Pressure-State-Response environmental indicator framework

The Pressure-State-Response indicators are the components of the PRS framework developed by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Human activities, such as the use of natural resources, atmospheric emissions, land use and many others impose pressure on the environment. These environmental pressures are expressed by the pressure indicators in the PSR framework. State indicators illustrate the current situation of the environment. The Response shows the measures that are being taken to minimise the negative environmental impacts of human activities.

There is no general set of indicators for the PSR framework, the sets of SIs are chosen according to the needs of various stakeholders. A core set of approximately 40 indicators has been developed including the ones on the air quality, waste generation, water management, biodiversity, forest resources and land degradation.

Economic and environmental agents  Administrations  Households  Enterprises  National  International Indirect pressures Human activities:  Energy  Transport  Industry  Agriculture  Others State of the environment and of natural resources Conditions and trends:  Air, water  Land, soil  Wildlife  Natural resources Decisions, Actions Information Information Decisions, Actions Pollutants Resources Direct pressures

Chapter 2

17

Depending on the specific industry the additional sets of indicators are included to help the integration of environmental issues into the policy-making progress.

The PSR framework may be useful for assessing environmental issues, but it is not very practical when evaluating the economic and social aspects of SD. The assignment of the indicators to a specific category can be confusing as the same indicator can be allocated to two different categories, e.g. a response indicator can be at the same time a pressure indicator. For example, the pressure on the environment was caused by the application of pesticides which resulted in higher levels of chemicals in groundwater compared to the water quality standards. The response indicator was to increase taxes on the application of pesticides. However, another environmental pressure occurred because of it – the increased number of specific insects which affected the agricultural crops. Despite of the potential difficulties with allocation of certain indicators to a specific category, the PSR framework has been accepted by many authorities and a number of various other frameworks were developed based on the PSR model (Lundin, 2003).

One of the modified versions of the PSR frameworks has been created by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) and the European Statistical Office (Eurostat, 1997). This framework includes 2 more categories: Driving Forces and Impacts. Driving Forces include economic development, population, life style and education; Impacts include health–related features and biological effects. It was argued that the adjustments have made the PSR framework more complex, however at the same time also more flexible (Lundin, 2003). The Driving Force-Pressure- State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework is illustrated in figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4. The Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework. Adapted from Eurostat, 1997.

18

Most of the environmental indicators could be categorised into different types according to the DPSIR framework. The indicator types and examples are provided in table 2.2. In this work, the DPSIR framework was used to identify the main state, target and pressure indicators relevant to the objectives of the proposed methodology.

Table 2.2. Different indicator types. Adapted from Pastille, 2002b.

Indicator Type Description Example

State indicators Specify the state of a system

at a specific point in time (similar to impact indicators)

Current ambient air quality; noise levels near main roads; sea level rise; concentration of lead in urban areas

Target or goal indicators

Specify an envisaged state of a system in the future

Standard for desired air quality; benchmark for noise levels

Pressure indicators

Specify those variables which directly affect the environment

Toxic emissions; GHG emissions; noise; amount of waste generated

Driving force indicators

Refer to socio-economic or socio-cultural factors that increase or mitigate pressure on the environment

Development of industry, agriculture; population growth; prosperity levels; GDP, energy generation; mining

Rate indicators Specify the velocity of change of the state of a system

Decrease of ambient air quality within a year; sea level rise per decade

Impact indicators

Specify the ultimate effects of changes of state, factors which give rise to a change of system (very similar to state indicators)

Percentage of children suffering from lead-induced health problems; decrease in agricultural production; hurricanes; floods; changes in species abundance

Response indicators

Specify the efforts of society (politicians, decision-makers, technical professionals) to solve the problem

Air quality improvement programmes; percentage of cars with catalytic converters; pollution levy revenue; taxes; price of petrol/diesel; maximum allowed noise levels

Chapter 2

19

Steering indicators

Specify measures which indirectly aim to influence the process of change towards a desired situation

Development of public transport infrastructure;

development of new

sustainable energy sources

Process indicators

Specify measures which relate directly to aspects of the process by which change will be achieved (appraisal and output indicators)

Change in car mileage driven in a given period in a town centre; number of jobs created from a project

The Pressure-State-Response framework is being widely used by many government and business organisations. However, it has a number of weaknesses. It is argued that this framework attempts to get hold of causal links within a system but fails in terms of identifying comprehensive information to support decision making. In particular, it falls short in capturing information on the behaviour and structure of the system in which the decisions are being made. Besides, some groups of the indicators, for example, the response indicators, are based purely on intuitive models that are not suitable for dealing with complex systems (Kelly, 1998).

Failing to capture the complexity of the system leads to failing to account for nonlinearities. Forrester (1992) and Kelly (1998) point out two fundamental sources of nonlinearities that are necessary for the appropriate illustration of corporate and economic behaviour. The first source is when the influence of an input to a policy is not merely proportional to the input. The second one is when policies or decisions are affected or limited by the interaction of two or more input variables. Thus, it is argued that a systems approach is needed to identify decisive information, which incorporates frameworks with other evaluation and modelling tools, for example system dynamics modelling (Kelly, 1998).

Sustainability assessment of complex systems led to the development of large numbers of sustainability indicators. Social, economic and environmental indicators can be categorised further into various groups and sub-groups. Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 provide a summary of different categories of indicators.

20

2.3.3. Quantitative versus qualitative; objective versus subjective