This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
There is a growing consensus that sustainable development requires a behavioral change, forced by firm decision-making. However, existing decision-supporting tools are unlikely to provide relevant information, hampered by the complexity of combined socio-economic and natural systems. Protecting the intrinsic value of ecosystems and providing sufficient natural resources for human use at the same time leads up to a wide span of management, ranging from species traits to governance. The aim of this study is to investigate the interactions between the natural and economic systems from the perspective of sustainable development. The way to reduce systems complexity by selecting key factors of ecosystem functioning for policy and management purposes is discussed. To achieve this, the Pentatope Model is used as a holistic framework, an ecosystem nodes network is developed to select key factors, and a combined natural and socio-economic valuation scheme is drawn. These key factors—abiotic resources and conditions, biodiversity, and biomass—are considered fundamental to the ecosystem properties habitat range and carrying capacity. Their characteristics are discussed in relation to sustainable water management. The conclusion is that sustainable development requires environmental decision-making that includes the intrinsic natural value, and should be supported by ecological modelling, additional environmental quality standards, and substance balances.
Rudy Vannevel; Peter L.M. Goethals. Identifying Ecosystem Key Factors to Support Sustainable Water Management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1148 .
AMA StyleRudy Vannevel, Peter L.M. Goethals. Identifying Ecosystem Key Factors to Support Sustainable Water Management. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (3):1148.
Chicago/Turabian StyleRudy Vannevel; Peter L.M. Goethals. 2020. "Identifying Ecosystem Key Factors to Support Sustainable Water Management." Sustainability 12, no. 3: 1148.
The DPSIR framework has proven to be an effective communication tool, but has become subject to criticism upon increasing practical application. It is assumed that this is the consequence of the combination of terminological unclarity, absence of a methodological description for analyzing disturbances, and a confined conceptual basis when dealing with complex environmental issues. DPSIR has been embedded within the broader conceptual Pentatope Model (PTM), by making use of an ‘interface’ called GASI. GASI, which means Governance by Actor–Subject Impact Assessment, deals explicitly with governance as a framework and impact analysis as a process. The result is an extended version of DPSIR. Illustrated by means of a water balance, the importance of a combined PTM–GASI–DPSIR tool for impact assessments to support evidence-based governance is shown.
Rudy Vannevel. Using DPSIR and Balances to Support Water Governance. Water 2018, 10, 118 .
AMA StyleRudy Vannevel. Using DPSIR and Balances to Support Water Governance. Water. 2018; 10 (2):118.
Chicago/Turabian StyleRudy Vannevel. 2018. "Using DPSIR and Balances to Support Water Governance." Water 10, no. 2: 118.