Content uploaded by Dale Scott Rothman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dale Scott Rothman on Oct 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Land Use Policy ](]]]])]]]–]]]
Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR
Hanne Svarstad
a,
, Lars Kjerulf Petersen
b
, Dale Rothman
c
, Henk Siepel
d
, Frank Wa
¨tzold
e
a
Unit for Human—Environment Studies, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalle
´en 21, 0349 Oslo, Norway
b
National Environmental Research Institute, Roskilde, Denmark
c
International Institute for Sustainable Development, Canada
d
ALTERRA, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
e
UFZ Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany
Received 7 July 2006; received in revised form 5 October 2006; accepted 26 March 2007
Abstract
The Drivers–Pressures–State–Impacts–Responses (DPSIR) framework has evolved as an interdisciplinary tool to provide and
communicate knowledge on the state and causal factors regarding environmental issues. Based on a social constructivist and discourse
analytic perspective, this paper provides a critical examination of theoretical foundations of the DPSIR approach. We focus on the
example of biodiversity, but our conclusions are relevant to other fields of environmental research. The DPSIR framework is viewed
through the ‘lenses’ of four major types of discourses on biodiversity: Preservationist, Win–win, Traditionalist and Promethean. Based
upon this examination, we argue that the DPSIR framework is not a tool generating neutral knowledge. Instead, application of this
framework reproduces the discursive positions the applicant brings into it. We find that when applied in its traditional form to studies in
the field of biodiversity, the framework is most compatible with the Preservationist discourse type and tends to favour conservationist
and to neglect other positions. Thus, contrary to what is often claimed, we find that the DPSIR framework has shortcomings as a tool for
establishing good communication between researchers, on the one hand, and stakeholders and policy makers on the other. The problem
with the framework is the lack, so far, of efforts to find a satisfactory way of dealing with the multiple attitudes and definitions of issues
by stakeholders and the general public.
r2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: DPSIR; Drivers–Pressures–State–Impacts–Responses framework; Social constructivism; Discourse analysis; Environment; Biodiversity
Introduction
DPSIR (pronounced dipsir) is short for Driving forces,
Pressures, State, Impacts and Responses. Within a short
time, the DPSIR framework has become popular among
researchers and policy makers alike as a conceptual
framework for structuring and communicating policy-
relevant research about the environment.
A presumed strength of the DPSIR framework is that it
captures, in a simple manner, the key relationships between
factors in society and the environment, and, therefore, can
be used as a communication tool between researchers from
different disciplines as well as between researchers, on the
one hand, and policy makers and stakeholders on the
other. Partly due to its simplicity the DPSIR framework
has also been criticised. It has been argued that the
framework cannot take into account the dynamics of the
system it models, cannot handle cause–consequence
relationships, suggests linear unidirectional causal chains,
and ignores key non-human drivers of environmental
change (Berger and Hodge, 1998;Rapport et al., 1998;
Rekolainen et al., 2003).
No one, however, has drawn attention to the strong
realist view on knowledge behind DPSIR, which we find as a
central, albeit tacit, fundament of the approach. This
implies that the ‘facts’ and understandings of environ-
mental issues provided in applications of the DPSIR
framework are presented as scientific truths, while dis-
cursive interpretations are not revealed. In this paper, we
apply findings from discourse analysis to provide a
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
0264-8377/$ - see front matter r2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.005
Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 73801400, Mob.: +47 93466998;
fax: +47 61222215.
E-mail address: hanne.svarstad@nina.no (H. Svarstad).
Please cite this article as: Svarstad, H., et al., Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR, Land Use Policy (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2007.03.005
perspective through which the image of DPSIR as a tool of
neutral knowledge can be deconstructed. We have chosen
to focus on the particular topic of biodiversity manage-
ment. This is a controversial topic and with relatively large
differences between types of interpretations of problems
and solutions. There are, in other words, large differences
between various discourse types, and these differences
make the topic suitable for our examination in this paper.
At the present time, there is a high consensus of the
imperative for planners and politicians of listening to and
involving all affected parties in participation related to
environmental decision making (e.g. Stoll-Kleemann and
O’Riordan, 2002;Stirling, 2006;Renn, 2006). In this paper,
we show that DPSIR, as traditionally applied, provides a
framework for analysis and derives interventions that lead
in the opposite direction, by delimiting perspectives and
scientific knowledge production to a narrow and discourse-
selective understanding of controversial issues.
The next section provides a description and brief history
of the DPSIR framework and its application. Thereafter,
we present social constructivism and discourse analysis as
the epistemological fundaments for our analysis. This is
followed by an examination of the DPSIR framework
through the lenses of four types of biodiversity discourses
identified in earlier research. We conclude with some
general thoughts on the implications of our analysis for the
future use of the DPSIR framework.
The DPSIR framework
The roots of the DPSIR framework can be traced back
to the Stress–Response framework developed by Statistics
Canada in the late 1970s (Rapport and Friend, 1979). In
the 1990s, this approach saw further development by,
among others, the OECD (1991, 1993) and United Nations
(1996, 1999, 2001). The DPSIR framework was first
elaborated in its present form in two studies by the
European Environmental Agency (EEA, 1995;Holten-
Andersen et al., 1995).
1
Fig. 1 illustrates the DPSIR framework at its most basic.
Driving forces, in the form of social, economic or
environmental developments, exert Pressures on the
environment and, as a consequence, the State of the
environment changes. This leads to Impacts that may elicit
societal Responses that feeds back to the Driving forces,
Pressures, State, or Impacts (EEA, 2001). As an example,
an increased demand for food (Driving force) can lead to
the intensification of agriculture via increased fertilizer use,
resulting in the increase of nitrate runoff into nearby
streams (Pressure), leading to the eutrophication of down-
stream water bodies (State) and subsequent changes in the
aquatic life and biodiversity (Impact). One means to
address this situation (Response) would be to increase
taxes on fertilizer, another would be to require changes in
land management practices to reduce nitrate leaching.
The DPSIR framework, along with its earlier incarna-
tions, is a widely accepted and commonly used framework
for interdisciplinary indicator development, system and
model conceptualization, and the structuring of integrated
research programmes and assessments (see, for example,
EEA, 2005,OECD, 2003;UNEP, 2002;Walmsley, 2002).
With respect to the particular topic of this paper, the EEA
used the DPSIR framework in its inventory of biodiversity
indicators in Europe (Delbaere, 2002). This report specified
more than 600 indicators, subdivided into the following
categories: nature protection, forestry, energy, recreation/
tourism, climate change, urban development, rural devel-
opment, water, infrastructure/transport, trade, fisheries,
and agriculture. Today, DPSIR is increasingly used as a
framework for structuring case studies in relation to issues
of human interferences with and efforts to manage land-
scapes and seascapes (e.g. Elliott, 2002;La Jeunesse et al.,
2003;Odermatt, 2004;Scheren et al., 2004;Holman et al.,
2005).
The DPSIR framework embodies a systems perspective,
implying the demarcation of a particular system of interest,
with explicit or implicit boundaries. The system is bounded
in two ways. Firstly, it is bounded in terms of the scale at
which the Impacts are defined, e.g. a single river up to the
entire world. Secondly, it is bounded in terms of the scale
of the Responses and Driving forces affecting this system,
e.g. local economic changes up to global environmental
agreements. The boundaries will not necessarily coincide;
Impacts at one scale will often be determined by Responses
and Driving forces that act at a different scale. The
drawing of these boundaries depends on the particular
issue of interest and its conceptualization, which are
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Pressures
State
Responses
Impacts
Driving
forces
Fig. 1. The Driving forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses frame-
work.
1
See Gabrielson and Bosch (2003),Kok et al. (2001), and Jesinghaus
(1999) for more extensive accounts of the evolution of the DPSIR
framework and alternative interpretations.
H. Svarstad et al. / Land Use Policy ](]]]])]]]–]]]2
Please cite this article as: Svarstad, H., et al., Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR, Land Use Policy (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2007.03.005
strongly influenced by the perspective of those using the
framework.
We find that the approach of the DPSIR framework
provides a limited understanding of Driving forces for
environmental changes. With respect to biodiversity, for
instance, Driving forces are purely perceived as external
forces damaging the area or species that need protection
rather than as socio-economic and cultural processes that
are integrated with developments in biodiversity. Nor is
there any deeper understanding of societies and cultures in
which responses have to be effected and the conflicts they
may arise.
2
In our presentation above of the DPSIR framework, we
specified the State as that of the natural environment. As
we have not found any cases in which the element ‘State’
implies something other or more than the state of the
natural environment, we refer to this as the standard or
traditional form of the DPSIR framework. This raises the
question, however, of whether this specification should
necessarily be treated as immutable, and the consequences
thereof. In this paper, we show how this specification
reflects the discursive positions of the researchers using
DPSIR, and that this restricted application of the frame-
work lends itself to a limited range of discursive views
among stakeholders.
A social constructivism and discourse perspective
Social constructivism has for many decades provided
critical inputs as well as created strong controversies within
social sciences.
3
In its moderate versions, however, it is
today established as a central part of the fundamental basis
of qualitatively oriented social science, with seminal work
constituted by, for example, Berger and Luckman (1967),
Kuhn (1970) and Giddens (1979, 1984). Furthermore,
social constructivism has also contributed with insights on
natural and environmental aspects of reality (see Demeritt,
2002 for a typology of various strands).
In defining social constructivism, we can distinguish
between epistemological relativism and ontological relati-
vism. Epistemological relativism implies that we can never
know reality exactly as it is. Ontological relativism goes
further to argue that reality itself is determined by the
observer (Jones, 2002). The former implies that nature is
seen as material reality, which exists independently of
human thought. As such, many human perceptions of
aspects of nature and the environment can, through
research, be shown to be correct or incorrect. For instance,
it can be shown whether or not there has been an increase
in nutrients emissions to a given marine area over a period
of time; whether or not the presence of various species in
this area has or has not diminished over this same period;
and perhaps even the causal relationship between these
phenomena.
4
The moderate form of constructivism, upon
which this paper is based, accepts epistemological while
rejecting ontological relativism.
It is important to recognise social constructions as real
items in that they are intersubjective understandings of
specific circumstances. As such, they are also modes and
structures for social actions, which exist outside an
individual’s own mind. At the same time, social construc-
tions are not necessarily uncontested. Within communities
and cultures, and across national and cultural divides,
there are differing social constructions at work. In many
cases, political and social conflicts are to a large extent
conflicts over the definition of reality, the definition of
identity and the definition of risks. The perception or non-
perception of risks is a central component in the cohesion
of social groups as well as larger societies and underlying
ideologies. Collective and individual identities are formed
according to what dangers we are concerned with and seek
(collective) protection from (Douglas, 1966;Douglas and
Wildavsky, 1982).
Constructivist research focuses on the communicative
processes through which social reality is created, repro-
duced and transformed. It starts from the premise that
intersubjective understandings of specific phenomena are
articulated in a number of media. The political reality of
these phenomena is constructed by claims-makers and issue
entrepreneurs in claims-making processes (Best, 1989;
Hannigan, 1995). Key actors, such as governmental and
administrative bodies, work through documents and other
forms of communication. Hierarchies are established not
only in physical positions but also in texts; social action is
to a large extent a communicative practice, of which traces
can be found in a broad variety of texts and documents.
It follows then that social constructions of reality can be
identified through analysis of communicative practices, i.e.
through discourse analysis. The term discourse is applied in
very different ways.
5
In coherence with most social science
oriented discourse analysts, we apply a discourse concept
that draws attention to shared ways of apprehending social
phenomena. That is, discourses constitute systems of
knowledge and belief. The phenomena of focus may be
considered small or large matters, and the understanding of
them may be shared by a small or large group of people on
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2
We could have elaborated much more on our criticism of this aspect,
but we refrain from this here, in order to concentrate on the main focus of
the paper of exploring discursive biases of the DPSIR framework.
3
The application of the term social constructivism and social
constructionism varies among different writers. We chose to apply the
term social constructivism.
4
Of course, conclusive evidence supporting one position or another can
sometimes be difficult to obtain. One reason can be that contrasting
perceptions about environmental issues may be grounded in differences of
social values, and scientific research on natural conditions cannot provide
a judgement of the legitimacy of these aspects. Furthermore, viewpoints
on environmental issues are always based on perceptions not only on
aspects of nature, but also of ways of perceiving society. These are also
aspects impossible to judge from natural science only.
5
In everyday language it may be used synonymously with ‘speech’ or
‘conversation’. Furthermore, a linguistic position is to see a discourse as ‘a
stretch of language that may be longer than one sentence. Thus, text and
discourse analysis is about how sentences combine to form texts’ (Salkie
1995, p. IX).
H. Svarstad et al. / Land Use Policy ](]]]])]]]–]]] 3
Please cite this article as: Svarstad, H., et al., Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR, Land Use Policy (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2007.03.005
the local, national, international or global level. Actors
involved in a discourse participate—in varying degrees—in
its production, reproduction and transformation through
written or oral statements. Certain regularities can be
identified amongst these statements in terms of content as
well as form.
6
We are inspired by seminal works of Foucault, in which
he revealed constitutive discourses in various historical
contexts on, for instance, practises of punishment and
imprisonment (Foucault, 1979) and the establishment of
medical treatments of madness (Foucault, 1988). Further-
more, since our substantial focus is on natural resources
and the environment, we find it most useful to draw from
analyses by other researchers within the same topic. In this
field, there are a growing number of contributions of
various kinds of discourse analysis. To mention but a few
early and distinctive contributions, it has been applied to
characterise pervading and received wisdom about the
evolution of environmental crises and their social con-
struction in the study of ozone layer depletion (Litfin,
1994), acid rain (Hajer, 1995), presentations on the
environment on television (Petersen, 1997), as well as to
classify main environmental discourses (Dryzek, 1997). In
this paper, we draw on work in which four types of
discourses (see the next section), have been identified from
studies on topics within the field of environment and
development (Adger et al., 2001;Svarstad, 2002, 2004).
Discursive orderings of the world, e.g. of nature, are not
produced from scratch in every statement by every single-
communicative actor. Rather, statements, e.g. about
nature, are articulations and reproductions of established
discursive orders. However, discourses must also be seen as
continuously being targets for larger or smaller transfor-
mations. A discourse may be reproduced in a relatively
stable manner over a period of time, or it may be subject to
considerable change. Political and social conflicts are to
large extents discursive conflicts, i.e. conflicts over percep-
tions of reality. Thus, discourse analysis can be applied to
identify conflicts at work in communicative actions and the
texts that carry them.
Dryzek argues that a discourse is useful for society:
‘‘Embedded in language, it enables those who subscribe
to it to interpret bits of information and put them
together into coherent stories or accounts. Each
discourse rests on assumptions, judgements, and con-
tentions that provide the basic terms for analysis,
debates, arguments, and disagreements, in the envi-
ronmental area no less than elsewhere. Indeed, if
such shared terms did not exist, it would be hard to
imagine problem-solving in this area at all y’’ (Dryzek,
1997, p. 8).
Thus, discourses delimit ways of interpreting informa-
tion, thereby facilitating action. At the same time, they can
blind their proponents from seeing alternative interpreta-
tions and actions. Concomitantly, we consider discourse
analysis and discourse awareness to constitute tools with
critical as well as practical potentials, because they enable
identification of limitations and biases of leading and
hegemonic discourses. For this reason, we apply a
discourse perspective to critically examine the DPSIR
framework.
The DPSIR framework viewed through the lenses
of different biodiversity discourse types
In the following, we present four types of discourses on
biodiversity, based on Adger et al. (2001) and Svarstad
(2002, 2004), and we explore how the application of
the DPSIR framework appears through the ‘lenses’
of each of these discourse types. We label these dis-
course types Preservationist, Win–win, Traditionalist and
Promethean.
The Preservationist discourse type concentrates entirely
on the aim of conserving species, biotopes and landscapes.
There is little concern for the restrictions that these
interventions place on local resource users. This discourse
type reflects views held by many of the early preserva-
tionists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who raised
concerns for nature protection. Whereas preservation here
is perceived as an advantage for humanity due to the value
of nature in itself, negative impacts on human beings
including those that can be measured as economic costs,
are largely ignored (cf. Wa
¨tzold and Schwerdtner, 2005).
The books by Oates (1999) and Terborgh (1999) provide
recent examples of Preservationist contributions. In rela-
tion to protected areas in Africa, Hutton et al. (2005) argue
that there is an increasing movement back to defending
preservation without taking into account the needs and
interests of local resource users.
Evolving from the Preservationist discourse type, the
primary concern for the Win–win discourse type is also to
conserve biodiversity. However, this discourse type pro-
motes an integration of interests of local people as a means
to achieve conservation. Thus, arrangements by conserva-
tionists involve aspects of benefit sharing, compensation
and/or local participation, and the partnerships are argued
to constitute Win–win situations. Besides conservationists,
external actors also often include donors and companies.
Everybody is supposed to receive a share of the benefits
from the use of biodiversity, and the conservation is the
result of a common effort.
The Win–win discourse type is, for instance, reflected
profoundly in Reid et al. (1993) and by Baker et al. (1995)
with respect to the practice of bioprospecting. Bioprospect-
ing implies that researchers and company agents travel to
various parts of the world to collect samples of biological
material and related indigenous knowledge in order to
develop commercial products such as modern medicines.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6
Since we are most concerned with implications of discourses for
policies and practices, our main interest in discourses is related to their
substantial contents, while questions regarding form are seen as interesting
only to the degree that they have consequences for the content and thereby
get practical consequences.
H. Svarstad et al. / Land Use Policy ](]]]])]]]–]]]4
Please cite this article as: Svarstad, H., et al., Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR, Land Use Policy (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2007.03.005
It is said to provide benefits for conservation as well as for
local providers of biodiversity samples and related knowl-
edge. Furthermore, bioprospecting is believed to contribute
to economic development in the source countries, elabora-
tion of new medicines for patients and profit for the
industry (see Svarstad, 2004).
The establishment of protected areas in Africa constitute
another example of a topic in which a Win–win discourse is
produced. Conservationists and local communities are here
seen as actors with mutual interests. A Win–win is argued
to evolve between conservation achievements and local
benefits such as shares of benefits from park-related
tourism.
7
All the major conservation organisations, such
as IUCN, WWF, the Nature Conservancy and Conserva-
tion International today describe their activities as based
on such a people-friendly strategy (see Hulme and
Murphree, 2001;Sullivan, 2006).
The Traditionalist discourse type focuses more directly on
the actors involved, categorically rejecting interventions by
external actors in environmental and resource management
issues. This is a position that partly builds on the
assumption that local actors are capable of managing
biodiversity and other natural resources in appropriate
ways, if they are given the opportunities. Biodiversity is
perceived in terms of resources and landscapes belonging
to those who inhabit the area and depend upon it, whereas
the larger environmental co-dependencies on regional and
global levels and issues of world heritage are less stressed.
With respect to the topic of bioprospecting, the
Traditionalist discourse sees activities of Western biopros-
pectors as exploitation and ‘biopiracy’. Concomitantly,
source countries and local providers of biodiversity and
related knowledge are portrayed as victims (e.g. Shiva,
1997;Mooney, 2000; see Svarstad, 2002). In relation to
protected areas in Africa, a Traditionalist discourse is
produced, first of all by social scientists, political ecologists
and advocates of human rights. Within this discourse,
specific cases of protected areas are perceived as increasing
poverty rather than providing justice and acceptable
benefits for local people, and cases are pointed to where
local resource use without area preservation is sustainable
(Neumann, 1997;Dzingirai, 2003;Benjaminsen et al.,
2006).
Finally, the Promethean discourse type challenges the
very existence or gravity of environmental issues, and
therefore also the necessity or degree of conservation. In
Greek mythology, Prometheus stole fire from Zeus and
thereby vastly increased the human capacity to manipulate
the world for human benefit. Nature and biodiversity are,
in the Promethean view, perceived as raw materials that
can be transformed into goods. Any problems that might
occur in the transformation, i.e. environmental problems,
can and will be solved through technological innovation.
From the industrial revolution and until the last few
decades, the modern society has been dominated by
Promethean thinking. Today, Promethean claims and
discourses play smaller roles in policy making on many
environmental issues; still, there are profound examples in
which they are important. Julian Simon was a leading
American Promethean in the 1980s with works such as The
Ultimate Resource (1981), and more recently Bjo
¨rn
Lomborg has fronted a similar position with his book
The Sceptical Environmentalist, in which he questions
fundaments of established claims regarding environmental
issues such as biodiversity losses. Lomborg has been met by
strong opposition from leading environmentalists (Scien-
tific American vol. 286, 2002; Science vol. 294, 2001).
Fig. 2 provides an overview of main aspects of the four
discourse types.
It is important to stress that this paper deals with
discourse types and not claims of generalisations to any
biodiversity issue without thorough empirical investigation
of a particular context, for instance the main discourses
produced on the national level or in a local conflict in a
particular country. Thus, one cannot assume that all four
discourse types, either in their more or less pure versions or
as related but more distant discourses, will be present in all
discussions regarding biodiversity. Other types of dis-
courses may also play important roles. In other words, the
discursive picture in each case cannot be assumed, but
should be made subject to empirical investigation. Never-
theless, for our purposes here, we find the aforementioned
discourse types useful to apply as Weberian ideal types
(Weber, 1949) in order to examine the DPSIR framework.
They can also be useful as templates against which to
compare empirical knowledge of the discursive picture in
particular cases.
Furthermore, it is beyond the scope of this paper to carry
out a normative comparison about the four discourse
types. The aim is instead to examine whether or not DPSIR
provides a structural framework that is suitable for taking
into account various discursive perceptions and, thereby,
constitutes a useful and unbiased tool for communication
among various actors.
In the following, we explore the application of the
DPSIR framework to biodiversity issues through the
‘lenses’ of each of the four discourse types. In particular,
we examine which aspects of the framework would be
emphasised and how they would be described. The purpose
is to consider whether or not the traditional application of
DPSIR, i.e. with an emphasis on the natural environment
as the ‘State’ of interest, makes sense from the positions of
the various discourse types, or whether this might imply
structural blindness of the framework to specific concerns
regarding biodiversity.
8
ARTICLE IN PRESS
7
Several terms have been used about this approach, such as community
conservation or community-based natural resource management.
8
In the following, we provide an examination of structural features of
the DPSIR framework as such. Thus, we have a theoretical focus. In the
extension of this paper, we encourage in-depth evaluations of cases in
which DPSIR has been applied and where our theoretical concerns can be
compared to empirical data.
H. Svarstad et al. / Land Use Policy ](]]]])]]]–]]] 5
Please cite this article as: Svarstad, H., et al., Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR, Land Use Policy (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2007.03.005
The Preservationist discourse type and DPSIR
In the Preservationist discourse type, the central concern
is the State of biodiversity. Impacts are understood as
effects on nature, and the key concerns are the reduction
and loss of habitats and species. Economic costs and other
negative impacts on human beings arising from preserva-
tion are largely ignored. Responses focus on strictly
enforced protection of habitats and species. These are seen
as necessary to change the perceived Pressures from human
activities, such as urban expansion, infrastructure devel-
opments, and economic activities such as logging and other
extraction of natural materials. In terms of Driving forces
behind this development, the emphasis tends to be put on
population growth and economic growth. Overall, the
DPSIR framework, as traditionally applied, is well suited
to examine all aspects of a Preservationist concern.
The Win–win discourse type and DPSIR
Turning to the Win–win discourse type, the State of
biodiversity remains in focus as is the case of the
Preservationist discourse type. Both these discourse types
also have in common a prior concern for direct Impacts on
nature. However, the Win–win type provides additional
concern for social impacts of biodiversity losses. These
include the potential losses of future medicines, recrea-
tional opportunities, stable and clean water supplies, and
economic development from tourism. In relation to
developing countries in particular, there are claims that
conservation and development can not only create win–win
links, but also that the neglect of social needs leads to
situations where poor people cause serious degradation of
the environment. This is possible to deal with through the
DPSIR framework, but in its traditional application,
impacts regarding the environment are those emphasised.
Moving on to Responses, we find that the Win–win
discourse type often includes protective efforts more or less
identical to those suggested in protectionist discourses.
However, due to the weight in this discourse type on social
impacts along with direct environmental impacts, the
Response category also has to involve relevant responses
to the emphasised social impacts. These responses may
consist of, for instance, compensation payments for
conservation measures, or they may involve limited and
regulated utilisation of local resources. The DPSIR frame-
work provides the main focus upon responses to environ-
mental impacts, but it is not impossible to apply it also
about responses to social impacts.
The understanding of human Pressures and Driving
forces is similar to that within the Preservationist discourse
type, but other social elements are added, such as negative
feedbacks between poverty and diminishing biodiversity.
These additions—and the discourse type as such—must be
seen as responses to situations in which conservation has
met severe criticism and opposition due to neglect of
negative social consequences.
The exploration here of the possibility to apply the
DPSIR framework from the perspectives of the Win–win
discourse type shows that the concerns of this discourse
type can be registered through the DPSIR framework.
However, the traditional use of the DPSIR framework
does not by itself lead to an emphasis on all the social
concerns of this discourse type. Thus, these aspects may be
left aside.
The Traditionalist discourse type and DPSIR
A central aspect of the Traditionalist discourse type is
that its focus is not on the State of biodiversity, but instead
on the state of social matters. Likewise, instead of focusing
on Impacts on biodiversity, the Traditionalist discourse
type concentrates on Impacts on local people.
Furthermore, there is not a perception of Pressure in this
discourse type regarding biodiversity. There is, however, an
emphasis on threats from actors external to the local area
causing problems and disturbance of the state of social
matters. The external actors in question tend to encompass
conservationists, business interests and sometimes govern-
ments. Likewise, in this discourse there is not a concern for
Driving forces related to biodiversity losses. Instead, local
problems and threats are often explained with reference to
global and national forces, e.g. initiatives based on
Preservationist and Win–win approaches and the con-
nected practices of conservation and economic activities. A
Response from a Traditionalist perspective is to work for
win–win solutions in which social and economic targets are
met, but in which the conservation is carried out and
controlled by actors at the local level. Thus, while Win–win
discourses may be seen as aiming at a strategy of involving
local people in ‘participation’, Traditionalist strategies aim
to place the real control at the local level. The argument
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Conser-
vation
important?
Needs and inte-
rests of local
people important?
Partnership
local/external
actors positive?
Preservationist discourse type Yes No
Win-win discourse type Yes Yes as means Yes
Traditionalist discourse type Yes in terms
of sust. use
Yes
Promethean discourse type No Not relevant
No
Yes
No
Fig. 2. Main aspects of the four discourse types.
H. Svarstad et al. / Land Use Policy ](]]]])]]]–]]]6
Please cite this article as: Svarstad, H., et al., Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR, Land Use Policy (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2007.03.005
used here is that local management of the environment and
natural resources ought to imply the application of local
and traditional knowledge.
It follows from the above analysis that the Traditionalist
discourse type cannot be represented adequately through
the traditional way of applying the DPSIR framework. As
presented above with examples on bioprospecting and on
protected areas in Africa, versions of the Traditionalist
discourse type have played important roles in cases of
biodiversity issues. Nevertheless, a conventional and
uncritical application of the DPSIR framework is likely
to lead to the ignorance of the concerns of the many people
with perceptions of a Traditionalist type.
The Promethean discourse type and DPSIR
Finally, in the Promethean discourse type, changes in the
State of biodiversity and, in particular, its potential
Impacts are not interpreted as significant. The concern
from environmentalists is seen as a mistaken perception. At
the same time, and similarly to the Traditionalist discourse
type, Prometheans point to negative impacts of conservation
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Preservationist Win-win Traditionalist Promethean
State (S) State of
biodiversity as the
concern.
State of
biodiversity as
primary concern.
State of social
matters as central
concern (beyond
DPSIR’s S).
State of
biodiversity not
significant (beyond
DPSIR’s S).
Impacts (I) Effects on nature
alone.
Primary concern
for impacts on
nature. Also a
focus on social
impacts of
biodiversity losses
(unusual but
possible focus with
DPSIR).
Impacts on local
people (beyond
DPSIR’s I).
Impacts on
biodiversity not
significant (beyond
DPSIR’s I).
Responses (R) Protection of
habitats and
species.
Protection of
habitats and
species. Also
responses to social
impacts of
biodiversity losses
(unusual but
possible focus with
DPSIR).
Promoting local
win-win solutions.
Rejection of
conservation
(beyond DPSIR’s
R)
Driving Forces
(DF)
Emphasis on
population growth
and economic
growth.
Emphasis on
population growth
and economic
growth. Also
concern for uneven
social distribution.
No focus on DF
regarding
biodiversity losses,
but DFs from
Preservationist and
Win-win
approaches
(beyond DPSIR’s
DF).
No focus on DF
regarding
but DFs from
Preservationists
and Win-win
approaches, and
with conservation
as sole problem
maker (beyond
DPSIR’s DF)
Pressures (P) Human activities
such as urban
expansion,
economic
activities, etc.
Poverty,
diminishing
biodiversity and
thus well-being.
No focus on P
regarding
but on threats from
external actors,
e.g. economic
interests and
conservationists
(beyond DPSIR’s
P).
No focus on P
regarding
biodiversity losses,
but on threats from
conservationists
(beyond DPSIR’s
P).
biodiversity losses,
biodiversity losses,
Fig. 3. Exploration of the traditional application of the DPSIR framework to biodiversity issues through the ‘lenses’ of four discourse types.
H. Svarstad et al. / Land Use Policy ](]]]])]]]–]]] 7
Please cite this article as: Svarstad, H., et al., Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR, Land Use Policy (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2007.03.005
for people. Concomitantly, the categories of Driving forces
and Pressures regarding biodiversity do not make any sense
in the Promethean discourse type. The difference to the
Traditionalist discourse type is that the focus by Pro-
metheans is entirely on conservation efforts as the cause of
problems, while other factors such as externally initiated
economic activities are not targeted as elements to criticise.
Thus, the Response is a rejection of conservation. Similar to
the Traditionalist discourse type, the Promethean discourse
type cannot be represented adequately through the DPSIR
framework as it has traditionally been used.
Fig. 3 provides a summary of the examination above.
Conclusions
Our examination of the DPSIR framework through the
lenses of the four discourse types leads to the conclusion
that results from analyses based on the DPSIR framework
cannot be seen merely as a realist reflection of ‘how things
are’. Instead, DPSIR tends to reproduce particular
discursive positions.
Our analysis has showed that the Preservationist
discourse type is totally compatible with the DPSIR
framework as traditionally applied. Furthermore, we found
that the DPSIR framework makes it possible to take into
consideration main concerns of the Win–win discourse
type. Nevertheless, social aspects do not constitute well-
elaborated dimensions of the framework, and social
concerns of this discourse type may therefore be ignored.
Moreover, we found that adequate representation of the
Traditionalist or the Promethean discourse type would
require a fundamental shift in the application of the
DPSIR framework. Although both of these discourse types
focus on biodiversity and are often present among actors in
conflicts over biodiversity, the structural design of the
DPSIR framework as traditionally used is not able to
incorporate views of these types.
Communication deficits have been identified as a major
obstacle for successful participation and stakeholder
dialogues (Stoll-Kleemann and Welp, 2006). It has been
argued that a major purpose of the DPSIR framework is to
provide a tool for improved communication between
researchers, on the one hand, and stakeholders and policy
makers on the other. We doubt, however, that commu-
nication deficits will be overcome with a conventional and
uncritical application of DPSIR. Actors believing in
contrasting discourses will easily grasp that ‘the scientific
truth’ about the issue in question is a truth in which their
perspectives and concerns have been ignored. When such
perspectives and concerns by some actors are ignored by
researchers, the production of research on biodiversity is
likely to be considered by these actors as biased and
irrelevant. Thus, we find that DPSIR has, to date, provided
a discourse-selective framework for knowledge production,
a feature of which not only researchers, but also policy
makers and research sponsors should be aware.
We do not argue that the DPSIR framework necessarily
should be rejected, however. Rather, we call for further
research to explore the potentials for expanding the DPSIR
framework, and its application, so as to incorporate the
mentioned social and economic concerns. This implies
bringing adequate attention not only to the state of the
environment, but also to the state of social matters. The
understanding of socio-economic and cultural drivers
should be broadened, and it is pivotal to properly analyse
social, economic and cultural conflicts that surround the
issue in focus. Thus, there is a particular need for
elaboration of methodology to address attitudes and
definitions of the problem held by stakeholders and the
general public.
How the above can be accomplished, and the extent to
which it can be done while retaining the basic aspects of the
DPSIR framework, will only be learned by trying to do so.
In any case, we suggest explicitly combining applications of
the DPSIR framework with discourse analysis. Such an
approach implies that the researchers will not just apply the
DPSIR framework to produce a single narrative
9
about a
case and with the researchers’ own discursive standing as a
non-communicated organizing device. Instead, various
narratives will be made on the basis of an examination of
the discourses found among the stakeholders. Sometimes
two opposite discourses may be found, sometimes more.
Sometimes one may find relatively clear boundaries
between various discourses. Other times, the boundaries
will be vague, but the researchers can construct ideal types
to ensure that main positions in the total discursive picture
are presented in the analysis. The presentations of the
DPSIR framework through the lenses of each of the four
biodiversity discourses provide ideas, on a general level, of
how analyses in specific cases may look.
Acknowledgements
The work of this paper has been made possible through
the EU-FP 6 Network of Excellence ALTER-Net (EU
grant GOCE-CT-2003-505298-Alternet). Authors 2–5 are
listed in alphabetical order. We are grateful for discussions
and comments on earlier drafts of the paper from Tor A.
Benjaminsen, Niels Christensen, Eva Fallet, Anke Fisher,
Ketil Skogen, Wouter Van Reeth and Rehema White.
References
Adger, W.N., Benjaminsen, T.A., Brown, K., Svarstad, H., 2001.
Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses.
Development and Change 32 (4), 681–715.
Baker, J.T., Borris, R.P., Carte, B., Cordell, G.A., Soejarto, D.D., Cragg,
G.M., Gupta, M.P., Iwu, M.M., Madulid, D.R., Tyler, V.E., 1995.
Natural product drug discovery and development—new perspectives
on international collaboration. Journal of Natural Products 58 (9),
1325–1357.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
9
The term narrative is used to conceptualize particular accounts of an
event or issue that are produced within a discourse (Svarstad, 2002).
H. Svarstad et al. / Land Use Policy ](]]]])]]]–]]]8
Please cite this article as: Svarstad, H., et al., Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR, Land Use Policy (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2007.03.005
Benjaminsen, T.A., Rohde, R.F., Sjaastad, E., Wisborg, P., Lebert, T.,
2006. Land reform, range ecology and carrying capacities in
Namaqualand, South Africa. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 96 (3), 524–540.
Berger, A.R., Hodge, R.A., 1998. Natural change in the environment: a
challenge to the pressure–state–response concept. Social Indicators
Research 44, 255–265.
Berger, P.L., Luckman, T., 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: a
Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Doubleday, Garden City, NY.
Best, J., 1989. Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems.
Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
Delbaere, B., 2002. An inventory of biodiversity indicators in Europe.
European Environmental Agency Technical Report 92.
Demeritt, D., 2002. What is the ‘social construction of nature’? A typology
and sympathetic critique. Progress in Human Geography 26 (6),
767–790.
Douglas, M., 1966. Purity and Danger—an Analysis of Concepts of
Pollution and Taboo. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Douglas, M., Wildavsky, A., 1982. Risk and Culture. An Essay on the
Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. University of
California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Dryzek, J.S., 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dzingirai, V., 2003. The new scramble for the African countryside.
Development and Change 34 (2), 243–263.
EEA, 1995. Europe’s Environment: the Dobris Assessment. European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
EEA, 2001. Environmental Signals 2001. European Environment Agency,
Copenhagen.
EEA, 2005. European Environmental Outlook. European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen.
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 (6).
Foucault, M., 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
Foucault, M., 1988. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in
the Age of Reason. Vintage.
Gabrielson, P., Bosch, P., 2003. Environmental indicators: typology and
use in reporting. EEA Internal Working Paper.
Giddens, A., 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory—Action, Structure
and Contradiction in Social Analysis. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological
Modernization and the Policy Process. Clarendon, Oxford.
Hannigan, J.A., 1995. Environmental Sociology. Routledge, New York.
Holman, I.P., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Shackley, S., Harrison, P.A., Nicholls,
R.J., Berry, P.M., Audsley, E., 2005. A regional, multi-sectoral and
integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic
change in the UK. Climate Change 71, 9–41.
Holten-Andersen, J., Paalby, H., Christensen, N., Wier, M., Andersen,
F.M., 1995. Recommendations on strategies for integrated assessment
of broad environmental problems. Report submitted to the European
Environment Agency (EEA) by the National Environmental Research
Institute (NERI), Denmark.
Hulme, D., Murphree, M. (Eds.), 2001. African Wildlife & Livelihoods:
The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation. James
Currey, Oxford.
Hutton, H., Adams, W.M., Murombedzi, J.C., 2005. Back to the barriers?
Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation. Forum for Devel-
opment Studies 32 (2).
Jesinghaus, J., 1999. A European system of environmental pressure
indices. First Volume of the Environmental Pressure Indices Hand-
book: The Indicators Part I: Introduction to the political and
theoretical background. /http://esl.jrc.it/envind/theory/handb_.htmS.
Jones, S., 2002. Social constructionism and the environment: through the
quagmire. Global Environmental Change, 247–251.
Kok, K., Rothman, D.S., Greeuw, S.C.H., Patel, M., 2001. ‘‘MedAction
Deliverable 1. Factors, Actors, Sectors and Indicators: The Concepts
and Application in MedAction,’’ Report number I01-E004, Maastricht,
ICIS, /http://www.icis.unimaas.nl/medaction/download.htmlS.
Kuhn, T.S., 1970 [1962]. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
La Jeunesse, I., Rounsevell, M., Vanclooster, M., 2003. Delivering a
decision support system tool to a river contract: a way to implement
the participatory approach principle at the catchment scale? Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth 28 (12–13), 547–554.
Litfin, K.T., 1994. Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global
Environmental Cooperation. Colombia University Press, New York.
Lomborg, B., 2001. The Sceptical Environmentalist. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
Mooney, P., 2000. Why we call it biopiracy. In: Svarstad, H., Dhillion,
S.S. (Eds.), Responding to Bioprospecting: From Biodiversity in the
South to Medicines in the North. Spartacus, Oslo.
Neumann, R.P., 1997. Primitive ideas: protected area buffer zones and the
politics of land in Africa. Development and Change 28 (3), 559–582.
Oates, J.F., 1999. Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How
Conservation Strategies are Failing in West Africa. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
OECD, 1991. Environmental Indicators, a Preliminary Set. OECD, Paris.
OECD, 1993. OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance
reviews. OECD Environmental Directorate Monographs No.83.
OECD, 2003. OECD Environmental Indicators: Development, Measure-
ment and Use. OECD, Paris.
Odermatt, S., 2004. 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. Mountain Research and
Development 24 (4), 336–341.
Petersen, L.K., 1997. Miljøbevidsthed pa
˚MTV. Om naturen i masse-
kulturen. Forlaget Sociologi, København.
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.
Rapport, D.J., Gaudet, C., Karr, J.R., Baron, J.S., Bohlen, C., Jackson,
W., Jones, B., Naiman, R., Norton, B., Pollock, M.M., 1998.
Evaluating landscape health: integrating societal goals and biophysical
process. Journal of Environmental Management 53/1, 1–15.
Reid, W.V., Laird, S.A., Meyer, C.A., Ga
´mez, R., Sittenfeld, A., Janzen,
D.H., Gollin, M.A., Juma, C., 1993. Biodiversity Prospecting: Using
Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development. World Resources
Institute.
Rekolainen, S., Ka
¨ma
¨ri, J., Hiltunen, M., 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), 347–352.
Renn, O., 2006. Participatory processes for designing environmental
policies. Land Use Policy 23 (1), 34–43.
Salkie, R., 1995. Text and Discourse Analysis. Routledge, London and
New York.
Scheren, P.A.G.M., Kroeze, C., Janssen, J.J.J.G., Hordijk, L., Ptasinski,
K.J., 2004. Integrated water pollution assessment of the Ebrie
´Lagoon,
Ivory Coast, West Africa. Journal of Marine Systems 44 (1–2), 1–17.
Shiva, V., 1997. Biopiracy. The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. South
End Press, Boston.
Simon, J., 1981. The Ultimate Resource. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Stirling, A., 2006. Analysis, participation and power: justification and
closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy 23 (1),
95–107.
Stoll-Kleemann, S., O’Riordan, T., 2002. From participation to partner-
ship in biodiversity protection: experience from Germany and South
Africa. Society and Natural Resources 15 (2), 157–173.
Stoll-Kleemann, S., Welp, M., 2006. Towards a more effective and
democratic natural resource management. In: Stoll-Kleemann, S.,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Svarstad et al. / Land Use Policy ](]]]])]]]–]]] 9
Please cite this article as: Svarstad, H., et al., Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR, Land Use Policy (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2007.03.005
Welp, M. (Eds.), Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resource Manage-
ment. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 17–41.
Sullivan, S., 2006. The elephant in the room? Problematizing ‘new’ (neoliberal)
biodiversity conservation. Forum for Development Studies 33 (1).
Svarstad, H., 2002. Analysing conservation-environment discourses: the
story of a biopiracy narrative. Forum for Development Studies 29 (1).
Svarstad, H., 2004. A global political ecology of bioprospecting. In:
Paulson, S., Gezon, L. (Eds.), Political Ecology Across Spaces, Scales
and Social Groups. Rutgers University Press.
Terborgh, J., 1999. Requiem for Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC.
United Nations, 1996. Indicators of sustainable development. Division for
Sustainable Development.
United Nations, 1999. Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable
Development of the Commission on Sustainable Development.
Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, New York.
United Nations, 2001. Indicators of sustainable development: framework
and methodologies. Background Paper No. 3, Commission on
Sustainable Development, Division for Sustainable Development,
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.
United Nations Environment Program, 2002. Global Environmental
Outlook 3. Earthscan, London.
Walmsley, J.J., 2002. Framework for measuring sustainable deve-
lopment in Catchment systems. Environmental Management 29 (2),
195–206.
Wa
¨tzold, F., Schwerdtner, K., 2005. Why be wasteful when preserving a
valuable resource?—a review article on the cost-effectiveness of
European biodiversity conservation policy. Biological Conservation
123, 327–338.
Weber, M., 1949. ‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy. In:
Shils, E.A., Finch, H.A. (Eds.), The Methodology of the Social
Sciences. The Free Press of Glencoe, Illinois.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Svarstad et al. / Land Use Policy ](]]]])]]]–]]]10
Please cite this article as: Svarstad, H., et al., Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR, Land Use Policy (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2007.03.005
