 2000. Available
online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=DOUE-L-2000-82524 (accessed on 7 April 2021).
5. Pirrone, N.; Trombino, G.; Cinnirella, S.; Algieri, A.; Bendoricchio, G.; Palmeri, L. The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response
(DPSIR) approach for integrated catchment-coastal zone management: Preliminary application to the Po catchment-Adriatic Sea
coastal zone system. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2005, 5, 111–137. [CrossRef]
6. Mimidis, K.; Andrikakou, P.; Kallioras, A.; Pliakas, F. The DPSIR approach to groundwater management for sustainable
development in coastal areas: The case of Nea Peramos aquifer system, Kavala, Greece. Water Util. J. 2017, 16, 67–80.
7. Haase, D.; Nuissl, H. Does urban sprawl drive changes in the water balance and policy?: The case of Leipzig (Germany) 1870–2003.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 80, 1–13. [CrossRef]
8. Kagalou, I.; Leonardos, I.; Anastasiadou, C.; Neofytou, C. The DPSIR Approach for an Integrated River Management Framework.
A Preliminary Application on a Mediterranean Site (Kalamas River -NW Greece). Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 1677–1692.
[CrossRef]
9. Borja, Á.; Galparsoro, I.; Solaun, O.; Muxika, I.; Tello, E.M.; Uriarte, A.; Valencia, V. The European Water Framework Directive
and the DPSIR, a methodological approach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.
2006, 66, 84–96. [CrossRef]
10. Expósito, A.; Berbel, J. Sustainability implications of deficit irrigation in a mature water economy: A case study in Southern Spain.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1144. [CrossRef]
11. Giupponi, C.; Vladimirova, I. Ag-PIE: A GIS-based screening model for assessing agricultural pressures and impacts on water
quality on a European scale. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 359, 57–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Psomas, A.; Vryzidis, I.; Spyridakos, A.; Mimikou, M. MCDA approach for agricultural water management in the context of
water–energy–land–food nexus. Oper. Res. 2018, 21, 689–723. [CrossRef]
13. Holman, I.P.; Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Shackley, S.; Harrison, P.A.; Nicholls, R.J.; Berry, P.M.; Audsley, E. A regional, multi-sectoral
and integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK: Part I. Methodology. Clim. Chang.
2005, 71, 9–41. [CrossRef]
14. Bär, R.; Rouholahnedjad, E.; Rahman, K.; Abbaspour, K.C.C.; Lehmann, A.; Rouholahnejad, E.; Rahman, K.; Abbaspour, K.C.C.;
Lehmann, A. Climate change and agricultural water resources: A vulnerability assessment of the Black Sea catchment. Environ.
Sci. Policy 2015, 46, 57–69. [CrossRef]
15. Carr, E.R.; Wingard, P.M.; Yorty, S.C.; Thompson, M.C.; Jensen, N.K.; Roberson, J. Applying DPSIR to sustainable development.
Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 2017, 4, 543–555. [CrossRef]
16. Tsai, H.-T.; Tzeng, S.-Y.; Fu, H.-H.; Wu, C.-T.J. Managing multinational sustainable development in the European Union based on
the DPSIR framework. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2019, 3, 727–735. [CrossRef]
17. Walmsley, J.J. Framework for measuring sustainable development in catchment systems. Environ. Manag. 2002, 29, 195–206.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Geng, Q.; Wu, P.; Zhao, X.; Wang, Y. A framework of indicator system for zoning of agricultural water and land resources
utilization: A case study of Bayan Nur, Inner Mongolia. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 40, 43–50. [CrossRef]
19. Sun, S.; Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Cai, H.; Wu, P.; Geng, Q.; Xu, L. Sustainability assessment of regional water resources under the DPSIR
framework. J. Hydrol. 2016, 532, 140–148. [CrossRef]
20. WWAP. Programa Mundial de Evaluación de los Recursos Hídricos de la UNESCO; Informe Mundial de las Naciones Unidas sobre
el Desarrollo de los Recursos Hídricos 2019: No dejar a nadie atrás; Unesco: París, Francia, 2019; pp. 1–213. Available online:
https://www.unwater.org/ (accessed on 18 August 2021).
21. Tiecher, T.; Minella, J.P.G.; Caner, L.; Zafar, M.; Capoane, V.; Evrard, O.; Le Gall, M.; Rheinheimer, D.S. Quantifying land use
contributions to suspended sediment in a large cultivated catchment of Southern Brazil (Guaporé River, Rio Grande do Sul).
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 237, 95–108. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9365 15 of 17
22. Zafar, M.; Tiecher, T.; Capoane, V.; Troian, A.; Rheinheimer, D. Characteristics, lability and distribution of phosphorus in
suspendedsediment from a subtropical catchment under diverse anthropicpressure in Southern Brazil. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 100, 28–45.
[CrossRef]
23. Bastos, M.C. Étude de la Contamination de L’environnement Par Les Médicaments à Usage Humain et Vétérinaire Dans le Sud
du Brésil. Theoretical and/or Physical Chemistry. Université de Poitiers, 2017. Available online: https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/
tel-01858332/document (accessed on 16 July 2021).
24. Bastos, M.C.; Rheinheimer, D.S.; Aubertheau, É.; Castro Lima, J.A.M.; Le Guet, T.; Caner, L.; Mondamert, L.; Labanowski,
J. Antibiotics and microbial resistance in Brazilian soils under manure application. Land. Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 2472–2484.
[CrossRef]
25. Castro Lima, J.A.M.; Labanowski, J.; Bastos, M.C.; Zanella, R.; Prestes, O.; Damian, M.L.; Granado, E.; Tiecher, T.; Zafar, M.;
Troian, A.; et al. “Modern agriculture” transfers many pesticides molecules to watercourses: A case study of a representative
rural catchment of southern Brazil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 10581–10598. [CrossRef]
26. Knott, J.; Mueller, M.; Pander, J.; Geist, J. Effectiveness of catchment erosion protection measures and scale-dependent response of
stream biota. Hydrobiologia 2019, 830, 77–92. [CrossRef]
27. Bierschenk, A.M.; Mueller, M.; Pander, J.; Geist, J. Impact of catchment land use on fish community composition in the headwater
areas of Elbe, Danube and Main. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 652, 66–74. [CrossRef]
28. Geist, J.; Hawkins, S.J. Habitat recovery and restoration in aquatic ecosystems: Current progress and future challenges. Aquat.
Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2016, 26, 942–962. [CrossRef]
29. Rapport, D.; Friend, A. Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Environmental Statistics: A Stress-Response Approach, 1st ed.; Minister
of Supply and Services Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1979; pp. 11–510.
30. OECD. Core Set of INDICATORS for Environmental Performance Reviews; A Synthesis Report by the Group on the State of the
Environment; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 1993; pp. 1–37.
31. Gabrielsen, P.; Bosch, P. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview; Technical Report n 25; European Environment Agency:
Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999; pp. 1–19. Available online: https://doi.org/arXiv:1802.04810v3 (accessed on 19 August 2021).
32. Berbel, J.; Expósito, A.; Gutiérrez-Martín, C.; Mateos, L. Effects of the Irrigation Modernization in Spain 2002–2015. Water Resour.
Manag. 2019, 33, 1835–1849. [CrossRef]
33. Troian, A. Análise Multidimensional Das Pressões Dos Sistemas de Produção Agrícola na Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio
Guaporé_Brasil-RS. Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas-RS/BR, 2020. Available online: http://guaiaca.ufpel.edu.br/
(accessed on 16 July 2021).
34. Stanners, D.; Bosch, P.; Dom, A.; Gabrielsen, P.; Gee, D.; Martin, J.; Rickard, L.; Weber, J.L. Frameworks for environmental
assessment and indicators at the EEA. In Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment, 1st ed.; Hák, T., Moldan, B., Dahl, L.A.,
Eds.; Island Press: London, UK, 2007; pp. 125–144.
35. Patrício, J.; Elliott, M.; Mazik, K.; Papadopoulou, K.; Smith, C.J. DPSIR—Two Decades of Trying to Develop a Unifying Framework
for Marine Environmental Management? Front. Mar. Sci. 2016, 3, 177. [CrossRef]
36. Turner, R.K.; Lorenzoni, I.; Beaumont, N.; Bateman, I.J.; Langford, I.H.; Mcdonald, A.L. Coastal Management for Sustainable
Development: Analysing Environmental and Socio-Economic Changes on the UK Coast. Geogr. J. 1998, 3, 269–281. [CrossRef]
37. Pritchard, A. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? J. Publ. 1969, 25, 348–349.
38. Gari, S.R.; Ortiz Guerrero, C.E.; A-Uribe, B.; Icely, J.D.; Newton, A. A DPSIR-analysis of water uses and related water quality
issues in the Colombian Alto and Medio Dagua Community Council. Water Sci. 2018, 32, 318–337. [CrossRef]
39. Kubacka, M.; Bródka, S.; Macias, A. Selecting agri-environmental indicators for monitoring and assessment of environmental
management in the example of landscape parks in Poland. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 71, 377–387. [CrossRef]
40. Mehryar, S.; Sliuzas, R.; Sharifi, A.; Reckien, D.; Maarseveen, M. A structured participatory method to support policy option
analysis in a social-ecological system. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 197, 360–372. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Zieba, F.W.; Yengoh, G.T.; Tom, A. Seasonal Migration and Settlement around Lake Chad: Strategies for Control of Resources in
an Increasingly Drying Lake. Resources 2017, 3, 41. [CrossRef]
42. Al-Kalbani, M.S.; Price, M.F.; O’Higgins, T.; Ahmed, M.; Abahussain, A. Integrated environmental assessment to explore water
resources management in Al Jabal Al Akhdar, Sultanate of Oman. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2015, 16, 1345–1361. [CrossRef]
43. Wang, F.; Mu, X.; Li, R.; Fleskens, L.; Stringer, L.C.; Ritsema, C.J. Co-evolution of soil and water conservation policy and
human–environment linkages in the Yellow River Basin since 1949. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 508, 166–177. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Benqlilou, H.; Bensaid, S. Protection and performance of the ancestral water supply system “Khettara” as a sustainable alternative
for arid regions. Water Supply 2013, 13, 1452–1462. [CrossRef]
45. Mekki, I.; Jacob, F.; Marlet, S.; Ghazouani, W. Management of groundwater resources in relation to oasis sustainability: The case
of the Nefzawa region in Tunisia. J. Environ. Manage. 2013, 21, 142–151. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Kim, Y.; Chung, E.-S.; Jun, S.-M.; Kim, S.U. Prioritizing the best sites for treated wastewater instream use in an urban watershed
using fuzzy TOPSIS. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2013, 73, 23–32. [CrossRef]
47. Rasi Nezami, S.; Nazariha, M.; Moridi, A.; Baghvand, A. Environmentally sound water resources management in catchment level
using DPSIR model and scenario analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2013, 3, 569–580.
48. Piirimäe, K.; Pachel, K.; Reihan, A. Adaptation of a method for involving environmental aspects in spatial planning of river basin
management—A case study of the Narva River basin. Est. J. Ecol. 2010, 59, 302–320. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9365 16 of 17
49. Karamouz, M.; Ahmadi, A.; Zahraie, B.; Moridi, A. Development of an algorithm for risk based strategic water supply planning:
A case study. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2010: Challenges of Change, Providence,
RI, USA, 16–20 May 2010; pp. 2285–2293. [CrossRef]
50. Nobre, A.M. An Ecological and economic assessment methodology for coastal ecosystem management. Environ. Manag. 2009, 44,
185–204. [CrossRef]
51. Zacharias, I.; Parasidoy, A.; Bergmeier, E.; Kehayias, G.; Dimitriou, E.; Dimopoulos, P. A “DPSIR” model for Mediterranean
temporary ponds: European, national and local scale comparisons. Ann. Limnol-Int. J. Lim. 2009, 44, 253–266. [CrossRef]
52. Fassio, A.; Giupponi, C.; Hiederer, R.; Simota, C. A decision support tool for simulating the effects of alternative policies affecting
water resources: An application at the European scale. J. Hydrol. 2005, 304, 462–476. [CrossRef]
53. Ramos, T.B.; Darouich, H.; Gonçalves, M.C.; Brito, B.; Branco, M.A.C.; Martins, J.C.; Fernandes, M.L.; Pires, F.P.; Morais, M.;
Neves, R. An Integrated Analysis of the Eutrophication Process in the Enxoé Reservoir within the DPSIR Framework. Water 2018,
10, 1576. [CrossRef]
54. Laspidou, C.S.; Samantzi, V. Identifying and quantifying nitrogen and phosphorus loadings from agriculture and livestock waste
in the Penios River Basin District. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2015, 97, 90–102. [CrossRef]
55. Windolf, J.; Blicher-Mathiesen, G.; Carstensen, J.; Kronvang, B. Changes in nitrogen loads to estuaries following implementation
of governmental action plans in Denmark: A paired catchment and estuary approach for analysing regional responses. Environ.
Sci. Policy 2012, 24, 24–33. [CrossRef]
56. Meybeck, M.; Lestel, L.; Bonté, P.; Moilleron, R.; Colin, J.L.; Rousselot, O.; Hervé, D.; de Pontevès, C.; Grosbois, C.; Thévenot,
D.R. Historical perspective of heavy metals contamination (Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb, Zn) in the Seine River basin (France) following a
DPSIR approach (1950–2005). Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 375, 204–231. [CrossRef]
57. Karageorgis, A.P.; Skourtos, M.S.; Kapsimalis, V.; Kontogianni, A.D.; Skoulikidis, N.T.; Pagou, K.; Nikolaidis, N.P.; Drakopoulou,
P.; Zanou, B.; Karamanos, H.; et al. An integrated approach to watershed management within the DPSIR framework: Axios River
catchment and Thermaikos Gulf. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2005, 5, 138–160. [CrossRef]
58. Scheren, P.A.G.M.; Kroeze, C.; Janssen, F.J.J.G.; Hordijk, L.; Ptasinski, K.J.J. Integrated water pollution assessment of the Ebrié
Lagoon, Ivory Coast, West Africa. J. Mar. Syst. 2004, 44, 1–17. [CrossRef]
59. Volf, G.; Atanasova, N.; Škerjanec, M.; Ožanić, N. Hybrid modeling approach for the northern Adriatic watershed management.
Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 635, 353–363. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Aghmashhadi, H. Environmental policy and management of freshwater resources in the Haraz-Ghareh Su Basin in comparison
to other Caspian sub basins. Pollution 2015, 4, 387–402. [CrossRef]
61. Lofrano, G.; Libralato, G.; Acanfora, F.G.; Pucci, L.; Carotenuto, M. Which lesson can be learnt from a historical contamination
analysis of the most polluted river in Europe? Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 524, 246–259. [CrossRef]
62. Skoulikidis, N.T. The environmental state of rivers in the Balkans-A review within the DPSIR framework. Sci. Total Environ. 2009,
407, 2501–2516. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Karageorgis, A.P.; Kapsimalis, V.; Kontogianni, A.; Skourtos, M.; Turner, K.R.; Salomons, W. Impact of 100-year human
interventions on the deltaic coastal zone of the Inner Thermaikos Gulf (Greece): A DPSIR framework analysis. Environ. Manag.
2006, 38, 304–315. [CrossRef]
64. Wong, A.W.M.; Wong, M.H. Recent socio-economic changes in relation to environmental quality of the Pearl River delta. Reg.
Environ. Chang. 2004, 4, 28–38. [CrossRef]
65. Borji, M.; Moghaddam Nia, A.; Malekian, A.; Salajegheh, A.; Khalighi, S. Comprehensive evaluation of groundwater resources
based on DPSIR conceptual framework. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 158. [CrossRef]
66. Flint, N.; Rolfe, J.; Jones, C.E.; Sellens, C.; Johnston, N.D.; Ukkola, L. An Ecosystem Health Index for a large and variable river
basin: Methodology, challenges and continuous improvement in Queensland’s Fitzroy Basin. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 73, 626–636.
[CrossRef]
67. Gaudino, S.; Goia, I.; Borreani, G.; Tabacco, E.; Sacco, D. Cropping system intensification grading using an agro-environmental
indicator set in northern Italy. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 40, 76–89. [CrossRef]
68. Alexakis, D.; Kagalou, I.; Tsakiris, G. Assessment of pressures and impacts on surface water bodies of the Mediterranean. Case
study: Pamvotis Lake, Greece. Environ. Earth Sci. 2013, 70, 687–698. [CrossRef]
69. Fu, Q.; Jiang, Q.; Wang, Z. Comprehensive evaluation of regional agricultural water and land resources carrying capacity based
on DPSIR concept framework and PP model. In Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture; Li, D., Chen, Y., Eds.; IFIP
Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; p. 370. [CrossRef]
70. Zalidis, G.C.; Tsiafouli, M.A.; Takavakoglou, V.; Bilas, G.; Misopolinos, N. Selecting agri-environmental indicators to facilitate
monitoring and assessment of EU agri-environmental measures effectiveness. J. Environ. Manag. 2004, 4, 315–321. [CrossRef]
71. Pullanikkatil, D.; Palamuleni, L.; Ruhiiga, T. Assessment of land use change in Likangala River catchment, Malawi: A remote
sensing and DPSIR approach. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 71, 9–23. [CrossRef]
72. Teixeira, Z.; Teixeira, H.; Marques, J.C. Systematic processes of land use/land cover change to identify relevant driving forces:
Implications on water quality. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 470, 1320–1335. [CrossRef]
73. Benini, L.; Bandini, V.; Marazza, D.; Contin, A. Assessment of land use changes through an indicator-based approach: A case
study from the Lamone river basin in Northern Italy. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 4–14. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9365 17 of 17
74. Costantini, E.A.C.; Barbetti, R. Environmental and visual impact analysis of viticulture and olive tree cultivation in the province
of Siena (Italy). Eur. J. Agron. 2008, 28, 412–426. [CrossRef]
75. Tengberg, A.; Torheim, S.-I.B. The role of land degradation in the agriculture and environment nexus. In Climate and Land
Degradation; Environmental Science and Engineering (Environmental Science); Sivakumar, M.V.K., Ndiang’ui, N., Eds.; Springer:
Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 267–283. [CrossRef]
76. Mander, Ü.; Kuuba, R. Changing landscapes in Northeastern Europe based on examples from the Baltic countries. In The New
Dimensions of the European Landscapes; Jongman, R.H.G., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 123–134. Available
online: http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/119323 (accessed on 19 August 2021).
77. Anandhi, A.; Kannan, N. Vulnerability assessment of water resources—Translating a theoretical concept to an operational
framework using systems thinking approach in a changing climate: Case study in Ogallala Aquifer. J. Hydrol. 2018, 557, 460–474.
[CrossRef]
78. Mattas, C.; Voudouris, K.S.; Panagopoulos, A. Integrated groundwater resources management using the DPSIR approach in a GIS
environment: A case study from the Gallikos River basin, North Greece. Water 2014, 6, 1043–1068. [CrossRef]
79. Melecis, V.; Kiavins, M.; Laivins, M.; Rusiòa, S.; Spriòie, G.; Viksne, J.; Krisjane, Z.; Straíe, S. Conceptual model of the long-term
socio-ecological research platform of Engure ecoregion, Latvia. Proc. Latvian Acad. Sci. 2014, 68, 1–19. [CrossRef]
80. Langmead, O.; McQuatters-Gollop, A.; Mee, L.D.; Friedrich, J.; Gilbert, A.J.; Gomoiu, M.-T.; Jackson, E.L.; Knudsen, S.; Minicheva,
G.; Todorova, V. Recovery or decline of the northwestern Black Sea: A societal choice revealed by socio-ecological modelling. Ecol.
Model. 2009, 220, 2927–2939. [CrossRef]
81. Holman, I.P.; Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Cojacaru, G.; Shackley, S.; McLachlan, C.; Audsley, E.; Berry, P.M.; Fontaine, C.; Harrison, P.A.;
Henriques, C.; et al. The concepts and development of a participatory regional integrated assessment tool. Clim. Chang. 2008, 90,
5–30. [CrossRef]
82. Hohenthal, J.; Owidi, E.; Minoia, P.; Pellikka, P. Local assessment of changes in water-related ecosystem services and their
management: DPASER conceptual model and its application in Taita Hills, Kenya. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2015,
11, 225–238. [CrossRef]
83. Xue, H.; Li, S.; Chang, J. Combining ecosystem service relationships and DPSIR framework to manage multiple ecosystem
services. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 117. [CrossRef]
84. Hou, Y.; Zhou, S.; Burkhard, B.; Müller, F. Socioeconomic influences on biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being: A
quantitative application of the DPSIR model in Jiangsu, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 490, 1012–1028. [CrossRef]
85. Namaalwa, S.; Van dam, A.A.; Funk, A.; Ajie, G.S.; Kaggwa, R.C. A characterization of the drivers, pressures, ecosystem functions
and services of Namatala wetland, Uganda. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 34, 44–57. [CrossRef]
86. Pinto, R.; Conceição Cunha, M.; Roseta-Palma, C.; Marques, J.C. Mainstreaming Sustainable Decision-making for Ecosystems:
Integrating Ecological and Socio-economic Targets within a Decision Support System. Environ. Process. 2014, 1, 7–19. [CrossRef]
87. Barton, D.N.; Andersen, T.; Bergland, O.; Engebretsen, A.; Jannicke Moe, S.; Orderud, G.I.; Tominaga, K.; Romstad, E.; Vogt, R.D.
Eutropia: Integrated valuation of lake eutrophication abatement decisions using a bayesian belief network, Handbook of Applied
System Science. In Handbook of Applied Systems Science; Niel, Z.P., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2016; pp.
297–320. [CrossRef]
88. Kolberg, S.; Berbel, J.; Dios-Palomares, R. The Closure of the Guadalquivir River Basin: A DPSIR Framework Approach. In
Economics of Water Management in Agriculture, 1st ed.; Bournaris, T., Berbel, J., Manos, B., Viaggi, V., Eds.; CC Press: London, UK,
2014; pp. 1–32. [CrossRef]
89. Lancelot, C.; Thieu, V.; Polard, A.; Garnier, J.; Billen, G.; Hecq, W.; Gypens, N. Cost assessment and ecological effectiveness
of nutrient reduction options for mitigating Phaeocystis colony blooms in the Southern North Sea: An integrated modeling
approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 2179–2191. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
90. Odermatt, S. Evaluation of mountain case studies by means of sustainability variables: A DPSIR model as an evaluation tool in
the context of the North-South discussion. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014, 24, 336–341. [CrossRef]
91. Gari, S.R.; Newton, A.; Icely, J.D. A review of the application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an emphasis on coastal
social-ecological systems. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2015, 103, 63–77. [CrossRef]